The All Things Political Topic - SNAFU edition

[rjshae]

23 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Trump needs to rely on actual evidence and not emotion if he wants people to be successfully prosecuted

I don't think that will happen unless he offloads his fantasy revenge agenda on a more rational actor. Trump's not a disciplined thinker, relying instead on hunches, whims, biases, cosmic rays, flattery, and brain farts.

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Malcador said:

The ride is the point, not the rap

Yes, I think this is part of it. He tries to create a distraction from all the attention from things like Epstein and its for his MAGA base. But I also think he genuinely   believes the DOJ was politicized under Biden and they targeted him specifically which they did in certain ways to stop him running as a candidate. But the difference is there was legitimate legal cases which he was found guilty of. His objective  to prosecute James and Comey lacks the same substance  so it just becomes embarrassing for the DOJ

[Agiel]

More redistricting bad news for Republicans: Texas may not net five GOP seats like they planned

Maybe it's worth reminding everyone the last time some Texans tried to f*** with California:

[rjshae]

19 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Yes, I think this is part of it. He tries to create a distraction from all the attention from things like Epstein and its for his MAGA base. But I also think he genuinely   believes the DOJ was politicized under Biden and they targeted him specifically which they did in certain ways to stop him running as a candidate. But the difference is there was legitimate legal cases which he was found guilty of. His objective  to prosecute James and Comey lacks the same substance  so it just becomes embarrassing for the DOJ

The DoJ has long been politicized by the Republicans. The main difference is it is the Dems who are being blamed this time; the Pubs don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, rjshae said:

The DoJ has long been politicized by the Republicans. The main difference is it is the Dems who are being blamed this time; the Pubs don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

But that's a problem isnt it, the reality that the DOJ becomes politicized

It needs to be independent of political influence, its suppose to be independent. Thats how Justice departments in any Democracy are suppose to function

In South Africa we call it the NPA (national prosecution authority ) and during the years of state capture from about 2013-2017 we had no prosecutions of political wrongdoing and we went through the worst corruption in the public sector we have ever seen because there was no system  of accountability or consequence  

 

[rjshae]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But that's a problem isnt it, the reality that the DOJ becomes politicized

It needs to be independent of political influence, its suppose to be independent. Thats how Justice departments in any Democracy are suppose to function

In South Africa we call it the NPA (national prosecution authority ) and during the years of state capture from about 2013-2017 we had no prosecutions of political wrongdoing and we went through the worst corruption in the public sector we have ever seen because there was no system  of accountability or consequence  

Since investigation and inquiry is one of the functions of Congress, one wonders whether the DoJ should have been placed under the legislative branch (but allow the President to select the leader)?

[BruceVC]

17 hours ago, rjshae said:

Since investigation and inquiry is one of the functions of Congress, one wonders whether the DoJ should have been placed under the legislative branch (but allow the President to select the leader)?

The way it should work is the president should have no ability to literally phone the DOJ and say " you must prosecute this person " and this should apply to any president 

Prosecutions need to   be decided  on evidence and whats in the public interest  if there are many potential cases because any DOJ will have limited resources

Im sure this is how it works in most countries that have a separation of the judiciary from the state?

You will still get criticism from the public because citizens have there own opinions around who should be prosecuted but that decision shouldnt come from the presidency 

 

 

[Malcador]

Fentanyl is a WMD now.

 

[rjshae]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Fentanyl is a WMD now.

Sure, use the unwinnable drug "war" to justify an eternal state of emergency. Just what the POTUS wants.

Edited December 16 by rjshae

[ShadySands]

So war on China and Mexico then?

[Malcador]

And Canada too, I guess.

 

[Gromnir]

On 12/15/2025 at 7:07 AM, rjshae said:

Since investigation and inquiry is one of the functions of Congress, one wonders whether the DoJ should have been placed under the legislative branch (but allow the President to select the leader)?

misunderstanding.

as part of article 1, sec8  (clause 18?) powers, Congress has implied power and duty o' oversight and investigation... of the other branches o' government.

take care clause of article 2, based on understanding of language in 1787, creates a duty/obligation on the part o' the President to see that laws passed by Congress is implemented and enforced. 

...

and 'cause the current Court's embrace o' the unitary theory o' the executive authority is complete and extreme, it follows that the President is indeed the chief law enforcement officer o' the United States. Congress gets oversight and may investigate the executive in its law enforcement capacity, but other than impeachment and conviction, the ability o' Congress to interfere with considerable the discretion o' the President in matters o' law enforcement is largely limited to funding decisions.

HA! Good Fun!

ps keep in mind that originally there were no US Law Enforcement. we had fed judges created by Congress (1789) but initially the job o' attorney general were a part-time gig-- one guy advising Congress and the President. took 'bout one hundred years and the civil war to change things. fbi didn't get its start until early 1900. before the fbi we had US marshals and postal inspectors... not even customs and border protection until 1940s as each state handled its own customs inspection efforts and there were no real immigration policy.

that the President were the chief law enforcement officer o' the US was largely meaningless for most o' US history.

Edited December 16 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

43 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

So war on China and Mexico then?

and pretty much every major hospital in the US, as well as thousands o' oncologists and cancer patients... although am understanding that fentanyl patches has become less ubiquitous as a "treatment" for late-stage cancer pain management in the last few years. 

am guessing there is some specific grant o' executive power related to wmds, similar to the way in which 2001 Congressional authorization to use force against al-quaeda and anyone with a "nexus" to the 9/11 attacks were used by bush, obama, biden and trump do acts o' war against any and all accused "terrorists" without the need for Congress to declare war. don't know the specific lever and fulcrum trump is trying to exploit, but am assuming there is such a thing... although am admitted not certain how vaporizing accused drug smugglers transporting cocaine from venezuela to other nearby nations constitutes an act o' war, even based on some o' the sketchy logic embraced by obama to assassinate anwar al-awlaki.

...

am admitting the trump administration efforts around deportations and boat strikes makes otherwise fantastical slippery slope arguments look far less ridiculous 'cause there is no too extreme or too far for these clowns. if the dangers o' fentanyl is the raison d'être for labeling individuals as narco terrorists, and anybody even tangential related to the narco terrorists is subject to extra judicial murders, then what is the point o' the new wmd identifier? what sinister new article 2 sooper power has stephen miller and the project 2025 folks imagined into being? not sure, but given the current state o' affairs, that authority will be deemed valid until scotus says otherwise, and there is all kinda reason to be suspicious o' the Court's wisdom these days. 

HA! Good Fun!

[uuuhhii]

3 hours ago, rjshae said:

Sure, use the unwinnable drug "war" to justify an eternal state of emergency. Just what the POTUS wants.

 

this is getting more and more like suzerain

just more stupid

[Malcador]

This is like GW 2.0 but far dumber

 

[Gromnir]

there is somebody, multiple somebodies, at vanity fair who dislike karoline leavitt

warning: you will not be able to unsee. make sure this is not the last thing you view before going to bed.

Spoiler

 

gonna admit, we only read the nyt article which shared details o' the vanity fair piece, so am not sure how good or bad it were. looks as if susie got caught in a few lies and even more unfortunate truth reveals, but regardless, that karoline pic is... unfortunate.

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

They all look like they stepped out of that Goya painting of Spanish royals.

[Gorth]

Looks like the kind of light setup you would use for surgery, not for a portrait photo (unless scanning the face for skin cancer symptoms or similar)

[Gromnir]

7 hours ago, Gorth said:

Looks like the kind of light setup you would use for surgery, not for a portrait photo (unless scanning the face for skin cancer symptoms or similar)

no doubt karoline were dreaming o' her annie leibowitz portrait, and instead...

11 hours ago, HoonDing said:

They all look like they stepped out of that Goya painting of Spanish royals.

...

is as if hoon had never seen a vanity fair photo shoot. glamour with more than a hint o' satire is de rigueur.

am suspecting this group thought they were too clever to fall for anything subversive, but they nevertheless wanted to be immortalized... these jokers is never gonna be on rushmore and maybe having a public elementary school in florida or ohio named in their honor after they is dead is not gonna be a meaningful ego stroke. an eventual sight gag for something like futurama? no thanks.  a vanity fair photo op were gonna be a way for this group o' clowns and ghouls to be cool.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited December 17 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

15 hours ago, Malcador said:

This is like GW 2.0 but far dumber

 

Chavez did implement forced nationalisation  of several US oil companies that had been invested in Venezuela  for decades.  And that is theft 

But I doubt that is the real  reason Trump is threatening Maduro suddenly 

Here is a link about what Chavez did and how it contributed towards the collapse of the Venezuelan economy 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/05/07/how-venezuela-ruined-its-oil-industry/

 

[Malcador]

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Chavez did implement forced nationalisation  of several US oil companies that had been invested in Venezuela  for decades.  And that is theft 

But I doubt that is the real  reason Trump is threatening Maduro suddenly 

Here is a link about what Chavez did and how it contributed towards the collapse of the Venezuelan economy 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/05/07/how-venezuela-ruined-its-oil-industry/

 

A US company isn't the US, not sure land makes any sense. But still the marketing for this is rather dumb, sure will make UNSC meetings funny if the Euros start pontificating about international order and so on.  So Chavez was bad economically, not sure what that is the concern of the US insofar as they need to use bombs.  

Hope Maduro's stocking up on FPV drone weapons, I guess.

[uuuhhii]

usa and uk own oil field of mexico and iraq was theft

one of their many colonial crime they should be paying reparation for

the trick is so old it is hard to expect venezuela to fall for it without install puppet first

[uuuhhii]

chile choose self destruct when it is in better shape by south america standard

guess they find the collapse of argentina somehow aspirational

[Zoraptor]

Stereotypically you'd expect Argentina to elect the descendant of a literal literal nazi who fled Germany as president instead of Chile.

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Malcador said:

A US company isn't the US, not sure land makes any sense. But still the marketing for this is rather dumb, sure will make UNSC meetings funny if the Euros start pontificating about international order and so on.  So Chavez was bad economically, not sure what that is the concern of the US insofar as they need to use bombs.  

Hope Maduro's stocking up on FPV drone weapons, I guess.

Im not trying to justify Trump removing Maduro because of the nationalisation\theft of American assets, that is a BS reason. But I support Maduro being removed because he has destroyed Venezuela and lacks legitimacy as a leader. If he had won the last election fairly then I wouldnt be supporting this regime change because my point would be " the people of Venezuela voted for him despite his policies". Removing Maduro is in the best interests of Venezuela as long as the regime change is done correctly with a new government that has support of Venezuelans and  regional and international support. All these things currently exist or will happen once Maduro is gone 

But forced nationalisation can definitely be  seen as stealing from a country, you could have a state owned global oil  or mining company that gets nationalised from a regime 

And then even private sector companies generate taxes so you now denying the country that tax revenue

But the main problem with  forced nationalisation on any level is how it is implemented. All foreign investment works more or less the same way and it should be protected under all cost. The process is typically 

• A government invites foreign investment
•  the foreign investor has to spend  large amounts of money setting up the business
• they hire local people which now have a job and spending power 
• they create ancillary  businesses associated with the investment 
• they pay tax in the country on the revenue they generate 

That is how the country benefits and its  massive. But then a government decides " we want to own asset " but they didnt setup it up and pay for the initial investment 

Its theft and there is no justification for it. Agreed on nationalisation is different because the investor agrees to the ownership change or a different revenue contract. 

Thats what happened in Botswana recently with De Beers and everyone is happy

https://www.angloamerican.com/media/press-releases/2025/25-02-2025