Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 182780 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 1234
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5005 on: December 13, 2019, 06:14:14 PM »
Principles only mean something if you stick by them when it's inconvenient.
Since when is a military occupation considered small government?

Offline jingle.boy

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 31314
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5006 on: December 14, 2019, 10:29:00 AM »
Again, I find BOTH unacceptable.  I don't care which is "worse."

Ok, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I guess I'm just having trouble reconciling that your comment is completely about the process, when what I see (given how Barto articulated it) one part isn't as much about the process itself, but the lead up to the process.  That's just me though.

Can you explain?

I don't know how to explain it any better / differently.
Looking at my most recent posts, it almost seems like I'm trying to become the Common Sense of DTF :lol
You'd have an easier time trying to bring the internet to the Amish.
Turns out chlamydia tastes pretty good.

Offline lonestar

  • DTF Executive Chef
  • Official DTF Tour Guide
  • ****
  • Posts: 18745
  • Gender: Male
  • First Follower
    • Lady Obscure Music Magazine
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5007 on: December 15, 2019, 10:22:21 AM »
Principles only mean something if you stick by them when it's inconvenient.

Yup....principles before personalities...

Offline The Walrus

  • goo goo g'joob
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15608
  • I am he as you are he as you are me
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5008 on: January 23, 2020, 10:00:35 AM »
Didn't know where else to post it, so...

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

100 seconds to midnight.

Offline Vmadera00

  • Posts: 1324
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5009 on: January 23, 2020, 10:29:49 AM »
Thank you for posting that, interesting read.

Quote
It is not good news when wildfires spring up simultaneously in both the northern and southern hemispheres, making the notion of a limited “fire season” increasingly a thing of the past.

While Wildfires have always occurred with dry/hot weather, the frequency and magnitude in which they are occurring is what worries me the most.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5010 on: January 23, 2020, 11:41:36 AM »
Didn't know where else to post it, so...

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

100 seconds to midnight.

Kill for gain or shoot to maim
But we don't need a reason
The Golden Goose is on the loose
And never out of season

One hundred!  Minutes! To midnight... the hand that threatens doom!
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 01:14:14 PM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5011 on: January 23, 2020, 11:47:54 AM »
Honest question:  Not having read the bulletin every year (but being aware of its re-evaluation), when did it move from nuclear annihilation to general annihilation?  That is, when did climate change get added?    I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems like a opportunistic move from an acute danger to a more chronic one.  They are not the same.   

We can be annihilated in a mushroom cloud by dinner time, today.  Even if we halted every possible contraint on global warming, it is still likely we're years away from annihilation. 

(I just used "annihilation" five times in one post.)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 01:13:55 PM by Stadler »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5012 on: January 23, 2020, 12:55:28 PM »
Honest question:  Not having read the bulletin every year (but being aware of its re-evaluation), when did it move from nuclear annihilation to general annihilation?  That is, when did climate change get added?    I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems like a opportunistic move from an acute danger to a more chronic one.  They are not the same.   

We can be annihilation in a mushroom cloud by dinner time, today.  Even if we halted every possible contraint on global warming, it is still likely we're years away from annihilation. 

(I just used "annihilation" five times in one post.)
I believe it's somewhat recent. Although it's always been a little fuzzy. I know they moved it once or twice when KJ-U and Trump were having their tiff, and that really had no bearing on a potential nuclear Armageddon. Truth is that the likelihood of that has been decreasing since the 80s.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5013 on: February 03, 2020, 01:12:49 PM »
Did anybody catch Trump's commercial last night about releasing non-violent drug offenders? Seems to me that was a bad, and possibly illegal thing back when the colored guy was president. I'll bet somebody could dig up some tweets from Trump about how stupid it was. Dave's sig becomes more and more apt every day, I think. We really have perfected political representation.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson


Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5015 on: February 11, 2020, 11:06:28 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-to-reduce-sentencing-recommendation-for-trump-associate-roger-stone-official-says-after-president-calls-it-unfair/2020/02/11/ad81fd36-4cf0-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html?utm_source=reddit.com

I'll take "Things dictators do for $1000, Alex"
The smart move would be to let the DOJ stick it to him and then just pardon the guy. Trump certainly doesn't need to maintain any facade of legitimacy and the DOJ does.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 22515
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5016 on: February 11, 2020, 11:33:53 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-to-reduce-sentencing-recommendation-for-trump-associate-roger-stone-official-says-after-president-calls-it-unfair/2020/02/11/ad81fd36-4cf0-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html?utm_source=reddit.com

I'll take "Things dictators do for $1000, Alex"
The smart move would be to let the DOJ stick it to him and then just pardon the guy. Trump certainly doesn't need to maintain any facade of legitimacy and the DOJ does.

A pardon is still in the cards. I'd be shocked if he didn't get one.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5017 on: February 11, 2020, 11:42:05 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/justice-dept-to-reduce-sentencing-recommendation-for-trump-associate-roger-stone-official-says-after-president-calls-it-unfair/2020/02/11/ad81fd36-4cf0-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html?utm_source=reddit.com

I'll take "Things dictators do for $1000, Alex"
The smart move would be to let the DOJ stick it to him and then just pardon the guy. Trump certainly doesn't need to maintain any facade of legitimacy and the DOJ does.

A pardon is still in the cards. I'd be shocked if he didn't get one.
I would be too. That just makes meddling in the process completely unnecessary, at least in a practical sense. I suppose it does have value politically, though, simply by virtue of bucking the accepted norms. That sort of thing seems to give much wood to his base.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • King of Misdirection
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8810
  • Bow down to Boskaryus
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5018 on: February 11, 2020, 12:44:20 PM »
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5019 on: February 12, 2020, 12:24:01 PM »
Not a value judgment, just an observation: for all the criticism of the "base" for seeing him through rose-colored glasses, there are just as many that see "criminality" in every word and action.  From the article:

"Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said that the White House did not communicate with the agency on Monday or Tuesday about the Stone case, and that the decision to reverse course was made before Trump’s tweet."

But of course, she's part of the coverup.  Then there's:
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate, writing, “This situation has all the indicia of improper political interference in a criminal prosecution.”

David Laufman, a former Justice Department official, called it a “shocking, cram-down political intervention” in the criminal justice process.

“We are now truly at a break-glass-in-case-of-fire moment for the Justice Dept.,” he wrote on Twitter.

Eric H. Holder Jr., attorney general under President Barack Obama, said it was “unprecedented, wrong and ultimately dangerous.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said the move amounted to “obstruction of justice.”

“We are seeing a full-frontal assault on the rule of law in America,” Pascrell said. “Direct political interference in our justice system is a hallmark of a banana republic. Despite whatever Trump, William Barr, and their helpers think, the United States is a nation of laws and not an authoritarian’s paradise.”

Laufman left the Justice Department early in the Bush Administration, and rejoined during the Obama administration.

Jonathan Kravis, one of the four named prosecutors, clerked for Merrick Garland, and served as White House counsel for Barack Obama.  Another (Zelinksy) was also in the Obama Administration, and a third (Jed) was well-known (and well-regarded) as having been the counsel that put the winning argument togther as to why a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.  Both Zelinsky and Jed clerked for Justice John Paul Stevens. Conclusive?  Of course not, but as the behavior of Trump gets more... extreme (from the viewpoint of those who oppose) and is increasingly viewed as "unprecedented", it's not incomprehensible that the reactions get "unprecedented" (though this isn't; attorneys have left the Justice Department before under the Trump administration, particularly when the Dept. of Justice opted not to defend the ACA in a Supreme Court case, counter to their usual practice). 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5020 on: February 12, 2020, 12:38:26 PM »
But of course, she's part of the coverup.  Then there's:
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate, writing, “This situation has all the indicia of improper political interference in a criminal prosecution.”
Doesn't it?


Quote
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said the move amounted to “obstruction of justice.” “We are seeing a full-frontal assault on the rule of law in America,” Pascrell said. “Direct political interference in our justice system is a hallmark of a banana republic. 
Aren't we? Isn't it?

Also, you seem to be doing exactly what I criticized about much of Trump's impeachment defense. Diminishing allegations of wrong-doing based on the affiliation of the accusers. If we only give consideration to possibilities posed by people without political malice then we have nothing but the integrity of partisan hacks and sycophants to maintain order, and we are well and truly fucked. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41881
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5021 on: February 12, 2020, 03:54:22 PM »
we are well and truly fucked.
Yes, exactly.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5022 on: February 13, 2020, 10:52:22 AM »
But of course, she's part of the coverup.  Then there's:
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate, writing, “This situation has all the indicia of improper political interference in a criminal prosecution.”
Doesn't it?


Quote
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said the move amounted to “obstruction of justice.” “We are seeing a full-frontal assault on the rule of law in America,” Pascrell said. “Direct political interference in our justice system is a hallmark of a banana republic. 
Aren't we? Isn't it?

Also, you seem to be doing exactly what I criticized about much of Trump's impeachment defense. Diminishing allegations of wrong-doing based on the affiliation of the accusers. If we only give consideration to possibilities posed by people without political malice then we have nothing but the integrity of partisan hacks and sycophants to maintain order, and we are well and truly fucked.

Not quite; it's more that we seem to be at the point now that "Trump" = "guilty AF, and probably of more than we're hearing about" and "accusers" = "bipartisan freedom fighters holding the integrity of the nation together by their fingertips".  I'm not necessarily "diminishing" anything, but without SOME scrutiny, we're just being a lynch mob.   I get it; there are some people that just think Trump commits two felonies before breakfast on the regular.   Me, I think he's careless, sloppy, and brazen, with little class and little sense of how to read a room.  I think he THINKS he's calling shots, and THINKS he's skirting the line, but in reality, it's just buffoonery.   

I understand the argument is based on "Bill Barr metaphorically fellating the President", but there are somewhat less sinister (though equally crappy, if you're not a Trump supporter) reasons for the Justice Department wanting to reduce Stone's sentencing.  Certainly, a lot of weight is given to the "resignations", and it's fair to question whether those resignations mean what those looking to put Trump in jail THINK they mean.  I think there's a desperation regarding Trump; just like every "win" for Trump emboldens him, I see every loss for those looking to usurp the usurper makes them more desperate.   

I'm not absolving Trump; he shouldn't be weighing in on this at all (if he really wants to influence the Justice Department - which is in his branch of government - he should have a conversation in the hallway, not on Tweeter).  But I don't necessarily think this automatically means "despot" or "criminal".

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5023 on: February 13, 2020, 11:05:05 AM »
But of course, she's part of the coverup.  Then there's:
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked the Justice Department’s inspector general to investigate, writing, “This situation has all the indicia of improper political interference in a criminal prosecution.”
Doesn't it?


Quote
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said the move amounted to “obstruction of justice.” “We are seeing a full-frontal assault on the rule of law in America,” Pascrell said. “Direct political interference in our justice system is a hallmark of a banana republic. 
Aren't we? Isn't it?

Also, you seem to be doing exactly what I criticized about much of Trump's impeachment defense. Diminishing allegations of wrong-doing based on the affiliation of the accusers. If we only give consideration to possibilities posed by people without political malice then we have nothing but the integrity of partisan hacks and sycophants to maintain order, and we are well and truly fucked.

Not quite; it's more that we seem to be at the point now that "Trump" = "guilty AF, and probably of more than we're hearing about" and "accusers" = "bipartisan freedom fighters holding the integrity of the nation together by their fingertips".  I'm not necessarily "diminishing" anything, but without SOME scrutiny, we're just being a lynch mob.   I get it; there are some people that just think Trump commits two felonies before breakfast on the regular.   Me, I think he's careless, sloppy, and brazen, with little class and little sense of how to read a room.  I think he THINKS he's calling shots, and THINKS he's skirting the line, but in reality, it's just buffoonery.   

I understand the argument is based on "Bill Barr metaphorically fellating the President", but there are somewhat less sinister (though equally crappy, if you're not a Trump supporter) reasons for the Justice Department wanting to reduce Stone's sentencing.  Certainly, a lot of weight is given to the "resignations", and it's fair to question whether those resignations mean what those looking to put Trump in jail THINK they mean.  I think there's a desperation regarding Trump; just like every "win" for Trump emboldens him, I see every loss for those looking to usurp the usurper makes them more desperate.   

I'm not absolving Trump; he shouldn't be weighing in on this at all (if he really wants to influence the Justice Department - which is in his branch of government - he should have a conversation in the hallway, not on Tweeter).  But I don't necessarily think this automatically means "despot" or "criminal".
Even if the bolded were true, and I think it's only marginally so, who gives a fuck? It makes no difference. You're correct that it still needs to be subject to scrutiny, but scrutiny doesn't mean finding any reason we can hang on to to let somebody off the hook. It means impartially evaluating the allegations against him. That's not what we don anymore, though. At best we look at them only for a reason exonerate, and at worst we refuse to scrutinize them because they're merely the wet dreams of partisan democrats butthurt because of the election. Both should piss you off, and yet you still hang on to the motivations of accusers. If my worst enemy accused me of wrongdoing I would expect that people consider his motivation, but I would also expect them to investigate the allegations and judge them accordingly. But of course that's a 20th century application of law and no longer relevant in today's America.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5024 on: February 13, 2020, 11:23:34 AM »
Even if the bolded were true, and I think it's only marginally so, who gives a fuck? It makes no difference. You're correct that it still needs to be subject to scrutiny, but scrutiny doesn't mean finding any reason we can hang on to to let somebody off the hook. It means impartially evaluating the allegations against him. That's not what we don anymore, though. At best we look at them only for a reason exonerate, and at worst we refuse to scrutinize them because they're merely the wet dreams of partisan democrats butthurt because of the election. Both should piss you off, and yet you still hang on to the motivations of accusers. If my worst enemy accused me of wrongdoing I would expect that people consider his motivation, but I would also expect them to investigate the allegations and judge them accordingly. But of course that's a 20th century application of law and no longer relevant in today's America.

Well, not to you personally, but generally, I've felt strongly for quite some time that unless your position is "Trump, that yellow-haired, orange-skinned quasi-pedophilic adulterous racist!" it's deemed "Trump apologist". I'm actually in the middle.  I'm not letting ANYONE off the hook.  But to me, I think the system BLOWS right now, and I refuse to believe that miraculously, the only instigators of the problem happen to have "R" after their name.   I think there are fundamental differences between those that are Democrats at their core and those that are Republicans, but I also think there are profound similarities, and one of them is the way they react to things like desperation and rejection and loss. 

I happen to agree with this 100%:  "If my worst enemy accused me of wrongdoing I would expect that people consider his motivation, but I would also expect them to investigate the allegations and judge them accordingly."  You're right, as well, though, in that I don't see much of this at all today.   It's baffling to me that by default, I've become the most "pro-Trump" regular poster here, and merely because I'm not willing to convict him on opinion, or make fun of him. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5025 on: February 13, 2020, 11:48:40 AM »
Even if the bolded were true, and I think it's only marginally so, who gives a fuck? It makes no difference. You're correct that it still needs to be subject to scrutiny, but scrutiny doesn't mean finding any reason we can hang on to to let somebody off the hook. It means impartially evaluating the allegations against him. That's not what we don anymore, though. At best we look at them only for a reason exonerate, and at worst we refuse to scrutinize them because they're merely the wet dreams of partisan democrats butthurt because of the election. Both should piss you off, and yet you still hang on to the motivations of accusers. If my worst enemy accused me of wrongdoing I would expect that people consider his motivation, but I would also expect them to investigate the allegations and judge them accordingly. But of course that's a 20th century application of law and no longer relevant in today's America.
I happen to agree with this 100%:  "If my worst enemy accused me of wrongdoing I would expect that people consider his motivation, but I would also expect them to investigate the allegations and judge them accordingly."  You're right, as well, though, in that I don't see much of this at all today.   It's baffling to me that by default, I've become the most "pro-Trump" regular poster here, and merely because I'm not willing to convict him on opinion, or make fun of him.
I'm only replying to your second paragraph because I have no idea how the first one relates to the discussion at hand.

People don't think you're a Trump apologist because you refuse to convict him based on opinion. They think you're a Trump apologist because you're said outright that there's enough circumstantial evidence to nail him of what is most certainly a crime, and an impeachable offense, and yet you've sided with the republicans who refused to even consider the possibility that he might be guilty because you don't care for the way the democrats have gone about this. If they'd simply tied a note to a brick saying "Trump fucked up, do something about it, and hurled it through Mitch McConnell's window there's till an obligation to consider that maybe he did fuck up, and your dislike of the democrats here doesn't change that. For the record, I don't think you're a Trump apologist. Yet I've never been able to reconcile you're position that Trump's guilty but we have to let him off because of the democrats, or that the behavior of the republicans is somehow reasonable for the same reason.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5026 on: February 13, 2020, 12:54:53 PM »
Even if the bolded were true, and I think it's only marginally so, who gives a fuck? It makes no difference. You're correct that it still needs to be subject to scrutiny, but scrutiny doesn't mean finding any reason we can hang on to to let somebody off the hook. It means impartially evaluating the allegations against him. That's not what we don anymore, though. At best we look at them only for a reason exonerate, and at worst we refuse to scrutinize them because they're merely the wet dreams of partisan democrats butthurt because of the election. Both should piss you off, and yet you still hang on to the motivations of accusers. If my worst enemy accused me of wrongdoing I would expect that people consider his motivation, but I would also expect them to investigate the allegations and judge them accordingly. But of course that's a 20th century application of law and no longer relevant in today's America.
I happen to agree with this 100%:  "If my worst enemy accused me of wrongdoing I would expect that people consider his motivation, but I would also expect them to investigate the allegations and judge them accordingly."  You're right, as well, though, in that I don't see much of this at all today.   It's baffling to me that by default, I've become the most "pro-Trump" regular poster here, and merely because I'm not willing to convict him on opinion, or make fun of him.
I'm only replying to your second paragraph because I have no idea how the first one relates to the discussion at hand.

People don't think you're a Trump apologist because you refuse to convict him based on opinion. They think you're a Trump apologist because you're said outright that there's enough circumstantial evidence to nail him of what is most certainly a crime, and an impeachable offense, and yet you've sided with the republicans who refused to even consider the possibility that he might be guilty because you don't care for the way the democrats have gone about this. If they'd simply tied a note to a brick saying "Trump fucked up, do something about it, and hurled it through Mitch McConnell's window there's till an obligation to consider that maybe he did fuck up, and your dislike of the democrats here doesn't change that. For the record, I don't think you're a Trump apologist. Yet I've never been able to reconcile you're position that Trump's guilty but we have to let him off because of the democrats, or that the behavior of the republicans is somehow reasonable for the same reason.

I appreciate your understanding, but to quibble slightly, I think that's not a fair characterization; I'm not "siding with the Republicans" except by happenstance.  I'm not sure I ever said the behavior of the Republicans was "reasonable".   I am siding with DUE PROCESS.   It REALLY bothers me that the Supreme Court wasn't honored here.   I think the standard for removing a President - at least administratively - is high.   You don't get to cut corners because "we all know he's guilty", and the standard isn't "whatever party acts the more reasonable".   

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 22515
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5027 on: February 13, 2020, 01:29:34 PM »
I don't think there's a process that the democrats could have followed that would have actually resulted in witnesses providing testimony. McConnell would have pulled something out of his ass no matter what they did (Like Obama's SCOTUS pick).

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5028 on: February 13, 2020, 02:42:41 PM »
I don't see how there was any ducking of due process in article I. I understand Stadler's objection to article II, but in the end it didn't really matter. My problem is that I share his regard for process and all I saw was an attack on it as a surrogate for actually defending against the allegations. Why defend yourself against a murder charge if you can assail the court and the prosecutor and have it all go away? The reason I replied in the first place was when Stadler suggested that it was Rep Pascrell making an observation that was the problem, rather than quite accurate observation he made.

Quote
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said the move amounted to “obstruction of justice.” “We are seeing a full-frontal assault on the rule of law in America,” Pascrell said. “Direct political interference in our justice system is a hallmark of a banana republic.   
Pointing this out isn't why we're fucked. Pretending it's not true is.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5029 on: February 13, 2020, 11:39:57 PM »
I don't think there's a process that the democrats could have followed that would have actually resulted in witnesses providing testimony. McConnell would have pulled something out of his ass no matter what they did (Like Obama's SCOTUS pick).

Maybe not.  Doesn’t mean I agree with it. I’m of the opinion it’s the same for both sides whatever it is. Either both have the witnesses they want or neither do. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5030 on: February 13, 2020, 11:47:35 PM »
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) said the move amounted to “obstruction of justice.” “We are seeing a full-frontal assault on the rule of law in America,” Pascrell said. “Direct political interference in our justice system is a hallmark of a banana republic.   
Pointing this out isn't why we're fucked. Pretending it's not true is.
[/quote]

I’m sorry.  I don’t disagree that Trump is full frontal assaulting our judicial system, but I see Schiff and the Democrats doing exactly the same thing with respect to process. I am not saying that Trump is good here I am saying that neither side is clean, and that is a problem when you’re effectively undermining an election.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5031 on: February 14, 2020, 12:11:25 AM »
But this is my point; the WaPo is now reporting that Barr is pushing back on Trump and the allegation that the sentence was changed because of Trump.  I just do not buy this scenario where everyone pro Trump is lying and everyone anti-Trump is telling the truth.  Bar clearly refuse the allegations and so why is that not at least accounted for?

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Back for the Attack
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 41881
  • Gender: Male
  • Postwhore Emeritus
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5032 on: February 14, 2020, 09:07:11 AM »
Because so many people on Trump's side (i.e. working for him, as Barr has been doing in fact, if not in title), that don't come to their senses and leave voluntarily, keep getting indicted.

They no longer get a benefit of the doubt from me.  Trump is a crook who surrounds himself with crooks (and imbeciles).  He occasionally gets rid of a non-crook who he initially misjudged when hiring.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 22515
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5033 on: February 14, 2020, 09:45:47 AM »
But this is my point; the WaPo is now reporting that Barr is pushing back on Trump and the allegation that the sentence was changed because of Trump.  I just do not buy this scenario where everyone pro Trump is lying and everyone anti-Trump is telling the truth.  Bar clearly refuse the allegations and so why is that not at least accounted for?

You don't think, given all the shenanigans we've seen, that Barr is saying that as a CIYA measure and to maintain some level of plausible deniability? Everyone of Trump's supporters and every Fox News host is now able to point to that and say "You see! They aren't working together. Barr said so publicly".

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1275
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5034 on: February 14, 2020, 09:54:53 AM »
I'm a tad more cynical, I took Barr's words to mean "Listen you babbling imbecile, if you want me to fix shit for you then stop making it so blatantly obvious that that's what we're doing".

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24038
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5035 on: February 14, 2020, 10:05:50 AM »
And being a tad less cynical, how often does the AG himself step in and tell his people to take it easy on the sentencing guidelines of a single case? I doubt this is unprecedented, although it might well be, but it's damn sure unusual. I understand it's oddball enough to have left the judge in something of a quandary since she's the one who actually has to determine the sentence. The fact that it's his boss's buddy is really impossible to ignore. As are Trump's tweets about how shameful the sentence was.

And again, this is a ridiculous discussion to even be having. Since Trump's going to padon him anyway, why not just let the DOJ do its thing? A smart president never would have even brought it up, unless his goal was, once again, to undermine the justice system.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5036 on: February 14, 2020, 10:30:15 AM »
But this is my point; the WaPo is now reporting that Barr is pushing back on Trump and the allegation that the sentence was changed because of Trump.  I just do not buy this scenario where everyone pro Trump is lying and everyone anti-Trump is telling the truth.  Bar clearly refuse the allegations and so why is that not at least accounted for?

You don't think, given all the shenanigans we've seen, that Barr is saying that as a CIYA measure and to maintain some level of plausible deniability? Everyone of Trump's supporters and every Fox News host is now able to point to that and say "You see! They aren't working together. Barr said so publicly".

No I don’t.    Look it’s what I said, more or less, earlier: were starting with a presumption and filling in the facts and it’s supposed to be the other way around.   “Well, we all know Trump is up to some shit, so Barr MUST mean this (instead of what he actually said).

And to the Fox reference: and Jake Tapper can grimace and smirk and roll his eyes.   Fox News means nothing here.   Nothing. 

Offline The Walrus

  • goo goo g'joob
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15608
  • I am he as you are he as you are me
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5037 on: February 17, 2020, 10:45:57 AM »
I watch a lot of Jake Tapper and I've watched for longer than you have; you are grossly exaggerating when you talk about his mannerisms. He does not roll his eyes that much. He doesn't 'grimace' and 'smirk' like he's Ben Shapiro hearing something he doesn't like. You make it sound like he's snarky to every guest who disagrees with him and that is simply NOT true. He's one of CNN's better anchors. I like you Stads but you hyperbolize Jake Tapper's behavior so much. Not only that, but you do so in an effort to completely discredit his reporting, which is something you rarely talk about compared to his mannerisms. The guy's won many awards for his reporting and work and you aren't very fair to him at all - largely because of your inherent bias against him, he reports for CNN and reports things you don't agree with, therefore he's bad.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3992
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5038 on: February 17, 2020, 11:16:13 AM »
I watch a lot of Jake Tapper and I've watched for longer than you have; you are grossly exaggerating when you talk about his mannerisms. He does not roll his eyes that much. He doesn't 'grimace' and 'smirk' like he's Ben Shapiro hearing something he doesn't like. You make it sound like he's snarky to every guest who disagrees with him and that is simply NOT true. He's one of CNN's better anchors. I like you Stads but you hyperbolize Jake Tapper's behavior so much. Not only that, but you do so in an effort to completely discredit his reporting, which is something you rarely talk about compared to his mannerisms. The guy's won many awards for his reporting and work and you aren't very fair to him at all - largely because of your inherent bias against him, he reports for CNN and reports things you don't agree with, therefore he's bad.

Tapper said something nice about Mahomes too.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22277
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #5039 on: February 17, 2020, 07:23:16 PM »
I watch a lot of Jake Tapper and I've watched for longer than you have; you are grossly exaggerating when you talk about his mannerisms. He does not roll his eyes that much. He doesn't 'grimace' and 'smirk' like he's Ben Shapiro hearing something he doesn't like. You make it sound like he's snarky to every guest who disagrees with him and that is simply NOT true. He's one of CNN's better anchors. I like you Stads but you hyperbolize Jake Tapper's behavior so much. Not only that, but you do so in an effort to completely discredit his reporting, which is something you rarely talk about compared to his mannerisms. The guy's won many awards for his reporting and work and you aren't very fair to him at all - largely because of your inherent bias against him, he reports for CNN and reports things you don't agree with, therefore he's bad.

Well, we can agree to disagree, because for me ANY reaction is too much from a journalist who is presenting cold hard facts without commentary.  Chris Wallace can do it.   Walter Cronkite did it for decades, as did David Brinkley.   And as for the guests, well, you can count the number of guests that do disagree on one penis.  It's a cavalcade of insider baseball.   

And while I'm aware of his history, I DO question some of his reporting.  I'm not suggesting he's Sean Hannity (egregious supposition) or even Brian Williams, but there's a slant, there's a bent.  There's bias in what is left out.   For one example, I don't believe he even mentioned ONCE the court case that undermined the Schiff claim of obstruction.  He didn't even mention it to DISMISS it.    And of course, he parrots the "and we should note there is no evidence of any wrong doing by either Hunter or Joe Biden" party line so often that it's almost like David Lee Roth in "Running With The Devil", dashed off in one slurred word (yes, there's hyperbole there).    The point is NOT that he's the worst out there, it's that he's SUPPOSED to be the anchor of the one channel that is above the fray.  He's CLAIMING to not be it at all. 

Jack Welch had a philosophy that I love:  don't measure on the standard of others, measure on YOUR standard.  I remember being on a call, and two leaders presented their numbers, both negative for the quarter, but better (less negative) than they were forecast.  Jack was tough, but he was fair.  "Let's turn it around", but no one's jobs were really in jeopardy.   Then this big shot came in and said "well, Jack, I can finally give you some good news" or some such shit, and "I made you some money!"   But his profitability - I forget the numbers, but I'd guess somewhere around 10% margin - were in an industry where he SHOULD have been double that easy.  And Jack laid waste to him.  He was ultimately gone in less than a year, but the point is, I'm not comparing Tapper to the Hannity's or Limbaugh's of the world. He's SUPPOSED to be free from any of this, and he's not.    Couple that with the constant and snarky comments about Fox News - where guys like Chris Wallace keep their head down and their nose clean - and it's worth commenting on.