Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

326 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      105
    • No
      135
    • Maybe
      86
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      66
    • No
      135
    • Indifferent
      54


Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Think its still 5-4 on the Supreme Court in favor of upholding Roe v. Wade, with John Roberts being a vote to uphold the existing body of caselaw.

The problem is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86 years old and has cancer.

If Trump gets a second term, abortion will be illegal in 28 states by the end of it

Maybe Democrats can stall like how the republicans did when Scalia died

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Judge today upheld House subpoena for Trump's financial records. Pelosi reportedly in closed door meetings now with caucus members and party leaders who are giving her an earful over failing to begin impeachment proceedings.

Moves are still being made.

 

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

What makes you think Roberts won't vote with Trump's intent?


Roberts sided with the liberals on the Court in a 5-4 ruling blocking a Louisiana abortion law from going into effect back in February, and it was a less egregious law than the one they're trying to implement in Alabama. 

He applied the analytical framework of Roe v. Wade to find that the law posed an undue burden on women seeking abortions, and affirmed that said framework is well-settled law.

Roberts is a conservative.

Roberts is also an upstanding institutionalist who cares more about the integrity of The Court then he does about his own political leanings, and who does not wish to go down in history as the Chief Justice who presided over the partisan degeneration of American Jurisprudence.  

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congressman kicked out of House Committee + exile from his caucus for racist comments compares political treatment to being the victim of a Lynching:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/05/steve-king-congress-republicans-interview-1353197

I'm sure the irony is lost upon him. 
 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@eclipse will love these:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/445914-kellyanne-conway-dismisses-hatch-act-violation-let-me-know-when-the

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-hud-official-lynne-patton-says-doesnt-care-broke-law-1436816

and then when it's time for them to throw the book at them, conservatives will just paint the left as authoritarian assholes.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

@eclipse will love these:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/445914-kellyanne-conway-dismisses-hatch-act-violation-let-me-know-when-the

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-hud-official-lynne-patton-says-doesnt-care-broke-law-1436816

and then when it's time for them to throw the book at them, conservatives will just paint the left as authoritarian assholes.

Ya here Pelosi reportedly saying she doesn't want Trump impeached; she wants him in jail? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Ya here Pelosi reportedly saying she doesn't want Trump impeached; she wants him in jail? 

Which means she wants the Dems to focus on a win in 2020 and not impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that initiating an impeachment inquiry is the right move. Aside from potentially unearthing more of Trump's criminality it would at least demonstrate willingness to fight and hold a corrupt president to the rule of law.

If they don't do it, they're basically letting the Republicans win when they say "it's political suicide, look at what happened with Clinton" and destroy willingness of voters to give a damn to go out and vote. It'd be unused power and the last time they didn't use their power and went along with the GOP's bullshit thinking that an upcoming election would go their way, they got wrecked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2019 at 8:38 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Except that initiating an impeachment inquiry is the right move. Aside from potentially unearthing more of Trump's criminality it would at least demonstrate willingness to fight and hold a corrupt president to the rule of law.

If they don't do it, they're basically letting the Republicans win when they say "it's political suicide, look at what happened with Clinton" and destroy willingness of voters to give a damn to go out and vote. It'd be unused power and the last time they didn't use their power and went along with the GOP's bullshit thinking that an upcoming election would go their way, they got wrecked.

 

On 6/7/2019 at 5:46 AM, Excellen Browning said:

If Pelosi wants to see Trump in prison then she should probably impeach.


I've been a very harsh critic of Pelosi's position against opening an impeachment inquiry and siding more with the AOC wing of the party pushing to get on with it, but I think I'm starting to see Pelosi's gameplan here. And it isn't a bad one.

...here's the scenario...

The House votes to impeach. It goes to the Senate. Trump is now essentially 'on trial' in the Senate; the impeachment process against a president ostensibly being the legal parallel to a criminal case against a private citizen. 

The subject matter of the trial in the Senate is Trump's knowledge of and involvement with the illegalities committed by his campaign during the 2016 election, and improper use of office to obstruct a federal investigation.

The Senate votes to acquit him on everything; its controlled by partisan Republicans who are going to do a party-line vote and no matter what comes before them will not cast a vote to convict their own president.

Trump's presidency then ends via the normal, non-impeachment process of his term expiring. 

Trump post-presidency is then arrested, indicted, and criminally prosecuted as a private citizen in the Southern District of New York.

The subject matter of the prosecution is Trump's knowledge of and involvement with the illegalities committed by his campaign during the 2016 election, and improper use of office to obstruct a federal investigation.

Trump's lawyer walks into Court and says: "Judge. The State can't bring this prosecution. Your Honor will recall that there was identical subject matter tried before the Senate. Trump has already been found not guilty on these exact same criminal allegations in a quasi-judicial hearing. Its double jeopardy."  

The Judge Says: "Yes. Thats right. Case dismissed."

And Trump walks. 
________


Thats the case against impeachment.

If you have one shot and only one shot to make the criminal case against Trump; you better hit him with your best shot.

The thinking now is that post-presidency indictment is the best shot, because a Judge is going to build a record and follow the evidence and apply the facts to the law. The Senate isn't. 

So the game plan has to be preserving the case to get it in front of a judge. 

I'm still leaning towards the idea that the integrity of Congress as an institution and the ability of lawmakers to preserve their role as a check on executive power at the very least requires an impeachment inquiry in The House.

The danger of course is that if Trump is operating the way he's operating and there is no impeachment inquiry, then Congress has set the precedent for future administrations that this is the level of criminality a White House can operate at without triggering impeachment. The behavior becomes normalized. ('norms' are just constraints on the aberrant that last until their disuse makes the aberrant the new normal) 

But I understand what Pelosi is playing at.  She's not entirely out on a ledge here. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Trump's lawyer walks into Court and says: "Judge. The State can't bring this prosecution. Your Honor will recall that there was identical subject matter tried before the Senate. Trump has already been found not guilty on these exact same criminal allegations in a quasi-judicial hearing. Its double jeopardy."  

The Judge Says: "Yes. Thats right. Case dismissed."

And Trump walks. 
________


Thats the case against impeachment.

Is it possible to impeach Trump civilly, and then prosecute him criminally after he gets out?

I thought people can sue each other both criminally and civilly to get around double jeopardy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, XRay said:

Is it possible to impeach Trump civilly, and then prosecute him criminally after he gets out?

I thought people can sue each other both criminally and civilly to get around double jeopardy.

You can't "sue someone criminally"

A lawsuit by definition is a civil action.
Going after someone criminally isn't a lawsuit. Its a prosecution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

 


I've been a very harsh critic of Pelosi's position against opening an impeachment inquiry and siding more with the AOC wing of the party pushing to get on with it, but I think I'm starting to see Pelosi's gameplan here. And it isn't a bad one.

...here's the scenario...

The House votes to impeach. It goes to the Senate. Trump is now essentially 'on trial' in the Senate; the impeachment process against a president ostensibly being the legal parallel to a criminal case against a private citizen. 

The subject matter of the trial in the Senate is Trump's knowledge of and involvement with the illegalities committed by his campaign during the 2016 election, and improper use of office to obstruct a federal investigation.

The Senate votes to acquit him on everything; its controlled by partisan Republicans who are going to do a party-line vote and no matter what comes before them will not cast a vote to convict their own president.

Trump's presidency then ends via the normal, non-impeachment process of his term expiring. 

Trump post-presidency is then arrested, indicted, and criminally prosecuted as a private citizen in the Southern District of New York.

The subject matter of the prosecution is Trump's knowledge of and involvement with the illegalities committed by his campaign during the 2016 election, and improper use of office to obstruct a federal investigation.

Trump's lawyer walks into Court and says: "Judge. The State can't bring this prosecution. Your Honor will recall that there was identical subject matter tried before the Senate. Trump has already been found not guilty on these exact same criminal allegations in a quasi-judicial hearing. Its double jeopardy."  

The Judge Says: "Yes. Thats right. Case dismissed."

And Trump walks. 
________


Thats the case against impeachment.

If you have one shot and only one shot to make the criminal case against Trump; you better hit him with your best shot.

The thinking now is that post-presidency indictment is the best shot, because a Judge is going to build a record and follow the evidence and apply the facts to the law. The Senate isn't. 

So the game plan has to be preserving the case to get it in front of a judge. 

I'm still leaning towards the idea that the integrity of Congress as an institution and the ability of lawmakers to preserve their role as a check on executive power at the very least requires an impeachment inquiry in The House.

The danger of course is that if Trump is operating the way he's operating and there is no impeachment inquiry, then Congress has set the precedent for future administrations that this is the level of criminality a White House can operate at without triggering impeachment. The behavior becomes normalized. ('norms' are just constraints on the aberrant that last until their disuse makes the aberrant the new normal) 

But I understand what Pelosi is playing at.  She's not entirely out on a ledge here. 
 

That actually makes sense but I'm not convinced that this is exactly how Pelosi sees it.You gotta remember that there's more criminal shit that Trump is involved in than just what's on the Mueller report which is what the Democrats are laser-focused on. I agree that because of the Senate makeup effectively makes the Senate trial beneficial for Trump but I think one way you can go about it is to have some articles of impeachment for SOME of his criminal acts and withhold charges on some of the others so that SDNY can use those later. Using at least some of the ammo to push forth the impeachment process would at least put Republicans in a position where some of them will have to flip and some will stay in support of Trump.

Those that stay in support of Trump will effectively lose people voters that aren't the most rabid among Trump's base and give a window of opportunity for flipping more Senate seats to non-Republican which is what is needed for 2020.

 

Reason why I don't think Pelosi sees it that way is because Trump's presidency has benefited both her and her donors. Secondly, she's one of those Democrats who believes that THEY have to reach out to Republicans to get things done like they're some god. I don't believe that crap, I believe in fighting back against the misinformation from fake news and false equivalencies being done by the mainstream media to stay neutral. The more you peel off the lies and truth of Trump's criminality, the more people will turn against the GOP politicians specifically and if it means getting so many of these dumb old fucks out office that it turns the GOP party into an endangered species then so fucking be it. These motherfuckers know they're the minority and instead of changing their platform to appeal to the people better, they just cheat to get their way and folks like Biden insisting that the GOP will be "normal" after Trump is gone and that we should do the same mistake Obama did with them is simply unacceptable.

This piece makes so damn mad that Biden is likely to be the nomination as this is the frontrunner that's being pushed on us much like how Hillary was in 2016 but the kicker is that Biden is probably worse than Hillary on this detail.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

You can't "sue someone criminally"

A lawsuit by definition is a civil action.
Going after someone criminally isn't a lawsuit. Its a prosecution. 

So, is it possible to divide his wrong doings in half and sue him for whatever that can sued, and then prosecute him after he gets out for other stuff that can be prosecuted?

I hope my question makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder. . .right now, the Senate is firmly entrenched in Republican.  And America's unhappy.

Now, let's say some Actual Bullshit occurs, and Trump winds up with a second term.  Meanwhile, there's 34 seats that are up for re-election next term with 22 of them being Republican.  Assuming some competence on Pelosi's part, my guess is that she'll wait for the results of the election first - if she can present a case in front of a majority Democratic Senate, it's more likely to stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, eclipse said:

I wonder. . .right now, the Senate is firmly entrenched in Republican.  And America's unhappy.

Now, let's say some Actual Bullshit occurs, and Trump winds up with a second term.  Meanwhile, there's 34 seats that are up for re-election next term with 22 of them being Republican.  Assuming some competence on Pelosi's part, my guess is that she'll wait for the results of the election first - if she can present a case in front of a majority Democratic Senate, it's more likely to stick.

Agreee that if Trump wins reelection and the Democrats pick up seats in the Senate, at that point I think we'd see Pelosi open the floodgate on impeachment.

On 6/12/2019 at 9:12 PM, XRay said:

So, is it possible to divide his wrong doings in half and sue him for whatever that can sued, and then prosecute him after he gets out for other stuff that can be prosecuted?

I hope my question makes sense.

So the precedent on this one is Clinton v. Jones 

(this arose from the matter of Paula Jones suing Bill Clinton for acts of sexual harassment alleged to have occurred back when Bill Clinton was a local political figure in Arkansas, before he rose to the national scene)

And the precedent is that a sitting president CAN be sued by private citizens for conduct the president committed as a private citizen, outside and unrelated to his term of office. 

Can you impeach on that??? No. Not really.

Now you can of course have a Stormy Daniels type scenario, where the subject matter of the civil suit leads to the discovery of new criminal activity. (i.e. Daniels initially just sued Trump to revoke her nondisclosure agreement. But then that led to the uncovering of the campaign finance violations and election fraud crimes in connection with her pay-off that Michael Cohen pled guilty to and went to jail for)

The civil side of the system presently provides an avenue for going after Trump on things like his fraudulent business practices. (breach of contract for example is a 6 year statute-of-limitations for civil action; a business organization that he defrauded by contracting with it in bad faith could today sue Donald Trump for conducting reaching back to the summer of 2013) 

But for the main thrust of taking him to task on election law violations and obstruction of a federal investigation--there's no way to do that civilly. That has to be a criminal prosecution.  


 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ShoblongooRoberts just gave Republicans a free pass to continue Gerrymandering.

400 members of law enforcement found to be part of extremist groups

EDIT: Just found some commentary on twitter that highlights how numb we are to the reality of Mitch McConnell.

Reminder that Kentucky is effectively the 2nd most subsidized state and this douchebag who keeps being elected by them will have the power to just block everything if the Senate is not taken. What kind of fucked up situation is this?

If Democrats don't take the Senate (they're on their way to fucking that up) and Kentucky reelects this asshole in 2020, he'll block everything. What then? Democrats will have to campaign to get him to allow a fucking vote much like Jon Stewart had to for the 9/11 first-responders. Either that or kill him. What if it gets to that point, do the other states just then consider removing KY from the union? The people would get fucked if that were the case.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

I want to hear what the other side has to say before making a final judgement, but if the shooter did indeed use unreasonable force, then that whole situation is pretty fucked up.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Haven't read the opinion and I may be wrong, but if the rule is that partisan gerrymandering isn't subject to judicial review (bad rule bad that isn't new--that's always been the rule), they aren't saying  racial gerrymandering isn't subject to judicial review.

There's still a Constitutional Claim for disparate treatment on the basis of race, and Courts can still review + invalidate gerrymandered redistricting plans on grounds that they're intended to disenfranchise minority voters.

Am I getting that wrong? I Hope I'm not getting that wrong.
_______________

We gotta talk about the debates though. Because there was a clear winner and a clear loser. 

Related image


Who saw it???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Haven't read the opinion and I may be wrong, but if the rule is that partisan gerrymandering isn't subject to judicial review (bad rule bad that isn't new--that's always been the rule), they aren't saying  racial gerrymandering isn't subject to judicial review.

There's still a Constitutional Claim for disparate treatment on the basis of race, and Courts can still review + invalidate gerrymandered redistricting plans on grounds that they're intended to disenfranchise minority voters.

Am I getting that wrong? I Hope I'm not getting that wrong.

Partisan gerrymandering is effectively also racial gerrymandering, as Hofeller's files have shown. So as long as you keep up the pretense it's partisan gerrymandering you'll get away with it. Hell, considering Lukumi vs City of Hialeah, they'd have to literally, publically state "well we want to marginalize all the blacks and hispanics and all the other racial undesirables in our politics as much as we can".

And considering how the muslim ban went down, I'm not sure even that would be enough.

Edited by Excellen Browning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I was about to say that it seems like a distinction without difference given how Republican's Gerrymandering and voter suppression typically target anyone that's not white. Let's remember the wise words of former governor LePage: If we decided to go with the popular vote, white people won't have a say.

Oh and I saw the second half of the debate. It seems like I missed the more interesting hour.

EDIT: Of course this was going to be signed. Goddamnit Florida.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuned into both debates while going to/in Santa Cruz but I didn't really watch them in their entirety (we're talking like 30-45 minutes for each)

First debate was boring and all those guys will drop out of the primary some time or another LOL

Second debate I didn't really pay attention to, all I remember is Joe looking tired and Bernie yelling and Kamala apparently being the winner

Post-debate analysis says Kamala definitely was the star but I wonder if this newfound momentum will keep up with her??? I wonder if Harris could dent Biden's popularity, or if Biden can do better in the next coming debates . There's no doubt in my mind Joe Biden will win the Southern states in terms of primaries, granted he doesn't drop out by then... I wonder what the primary will look like in terms of the northeastern states?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I know how chatty you guys can get when you're interested in something

I find the lack of interest in those concentration camps at the southern border--disturbing  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

You know I know how chatty you guys can get when you're interested in something

I find the lack of interest in those concentration camps at the southern border--disturbing  

They're not news though, that situation has been going on for a while, a federal judge ordered that shit to stop and the kids to be returned, it has resumed and the Trump administration is facing no consequences.

All of that has already been talked about, it is only "news" lately cause the right-wingers are flipping out over AOC calling them for what they are and the images showcasing the dead which they'll turn around and call "FAKE NEWS".

Pompeo and Bolton pushing for a war with Iran is apparently not a crime and they won't face consequences for pushing us to said war.

Sarah Sanders' lying isn't a crime and she won't face punishment for it. She got paid instead.

Kellyanne Conway and Lynne Patton won't face any significant consequence for their hatch act violations

Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz's attempts at derailing recent hearings should be obstruction of justice that they should face consequences for but they won't (well the Jury's still out on Matt Gaetz for Witness Tampering)

There will be Trump voters that will continue to defend Trump even if he loses the election and in the event that he does lose and decides that he won't give up power, you may even have some of those voters protect him like it happened with the Oregon Republicans who fled the state to avoid a vote they knew they were going to lose. After all that, these motherfuckers will expect to keep their voice in the country's politics and play the victim card of "CONSERVATIVE VOICES AND VALUES BEING SILENCED" whenever they're challenged with evidence such as the failed Trump administration and Kansas Tax cuts.

 

Let's face it: It is now the norm for Republicans to be the scumbags we know them to be and apparently we're supposed to accept it. Remember during the first Democrat debate that one of the questions was "what are you going to do about Mitch McConnell?", as if to say "We know he's a piece of shit who has declared that he's going block any legislation that's actually popular, but instead of actually doing our job and holding him accountable to such behavior by putting him in the negative spotlight he should be in, we'll defer to you: What will you do about it?".

The only hope I see is that in 2020, the American voters turn the GOP in DC into an endangered species. HOPE, not expectation. The only way that could become an expectation is if the expected recession comes dropping down hard next year before the election.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...