Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 16 2024 04:33 zeo wrote: Eh, reading up on his foreign policy at least he's not in the pocket of the military industrial complex. Might see 4 years of peace yet
And by "peace" you mean "Russian jackboots stomping on the faces of Ukrainians forever"?
"Russian jackboots stomping on the faces of Ukrainians forever" is what happens when you prolong forever wars instead of using diplomacy. Ukrainians will stop dieing wether you want them to stop or not, there will be elections, things will go back to normal. Again, wether you want them to go back to normal or not, you cant keep sending them to die forever.
Hundreds of thousands of people died because of the Obama admisitration foriegn policy in the middle east. And Trump ended all of those wars, not the Nobel Peace Prize winner that drone bombed weddings. Peace can be achieved only through cooperation, not confrontation and doubling down with other peoples lives
On July 16 2024 04:33 zeo wrote: Eh, reading up on his foreign policy at least he's not in the pocket of the military industrial complex. Might see 4 years of peace yet
And by "peace" you mean "Russian jackboots stomping on the faces of Ukrainians forever"?
"Russian jackboots stomping on the faces of Ukrainians forever" is what happens when you prolong forever wars instead of using diplomacy. Ukrainians will stop dieing wether you want them to stop or not, there will be elections, things will go back to normal. Again, wether you want them to go back to normal or not, you cant keep sending them to die forever.
I'm sure those elections would be just as free and fair as those in Russia if Putin got his way.
Ukrainians and Russians are dying because of Putin's megalomania. Nothing else.
On July 16 2024 16:13 KT_Elwood wrote: I think KwarK's point is very clear.
And it's totally not promoting violence, but it's promoting rule of law.
Right… someone that favors throwing a grenade into the scotus chambers [in a video game] and bemoans the near miss on Trump by saying “there’s still 4 more months to finish the job” is definitely not promoting violence. Sure…
Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Isn't shooting the guy who has established himself above the law, and openly talks about being a dictator, and doesn't respect election results just following the constitution?
As I understood, Kwark demands the judges to be impartial, and if they can't be, then to recluse themselves. He demands them to play their role.. not to overstep their boundries and become "kingmaker" for Trump.
Now judge Cannon and SCOTUS openly defy the "security of a free State" by obstructing justice - laughing about how they can't be stopped in a 2 party system that isn't able to impeach a openly partisan Judge, because their own party would always look the other way, never enabeling the 2/3s majority necessary.
There is no trial, they are slowwalking with technicalities till past the election. Cannon could have decided about Smith in a workday or less. She hasn't because she needs to buy more time for Trump.
She fails to do her job, but can't be removed for being intentionally bad at her job in a specific case.
So well, yes, constitution says:
If all else fails-> Just kill the guy. (America. Fuck yeah!)
As I understood, nobody wants or promotes that, other than the partisan Judges who are playing with the trust in their willingness to work for the country -not the party.
On July 16 2024 16:13 KT_Elwood wrote: I think KwarK's point is very clear.
And it's totally not promoting violence, but it's promoting rule of law.
Right… someone that favors throwing a grenade into the scotus chambers [in a video game] and bemoans the near miss on Trump by saying “there’s still 4 more months to finish the job” is definitely not promoting violence. Sure…
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Isn't shooting the guy who has established himself above the law, and openly talks about being a dictator, and doesn't respect election results just following the constitution?
As I understood, Kwark demands the judges to be impartial, and if they can't be, then to recluse themselves. He demands them to play their role.. not to overstep their boundries and become "kingmaker" for Trump.
Now judge Cannon and SCOTUS openly defy the "security of a free State" by obstructing justice - laughing about how they can't be stopped in a 2 party system that isn't able to impeach a openly partisan Judge, because their own party would always look the other way, never enabeling the 2/3s majority necessary.
There is no trial, they are slowwalking with technicalities till past the election. Cannon could have decided about Smith in a workday or less. She hasn't because she needs to buy more time for Trump.
She fails to do her job, but can't be removed for being intentionally bad at her job in a specific case.
So well, yes, constitution says:
If all else fails-> Just kill the guy. (America. Fuck yeah!)
As I understood, nobody wants or promotes that, other than the partisan Judges who are playing with the trust in their willingness to work for the country -not the party.
I assure you the judges do not want to be shot. The person promoting it is the one saying it in plain English on this forum. Which is what I pointed out to you. Considering your response is to say "well yeah doesn't the constitution say we're supposed to shoot the tyrants" I might as well rest my case.
On July 16 2024 16:13 KT_Elwood wrote: Judge Cannon has sabotaged the legal system, if it was clearly an unjust, even "fascist" act to appoint and pay the special counsel/investigator by the DoJ, why the heck did it took her 2 years to uncover the fact that he wasn't also cleared by the senate?
She has been deliberately slowwalking the case, and now she (and C. Thomas) found it...unconstitutional to appoint a special counsel 3 1/2 monthts before the election.
That is exactly the reason. Unlike the 9th Circuit, intelligent judges want to be sure they're leaning towards correct rather than just making a bunch of absurd maverick rulings at every turn that constantly get kicked down. Thomas's opinion supports that it's not an extreme ruling to make. The issue of constitutionality of appointments, just because it has been ignored or taken for granted so far, doesn't mean it's not a valid issue. Repeating a mistake doesn't make it right, nor does ignoring one mistake make a later mistake correct.
On July 16 2024 16:13 KT_Elwood wrote: You can't explain the timing away, even if you agree to the reasoning that Jack Smith should have been approved by the senate.
This is not an issue of timing. If she had thrown out the case on day 1, the timing would have been no more palatable to you. If you disagree with the ruling and want to frame it like that, tell us now the appropriate timing she should have ruled that would have been best.
On July 16 2024 16:13 KT_Elwood wrote: Biden did cooperate to have his home searched, he did agree to return the found documents, and it was concluded that keeping them can be accounted to a simple mistake.
It was determined that he was too old and stupid to be convicted and held responsible, based on a redacted transcript released by his own DOJ, that when his own Attorney General got a subpoena to release the actual original tapes from the House, ignored the subpoena, said he doesn't have to answer to Congress, and was voted to be in contempt by the same House.
On July 16 2024 16:13 KT_Elwood wrote: The DOJ however couldn't have put Biden on trial anyway, since he is still POTUS.
They would have needed to find the documents in the 4 years he wasn't.
That would nonetheless not be an argument against searching out and finding the truth, or you have already come out against the very concept of the investigations of Trump that happened during his own first term.
Clarence Thomas's opinion is worth less than the paper it's written on. He's a partisan hack doing partisan hack things while collecting a paycheck. He should've been impeached the minute the corruption came to light, but Congress is too spineless to impeach "one of their own". Also, even if he wasn't a corrupt sock puppet, he would still only be 1/9th of the SC. He can't even get Alito and Kavanaugh to agree with him, which just illustrates how absurd this particular take is. The use of special council isn't new, it has been approved of by past Supreme Courts, and was in fact, used by the Orangutan in Chief himself. It's an idiotic sham of a ruling and will be overturned instantly, including by Trump's own Supreme Court. But it will ensure the case won't be heard before the election, which is really all it had to achieve.
Again, showing that people in high places casually ask for violence by shitting on the foundations of society is not advocating to exert that violence.
For nearly two years beginning in 2015, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch sought a buyer... Nine days after he was confirmed by the Senate for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court, the then-circuit court judge got one: The chief executive of Greenberg Traurig, one of the nation’s biggest law firms with a robust practice before the high court.
Gorsuch, who held a 20 percent stake, reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale on his federal disclosure forms.
Gorsuch did not disclose the identity of the purchaser. That box was left blank.
Since then, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court, according to a POLITICO review of the court’s docket.
They include cases in which Greenberg either filed amicus briefs or represented parties. In the 12 cases where Gorsuch’s opinion is recorded, he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times.
I'm not sure you've been following this story at all because you're wrong on the facts. Or are you saying that because the chief executive didn't personally argue the case, a different lawyer in the law firm in which he's a partner did, then it's not a conflict. Because if that's what you're saying then you're an idiot, you might as well say "I never took money from the suspect, my wife did, and she's not a judge". Gorsuch rules in Greenberg's favor and the buyer makes money. Simple as that.
The CEO of a law firm arguing cases before the Supreme Court should not be buying land from a sitting Supreme Court judge in a transaction that made the judge more than a quarter million in profit. The appearance of impropriety standard is easily cleared there.
Like I said, I’m not saying it’s entirely Kosher. What I’m saying is that your “appearance of impropriety” standard being adequate for your guillotine is what makes you deranged.
To be clear, I’m not making the argument for the termination of their judgeships. They are, day after day. I’m saying they should stop doing that.
Except your offered “solution” also applies to Trump who does not have a lifetime appointment and for whom there already exists a peaceful alternative solution: win more electoral votes. Who else does it apply to? Anyone with an R by their name? Anyone who disagrees with you politically? You might as well take the mask off and not pretend like this has anything to do with Gorsuch’s minority stake in a plot of land in Colorado. Maybe MP will let you borrow his grandfather’s uniform.
Since you ask, Cannon is making the argument for Trump too. Let’s say that a person believes that Trump is unfit for office because of the facts around his illegal secret document handling (and they are facts, he’s confessed to it). Normally no direct action would be required. He’s a criminal, he’s confessed to his crimes, he gets sentenced for them, that’s the end of it.
If the system works then people can wash their hands of it and place their faith in the system. The best argument against taking the law into your own hands is a working legal system.
But when Cannon, who is nakedly partisan, says that she’s barring the charges being brought against her candidate who confessed to the crime that is hugely damaging to faith in the system. The main argument against shooting him is devastated by her actions.
I’m not making the argument that someone should shoot Trump, Cannon is. My preference is that he’s held accountable under the law. She seems to prefer that it go a different way.
Edit: I really don’t know why you keep saying Gorsuch minority stake. He made a cool quarter mil (at least, he disclosed it was at least that) on the deal. If the total deal profit was $2m and he only made $400k then he still made $400k. Would that be somehow better than if he got 100% of $100k?
There’s lots of people that think the hush money case is a miscarriage of justice. The former NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo-D said those charges shouldn’t have been brought. Falsification of business records is almost never brought as a standalone charge. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together acknowledges that if Trump were retired and golfing they wouldn’t have bothered with these charges, etc.
I’m sure I’ve made it abundantly clear that I think progressive DAs and judges that dole out slaps on the wrist to repeat offenders to turn them back on the street and victimize more people is a miscarriage of justice.
Introvert thinks the judge in the hush money case was a partisan that made some unfair rulings. Introvert hasn’t offered extrajudicial killings as a possible recourse. At least it’s kind of you to concede the moral high ground to one of the few conservative posters here.
Let us suppose that there was a conspiracy to deny Republicans an electoral victory and it succeeded. Let’s not just stop at trumped up charges, after all, the official position of the Republican candidate is that the last election was stolen. Let us suppose all that was true and that America was now a one party state ruled by Democrats with show elections to placate the masses.
Would it be virtuous for Republicans to trust in that system and take no action? In such a world would that be the moral high ground?
Virtuous? Perhaps. But I see no reason why they should accept that
Then why are you presuming to lecture me when you do not disagree with the point? In a world in which the belief in the system was eroded they would simply stop following the rules of that system. Both sides would. This isn’t partisan.
The appearance of legitimacy, of equality under the law, of a system that works, that all matters. That’s what is at stake here. We all agree to follow the basic rules of the game, even when we lose, for two reasons. Firstly, we believe that we have a fair shot at winning and secondly because the alternative is GH.+ Show Spoiler +
But that agreement is voluntary, it is built on consensus and it takes surprisingly few 20 year old registered Republicans to destroy that consensus. If one side starts openly cheating then the other side is going to flip the board over.
You don’t accept defeat because you don’t care about winning, you accept defeat because some things are worse than losing. When you lose the vote you make a concession speech because it’s better for the office of president to exist, even if you’re not going to hold it, than to delegitimize it forever.
The Democrats could have locked Trump up by now if they wanted to, but they couldn’t necessarily predict the damage that decision would do to democracy and the confidence of voters in the system.
The Supreme Court are entitled to take as many bribes as they wish as openly as they wish, they are beholden only to their own code of conduct and will never be impeached in a partisan environment. But if they break those norms then they’re damaging the idea of justice which is the only reason they have power in the first place.
Judge Cannon is able to abuse her power to avoid Trump facing a fair trial. But if she refuses to allow a fair trial then she places him above the law and forces anyone seeking justice to try some other means.
While I clearly have an opinion on Trump this isn’t just about him, this is much larger than him. This is about the shortsightedness of cheating to win a game where the prize depends upon the consent of your defeated opponent. The thing that keeps a political party up at night shouldn’t be the fear that your party loses control of the Supreme Court, it should be that people stop listening to the Supreme Court altogether.
I don’t cheer for political violence, I regret that so many institutions have forgotten that they exist to give us something better to believe in. They’re the ones making the calls for violence. They have an obligation to do better.
It's not really at stake so much as the the mistaken perception from libs that it hasn't already been lost is what is at stake.
On July 16 2024 19:22 Acrofales wrote: The use of special council isn't new, it has been approved of by past Supreme Courts, and was in fact, used by the Orangutan in Chief himself.
The US has a very clear constitutional cooperation between the President and Senate when staffing a federal government. It's in Article 2. This is important because it prevents any man (Not even a party, just a man, on the off chance that some random guy outside the power structure would shoot to the top of the country) from just creating and filling government departments with legions of authoritarian soldiers loyal to him, with unlimited budget to be filled at the expense of Congress.
Title 28 of the US code deals with structure and authority of the Justice Department a lot. It doesn't allow this appointment, and I defy you to find me the law that does.
For about 22 years there was a "Special Prosecutor Act" passed by Congress under which a lot of what you're handwaving now as "oh it's tradition" occured. That law expired 25 years ago.
Two special prosecutors were named during the Drumpf administration, which you zoologically alluded to: Durham and Mueller.
Mueller was appointed, probably illegally, by order of Rosenstein at the Justice Department. One factor was the bureaucratic stonewalling of Senate appointments by a sore loser Democratic party that viewed Drumpf as an illegitimate president, which meant attorneys weren't getting confirmed for the Justice Department so positions were emptier than in a government allowed to function by the opposition party.
Interestingly, you have to get confirmed by the Senate every time you assume a new position, even if it's in the same department (ex. Rosenstein was confirmed for US Attorney and for Deputy Attorney General despite continuous service).
Although he had 2-3 nominations confirmed in his life by the Senate (as a US Attorney, and as FBI Director), Mueller wasn't in a role or in government when he was tapped by the Drumpf administration (to the chagrin of Drumpf himself) to investigate, subpoena, and prosecute people. And although his fitness or conflicts of interest were criticized, to my knowledge the legality of his appointment wasn't challenged (let me know if you find otherwise, this would also be useful to the people he ended up prosecuting). Another factor is simply that the political zeitgeist seemed okay with it on both sides. The Democrats, to finally bury Drumpf for his awful treason, and the Republicans, in a futile attempt to get CNN to shut the fuck up. However - this is key - that doesn't mean that act of appointment was legal. As a crude analogy, when you get a warning for your expired license plates instead of a ticket, that doesn't mean traffic law is out the window.
Otherwise, any president, or in Smith's case, attorney general, could appoint 100 special counsels and 100 officers in a DHS task force to round up and prosecute woke zoomers and send them to the custody of 100 officers of HHS and the Department of Labor where they would be held in NEET camps.
Other "special attorneys/counsels/prosecutors" appointed directly by Presidents have been confined, or readily fireable, or also confirmed by Congress (Truman and Grant both had such appointments confirmed constitutionally - Nothing wrong with those).
You seem to be conflating like "Sometimes Presidents have appointed lawyers and had them confirmed by the Senate under the appropriate authority conferred by the Constitution, and sometimes Attorneys General have hired assistants to help them or to help nominated and confirmed US Attorneys, and sometimes Presidents or Attorneys General have appointed a random guy. Therefore the Justice Department has a long history of doing whatever the fuck it wants, and we shouldn't interrupt that now with some kind of pushback on the Executive Branch stealing authority that has not been legislated to it and is specifically the opposite of what the Constitution says.
If the Senate didn't confirm your appointment, and Congress didn't pass a law saying this thing exists and this is what it is and this, you still don't get to do it just because they haven't told you you can't yet. This is kid's stuff. Your mom and dad are sleeping, you don't get to whisper "Can I go in the freezer and eat all the chocolate ice cream? Oh if you don't say anything in 10 seconds it means you agree by the way. Do you disagree?"
Durham was a US Attorney at the time he was commissioned by the attorney general, in the latter's statutory authority, to head the investigation he did. So it's largely kosher. What's not allowed is the idea that just because you can hire people to help you, that that would give you the right to transfer your authority to copy it to other people giving them the same authority as you somehow.
Also, in addition to Mueller's distance from us in the past making that situation less objectionable than the one that's in the present, the scope of what he was allowed to do does seem at first glance, maybe I'm wrong, more constrained than Jack Smith's - Mueller was supposed to do links between Trump and Russia. On the other hand, 80% of what he got was minor false statement convictions from like 10 hours of grilling and subpoenaing people, people who he may have had no legitimate authority to even ask for the time of day. Not a fan of overreach of any color.
You can't give a guy unfettered authority, independence, and no oversight, and say he doesn't need to go through the Senate. That is a clear difference between hiring somebody, even a lawyer, to assist someone else, or assist on a specific case. That's unlimited subpoena, investigation, getting further underlings to do shit, and burning government money the whole time. You want to investigate the opposition, have one of your confirmed attorneys do it. None of them are fit or free of appearance of bias or misconduct? That sounds like a "you" issue, but fine, get a law passed or appoint someone with the advice of the bipartisan Judiciary Committee and then get them through the Senate. Still can't do it? Starting to look much more like a "you" problem and I'm sorry but that doesn't let you tap a random lawyer living in the Netherlands and give him the unfettered authority of the US federal government.
How's this. Drumpf gets into office, hires Chad Pepeman as Attorney General, who then consults with the law firm of David & Duke, all respected members of the bar, and appoints a Special Counsel in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton, another Special Counsel in charge of Barack Obama, another in charge of Biden, another in charge of Nancy Pelosi. Look, each special counsel technically has a 1) limited scope and 2) has to answer to a superior and 3) is an "inferior" officer meaning not subject to Senate confirmation. Woohoo!
On July 16 2024 19:22 Acrofales wrote: It's an idiotic sham of a ruling and will be overturned instantly, including by Trump's own Supreme Court. But it will ensure the case won't be heard before the election, which is really all it had to achieve.
I hope he resigns. He's an embarrassment. I also hope that Andy Kim wins our next NJ Senate race.
New Jerseyans probably should have noticed that after his previous corruption trial instead of reelecting him.
Didn’t they change the rules after his last corruption trial so that if the check doesn’t have the word “bribe” on the memo line then it doesn’t count? Then retroactively apply that standard to exonerate him?
Not advocating for anyone to shoot him but this brazen shit is how you get shot.
On July 16 2024 22:57 KT_Elwood wrote: Again, showing that people in high places casually ask for violence by shitting on the foundations of society is not advocating to exert that violence.
If you think Trump is promoting shooting judges in that video and Kwark isn’t then you’re just blindly partisan. In fact, Kwark has even referenced that video himself when people ask him to clarify what he means about needing the 2nd amendment to solve our woes. Fortunately for Kwark he is on very friendly territory here so everyone will either be blindly partisan for him or suspiciously quiet.
On July 16 2024 22:57 KT_Elwood wrote: Again, showing that people in high places casually ask for violence by shitting on the foundations of society is not advocating to exert that violence.
If you think Trump is promoting shooting judges in that video and Kwark isn’t then you’re just blindly partisan. In fact, Kwark has even referenced that video himself when people ask him to clarify what he means about needing the 2nd amendment to solve our woes. Fortunately for Kwark he is on very friendly territory here so everyone will either be blindly partisan for him or suspiciously quiet.
If I was the leader of a large and well armed political movement then I would be significantly more cautious with my speech. Trump and I are different people with different audiences and different responsibilities. This isn’t especially complicated. People don’t think it’s worse for Trump to call for the murder of his opponents because he’s not a tl mod. They think it’s worse for him to call for it because it’s worse for him to call for it.
Polling over the last 3 days (since Trump's assassination attempt) hasn't seemed to show a sizable sympathy swing of support in favor of Trump. This is the second time Biden has recently lucked out in the polling, where he's stayed basically tied (within the margin of error), or very slightly behind Trump, regardless of his debate performance and regardless of Trump's assassination attempt.
This is probably a relief to the Biden campaign, since things could be worse, but they need to find ways to gain ground, not just not lose more ground.
yep, hopefully not a controversial thing to say but Kwarks casual calls for violence in a video game against political opposition disqualifies him from president in my eyes. sadly I will have to find someone else to vote for.
On July 16 2024 22:57 KT_Elwood wrote: Again, showing that people in high places casually ask for violence by shitting on the foundations of society is not advocating to exert that violence.
If you think Trump is promoting shooting judges in that video and Kwark isn’t then you’re just blindly partisan. In fact, Kwark has even referenced that video himself when people ask him to clarify what he means about needing the 2nd amendment to solve our woes. Fortunately for Kwark he is on very friendly territory here so everyone will either be blindly partisan for him or suspiciously quiet.
If I was the leader of a large and well armed political movement then I would be significantly more cautious with my speech. Trump and I are different people with different audiences and different responsibilities. This isn’t especially complicated. People don’t think it’s worse for Trump to call for the murder of his opponents because he’s not a tl mod. They think it’s worse for him to call for it because it’s worse for him to call for it.
I’m not sure how “it’s worse when Trump does it” is an excuse for anything
If I said something shitty there would be 15 regular users waiting to pile on me for it. Those users are suspiciously quiet right now.
EPT
sadly I will have to find someone else to vote for. 
