LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 93
0 members and 93 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-22-2020, 05:12 PM   #3301
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,670
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
Of course, I care about Trump. I never suggested that I didn’t. For example, I care about the fact that he says racist things, and has emboldened and been a catalyst for increased activity by white supremacist groups and other similar extremists. This upsets me on principle, and also because I have friends who are people of color who already have enough bullshit to deal with in the world without having a racist president. You, on the other hand, don’t care about that at all, and only worry about the potential tax implications for your real estate investments, which you curiously posture as the superior, and more “adult” position. That all said, I still am not interested in entering into any substantive debates with you because, as I have repeatedly mentioned in the past, I find debating with a chronic liar to be pointless.
Then don't. I don't have any desire to debate with you. It's you who engages me.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 05:15 PM   #3302
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,670
Re: We. Are. Fucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
E Pluribus Unum.
Brilliant. This is genius.

"The country's clearly not united. Can we count the myriad forms of irreconcilable division?"

"But Latin!"

ETA: I took a few years of Latin (required at my HS), however, so I appreciate your efforts to keep the dead tongue wagging as much as possible.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 09-22-2020 at 05:18 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 05:58 PM   #3303
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,478
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
It involves politicians and benefits one over another.

Russiagate
Whitewater
Benghazi*
Clinton Impeachment*
Trump Impeachment**

All political. The investigations into Trump's taxes in NY, which would never have occurred but for who he is and who he's pissed off? Political.

Ted Stevens
Rostenkowski

Trafficant, that idiot from Ohio, is a rare exception in which a prosecution of a sitting legislator was not in part political. He was a criminal. Same goes for Sheldon Silver in NY. Those guys were engaged in racketeering.

The indictment of that DOJ lawyer for altering FISA court documents? Political.

Stone's indictment? Yup.

Manafort's? Yup. Had he not been in Trump's orbit, he'd have never been charged. In fact, a prior investigation of him for the same stuff he was convicted of had been closed without charges. (How dumb is he?)

That Obama lawyer who was put on trial by Mueller for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government? That one was really political. Disgustingly political. He was charged so Mueller's team could look tough on both sides. That one was truly outrageous.

_____
* Not criminal prosecutions, but brought by opponents purely for political gain.
** Technically defensible as Trump had attempted to shake down Ukraine, but also brought for political gain. (Had a Democrat president done that, the House would not have pushed for impeachment.)
Almost every single civil or criminal investigation of a politician will benefit another politician. The exception (which proves the rule) is Traficant, who had already been expelled from the Democratic caucus in Congress and wasn't welcomed by the Republicans, either. He was absolutely a criminal, in the sense that he broke the law, but the reason why you don't see him as political is that every single other politician thought he should go down.

What you are really saying is that as far as you are concerned, politicians are free to commit crimes, because when they do and so one finds out, politicians will disagree with each other about whether there was a crime and what should be done about it, which irrevocably taints any investigation as "political" and forces you to take sides in a debate between politicians. (We all know that you are completely above politics and would rather be caught dead than to take a political side, so by deciding that every such investigation is "political" you can exempt yourself from having to take a side, and remain above it all.)

Watergate, we all know, started when Republican operatives burglarized the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex. No question: It was a crime, even bit as much as Traficant's taking bribes. By your view, as soon is it became clear that burglars were linked to the Administration, any investigation would become "political" -- it would involve politicians and certainly benefit the Democrats. Nixon's White House should have been allowed to burgle the opposition party's headquarters, and lie and obstruct justice, because as corrupt as that sounds, it would be worse to force you to decide that Democrats were right and that Nixon was wrong.

What you stand for is a form of qualified immunity for politicians, where they get to do whatever crimes they want unless *all* other politicians agree that it was so clearly and heinous a crime that they should be nailed. I personally think the qualified immunity doctrine we already have is bad enough, but congratulations -- you have thought up of a way to make it even worse.
__________________
ďIt was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 09-22-2020 at 06:03 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 07:18 PM   #3304
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,594
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Then don't. I don't have any desire to debate with you. It's you who engages me.
Awww, I love reading when you and Flower fight. It makes my conference calls seem more interesting in contrast; I know it could be worse.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 08:51 PM   #3305
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,942
Re: We. Are. Fucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Really? I'd read recently that a Dem Senate removed roadblocks that had existed, and McConnell told them they'd live to regret it. Could be complete bullshit, but there was the appearance of truth to it.
If youíd like to participate, you could try googling.

(There was a whole debate about whether the Dems should filibuster Gorsuch or wait for someone more odious, like Kavanaugh, which was ultimately rendered meaningless as Mitch wasnít going to honor any filibuster anyway.)
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 08:53 PM   #3306
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,670
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Awww, I love reading when you and Flower fight. It makes my conference calls seem more interesting in contrast; I know it could be worse.
You don’t have to give a fuck, and you understand politics is nonsense (which makes me wonder why you pretend otherwise).

So here’s a gift: Glenn Greenwald on the progressives’ dangerous ludicrousness (Taibbi concedes the stage, realizing Greenwald is on an epic rant). It’s amazing. I hope perhaps a person like you might enjoy it. My left and right friends scream at me if I just raise Greenwald’s name. Makes me wish I still smoked (that’s why smoking was such a pleasure... it excused one from dealing with common idiots): https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...odcast-939380/

Oh, and here’s another fun one: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...-taibbi-tracey
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 08:56 PM   #3307
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,942
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
You donít have to give a fuck, and you understand politics is nonsense (which makes me wonder why you pretend otherwise).

So hereís a gift: Glenn Greenwald on the progressivesí dangerous ludicrousness (Taibbi concedes the stage, realizing Greenwald is on an epic rant). Itís amazing. I hope perhaps a person like you might enjoy it. My left and right friends scream at me if I just raise Greenwaldís name. Makes me wish I still smoked (thatís why smoking was such a pleasure... it excused one from dealing with common idiots): https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...odcast-939380/

Oh, and hereís another fun one: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/n...-taibbi-tracey
Dude, that you're stanning for the two most discredited people of the last four years says so, so, much.
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 09:05 PM   #3308
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,670
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Almost every single civil or criminal investigation of a politician will benefit another politician. The exception (which proves the rule) is Traficant, who had already been expelled from the Democratic caucus in Congress and wasn't welcomed by the Republicans, either. He was absolutely a criminal, in the sense that he broke the law, but the reason why you don't see him as political is that every single other politician thought he should go down.

What you are really saying is that as far as you are concerned, politicians are free to commit crimes, because when they do and so one finds out, politicians will disagree with each other about whether there was a crime and what should be done about it, which irrevocably taints any investigation as "political" and forces you to take sides in a debate between politicians. (We all know that you are completely above politics and would rather be caught dead than to take a political side, so by deciding that every such investigation is "political" you can exempt yourself from having to take a side, and remain above it all.)

Watergate, we all know, started when Republican operatives burglarized the DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex. No question: It was a crime, even bit as much as Traficant's taking bribes. By your view, as soon is it became clear that burglars were linked to the Administration, any investigation would become "political" -- it would involve politicians and certainly benefit the Democrats. Nixon's White House should have been allowed to burgle the opposition party's headquarters, and lie and obstruct justice, because as corrupt as that sounds, it would be worse to force you to decide that Democrats were right and that Nixon was wrong.

What you stand for is a form of qualified immunity for politicians, where they get to do whatever crimes they want unless *all* other politicians agree that it was so clearly and heinous a crime that they should be nailed. I personally think the qualified immunity doctrine we already have is bad enough, but congratulations -- you have thought up of a way to make it even worse.
Watergate was clearly a crime. The only question was how many were involved in the conspiracy.

I do not think cover ups should be charged as crimes. It’s an adversarial system. That’s just a preemptive defense (self-help as it were, or ought to be). If Johnny Law doesn’t like cover-ups, he should work harder to prove the underlying crime. Letting him charge obstruction is bullshit. It turns the playing field impossibly in his favor.

I do stand for waving the black flag, as Mencken said. It’s soulless to root for Elliot Ness. (And no one ever got laid well taking that angle). Even friends in law enforcement have that pirate streak. (They trade out and do defense work as soon as they get the pension.)

It’s bizarre for one in your business to value the rule of archaic laws designed to protect commercial guilds and an adversarial system that doesn’t allow a fair or honest fight.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 09-22-2020 at 09:07 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 09:10 PM   #3309
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,670
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Dude, that you're stanning for the two most discredited people of the last four years says so, so, much.
Your assessment they are disreputable is further proof of my point.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 09:24 PM   #3310
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 85,594
Re: We. Are. Fucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
If you’d like to participate, you could try googling.

(There was a whole debate about whether the Dems should filibuster Gorsuch or wait for someone more odious, like Kavanaugh, which was ultimately rendered meaningless as Mitch wasn’t going to honor any filibuster anyway.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Wiki, but is it not true? And assume I’ve googled before I post. Guess you don’t?

But like Ty said maybe Reid has a crystal ball and knew what McConnell would do someday? Ty, is that what your point was?
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 09-22-2020 at 09:32 PM..
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 09:56 PM   #3311
Pretty Little Flower
Moderator
 
Pretty Little Flower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Flower
Posts: 8,303
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Then don't. I don't have any desire to debate with you. It's you who engages me.
Untrue. All I do is point out when youíre ludicrously wrong and transparently lying, which is all the time. Then you try to turn it into a substantive debate about whatever it is you were wrong/lying about. Because. You. Canít. Help Yourself. You could always just not respond. But you will respond. Because it just gets you sooooo mad when I point out that youíre a liar. Next youíre going to say that you actually donít ever get mad and you donít actually care what I say. And then I will point out that youíre lying. Again. And youíll get mad. Again. Thatís how it is on this bitch of an earth.
__________________
Inside every man lives the seed of a flower.
If he looks within he finds beauty and power.

I am not sorry.
Pretty Little Flower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 10:31 PM   #3312
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,670
Re: Objectively intelligent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower View Post
Untrue. All I do is point out when you’re ludicrously wrong and transparently lying, which is all the time. Then you try to turn it into a substantive debate about whatever it is you were wrong/lying about. Because. You. Can’t. Help Yourself. You could always just not respond. But you will respond. Because it just gets you sooooo mad when I point out that you’re a liar. Next you’re going to say that you actually don’t ever get mad and you don’t actually care what I say. And then I will point out that you’re lying. Again. And you’ll get mad. Again. That’s how it is on this bitch of an earth.
I can’t help myself. I like to argue.

What you think of me? Let’s assume one of two things occur:

1. You die;
2. You announce you hit the lottery

My response would be different because I’d feel a need to say something different in each circumstance. But internally, neither would cause me to rethink my appetizer.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 09-22-2020 at 10:37 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2020, 11:06 PM   #3313
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 25,670
Re: We. Are. Fucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
The filibuster is a creation of Senate rules, and can be changed at any time by changing the Senate rules. I am saying that McConnell would not have let that rule stop him from confirming a Republican appointee to the Supreme Court if he had 50 votes for it, regardless of what happened when the filibuster rule was changed before (something that has happened more than once).

If you have a pathological tendency to try to find a Democratic misdeed to counterbalance whatever Republicans are doing, seek medical help.
There’s no counterbalance. The GOP’s next move turns on a question of whether to enshrine the rule that might is right and render politics going forward an absolute and transparent zero sum game.

Is it better to go scorched earth or to live in a 5-4 world (with a bargained for moderate as the 4th liberal vote)?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 09-22-2020 at 11:09 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2020, 10:14 AM   #3314
Replaced_Texan
Random Syndicate (admin)
 
Replaced_Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 14,144
Re: We. Are. Fucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Wow. RT said she wants the Senate to get rid of the filibuster. I said I think they already basically did. You now call me stupid because ďthe Rs would have done it anyway?Ē

Look at your argument from the standpoint of a professor grading an answer? Because that is what I do when I read your posts.
It's there for everything but judicial appointments.

(Also, fuck Ted Cruz in general, but also for blocking a senate resolution honoring Justice Ginsburg.)
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
Replaced_Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2020, 11:42 AM   #3315
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,942
Re: We. Are. Fucked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

Wiki, but is it not true? And assume Iíve googled before I post. Guess you donít?

But like Ty said maybe Reid has a crystal ball and knew what McConnell would do someday? Ty, is that what your point was?
Apparently the problem wasn't Googling, it was reading (or comprehension) or something:

Quote:
In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.[1] In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.[2][3][4]

As of September 2020, a three-fifths majority vote is still required to end debates on legislation
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:19 PM.