The All Things Political Topic - SNAFU edition

[Malcador]

Saw some one say "We gave the powers of pardon to a mob boss"

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

Saw some one say "We gave the powers of pardon to a mob boss"

keep in mind this is worse than it appears 'cause is an attempt to redefine the pardon power so that it applies to state crimes. for the entire history o' the US, it has been understood that a President may only pardon an individual for violations of federal law.  as such, those who would commit crime on behalf o' trump knowing he could pardon them for fed crimes might nevertheless hesitate if they believed they would be subject to the laws of new york or california. 

am suspecting this is another story which gets far less coverage than it deserves. after jan 6 and changpeng zhao, this fells like more o' the same, right? is not more o' the same.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited Tuesday at 03:41 AM by Gromnir

[rjshae]

8 hours ago, Malcador said:

Saw some one say "We gave the powers of pardon to a mob boss"

"There is no rule of law until the Mafia needs lawyers."

--Stephen Holmes

[rjshae]

On 11/10/2025 at 7:03 AM, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

The democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is truly amazing. What the hell was the point of extending the shutdown if you were just going to cave anyways?

Even if there is, they just threw out what leverage they had so it's doubtful it would pass. I swear, these clowns would lose a game of chess to a dog.

What I saw was a democratic party engaged in negotiating tactics over health care funding by talking up an extreme position. But what they're facing is a CEO-mentality of DJT being willing to sacrifice people for his own purposes. Remember that C. Schumer dealt with the previous such government funding vote by going along with the Republicans, for which he was heavily criticized. This time he tried a different tactic, which clearly won't work and he still gets criticized. I'm not sure what he's supposed to do about it when he has no leverage. People voted in this clown of a President; they get to live with the consequences.

Like I've said before, the health care situation in the US won't be dealt with until a lot of people start dying. The unaffordability of health care is one way (and perhaps the only way) to achieve that goal here. It's a completely irrational situation.

[uuuhhii]

9 hours ago, rjshae said:

What I saw was a democratic party engaged in negotiating tactics over health care funding by talking up an extreme position. But what they're facing is a CEO-mentality of DJT being willing to sacrifice people for his own purposes. Remember that C. Schumer dealt with the previous such government funding vote by going along with the Republicans, for which he was heavily criticized. This time he tried a different tactic, which clearly won't work and he still gets criticized. I'm not sure what he's supposed to do about it when he has no leverage. People voted in this clown of a President; they get to live with the consequences.

Like I've said before, the health care situation in the US won't be dealt with until a lot of people start dying. The unaffordability of health care is one way (and perhaps the only way) to achieve that goal here. It's a completely irrational situation.

 

if there are no leverage goverment wouldn't be shut down for 40 day

this level of incompetence are entirely expected

people of usa are extra angry because this come at the worst time

but situation will only get worse so there are plenty of worst to come

edit

uk the worst war criminal in history

just accuse usa of war crime and shut off some intel sharing

would be hilarious if not for the war crime

Edited Thursday at 12:39 AM by uuuhhii

[rjshae]

Here's a contrast in requirements:

White House told to bring back sign-language interpreters even though Trump dislikes ‘sharing a platform,’ judge rules

Quote

The National Association of the Deaf sued President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in May, arguing that the administration’s failure to provide ASL interpreters at press briefings violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The federal law prohibits discrimination conducted by an “executive agency.”

Arizona's first Chicana representative has been sworn in. She's going to code-switch.

Quote

'Les aseguro que aunque sea la primera, no será la última,' she said in Spanish to a smattering of applause, again withholding a translation to the packed chamber.

Okay, apart from the legal specifics, why is the White House required to provide ASL interpreters but a Chicana representative speaking to Congress in spanish is not required to provide a translator? This seems inconsistent, if not rude.

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

Here's a contrast in requirements:

White House told to bring back sign-language interpreters even though Trump dislikes ‘sharing a platform,’ judge rules

Arizona's first Chicana representative has been sworn in. She's going to code-switch.

Okay, apart from the legal specifics, why is the White House required to provide ASL interpreters but a Chicana representative speaking to Congress in spanish is not required to provide a translator? This seems inconsistent, if not rude.

Because one is the President addressing the entire nation, and the other is a representative addressing a few hundred?

Also it sounds like she was mixing English and Spanish. I'd love to see Trump mix in some sign language in his addresses.  

[rjshae]

2 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

Because one is the President addressing the entire nation, and the other is a representative addressing a few hundred?

Also it sounds like she was mixing English and Spanish. I'd love to see Trump mix in some sign language in his addresses.  

Ever heard of CPAN? Speeches to Congress can go out to the nation. She was clearly speaking in both languages intentionally, and wasn't translating for the benefit of either audience.

[Elerond]

26 minutes ago, rjshae said:

Ever heard of CPAN? Speeches to Congress can go out to the nation. She was clearly speaking in both languages intentionally, and wasn't translating for the benefit of either audience.

Should all speeches in Congress also be translated to Spanish (because of Puerto Rico) and all 177 indigenous languages spoken in US or at least for those that are official languages of US territories? 

[rjshae]

7 hours ago, Elerond said:

Should all speeches in Congress also be translated to Spanish (because of Puerto Rico) and all 177 indigenous languages spoken in US or at least for those that are official languages of US territories? 

Spanish, perhaps so. The others? Maybe if they are comparable to ASL communicators: ~1 million? Then that would include Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, Korean, and Russian. Some day maybe AI can be tasked with that.

[Gromnir]

12 hours ago, rjshae said:

Okay, apart from the legal specifics, why is the White House required to provide ASL interpreters but a Chicana representative speaking to Congress in spanish is not required to provide a translator? This seems inconsistent, if not rude.

'cause there is no, "apart from the legal specifics." Congress has passed a law which requires special consideration for americans with disabilities. lack o' conversational spanish knowledge is not a disability for purposes o' the various fed laws which address accommodations for those with disabilities.

why do you distinguish 'tween english and spanish as to which is requiring translation? am not knowing the exact number, but is more than 300 languages which is the primary language of american citizens. ( @Elerond, "177 indigenous languages" refers to those spoken by "native americans," or whatever is the label this week. Gromnir, for instance, understands enough lakota that we can follow the gist o' a conversation between our aunts who is aged 84 and 90 respective, but we sure as hell cannot carry on a conversation with them. am doubting there is more than 1500 living persons who are able to legit speak lakota, and that number shrinks every year.) 

regardless, trump passed an executive order in march o' this year which purports to make english the official language o' the US. at the very least, the trump executive order invalidates a clinton era eo which made translation services for non english speakers more readily available.

so you got no specific Congressional law which would require interpreters to translate legislators who is exercising their first amendment rights to speak howsoever the f they wish, while simultaneous you got a Presidential eo which, at least until challenged, makes english the official language o' the US while specific diminishing translation services for non-english speakers.

is not an "apart from the legal specifics," question. 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

Spanish, perhaps so. The others? Maybe if they are comparable to ASL communicators: ~1 million? Then that would include Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, Korean, and Russian. Some day maybe AI can be tasked with that.

Countries that have many different official  languages still have one common  main and " middle ground " language that is used primarily 

And its selected based on the fact everyone living there should understand it 

In South Africa we have 12 official languages but English is the main language that is used for government and business communication 

Throughout Africa you could find a country that has dozens of different tribal languages so the European language is preferred as the official language because it actually reduces tribal tensions, translation complexity  and is consistent. It would  create massive tribal  tension in South Africa if Zulu was adopted as the main language because the other tribal activists would understandably say  " why Zulu,  what about our language. Why should Zulu be officially elevated higher than ours" 

Its perfectly normal for English to be the main language in the US and everyone should at least understand it 

[Gorth]

I speak European good

[Malcador]

Would think they could just arrange a translator in an ad hoc fashion. Similar if they have a foreign leader addressing them or something.

[Lexx]

Next step in american concentration camp tech-tree: https://www.commondreams.org/news/utah-homeless-internment-camp

[Gromnir]

more legal weirdness

and 

for those who cannot get past the paywall, a smidge...

The memo, which was completed in late summer, is said to open with a lengthy recitation of claims submitted by the White House, including that drug cartels are intentionally trying to kill Americans and destabilize the Western Hemisphere. The groups are presented not as unscrupulous businesses trying to profit from drug trafficking, but as terrorists who sell narcotics as a means of financing violence.

Based on such claims, the memo states that Mr. Trump has legitimate authority to determine that the United States and its allies are legally in a formal state of armed conflict with “narco-terrorist” drug cartels, according to the people who have read the document. The rest of the memo’s reasoning is based on that premise.

...

most parents is aware o' the Because I Said So doctrine of authority, but am thinking it is a bold approach to suggest it constitutes a legal sufficient rationale for the killing o' 80 people sans any proof that they is posing an imminent threat o' violence to americans.

HA! Good Fun!

[Agiel]

7 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

most parents is aware o' the Because I Said So doctrine of authority, but am thinking it is a bold approach to suggest it constitutes a legal sufficient rationale for the killing o' 80 people sans any proof that they is posing an imminent threat o' violence to americans.

HA! Good Fun!

I hope anyone who says they're fine with this realises they don't have a leg to stand on anymore when they prattle about Samuel and Vicki Weaver or the Branch Davidians.

Edited yesterday at 12:34 AM by Agiel

[Malcador]

Southern Spear is a crappy name, for shame

[BruceVC]

Trump has officially become anti-MTG because of  her  view that the full Epstein files must be released 

I have never liked her but its a  good example of the mercurial nature of Trumps support for political  allies 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 06:13 AM by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/13/politics/epstein-files-house-vote-johnson

I have mentioned many times I dont waste much time on conspiracy theories and that includes Trump conspiracy theories that either he peddles or are about him 

But I  do wonder why the WH is so opposed to the full Epstein files being released.  The House will vote on this and hopefully they get 2/3 veto-proof majority 

I am now  interested in what is so bad about the full release of these files 

[rjshae]

11 hours ago, BruceVC said:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/11/13/politics/epstein-files-house-vote-johnson

I have mentioned many times I dont waste much time on conspiracy theories and that includes Trump conspiracy theories that either he peddles or are about him 

But I  do wonder why the WH is so opposed to the full Epstein files being released.  The House will vote on this and hopefully they get 2/3 veto-proof majority 

I am now  interested in what is so bad about the full release of these files 

My initial thought was that a full release might hamper any cases brought to trial. But with DJT in charge, any such trials will likely be for purely political purposes; only producing evidence that harms his opposition. A full release at this point may be the only fair outcome. Let the (creepy) chips fall where they may.

[HoonDing]

Disgusting how radical left Commie NAzis like Margaery Tyrell Greene have been insinuating Drump is a paedophile. Drumpf is not a paedophile! He would never touch anything female below the age of 12.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

My initial thought was that a full release might hamper any cases brought to trial. But with DJT in charge, any such trials will likely be for purely political purposes; only producing evidence that harms his opposition. A full release at this point may be the only fair outcome. Let the (creepy) chips fall where they may.

it's highly unlikely there will be more trials related to epstein, and that woulda' been the situation even if the doj were not complete compromised.

the sex trafficking and assault cases against epstein and ghislaine maxwell were the strongest options for the government. epstein died in jail and so did his case. what most people don't realize is that right up until ghislaine were found guilty, prosecutors and court observers were not certain they would get a conviction. the events o' the case is more remote now, but even when ghislane were being tried, you had to rely on witness testimony about events many years past, witnesses who were traumatized young women at the time o' the crimes. understandably, the witnesses in the maxwell case were less effective than one might hope.

any new case would involve statute o' limitations issues as well as the fact that every single time you prosecuted somebody new, you would need to again put on the stand women with lingering emotional trauma who is needing recollect facts from two decades remote, witnesses who would be subject to brutal cross exam over and over and over again. the feds won a conviction o' ghislane maxwell, and afterwards the prosecutors no doubt shared a collective sigh o' relief. 

no new case based on temporal remote release o' "epstein files" is gonna be stronger than what the doj managed to put together in their pursuit o' a ghislaine maxwell conviction, and the conviction o' ghislane maxwell were more o' a crapshoot than the doj ordinarily undertakes. an ethical doj motivated to put wrongdoers behind bars would be highly reluctant to pursue additional charges which had low chances o' conviction but a near guarantee o' further traumatizing victim witnesses. is the reason(s) why the biden doj did not pursue further indictments. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps while ghislaine maxwell were being investigated and prosecuted, the doj and wh were effective precluded from releasing, "the files." after the conviction, when it became obvious no further prosecutions would be pursued, doj policy precluded release. is privacy laws at issue, but more relevant is the fact the doj has a standing policy against releasing investigation materials where the reputation o' individuals who they has chosen not to pursue charges could be damaged, individuals who got no day in court to defend themselves. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

12 hours ago, rjshae said:

My initial thought was that a full release might hamper any cases brought to trial. But with DJT in charge, any such trials will likely be for purely political purposes; only producing evidence that harms his opposition. A full release at this point may be the only fair outcome. Let the (creepy) chips fall where they may.

I think what Trump really wants to avoid is that he knew that  sex with minors was ongoing at some of the parties. Epstein has stated more or less that Trump  didnt participate and he said no to " massages " which was code word for sex 

But he knew  they were  happening  and Trump will get heavily criticized for not doing anything about it

So for Trump  its about the perception, political fallout and ultimately loss of votes 

 

 

[rjshae]

9 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I think what Trump really wants to avoid is that he knew that  sex with minors was ongoing at some of the parties. Epstein has stated more or less that Trump  didnt participate and he said no to " massages " which was code word for sex 

But he knew  they were  happening  and Trump will get heavily criticized for not doing anything about it

So for Trump  its about the perception, political fallout and ultimately loss of votes 

Yes, the public already knows he's a sleezy philanderer, yet they elected him anyway. The only possible additional harm is an association with the underage sex activity. He already gets heavily criticized, so I'm not sure that's the concern. I do think he's worried this might cost him his base (and thus his Congressional power).