|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 13, 2019 15:27:00 GMT -5
Also he may only be doing that because he intends to declare the state of emergency and them use emergency powers to build his great wall. He can try, and it will be immediately challenged in court. I'd rather that battle be fought there than by holding hundreds (thousands?) of government jobs hostage and bleeding the economy of more billions of dollars we don't get back. And I agree, he did it badly the first time and this is likely self-preservation. but I still want to reinforce good behavior. You were showing some balance and I used your post as a diving board, not entirely fair of me and I apologize. But there was a bit of "Oh no, what if impulse is going soft on Trump?!!" panic though... that is a scary thought!
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 13, 2019 15:44:39 GMT -5
He can try, and it will be immediately challenged in court. I'd rather that battle be fought there than by holding hundreds (thousands?) of government jobs hostage and bleeding the economy of more billions of dollars we don't get back. And I agree, he did it badly the first time and this is likely self-preservation. but I still want to reinforce good behavior. You were showing some balance and I used your post as a diving board, not entirely fair of me and I apologize. But there was a bit of "Oh no, what if impulse is going soft on Trump?!!" panic though... that is a scary thought! LOL, not sure when "balance" started to mean "agrees with me" but hey, I'll take it. And hey, I praised Trump both times he did something positive! But seriously, I promise you I would love for him to start doing positive things so I could praise him more. It is exhausting trying to keep up with the deluge of horrific crap he and his admin do on the daily. It's tiring being appalled by everything the president does. Can't he just go read some books to kids in a school and leave Twitter alone for a day? Believe it or not, I used to identify pretty strongly as a moderate with a slight left lean. I'm not sure how much it is me moving left or the center moving out from under me to the right, likely some of both, but I'm NOW* very socially liberal, and I think a lot of progressive ideas actually end up being more fiscally conservative than people think at first glance. It's just nearly impossible to have a real conversation in good faith and run the numbers because the parties are too busy trying to score political wins. *Edit: oh man, I had "not" here as a typo earlier. I am now very socially liberal. Big difference that one letter makes.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 13, 2019 15:58:00 GMT -5
You were showing some balance and I used your post as a diving board, not entirely fair of me and I apologize. But there was a bit of "Oh no, what if impulse is going soft on Trump?!!" panic though... that is a scary thought! LOL, not sure when "balance" started to mean "agrees with me" but hey, I'll take it. And hey, I praised Trump both times he did something positive! But seriously, I promise you I would love for him to start doing positive things so I could praise him more. It is exhausting trying to keep up with the deluge of horrific crap he and his admin do on the daily. It's tiring being appalled by everything the president does. Can't he just go read some books to kids in a school and leave Twitter alone for a day? Believe it or not, I used to identify pretty strongly as a moderate with a slight left lean. I'm not sure how much it is me moving left or the center moving out from under me to the right, likely some of both, but I'm not very socially liberal, and I think a lot of progressive ideas actually end up being more fiscally conservative than people think at first glance. It's just nearly impossible to have a real conversation in good faith and run the numbers because the parties are too busy trying to score political wins. Liberals know that people left to their own devices will act in their own self-interest. Conservatives pretend that isn't so.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 14, 2019 10:15:11 GMT -5
Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aideThis seems like big news. Manafort violated his plea deal, so the judge tossed it. That's one way to make sure he got screwed hard in time for Valentine's Day, I suppose. It makes me wonder. Is the guy really just so dim as to not realize the caliber of investigators he is dealing with in Mueller's team? Is he more scared of someone else? Is he just an idiot?
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 14, 2019 10:19:43 GMT -5
Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aideThis seems like big news. Manafort violated his plea deal, so the judge tossed it. That's one way to make sure he got screwed hard in time for Valentine's Day, I suppose. It makes me wonder. Is the guy really just so dim as to not realize the caliber of investigators he is dealing with in Mueller's team? Is he more scared of someone else? Is he just an idiot? Several possibilities: 1) He's a career liar and can't tell the truth, period; 2) He has been and still is angling for a pardon; 3) He thinks his family is in danger if he spills the full can of Russian beans.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 14, 2019 11:23:20 GMT -5
Federal judge finds Paul Manafort lied to Mueller probe about contacts with Russian aideThis seems like big news. Manafort violated his plea deal, so the judge tossed it. That's one way to make sure he got screwed hard in time for Valentine's Day, I suppose. It makes me wonder. Is the guy really just so dim as to not realize the caliber of investigators he is dealing with in Mueller's team? Is he more scared of someone else? Is he just an idiot? Several possibilities: 1) He's a career liar and can't tell the truth, period; 2) He has been and still is angling for a pardon; 3) He thinks his family is in danger if he spills the full can of Russian beans. That about covers it, probably, except you'd think if it were 1 he would know when the jig is up. Maybe it's pathological? As for 2, presidential pardon won't do anything about those state charges.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Feb 14, 2019 11:36:24 GMT -5
Several possibilities: 1) He's a career liar and can't tell the truth, period; 2) He has been and still is angling for a pardon; 3) He thinks his family is in danger if he spills the full can of Russian beans. That about covers it, probably, except you'd think if it were 1 he would know when the jig is up. Maybe it's pathological? As for 2, presidential pardon won't do anything about those state charges. Right on both counts, which keeps leading me to (3).
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 14, 2019 12:38:40 GMT -5
That about covers it, probably, except you'd think if it were 1 he would know when the jig is up. Maybe it's pathological? As for 2, presidential pardon won't do anything about those state charges. Right on both counts, which keeps leading me to (3). The evidence does seem to point that way, barring some details the public isn't aware of. He could just be tragically arrogant and stupid.
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 14, 2019 12:58:24 GMT -5
I thought Kavanaugh was supposed to have said he favored expanding "a president's" pardon ability to the state level? With all the oligarchs and banned-from-entry Russians Trump has had as guests (even his inauguration?) I wouldn't be surprised if one was able to bring in the special radioactive hypo-dart number as seen in England and Europe.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 14, 2019 13:08:51 GMT -5
I thought Kavanaugh was supposed to have said he favored expanding "a president's" pardon ability to the state level? With all the oligarchs and banned-from-entry Russians Trump has had as guests (even his inauguration?) I wouldn't be surprised if one was able to bring in the special radioactive hypo-dart number as seen in England and Europe. I don't think even Kavanaugh would go so far as to say that the President can pardon state crimes (though I would put little past right-wing activist judges). I think that what you're thinking of is the "separate sovereignty" issue within the Double Jeopardy Clause. It's long been the law that since the U.S. and the various states are separate sovereigns that prosecution for what is essentially the same crime that is criminalized by the Feds and by the States is not a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. That is now being brought in to question, largely it appears, to prevent Trump and his cronies from being prosecuted by the various states if Trump uses his pardon power to subvert justice. It's interesting (not in the positive sense of the word) to see "law & order" types, "state's righters" and "Constitionalists" suddenly back-peddling to try to save corrupt criminals because they're not the right type of criminal.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 14, 2019 15:06:51 GMT -5
I thought Kavanaugh was supposed to have said he favored expanding "a president's" pardon ability to the state level? With all the oligarchs and banned-from-entry Russians Trump has had as guests (even his inauguration?) I wouldn't be surprised if one was able to bring in the special radioactive hypo-dart number as seen in England and Europe. I don't think even Kavanaugh would go so far as to say that the President can pardon state crimes (though I would put little past right-wing activist judges). I think that what you're thinking of is the "separate sovereignty" issue within the Double Jeopardy Clause. It's long been the law that since the U.S. and the various states are separate sovereigns that prosecution for what is essentially the same crime that is criminalized by the Feds and by the States is not a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. That is now being brought in to question, largely it appears, to prevent Trump and his cronies from being prosecuted by the various states if Trump uses his pardon power to subvert justice. It's interesting (not in the positive sense of the word) to see "law & order" types, "state's righters" and "Constitionalists" suddenly back-peddling to try to save corrupt criminals because they're not the right type of criminal. Isn't it possible to circumvent this, theoretically, in the way Mueller has handled Manafort by not charging him at the federal level for all possible crimes so that, say, the State of New York could still charge him for anything he did that Mueller did not prosecute? Or would a blanket pardon by Trump preempt that? Or is that the whole question?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 14, 2019 15:15:25 GMT -5
I don't think even Kavanaugh would go so far as to say that the President can pardon state crimes (though I would put little past right-wing activist judges). I think that what you're thinking of is the "separate sovereignty" issue within the Double Jeopardy Clause. It's long been the law that since the U.S. and the various states are separate sovereigns that prosecution for what is essentially the same crime that is criminalized by the Feds and by the States is not a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. That is now being brought in to question, largely it appears, to prevent Trump and his cronies from being prosecuted by the various states if Trump uses his pardon power to subvert justice. It's interesting (not in the positive sense of the word) to see "law & order" types, "state's righters" and "Constitionalists" suddenly back-peddling to try to save corrupt criminals because they're not the right type of criminal. Isn't it possible to circumvent this, theoretically, in the way Mueller has handled Manafort by not charging him at the federal level for all possible crimes so that, say, the State of New York could still charge him for anything he did that Mueller did not prosecute? Or would a blanket pardon by Trump preempt that? Or is that the whole question? The issue is that the law has been very clear that you can be charged for the same crime by the Feds and the State. A pardon from the President would have no effect on the state crime. Now all of a sudden, the folk who have never seen a crime they didn't want punished, want to change things so that if you've been prosecuted by the Feds the states are precluded from prosecuting you. It's another bizarre hypocrisy from the "Party of States Rights".
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Feb 14, 2019 16:13:27 GMT -5
Round-up of some interesting items (at least to me): Student Loan Payment Grab by RepublicansSenate Republicans have introduced a bill that would require employers to withhold money from their employees' wages if those employees have any federal student loans to repay. There would be two plans available, one that took out a flat 10% and one that allowed a steady repayment over a 10-year period. Critics of the plan argue that this is "mandatory wage garnishment" and that payments "should always be voluntary". First off, the government needs to recognize and admit its role in the current student loan crisis. By making money available to everybody, because private lenders used to pick and choose who to lend to (and yes, I am sure that there were many discriminatory factors at play in those decisions), the cost of tuition skyrocketed, because whenever the government is involved in giving out money, those in receipt of it (such as colleges and universities) know that as prices rise, the government will just keep shoveling money out the door, creating an upward spiral of cost and debt to the students. As for the plan itself, it's heartless (which makes it pretty much stock in trade for Republicans), as it will negatively impact folks who can ill afford to lose 10% of their wages off the top and force them to make decisions between rent, food, healthcare, and other items. However, for the critics saying that "payments should always be voluntary", that's a little naive; these folks borrowed money and agreed to pay it back by signing a contract, and in my experience, most contract clauses aren't "voluntary". AOC Celebrates Amazon Leaving NYC BehindIn other news, media darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took to Twitter to celebrate Amazon deciding against building their second (or third) HQ in New York. She wrote "Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world." I wonder how this is going to sit in a couple of years, when she is up for reelection and the wealthiest man in the world, who is a known backer of Democrats, decides to throw money behind any potential opponent to her seat just to tweak her for a little revenge. I get that she thinks that she is important because she has millions of Twitter followers and the mainstream media fawns over her like nobody else, but she really needs to consider that not every thought that shows up in her head needs to come out in 140 characters. She is really running the risk of backlash, not just from the right, which was a given, but also from Democrats who see her as a distraction and lightning rod that could galvanize the right even more in 2020. It's a delicate balancing act, and I don't think it's one that someone as inexperienced as she is truly understands; you can be a firebrand, but in doing so, you run the risk of burning down everything around you. And this just in... Trump to Sign Bill to Keep Government Open, but Also Declare Emergency for WallIn a move that should shock no one who has actually been paying attention, POTUS Donald J. Trump has decided that since his negotiators failed in their one task, which was to get him $5.7B for the boondoggle that will be the Southern Border Wall, he will declare an emergency so that he can pull funds from elsewhere to build the monument to his ego and keep Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News devotees happy by trying to keep out brown folks with funny accents (unless they're coming to work at one of his properties, and then they are A-OK). What a waste of time and resources, and what a sad and enduring testament to how far America has fallen in the past two years and one month this will be. Hopefully this will get tied up in the courts until long after he's gone (either just from office or to when he gets his special place next to the boiler in Hell).
|
|
|
Post by beccabear67 on Feb 14, 2019 17:02:55 GMT -5
I followed the Amazon HQ2 news through the WPIX11 tv station we get and it seemed like positive news for the area, they visited the Seattle HQ1 even, and so I was pretty surprised when I heard about the whole thing getting scotched this morning. I guess other media I didn't see was savagely critical? I mean I know a lot of smaller and local retailers will hate Amazon, but that's nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Feb 14, 2019 17:07:55 GMT -5
Isn't it possible to circumvent this, theoretically, in the way Mueller has handled Manafort by not charging him at the federal level for all possible crimes so that, say, the State of New York could still charge him for anything he did that Mueller did not prosecute? Or would a blanket pardon by Trump preempt that? Or is that the whole question? The issue is that the law has been very clear that you can be charged for the same crime by the Feds and the State. A pardon from the President would have no effect on the state crime. Now all of a sudden, the folk who have never seen a crime they didn't want punished, want to change things so that if you've been prosecuted by the Feds the states are precluded from prosecuting you. It's another bizarre hypocrisy from the "Party of States Rights". Right, I understand and agree. By any other administration, the hypocrisy would be stunning, but it's par for the course. I am speaking more say they succeed in pulling this off, isn't still possible that this does not guarantee full protection for anyone he pardons? My understanding is Mueller did not prosecute Manafort for everything he could have, and theories are that that was deliberate so that if there were any shenanigans like this, the state could still prosecute him even if he is pardoned at the federal level. Like, he left some charges in the chamber as backup.
|
|