Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - cherrypoptart

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
General Comments / Re: Concentration camps
« on: November 12, 2019, 02:36:43 PM »
We all tried to help with an international coalition and UN Peacekeepers in Somalia.

Google autocompletes "UN Peacekeepers Somalia" with the word "failure".

If that had gone better I suspect we might have gotten more involved elsewhere.

As it is, it was a harsh lesson about the limits of power.

2
General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 09, 2019, 06:57:31 AM »
Trump was wrong. He admitted he was wrong. He made it right in the end, under duress perhaps but still they are paying an extra 2 million to charity so it all worked out.

Are we all supposed to turn on him over this? We need to support open borders because a Trump charity didn't keep its books tight? Perhaps it would be easier to get more upset with Trump if there was an alternative but it's down to Trump or open borders and so the math on that is that whatever Trump does wrong has to be worse than allowing virtually unlimited immigration through completely open borders before it adds up to something worth freaking out about.

The Last Detail was about a sailor who gets sentenced to eight years in prison for stealing forty dollars out of a donation box for a charity fund run by a senior officer's wife. That was my way of taking a dig at Trump. Yeah, what he did wasn't right but at least he made it right in the end. Same with the Kurds. That was some letter he sent to Turkey.

3
General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 09, 2019, 12:21:23 AM »
The Last Detail.

4
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 06, 2019, 09:35:28 AM »
I've been listening to a lot of NPR lately and their coverage is so blatantly biased and one sided that it's absolutely pathetic.

5
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 01, 2019, 09:31:51 PM »
And don't forget Bill Clinton bombing the aspirin factory on the eve of the Lewinsky hearings, either as a futile attempt at distraction or perhaps just in a fit of rage wanting to kill someone to prove how much power he still had.

Wiki: "These justifications for the bombing were disputed by the owners of the plant, the Sudanese government, and other governments. American officials later acknowledged "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s." The attack took place a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and two months after the film Wag the Dog, prompting some commentators to describe the attack as a distraction for the public from the scandal."

6
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 01, 2019, 12:36:36 AM »
Well it's demonstrably partisan because only Democrats voted for it. Would they do it for Cruz or Rubio? More likely Cruz than Rubio and of course there's no way to be sure but I wouldn't put it past them. I wouldn't put anything past them at this point. This is just more "nuclear option" on display. It's always been about power and only about power. The Democrats feel it slipping away and they've become desperate and desperation breeds contempt. That's a good explanation for a lot of what we've seen lately. And yes I can see how that cuts both ways. Something has just snapped.

7
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 31, 2019, 11:44:46 PM »
The lie is that it isn't just some partisan exercise. That's exactly what it is, and that's all it is. Even for the couple of Democrats who voted against it, it was just politics because they run in districts that Trump won. This is just sour grapes from sore losers and is exactly what not accepting the results of an election looks like which is of course deliciously, hilariously ironic because it's coming from the same people who lectured Trump and all of us on the vital importance of accepting the results of the election.

8
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 31, 2019, 10:58:53 PM »
Lie of the day:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/impeachment-house-trump/601213/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo

"...Democrats tried to insist otherwise. “We are not here in some partisan exercise,” declared Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the Democratic sponsor of the impeachment resolution...

...Yet when lawmakers gathered in the House chamber this morning, the actual tally turned out to be like so many others in Congress: party-line and partisan, a mere formality. Not a single House Republican voted with Democrats to affirm the impeachment."

Taken out of order in the article but the point is this is totally partisan. It's sets the precedent that if the party that loses the Presidency wins the Congress they can go ahead and impeach the President just to overturn the results of the election. The vast majority of the Democrats in Congress would do exactly that if they could, and they'll try anyway even if they don't have the numbers to succeed.

9
General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: October 30, 2019, 10:01:11 PM »
Nailed it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/impeachment-farce-limps-along-anticlimax-191335469.html

"... A shabby fraud launched by a partisan whistleblower who is acting on hearsay about an innocuous telephone call whose summary, though perhaps not entirely complete, was immediately released to the public cannot go much farther. It has been kept alive by a Star Chamber in which the president is not represented and the Republican questioning and calling of witnesses is done at the behest of the Democratic leadership. It cannot produce a serious offense that the president could actually be accused of committing, and now it is to be sustained by a dubious vote that will only slightly alter its almost totalitarian one-sidedness. This ghastly farce has been presided over by a pathological public liar, Representative Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), who has outdone even his previous fiasco of failing to produce his “conclusive evidence” of the president’s “treason” with Russia. The country will not tolerate seeing its elected leader defamed and smeared by odious little people who would strip him of his elected office...

... Under any scenario, the wheels are coming off this disgraceful Democratic garbage cart in all directions. Impeachment will fizzle ignominiously while the former administration is arraigned on serious charges from the Russian scandal, and the Democrats will wallow in their squalid failure to produce a feasible candidate for the White House. Normalcy, for which the country longs, is not dead; it is reawakening at last..."

10
Democrats are showing us the alternative and proving it's even worse. If the President didn't have that protection there is no doubt they'd throw one frivolous lawsuit after another at him.

11
Well the Second Amendment does say arms and not guns. If you have guns presumably you have bullets and if you have bullets you have explosives that can be used to make IEDs or drone weapons. I'm also thinking about cyber attacks and then you have our infrastructure that is vulnerable not to mention simple forest fires. The only thing that keeps our society functioning as well as it does is that there are only a relative handful of people who want to cause trouble. If that number gets into the millions the trouble they could cause would quickly bring our civilization to its knees.

12
I wrote this out but didn't post it but what they hey decided to post it anyway. This is always fun to think about. The Last Ship touched on it a little bit, sort of. 24 too.

I humbly beg to differ (that civilians couldn't take out a rogue government). If Trump pulled some sort of Palpatine and literally went to Congress and shot the senators dead on live TV and he tried to stay in power that is exactly what the 2nd Amendment is for. The militia is the common citizenry. Hopefully some elements of the military would side with the citizens. Even if not, the math is not on the side of the military. There are about 2 million active duty military and reserves. However many fighting age civilians there are in America, there are enough guns for each of them with millions left over. Ha, you're about to get me started. Sigh... we've been over this before though and it's always fun to speculate but of course there are too many variables to say exactly how it would go. But our armed civilians wouldn't be lining up on a battlefield to fight our military Civil War style. It would be guerilla tactics aka terrorism and we've seen how ineffective our military can be against asymmetrical warfare, and that's against 3rd world countries. If you take into account the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the American people I definitely wouldn't want to be against them in an all out Civil War. We would see things, as far as creative attacks against our government, that we can't even imagine yet. Saw a little of it in Olympus Has Fallen with the drone attack. Things like that would just be a small taste of it. We think about guns in civilian hands but drones would probably be even more dangerous.

------------------------------------

Agree with DW that the squashing wouldn't be happening because the civilians wouldn't play fair.

13
General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 24, 2019, 11:18:17 AM »
We should have a tribute to the fallen. I'm raising a cup (of coffee) in remembrance. This is just the start of the list. Feel free to add. Some left on their own. Some were taken from us. All are missed. Any would be welcomed back with open arms.

Daruma. Everard. Quato. Scott Stream. KnightEnder.

14
It looks like Trump is making it right. Hopefully the Kurds can have peace without our troops having to be the meat shields providing it. As it should be.

15

Wayward Son

"What if, instead of killing a man on 5th Avenue, he shoots most of Congress.  Who would have authority to remove him from office?

The replacement Congressmen?  He suspends elections.  Sure, it's illegal, but who's going to stop him?  He's above the law, not like us peasants.  He can do whatever he likes if Congress doesn't stop him.  And if there is no longer a Congress, there is no legal way to remove him..."

The Constitution provides for a scenario like that. In that case the President can be removed in accordance with the provisions of the 2nd Amendment.

16
General Comments / Re: They’re all Russian agents
« on: October 24, 2019, 10:45:48 AM »
Correction. Sort of. I guess.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turns-out-hillary-clinton-said-republicans-not-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-2019-10-24?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

The Associated Press said: “In a story Oct. 18 about Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton, The Associated Press reported erroneously that Hillary Clinton said she believes the Russians have ‘got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and grooming her to be the third-party candidate.’ She was referring to Republicans, not Russians, according to an aide.”

Either way, Clinton’s comments were still a slam on Gabbard, who she referred to as “a favorite of the Russians.” Clinton also called former Green Party candidate Jill Stein “a Russian asset.”

------------------------------------------------------------

Not much of a backtrack really. Seems like splitting hairs.

But it's not hard to see why Republicans would push Tulsi. She's is definitely the best candidate the Democrats have running. If for some reason Trump did lose or more likely couldn't run because of health reasons or whatever, she would be the candidate Republicans could live with best. At least she pays lip service to border security. And then of course there is her lion king workout.


17
General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 21, 2019, 09:41:35 AM »
I should have prefaced my statement with the disclaimer that none of what I was about to say necessarily applies to anyone here. Maybe Trump is a singularity. Perhaps families wouldn't be breaking themselves apart if it wasn't for Trump and people wouldn't be beating each other up in the streets, hitting someone for wearing the wrong kind of hat and so forth. It's possible things would be much more civilized. I don't want to say I doubt it because I'm not quite that sure. If I had to put odds on it I'd say there is maybe a 65% chance that if a Republican other than Trump had won things wouldn't be this vitriolic, abrasive, divisive and sometimes downright violent. But there is a 35% chance that they would. Or perhaps another way to look at it is if a Republican other than Trump had won maybe 65% of the people who hate Trump would disagree with that person but wouldn't be as hateful about it and 35% of the people who hate Trump would hate the other Republican exactly as much. Just kind of stray thoughts here.

18
General Comments / Re: Innocent Hillary
« on: October 21, 2019, 08:13:08 AM »
You know I hear what everyone is saying about people just hate Trump so much with a deep visceral loathing so that nothing he ever did would be worth anything and while that's very true I actually question whether it is because it is Trump himself or just the way politics, especially from the left, is leaning these days with a take no prisoners, make no compromise, demonize the enemy approach and Trump's personal idiosyncrasies make the inborn hatred just easier to rationalize. What I mean is that even if it hadn't been Trump who won, for instance let's say it was Cruz or Romney or even Rubio; it wouldn't matter. The gloves are off and no matter who it was they would be getting the exact same treatment as Trump. Just like W. Bush did then and as the Ellen encounter proves if anything it's even worse now. No forgiveness. No understanding. No meeting anyone half way or trying to see things from their point of view. No agreeing to disagree. No mercy. Kavanaugh is a good example of this.

When Pence becomes President after Trump finishes his second term and is term limited out my prediction is that as bad as Trump is treated right now, and hated, Pence will be treated and hated even worse. It's not Trump or Pence themselves so much as the people who hate them. They'd hate anyone else just as much and it's not that they'll hate Pence more just because he's worse in any way but just because that's how things will flow as time goes on. It's only going to get worse.

Kind of like the it's not you, it's me. Or it's not me, it's you. In this case it's not him, it's them.

I could be wrong though. And hopefully I am.

19
General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 18, 2019, 03:47:22 PM »
Trump has been the cause of too many families breaking apart and people estranging themselves from one another. Can't we all just get along? If Ellen DeGeneres can watch a baseball game with George Bush hopefully we can all at least stay on speaking terms.

20
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 15, 2019, 11:58:58 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-jr-mocks-hunter-biden-190040845.html

“‘It is impossible for me to be on any of the boards I just mentioned without saying that I’m the son of the vice president of the US. I don’t think that there’s a lot of things that would have happen in my life that if my name wasn’t Biden’ Hunter Biden.”

How are these companies getting value for all the money they are paying him to be on these boards?

21
General Comments / Re: The insanity of the left
« on: October 14, 2019, 07:14:48 AM »
It's fascinating how often people who completely unprepared to deal with the entirely predictable results of their own actions. It gets even more amusing when they won't even accept responsibility. Yes, that applies to more than any one group of people but this is a fine example of it in action.

22
The AUMF doesn't provide the justification to keep our troops in the sovereign nation of Syria for the purpose of protecting the Kurds from Turkey. With ISIS destroyed it doesn't seem to provide the justification to keep troops in Syria at all. What is our legal justification in accordance with American law to keep troops in Syria indefinitely? Yes, I like the Kurds so hopefully the UN can do something to help them and we should push in that direction and also exert direct pressure on Turkey as a member of NATO.

23
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 07, 2019, 04:02:12 PM »
After Biden got that prosecutor fired was the Burisma probe carried out or was it effectively stopped?

24
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 05, 2019, 12:58:48 AM »
It's the same crime Trump was accused of, cooperating with Russian nationals to influence an American election.

25
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 07:26:49 PM »
Having someone do your dirty work for you doesn't make you less guilty of the crime.

26
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 07:05:49 PM »
So we have the Hillary campaign which actually did what Trump is accused of doing, colluding with Russia to dig up dirt on a political rival to influence an American election, and not only that but the political dirt they did dig up and make public was a pack of golden shower lies. And there has been no call from the Democrats in Congress for an investigation, no subpoenas, no nothing. But that's only because she lost, right? If she had won the election and was the President right now the same Democrats in Congress that are calling for Trump to be impeached would be all over Hillary Clinton the exact same way.

We all know that wouldn't happen. None of it would matter. The important thing would be getting down to business for the benefit of the American people. People can take double standards for only so long before they don't take anything said seriously anymore, and the Democrats reached that point years ago. Their crude plans, their too clever by half ways, they are too transparent and there's just nothing left to see.

27
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 06:44:47 PM »
> Because I don't ever recall when the Democrats did anything and the Republicans considered it "totally fine." 

I should have been more specific. Apologies.  I meant that it was totally fine with the Democrats and the mainstream media.

28
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 06:10:28 PM »
"Wayward Son

But in your hypothetical situation, cherry, why is the President investigating this random guy?"

I was just trying to apply objective criteria to a specific instance and see if this is a crime or not, objectively. Would this be illegal if the people involved weren't the people they are in this case.  Maybe that's impossible here.

I did see something else interesting in internet comments where people were asking if this isn't a big deal to ask governments to investigate American citizens then how many other governments has Trump asked to investigate how many other American citizens? I thought that was a pretty good question. Apparently the answer was, "I'll get back to you on that." So probably none.

As to your questions yes it's obvious all of this is completely political and Trump's motivations here are purely political. I'll grant that. If it was so low level politician or maybe a Republican that supported Trump and his son was getting paid while that politician exerted influence would Trump care? No, probably not. It wouldn't be on his radar. So yeah this is totally political but I doubt that makes it illegal. After all, as has been pointed out, the Democrats did the same things and worse and it was totally fine. Looking for real corruption and conflicts of interest and making those public isn't a crime and shouldn't be and just because it's your political rivals you are looking for dirt on doesn't change that. If that was illegal Hillary would already be in prison.

29
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 04:38:17 PM »
> Wayward Son

"Yes, I think so.

You wouldn't have any problem with Trump using his position as President of the United States to investigate a private citizen for his own personal reasons?"

----------------------------------------------------------

Okay I apologize for not making the hypothetical situation more clear. It's just some random guy being investigated, someone who is not politically connected, so there is no issue there where it looks like Trump is investigating for his own personal reasons.

Now is it a problem if Trump threatens to withhold military aid or money or holds up an arms deal unless this person is investigated?

In other words, the crime isn't what Trump did. It's the fact that he did it against Biden. Or any Democrat he might be running against.

--------------------------------------------------------------


"Do you really think it is moral and "usual" for a President to possibly affect the security of an ally, and possibly our own nation, just to check out a private citizen?"

Okay, nvm about not making the hypothetical situation clear enough. You get it. Yeah, I think it's moral and usual for a President to to that. If they're an ally they won't mind helping us out with investigations. If they refuse then how much of an ally are they?

If this was about money laundering in Columbia or something and an investigation into an American financial criminal was the issue and the President said we'd like you to look into this and the help we're giving you to fight the drug war down there is in play then how is that a problem? The President even says it's quid pro quo. Investigate this guy or you don't get the money. If the political angle isn't involved then I don't see how it's a crime for the President to negotiate like that. I mean if the country then comes back and says no we are giving the guy you are investigating asylum, we refuse to extradite him, and we're not only not going to help you but we're going to protect him then does the President still have to give them arms, money, and everything else? No, he could say all deals are off then.

However, when I put it that way, I can agree that it would be problematic doing the same thing when it's a political rival in the next election.  But that also makes my point. It's not what he did, it's the person he did it against.

30
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 04, 2019, 03:51:15 PM »
Hypothetically let's say it wasn't Joe Biden and his son whose corruption was the issue. Let's say it was someone like Marc Rich, an international commodities trader, hedge fund manager, financier and businessman who as far as I know was never a politician and never ran for public office. So if the same allegations against Trump were true but it wasn't a politician he was talking about, would it still be a crime? Trump tells Ukraine he wants an investigation into the finances of some Marc Rich type guy and if he doesn't get it then the arms deal will be put on hold. Is that an impeachable offense? Is it a crime? Is it even wrong?

Now if there is no problem with that scenario but there is with the Biden corruption and influence peddling then are we essentially saying that it should be harder to investigate corruption of politicians than it is the financial crimes of regular civilians?

Basically the crime then isn't what Trump did, it's the person he did it against. Democrats are Untouchables.

31
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 03, 2019, 06:18:13 PM »
"One reason I want Trump to lose is so I can watch everyone do a 180 on what they are offended by and willing to defend and attack.  One reason I want Trump to lose is so I can watch everyone do a 180 on what they are offended by and willing to defend and attack." 

Examples of this might be interesting as a thread topic.

32
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 02, 2019, 09:02:38 PM »
It is already known that Trump is guilty, and so is anyone who supports or helps him.

This is now officially a second Inquisition.

33
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 02, 2019, 08:30:59 PM »
Some people say the prosecutor investigating Burisma deserved to be fired because he was corrupt and was actually slow walking the Burisma investigation and others say he was fired on orders from Joe Biden right before Hunter was about to be called to give a statement about the money he was getting at Burisma but what you don't see in the media is what actually happened with the Burisma investigation after he was replaced. Of course, he could be corrupt and still intent on investigating Burisma because he hadn't yet been paid enough not to.

But a good question is what ever happened with the investigation? Did the investigation continue and reach some sort of conclusion or did it just go away? I wish I knew. I haven't heard anything about Hunter getting interviewed by the new prosecutor and I haven't heard anything about a conclusion, either that Burisma was totally legit or that there was pay for access. But the media not saying anything about the results of the investigation, if there was one after the prosecutor conducting it was fired, would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it just kind of dropped off the radar. The same reasonable person might conclude that if the investigation was dropped after he was fired and after Biden said big money was getting held up unless he was fired, then two plus two equals Joe Biden used American taxpayer money as leverage to get the guy investigating the company his son was working for fired and after that the investigation went nowhere, ipso facto quid pro quo.

I suppose the point is that maybe what we need right now is a very thorough investigation into what exactly went on there. Trump is right to press for it. We need to dig deep and root out all the corruption of the previous administration. If Trump was smart he'd be declassifying a lot more of the Obama era information, like phone call transcripts, White House visitor logs, etc. There is no need to worry about the same thing happening to Trump because it already is anyway.

34
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 25, 2019, 12:31:49 AM »
Well I guess avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is out the window. Big Biden brags about over a billion dollars he can either let flow or stop in its tracks. Little Biden is making hundreds of thousands of dollars in Ukraine. What is the timeline on that? When is it known that big Biden is the decision maker on a billion dollars going to Ukraine or getting held up and how does that date compare to when little Biden is getting paid all this loot? Quid pro quo. Of course you can never prove a quid pro quo which is what makes it so beautiful but if Ukraine knows that big Biden can send all that money their way and then after that little Biden gets some money thrown at him and then after that the money flows, is that not something somebody can ask questions about? Would asking such questions be illegal and even unConstitutional and even an impeachable offense? Does the fact that an American citizen asking such questions is violating the law explain why the Democrats and our media refuse to ask them?


I agree the prosecutor angle is neither here nor there. I also like how there is this assumption that if Trump asked such questions he broke the law and needs to be impeached. I'm pretty sure that asking such questions (for instance was there something fishy going on between big Biden controlling these purse strings and his son at the same time in the same place pocketing a wad of loot?) would be protected by the First Amendment, not to mention common sense. The American people have a right to know if that was a pay to play situation. I mean it's patently obvious that it was. Probably can never be proven, a good chance it wasn't even illegal because the lawyers lawyered it up sufficiently and there is enough plausible deniability to make sure nothing can stick, but it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out there was some palm greasing going on. It would be nice to have an investigation at least.

If we've all learned anything, it is that you always follow the money.

The prosecutor angle is such a distraction. Harping on how there was no motive there means nothing. That was never the motive for anything. The motive is what it is 99.9% of the time. Money. What exactly did little Biden do to earn it?

About as much as Hillary did to earn her hundreds of thousands for a speech to big bankers and nobody has any idea what she said? Pay for play. Money to buy influence. In short, bribery, and often as I said completely legal. Still completely valid to talk about though until they change the Constitution.

35
General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 23, 2019, 05:32:35 PM »
All of that would be more convincing if the architect hadn't let the cat out of the bag. Even CNN covered it.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/index.html

True, he wasn't talking specifically about the like your doctor part of it but he made it very clear that lying to the American people about it was an essential part of the process in getting it passed into law. Now I'll give Obama some credit for not hedging at all in his statement about "like your doctor." He left himself no wiggle room, no disclaimer, no fine print. He said "Period." You don't often see politicians, especially lawyer politicians, brave enough to do that. He didn't try to finesse it by saying if it passes the way we intend it, if the states cooperate, and so on. He said, "Period." So when that didn't happen even if it was for reasons beyond his control or ability to anticipate, that made him a liar. As he might put it, period.

Now none of that means that we should all just accept everyone lying to us all the time. Sure we know it happens, but we still need to call them on it. It just means that it's harder for the left to get up on their high horse about it because Obama ran that horse through uneven terrain, hobbled it, and sadly had to take it out back and shoot it. I've got no problem with calling Lewandowski on this. No problem at all. Let's just call them all on it from now on, shall we?

36
General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 21, 2019, 08:52:51 PM »
I held off on bringing this up as long as I could and frankly I think I deserve a pat on the back.

Should I be surprised that Obama hasn't come to Lewandoski's defense here? Obama obviously agrees that nobody has an obligation to be honest to the press, or the public. Not even the President.

https://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/


37
General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 19, 2019, 02:10:38 PM »
Well it may be a matter of where his loyalties lie (lie, hehe).

Look at a real estate agent. It's actually against the law for them to be completely honest. How is that for a legal system that makes it illegal to tell the whole truth?

For instance, look at the law regarding the disclosure of the fact that someone died of AIDS in a house. On the surface the law allows that fact to be kept hidden from a purchaser. A bit deeper into it there is a valid interpretation that it actually makes it illegal to disclose the fact that someone died of AIDS there.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-11-re-40-story.html

The next year, Congress passed an amendment to the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, adding the handicapped--including persons with AIDS--as a new protected class.

That meant that the real estate industry was prohibited from discriminating against those with AIDS in the sale or rental of property.

Although the legislation does not specifically address the issue of disclosure, “such a disclosure could be considered a discriminatory action which is clearly prohibited by the Federal Fair Housing Act,” according to a NAR discussion paper.

What does the real estate broker do when asked specifically by the buyer if the seller has AIDS?

“If you are asked by a potential purchaser, ‘Is there any peculiar history to this house?’ the new statutes do not authorize a broker to lie,” said Mike Finn, director of license law at NAR.

“But there are a number of options for the broker. He can say, ‘Gee, let me ask the seller and find out if there are any things he will tell you.’ But if the seller responds, ‘That’s none of your business,’ that is acceptable under the law too.”

Likewise in California, according to Creel, “the law doesn’t immunize a real estate broker and allow him to tell a lie or make an intentional misrepresentation. But that is very different from saying he must answer truthfully. He could beg off, but he couldn’t say absolutely ‘no.’ He could certainly say, ‘I am not prepared to answer that question.’ ”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's funny to me. Congress passes a law making it illegal to answer a question truthfully. Then they turn around and get on this guy's case when he says he doesn't owe them an obligation of honesty to the media when Congress itself said that real estate agents have no obligation of honesty to home buyers.

Another completely unrelated case regarding politicians' spokesmouths' obligation of honesty to the media, or lack thereof, is when they are running for office and they know they have no chance and really don't have any serious intention of going all the way but they always say they are going all the way anyway even though everyone knows that's a farce and they are really just building up their campaign war chests, getting traction for their favorite issues, setting up their re-election for their lower office, getting face and press time and name recognition, and maybe ogling for a seat at the table for instance in the Cabinet or perhaps an ambassadorship. In that case their obligation is absolutely not to be honest with the media but to serve their campaign and the two are sometimes mutually exclusive.

38
General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 18, 2019, 07:00:29 PM »
What's the difference between no obligation to honesty and Hillary Clinton's inability to recall or remember dozens of times if not over a hundred? Is he saying he can lie outright or is he saying that complete candor and telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is not required? Because Hillary Clinton obviously felt exactly the same way even if she wasn't, ironically enough, as forthright and honest about it.

39
General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 09:22:10 PM »
I could go for a Marianne-Yang ticket and would support it 100%. I wouldn't actually vote for it but I'd tell everyone how much I like it just like I did with Jill Stein. And I do like Marianne and Yang. I like that I don't smell the stench of deep corruption from them that is coming off of most of the rest of the Dem field. Their platforms are also... what's the kind word for it... oh yeah... interesting.

Apparently Biden's eye bleed is no cause for alarm and was caused when he tried to should rub and hair smell the wrong little girl who wasn't having it. The same thing could happen to any of us if we went around doing that.

40
General Comments / Re: Koch foods should be held to account
« on: September 13, 2019, 08:06:06 AM »

Fenring

"how is it fair that we have to hire based on a high minimum wage, when we're directly competing with countries that pay cents on the dollar for the same labor?"

And also how is it fair that we have to hire people legally when we are competing with companies even in America, like Koch, that hire illegals?

41
General Comments / Re: Nice business you have there
« on: September 06, 2019, 09:16:25 PM »
"A private business can be compelled by law to serve a customer. A customer cannot be compelled by law to patronize a private business."

That was true until Obamacare.

42
General Comments / Re: Would anybody care to defend this Trump move?
« on: September 06, 2019, 12:44:42 AM »
I'll defend Trump on this assuming he said it, with perhaps a little of advocacy for the devil just because nobody is tackling the issue head on and instead debating whether or said it or not. So for the sake of argument I'll assume he said it and go from there. So what? He intends to get the wall built and if laws have to be broken to do it then it's his prerogative if they are federal laws to pardon anyone he wants to who breaks those laws that are standing in his way.

Hopefully everyone is caught up on 24 by now but if not spoiler alert. Apparently the President has the authority to pardon someone in advance even for murder which happened when the President agreed to pardon Nina even if she murdered federal agent Jack Bauer.

Now generally murder is a state crime so that may run into some problems of jurisdiction there and the President as far as I know doesn't have the authority to pardon state crimes but if these are federal environmental laws and federal endangered species act provisions that are holding up the construction of the border wall while we are literally being invaded by tens of thousands of illegals per month then that is the President's prerogative for the defense of the nation which is his number one job and priority.

There is a strong case to be made that the President can legally do this as it falls under his Constitutional power to pardon. There is nothing in the Constitution that says he can't promise to pardon someone in advance and that means there is a very strong legal argument that he can do exactly that.

Again this all presupposes we are talking about federal laws and not state laws, but the federal government has jurisdiction over the border so if there are state laws that get in the way the federal government would be able to preempt them in this specific area.

Just for some argument by absurdity if Russian tanks were rolling across the southern border and Congress because it was controlled by Democrats who didn't want to give Trump the advantage of being a wartime President while running for re-election just absolutely refused to declare war even to defend the country from invasion, would Trump be within his legal rights as President to mine the Southern border even if it would obviously destroy the environment and kill a lot of animals, many of them endangered? And could he promise to pardon anyone who violated federal laws that got in the way and then deliver on that promise later and actually pardon them as they were charged with federal crimes? Or would he have to wait years for lawsuits to wind their way through the courts before he did anything concrete to stop a blitzkrieg of Russian armor?

So this answer has to separate parts. One, can he legally do it according to the Constitution?

Two, even if he can do it, should he? Those are completely different issues and many may get the second mixed up with the first assuming that just because they think he shouldn't do it that necessarily means he legally can't do it and it's unConstitutional.

43
Yeah I could go in that direction too, like Dexter the lab tech and blood spatter analysis expert was someone I would think of as a "justice involved person." A convicted murderer out on parole isn't someone to whom I would apply a term like that. This all reminds me of that thing you always hear people say about 1984, that our side read it and thought of it as a cautionary tale but the other side read it and saw it more as a blueprint.

44
This one just tickled my fancy too much.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-board-adopts-new-language-for-criminals-turning-convicted-felon-into-justice-involved-person

"Crime-ridden San Francisco has introduced new sanitized language for criminals, getting rid of words such as “offender” and “addict” while changing “convicted felon” to “justice-involved person.”

The Board of Supervisors adopted the changes last month even as the city reels from one of the highest crime rates in the country and staggering inequality exemplified by pervasive homelessness alongside Silicon Valley wealth.

The local officials say the new language will help change people’s views about those who commit crimes."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems Orwellian doublespeak which I just looked up the definition of to make sure I'm thinking of it correctly and indeed it is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.

If I hadn't read this story and I was introduced to someone and they were described as a "justice-involved person" I would think to myself oh that's cool, they must be, you know, involved in the justice system somehow. Maybe they are a prosecuting attorney, or a barrister, a courtroom  transcriptionist or stenographer, an advocate or expert witness, maybe a paralegal or perhaps even a judge.  Convicted criminal would not be the first thing to come to mind. I guess that's the point though, isn't it?

45
General Comments / Re: Trump's Greenland
« on: August 22, 2019, 07:32:39 AM »
Trump still could have met with them to be polite even after they refused to entertain his fancy, but on the broader point I support buying some more real estate for America. And putting the feelers out there might get some offers from another country. Probably not. It's a long shot. But worth a shot. And we wouldn't have to buy all of Greenland. Maybe just a relatively small uninhabited slice. Or wipe out the debt of Greece with the purchase of just one of their cool little islands, maybe even one they aren't using that much of right now, and of course anyone there gets paid fair value for their land plus becomes an instant millionaire with that country's equivalent of the power of eminent domain to move them. It could be a little piece of another country too, that we would develop and use to attract tourists too which would hopefully help their economy by spillover tourism, for instance on a little piece of land in Latin America somewhere; maybe even pick a piece currently controlled by the most violent gangs or drug cartels and once we own it we go in and clean it out, develop it, build some skyscrapers to rival the Burj Khalifa with relatively well paid for them and relatively inexpensive local labor for us that gains them useful construction experience to use on their own country's projects once they are done with ours.

There could even be an immigration angle for instance with Honduras or Nicaragua or El Salvador or all three with a deal that if they sell us some land then all of their citizens currently in the U.S. illegally will get a path to American citizenship, just to sweeten the pot. Or maybe make a deal to allow dual citizenship between the countries like we have with the Swiss and a few others.  We open up some American universities there that host mostly foreigners to let them perfect their English and get a good education without even having to worry about the illegal immigrant visa overstay angle many who come here like to play. We build factories there on American soil paying taxes to the American Treasury but that employ the citizens of the country that sold us the land to help alleviate the problems of people who would have become economic migrants. They don't have to send their poor to us for jobs here. We'll send America there and create the jobs in a more convenient location for them. I think it'd  be a great idea to acquire some new American territory and it would be a boon to whatever country sold it to us. This is another case though where Trump is just putting out there an idea I had on my own long before he was a politician. We grow the pie.


46
General Comments / Re: Hong Kong
« on: August 14, 2019, 08:00:04 AM »
We could offer special amnesty and asylum terms for people who want to flee Hong Kong.

47
General Comments / Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« on: August 11, 2019, 07:49:19 PM »
I wonder which way Occam's razor leans on this one.

48
General Comments / Re: The Hunt
« on: August 07, 2019, 10:46:02 PM »
Maybe they'll reshoot it with a twist or alternate ending in which the deplorables get the upper hand and have their revenge. That's how it always works out in the other movies where the victims turn the worm and put the shoe on the other foot though I highly doubt that was the original ending for this film it would make it interesting and "fair". If they kept it secret enough and surprised everyone with an ending like that it would be like a double irony play and the people saying the movie was no big deal might all of a sudden be quite offended while those who were offended would be laughing their heads off. Maybe I should drop this into the producers' suggestion box and ask for a screen credit as a script consultant. Might be a sneaky way to save their investment anyway.

But yeah, as it is the so called irony of it might get interpreted more as hypocrisy and even worse for art sometimes, just bad taste, like Kathy Griffin's Trump head.

49
General Comments / Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« on: July 30, 2019, 05:59:40 PM »

TheDrake


"It isn't legal for us to interfere in foreign elections according to most nations' laws. I'm definitely not a fan."

But are we going to make it illegal for Americans to interfere in foreign elections according to our own laws?

And what exactly are we talking about by interfere here?

Facebook posts and internet memes?

50
General Comments / Re: Fake News (the fight we needed to have?)
« on: July 30, 2019, 04:47:43 PM »
I'm curious if all of the proposed solutions also apply to the U.S. attempting to influence elections in other countries. Would we be making it illegal for foreigners to do something regarding our elections that it will remain perfectly legal for us to do regarding theirs?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18