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 - D.W.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
General Comments / Re: Do we still have a Fourth Amendment?
« on: December 07, 2019, 03:59:48 PM »
I look forward to Trump doing this during the senate trial.
  I hope that this is just being snarky but sometimes I think people really DO look forward to this.  They salivate at the thought of the other side crossing a line so that they can gleefully rush forward and exploit every new possibility and probably a few of their own, instead of, you know, holding people accountable, or trying to stop future occurrences of abuses.

Not that my question was answered.  But obviously some believe there was abuse.  Or is this just a poorly reasoned deflection?

General Comments / Re: Do we still have a Fourth Amendment?
« on: December 06, 2019, 04:46:02 PM »
I haven't been following this very closely, but one thing I read was that both of these two examples were the OTHER side of records subpoenaed. 

Has that explanation been debunked and the journalist / attorney were the subjects of the subpoena? 

General Comments / Re: A Warning
« on: December 06, 2019, 10:53:52 AM »
I don't think anyone but you read all of this as a scheme to disparage trump.
Myself and Crunch you mean.  But point made.  Continue your tangent.  ;)

General Comments / Re: A Warning
« on: December 06, 2019, 09:04:18 AM »
Go ahead and search "Orange Man Bad" or "OMB" here and see what turns up.  Might be interesting.

General Comments / Re: A Warning
« on: December 04, 2019, 04:52:21 PM »
Some interesting gymnastics going on in this thread. 

Either you believe the assertions are BS, or you don't.  They are calling him an idiot with an alarmingly short attention span who cannot grasp complicated topics.

General Comments / Re: Ilhan Omar - foreign agent
« on: November 26, 2019, 10:57:36 AM »
Again, while anything is possible, I tend to place my bet on your environment and circumstances rubbing off on your attitude.  No matter where she was born, or lived when very young, she is here now.  She has political power now.  Claim all you want that people of a specific society are predisposed to behave a certain way.  (Though apparently you may have to defend these observations from some.)  :P  But I think OUR society, of which she is by all measures a successful participant in, has it's own pull.

Even if your assertions were correct, and the situation outlined in the OP were presented, I just don't see swearing loyalty to anyone. 

Corruption I'm quick to accept as plausible.  This however?  My gut reaction is it's partisan nonsense directed at a lightning rod of criticism.   Religion/background/politics all "wrong" for some people making her a target.  Smears should be plausible for them to have any impact.  Otherwise they just damage those trying to employ them. 

General Comments / Re: Ilhan Omar - foreign agent
« on: November 26, 2019, 09:12:10 AM »
You DO realize why this sounds ridiculous right?  They cannot stop at accepting money or even at sharing information.  They gotta throw in that she swore allegiance to him?    ::)

I mean, crazy *censored* does happen, but this is built to be wholly dismissable.  Please do follow up in the weeks/months to come and let me know how it pans out.  I'll save some popcorn.

General Comments / Re: When did Trevor Noah get funny?
« on: November 26, 2019, 09:02:10 AM »
He's been funny out the gate as far as I'm concerned.  The problem is we were comparing him directly to Jon Stewart.  He's not AS good a host/funny as Jon.  Other than that?  No problems

General Comments / Re: In any other administration...
« on: November 21, 2019, 09:28:11 AM »
As the left continues to embrace violence, lies, and demonization of others,
That thing you're looking at?  Not a window or even a partisan lens.  That's called a mirror.   :P

General Comments / Re: pardon me
« on: November 18, 2019, 04:46:32 PM »
Hard to say.  We're fuzzy on the whole, "international law" thing anyway.  Does this do "harm" in that regard or just confirm things?  Sending the message to our troops that when in the field the law will sometimes look the other way, may smooth things over when it comes to questionable orders or the will to perform dangerous assignments where mistakes are more likely.  The negative aspect is... well the same as the 'benefit'. 

I think as a rule it's a good idea to have a system which can convict in these situations.  Even if they are pardoned...  In some ways it lends gravity to the situation without signaling to the rest of the world we don't give a *censored* about their opinion / victims.  Or, at least makes a scapegoat / villain out of the president, who, is the leader of said military anyway. 

I think on the whole it is a bad idea, but I lean a little bit towards the dirty globalist side of things.  :P   When I'm not being a tin-foil-hat-wearing isolationist anyhow...

It's possible, and should have been tried, but that's only part of the issue.  As we talked about before, establishing a Kurdish state was never on the table AFAIK, so who was acting as a human shield may be relevant, but how to resolve the issue so that one isn't needed was always going to be a mess. 

I would have preferred some more feet dragging, as it is obvious that shield was needed...

General Comments / Re: Jeffrey Epstein arrest
« on: November 08, 2019, 09:24:47 AM »
It's unbelievable, because it's bull*censored*. 

This is JUST popping up in the news cycles.  Up-thread was discussing that you are wrong about your assertion that ONLY the vast network of Clinton's defenders have this kinda juice, that's it.

Why do you think this Me Too movement was such a long time coming?  The system is setup to such that it takes a lot (too much) weight to tip the scales.  Pretty much everybody knows that already. 

But keep on shouting that it's the left who accepts and lets this happen.  I'm sure someone will actually take away that the right is the place to look for champions of women and those in need of support, defense and affirmation.   ::)

Ease up there Pizzagate

Is there any rhyme or reason to him switching from first to third person statements?  I've never really studied rhetorical devices but the guy's seemingly chaotic style is interesting if nothing else. 

General Comments / Re: DWTS as proxy
« on: November 05, 2019, 02:07:02 PM »
That whole genre is not about "talent" anyway.  It's about drama and upsets and... entertainment, which SOMETIMES is related to talent, but that's not required.  It's bottomfeeder TV.  <bah humbug>

General Comments / Re: DWTS as proxy
« on: November 05, 2019, 09:24:08 AM »
DWTS is it's own disorder.  Don't mix up your meds trying to treat symptoms of both Crunch.

WB Pete.  Had to scroll up to mid September to see what you were on about.  :P  Sorry I didn't pay enough attention to Clinton for your liking. 

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 01, 2019, 01:24:36 PM »
‘Default to the Truth’ seems more confusing than necessary when what you are talking about is rather 'Default to Trust.  At issue is the nature of anonymity online. 

In your tiny village / neighborhood / school, you learn who is and is not honest.  There are repercussions.   When dealing with strangers on a city wide level, this is strained and people become slightly less trustful of strangers, but still, you can learn to recognize individuals by name or by sight and know if you, or those you trust have a positive or negative opinion of their truthfulness. 

On the internet though?  You are best served by asking WHY someone is participating.  Genuine passion?  A desire to educate or share with others?
 Entertainment?  In order to refine their own views on a subject?  Curiosity?  Maybe they just like feeling superior to others.  Maybe they see a method to generate income.

Several of those motivations are best served by NOT being honest.  While what you describe does have some caustic impacts on our society, I would point out that 'correcting' that 'problem' leads to significant problems as well.  Those who are gullible, or duped into believing things they do not, (or perhaps cannot reasonably) verify.

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 01, 2019, 12:07:20 PM »
That makes a lot of sense ScottF.  Trump is also known for his transactional approach to... well everything. 

At issue here is the seeking of dirt on an opponent by a foreign power.  Wasn't it bad enough when non-US contractors were out dirt digging against Trump? 

General anti-corruption urging is great.  Targeted "witch hunts"?  Not so much.  :)

General Comments / Re: The Race is On
« on: November 01, 2019, 11:00:14 AM »
McConnell is making it clear there will never be a conviction on this bull*censored* but Democrats are going for it anyway so it’s clearly all about the election
  While there's a lot not to like about the whole process, you seem to be suggesting that if the Senate is dead set against it, the house should neglect their responsibilities if they observe impeachable offenses. 

This is every bit as messed up as what's been going on with the looming impeachment process for... (fill in the blank reason) we've seen so far.  Either it's a check on executive power, or it's not.  The Senate refusing to preform that check does not dictate the House must do the same.  (even if it will go nowhere)

Arguing that it's a sham, JUST political, and so on, I can understand.  Suggesting that it's any of these things only because the Senate majority leader predetermined it will fail is crap.  It may be those things... but certainly not for that reason. 

I'm also expressing the view that what the Democrats are doing is harming their chances of removing him rather than helping. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
I tend to agree with this.  The decision to impeach is being treated more as theater, a political cudgel, a PR campaign and so on.  Had they simply moved forward where they believed they had the grounds to do so, then at least it could be seen as members of the house believing they were doing their duty.

Right now, I expect they are generating more opposition than support.

TheDeamon, fixing "the real problems" is indeed important, but, from where I'm sitting, Trump IS a serious problem because his behavior/actions keep highlighting all those "real problems".  :P

This is like knowing that you have food allergies.  It's a serious condition but manageable if you DON'T EAT THOSE THINGS! 

Should you go and try to get treatment to lessen those allergies?  Sure, but it doesn't seem all that urgent until someone is slipping those things into your meals on a regular basis.   >:(

Tax returns?  That's just a tradition, not a rule.
Emolument Clause?  Suggestion only.
You wana subpoena my staff or me?  Executive privilege
Impeachment inquiry?  Why aren't my lawyers allowed to participate? 

There is A LOT of gray area that tradition, habit, public perception, party pressure and other things have been making work until someone looks at that line in the sand and steps across it daring everyone to do something about it.  I get that a lot of people feel that challenge is necessary, but this guy is not so much rewriting the rules, but he's illustrating to everyone that the "guidelines" weren't ever "rules" anyway, so you can all stuff it! 

So yes, I'm keen to see him constrained or removed (in the next election), but I'd like Congress to get off it's ass and... fix the glitches.

Your mistaken in assuming there is just one concern, or even one primary concern.

There is an open question on IF what was done is a crime.  Then to what extent it is or should be permissible.  The extent of immunity factors into the question of criminal activity/intent.  But it all boils down to a discussion of what the President's "lane" entails, and how to nudge him back into it (if appropriate), or how to kick him from office for refusing to stay in said lane (again, if appropriate).

Asking an ally, or potential ally to be more assertive in combating corruption seems like the exact type of thing we'd like to see our government, and indeed the president himself, get involved in. 

Asking them to look into a specific person or event, implying that this is what concerns us is a different matter.  Either they look into it and find nothing concerning, in which case, they may upset this ally or potential ally because the failure to condemn the focus of the investigation would be seen as more corruption, or finding concern could be seen by corruption in and of itself as this target was sacrificed for the good of relations between these two countries.  Both of these outcomes are likely enough, and concerning enough as to make the third, desired, outcome of promoting an anti-corruption agenda linked to a specific case, folly.

To even bring up a potential point of inquiry is something we do not want our president doing.  That is why you perform your own investigation when possible and request testimony/cooperation/documentation, through your own appropriate law enforcement apparatus.

I don't have an answer to your earlier question, but even if the president is the head of the law enforcement agencies, then he should be using OUR agencies to investigate.  I cannot see any situation where it's appropriate to ask another foreign power, particularly one who wants to remain in a favorable status with said president, to investigate for you.  Asking them for documentations regarding X topic?  Sure, I can see that, but otherwise the whole concept is just all around toxic.

I think the crux of the matter is that "Orange Man Bad" has made people aware of just how powerful the office of PotUS is, and they don't like it. except they're blaming Orange Man for being the problem rather than the office itself.
While Obama was in office we also had discussions of this nature.  It's not ALL O.M.B., but he does make it harder to ignore the cracks in the system. 

The other branches have sat on their hands while the Executive has consolidated power over the years.  For the most part the public is lulled because there are checks in place such that any one branch cannot get out of control.  Trumps demeanor (more than his actions) demand oversight and reassurance to many that those checks on power DO function.  But questioning executive overreach (or abuse of power) is not new to Trump by any means.

Can you unwind that a bit Fenring?  That sounds entirely contrary to the point DonaldD seemed to make with the quoted text.

I think for most of the layman here it's the divide between these:
Process of impeachment vs Trial for breaking one or more laws.

If you cannot prosecute while in office (something that seems reasonable as it really could bog down a president such that they couldn't do their job), then treating impeachment as a trial makes zero sense. 

Likewise, bogging down a president / administration such that it may as well be a trial, such that it defeats the whole intent of the impeachment process, also makes zero sense.

For me at least, there should be a non "remove you from office" power that forces a president / administration to cooperate with an investigation into wrong doing that is short of that measure.  Congress or outside litigants cannot spam a president with lawsuits but they SHOULD be able to petition Congress that a particular charge is serious enough that this blanket protection (or hold) should be suspended.

Now all of that wish list aside, what is happening now is political theater.  They know they won't remove him from office unless something truly stunning is revealed soon.  And nothing indicates that it will be.  Do I think he abused his power for political reasons against Biden?  You bet, but the Senate is gonna let that slide no matter what evidence the inquiry finds or what they recommend.  So they will just leak or make public what they want and use it to sway public opinion.  Because as everyone knows the proper response to an abuse of power is to abuse the system put in place to stop them...   ::)

Tricky question.  Above justice?  Yes.  The law?  Well pardons are part of the law... so, no?

An emperor, a king who could shoot someone on 5th Avenue, and if Congress agrees, is not subject to our laws, at least for his term in office?
But the law would kick in after that term...  It's not like it's diplomatic immunity where you can run someone over and never face justice for instance.

That's just it.  I wasn't holding my breath for a compromise.  I was hoping with Trump holding a gun to the head of our nation / its immigrant population / Congress, that they would make a knee-jerk reaction, even if nobody was happy with it, just to stop him.  :P

For awhile I was hoping similar logic would force Congress to 'solve' the immigration issue.  But it seems nothing can convince either side to fix something they don't want fixed...  We've just upped the stakes on how the topic can be leveraged.   :'(

Well said. 

Kinda like surfing the seedy parts of the internet to check if your virus and popup blocker really works as well as advertised or not.   ;D

This is like one of those color blind tests.  We know we are both looking at the same thing, but see entirely different pictures.  Every once in awhile, if I squint and turn my head just right, I can KINDA see what they are talking about before I lose it again.

TheDrake:  I'm concerned because of {list}
Seriati:  I'm comfortable with Trump because of how he's addressed {list}

means WS actually believes Trump is a murderer in waiting, too...
Trump DOES have a concealed carry permit, doesn't/didn't he?  I seem to recall reading that.  :P  So who knows!  haha

If you want to omit him from the "we" go right ahead, but that's not really the issue I'm raising, which is that there is a direct threat perceived from Trump and that the question is not truly hypothetical for you. Saying you don't really think murder is the threat is a misdirect since you (apparently) do seem to think there is a threat.
I think there is a threat of a threat.  :)  Meaning I fully expect him to make threats in line with him doing some extra-legal power grab; still short of murder, "but hey, you know, people love him, and some of those people... you know, they have guns.  And those people, let me tell you, they will fight for me." 

But at the end of the day, he'll be out, someone else will be in.  He'll do something, or at least propose something, wacky to cover his ass, it won't work, and we swear in the next POTUS.  Or maybe an ally of his will be in office next, and they will sweep any (alleged) crimes under the rug so "the nation can move on", and that's that, much to the outrage for that person's full term in office.

I don't know why you have such a bee in your bonnet, but it's absurd to keep acting like it's not on the table, when I LITERALLY had to respond to the hypo that our systems make not be adequate because the President could murder Congress.
I didn't realize I was the one with a bee in my bonnet.  :) 

To me this is akin to how we pick each other's metaphors apart when we are talking about something else, not literally stated. 

As to the sated, literal hypothetical?  :)

One or more Secret Service agents or sgt. at arms, on hand would snuff him out and accept the consequences for the good of his country should Trump, seriously, and literally start trying to execute congress... personally.  The End.   ::)

For instance there hasn't been and never, ever was a thread entitled "Obama could murder someone on 5th Ave and get away with it" because Obama was a chill dude.
Or just maybe it's because Obama never jokingly claimed he could do so...    ::)

Actually D.W. I think you're underplaying a literal narrative that's been in the air for a while, which is that Trump is a literal tyrant and may not give up the Presidency when his term is up.
IMO Trump WANTS to be a tyrant.  He admires people with tyranty qualities.  His 'style' is ill suited for democracy, and he knows it.  Will he push things as far as possible?  Yes, but so have those before him, most recently one of the party I favor.  Will he do so without care of how bad it looks?  Here is where he sets himself apart with a resounding YES.  Icing on the cake, he likes to imply or joke about tipping over that tyrant line.  Of civil war, riots in the street, a populous uprising to defend him. 

It's all in terribly bad taste, but that doesn't make him a tyrant.  Our system is pretty good at preventing that.  (as this discussion is pointing out)  We are talking a mass execution of congress for it to go down.  Complicity or at least strife caused paralysis of pretty much all of our law enforcement systems and even military.  It's implausible to the point of being discussed purely for entertainment value and (this is important) being a metaphor for what a prick this guy is for stress testing our system in this way.

Yes, Trump riles up a lot of people.  But no matter how much some people like to trot out OMB and TDS, we will never live up to the craziness with which the left are portrayed in the minds of those using such labels.

Apparently you did.  We are not "worried about it", because this is not a thread discussing how best to overthrow the tyrant.  It's not even seriously about war-gaming such a situation.  This is about the legal protections offered to the office and what the extents of them are, and... if the way they are understood is a "correct" interpretation of our system, with a hint of "should it be though?" tossed in for flavor.

Murder, is shorthand for asking if the protection is absolute.  We do this because setting a standard somewhere between "technically a crime but we aren't going to upend the government for THAT" and "what if he just starts a murder spree?" is not useful to discussion.  It's too subjective as our system insures that if you look hard enough everyone in that office would run afoul of SOME law, and that shouldn't get them bounced out of office.  But trying to codify the law and make a line in the sand is something we'd never agree upon.  So... MURDER!

With us now?

Nobody is honestly worried about Trump personally murdering anyone.  Only he, and his attorney have floated that hypothetical.  We DO think about other legal issues though.  But IF we are going to entertain Trump going (more?) mad and starting with the murderin' then... why stop with just one!  The preposterous scenarios are to demonstrate how preposterous Trump and this one guy (if not his team) are being in their "defense" or plea to end oversight (translate that to witch hunts if it's too loaded a term for ya Crunch).

second, the US Armed Forces would squash a revolt of armed citizens flat.
Bull.  You would be lucky to hang onto half of them.  The internal strife would be truly stunning before we even had to consider armed civilians.  And THAT assumes the secret service are all in lock step with the President's... coup?  No, umm... consoildation of power!

Gods, you guys are a bloody-minded lot.
Political Action Thrillers are interesting thought experiments.  At least for this bloody-minded poster.  :P

It was the flip side they were worried about.  Frivolous lawsuits bombarding a president with demands for appearance (and his attention) such that he couldn't actually do his job.

This is just the law of unintended consequences.  They did give the protection a safety feature though.  (they were damn good at those)

This "feature" however is what is freaking the President out right now.  He is looking at it as if it was a trial.  Not to downplay the seriousness of impeachment, but one reason it exists, is to remove that protection.  (so there could be a trial)

The most controversial part of the whole hypothetical is WTF secret service was up to while this event went down?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 23, 2019, 02:10:00 PM »
I hear what your saying and how from that perspective - all those that disagree with Trump handling of some issue comes from a place where they have determined he is guilty from the election on.
Don't be silly.  We thought this long before he ever ran for office.  We just didn't care about him enough to make issue of it.   ;D

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 23, 2019, 02:06:52 PM »
Quick aside, sorry:
Can anyone give me an example of another habitual/regular user of "Truthful Hyperbole"?   (A phrase I always felt was just a polite way of saying, "Ignore his spewing of BS, he's telling a story, not saying anything you are suppose to take at face value.")

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 23, 2019, 10:16:01 AM »
If he does appear on tape, would you wonder if it wasn't a deep fake
In all honesty?  Yes, we should wonder that.  It's coming any day now.  If not him, some other prominent politician. 

Ya, my friends in the security field are still... unimpressed, with facial recognition tech when it comes to non white faces.   :-\ 

If you are letting automation decide who to hire, that only tells me what you are looking for is an automaton, not a person.   ::)

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 22, 2019, 05:06:41 PM »
That was a particularly depressing lens to see Democratic party through.  I'll clue you in, but you probably won't believe me.  Some of us, no, MOST of us, actually DO give a *censored*, and aren't putting on an act to keep 'our team' in power.  I'm not sure what for... if the policies we peruse are largely all self serving and insincere?
Okay, but why?
  Because without a realistic hope of employment without going through official channels the draw of entering and living "illegally" goes away.  My sneaking suspicion is that within 2-5 years of strict enforcement, the businesses who previously exploited these people will be begging the lawmakers to fix our immigration (or at least work visa) programs.  If that requires a bit of welfare and social support within that time-frame, I think it's worth it.   
All of that is like treating the symptom and leaving the illness alone.
It's the exact opposite of that.  Trump tried to frame it as if the choice to come here could lead to unimaginable sorrow for your family.  Unfortunately it can STILL lead to amazing opportunities for a better life.  We are incentivizing breaking the law.  You are hung up on providing services to these people.  What people if they know when they get here they cannot get a job unless they enter legally. 

Nothing that has been proposed is comprehensive.

However its clear at least half the population doesn't respond well to the method and wonder if there is more intended.
It's worse than that.  A good deal of them don't wonder at all.  They "know" what was intended.  That's where the different set of "facts" line comes into play.  It's not ALL bull, though most of the time that just means Trump is making poop up again, in this case it really is about people hearing two entirely different messages when he speaks.  Or, more accurately, three different messages.  The middle and the extremes on both sides.

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 22, 2019, 02:10:39 PM »
I understand that you think the (out of context) statement from Trump is a "dog whistle" and means something completely different from how I'm interpreting it.
The question I have, is:  is this how you believe Trump meant it?  How YOU interpreting it, could just be another way of saying, "what I would like to believe he meant".  Or "this is how I have to rationalize it". 

As much as Trump bemoans the media, he loves it.  He plays it well.  It's where he lives and breaths.  In almost any other situation I would agree with the points you are making TheDeamon.  But the man is trolling the left.  He identifies buttons and pushes them.  He wants his opponents distracted and operating on constant outrage.  It keeps him (or at least his persona) firmly in the spotlight while things continue to get done.

He gives a wink and a nod to his extreme base while tweaking his extreme opponents, leaving those few still "in the middle" parsing out exactly what he said and in what context.  Either defending or at least questing if it's really as bad as all that. 

So how does someone being targeted by outrageous statements communicate with someone deaf to the dog whistles?  Do you just insist that the whistle noise must be imagined?  I mean, one group is barking and another group is whining and acting very agitated.  They both indicate the same thing caused their reaction. 

Is the advice to ignore it?  It's not "real" because YOU are sure he didn't mean it? 

If it was JUST the tiny sliver of hyper sensitive lefties out there pointing fingers, I'd be inclined to agree.  As I've said before, there is a growing portion on both sides of the red/blue divide that are spoiling for a fight.  They both heard something. 

General Comments / Re: hey moderator
« on: October 22, 2019, 12:45:50 PM »
Ellen Degeneres felt compelled to make a statment about how this event took place. I think it says a lot about the current political climate that she felt it even needed to be publicly addressed.
You say this as if it was a threat to her that she had to address or lose dollars / status.  What happened was a chance encounter was leveraged for attention.  That says a lot more about the current media climate than it does about politics.    ::)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50