Also In The News - part 3

[WigstonWanderer]

5 minutes ago, Daggers said:

People are stupid. Fascists need stopping by any means. Courts can block Trump and are completely right to do so. 

I don’t disagree, I just think it won’t work. Firstly it will almost certainly be struck down by the Federal court. Secondly it will probably increase his support.

Edited 22 December 2023 by WigstonWanderer

[MPH]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

I don’t disagree, I just think it won’t work. Firstly it will almost certainly be struck down by the Federal court. Secondly it will probably increase his support.

 

I can’t stand trump and I would never vote for him but yeah, this may end up being a massive faux pas..

 

the amusing thing about it all is that he lost convincingly in Colorado- a very liberal state and had no hope of winning it in 24 so I’m not  sure what they were hoping to achieve…

 

also legally, I dont think they have a leg to stand on… what is a state doing trying to affect a federal election?

[String fellow]

7 hours ago, Daggers said:

People are stupid. Fascists need stopping by any means. Courts can block Trump and are completely right to do so. 

A recent survey amongst left-leaning under-30s in America showed that Trump had 49% support compared with 43% support for Biden, because of the latter's staunch support for Israel. It's not clear to me how the left in this country can square that particular circle, given their hatred of both Trump and Netanyahu.

[Zear0]

The court applied the already existing law that those involved in insurrection aren't eligible to stand for president. Popularity, "not a good idea for democrats" etc. is irrelevant.

 

As young Daggers stated, justification of not applying the law to a populist is supportive of elements of fascism where populism trumps law.

[WigstonWanderer]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/21/is-barring-trump-from-office-undemocratic
 

Sincerely hope it all works out. Trump’s re-election would undoubtedly be a disaster for democracy in the US.

[dsr-burnley]

8 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Not sure if trying to prevent Trump from running in the election (Colorado Supreme Court decision) is a good idea. It will almost certainly backfire because it plays into the hands of his gullible supporters that there is a conspiracy against him.

 

Of course in a sane world, after the insurrection and all the crap he comes out with, he deserves to be behind bars (which ought to be enough to disqualify him from running). However while he (against all logic), retains popularity, he has to be stopped politically (by defeat in an election), not by the courts.

It's hardly gullible to think there's a conspiracy against Trump, because there clearly is.  Not all conspiracies are secret.  

[dsr-burnley]

54 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

The court applied the already existing law that those involved in insurrection aren't eligible to stand for president. Popularity, "not a good idea for democrats" etc. is irrelevant.

 

As young Daggers stated, justification of not applying the law to a populist is supportive of elements of fascism where populism trumps law.

The problem is that Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection.  True, a Colorado district judge has named him as being involved, but I don't think he based it on a fair trial - it was just an opinion.  If they want to ban him on the grounds of insurrection, then they need to try him first.

 

We do need to be very, very careful about trying to stop fascism by instituting rules that the public can only vote for approved candidates.  It's decidedly controversial to try to increase public freedom by restricting the vote to only those candidates approved of by the current government.

[reporterpenguin]

4 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's hardly gullible to think there's a conspiracy against Trump, because there clearly is.  Not all conspiracies are secret.  

I’m not so sure about there being a conspiracy against him, I’d argue all the cases are correctly being pursued and have been brought upon himself. 
 

Asking for votes that don’t exist to be found in his favour seems a quite clear cut example of attempting to subvert democracy. 
 

Holding documents he had no right to have and actively hindering attempts to get them returned also seems pretty obvious. 
 

I don’t understand much of the detail about the NY fraud case, but it seems compelling from what I’ve seen that he did falsely inflate the value of his assets. 
 

I’d argue it’s reasonable to see his actions around the capitol riots as inciting them, at least contributing to the events. 
 

The cases are being brought about by what he’s done, not because of a shadowy conspiracy. That’s not to say there’s not a motive behind them being brought, but it’s his own doing. 

[WigstonWanderer]

12 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The problem is that Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection.  True, a Colorado district judge has named him as being involved, but I don't think he based it on a fair trial - it was just an opinion.  If they want to ban him on the grounds of insurrection, then they need to try him first.

 

We do need to be very, very careful about trying to stop fascism by instituting rules that the public can only vote for approved candidates.  It's decidedly controversial to try to increase public freedom by restricting the vote to only those candidates approved of by the current government.

Isn’t it the courts/legal system that would bar him and not the government? Isn’t that why there’s a separation of powers?

[foxile5]

9 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Not sure if trying to prevent Trump from running in the election (Colorado Supreme Court decision) is a good idea. It will almost certainly backfire because it plays into the hands of his gullible supporters that there is a conspiracy against him.

 

Of course in a sane world, after the insurrection and all the crap he comes out with, he deserves to be behind bars (which ought to be enough to disqualify him from running). However while he (against all logic), retains popularity, he has to be stopped politically (by defeat in an election), not by the courts.

Therein lies the problem - and one there isn't an immediate and obvious fix for - to punish him would make him a martyr and consolidate the vision of him as a maligned saviour; to defeat him would take major political changes which, frankly, the Americans aren't prepared for.

 

 

[MPH]

3 hours ago, String fellow said:

A recent survey amongst left-leaning under-30s in America showed that Trump had 49% support compared with 43% support for Biden, because of the latter's staunch support for Israel. It's not clear to me how the left in this country can square that particular circle, given their hatred of both Trump and Netanyahu.

 

 

what amuses me about all that is that so many sectors of society make up that vote- left leaning under 30 Americans- homosexual, lesbian , transgenders… and yet these are all people who would be outright killed by Hamas  without the bat of an eyelid… and that left leaning America seems to be the last part of the political spectrum  to condemn the October 7th attacks due to the oppression of the Palestinian people. Now don’t get me wrong , I  sympathize  with that particular concern greatly,  that but that can never be a justification for the rape and murder of women and children. Neither side can justify that. Period.

[MPH]

6 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Isn’t it the courts/legal system that would bar him and not the government? Isn’t that why there’s a separation of powers?

interestingly American law forbids a president from being prosecuted for any offense committed while in office. He hasn’t and neither will he be prosecuted for insurrection. A democratic leaning state court will interpret that law as saying he is no longer in office so  will penalize him due to their interpretation of the law. The Republican Supreme Court will rule that any offense happened whilst he was still a ruling president and therefore there can be no penalty or punishment from it, regardless of whether he committed insurrection. And whilst you mention the separation of powers, it is worth noting that this is a federal presidential election and not a state election so no court system in Colorado has any legal right to remove his name  from a federal ballot paper. Its basically nothing more than a symbolic gesture as the Supreme Court will vote it Down.

[oxford blue]

18 minutes ago, MPH said:

interestingly American law forbids a president from being prosecuted for any offense committed while in office. He hasn’t and neither will he be prosecuted for insurrection. A democratic leaning state court will interpret that law as saying he is no longer in office so  will penalize him due to their interpretation of the law. The Republican Supreme Court will rule that any offense happened whilst he was still a ruling president and therefore there can be no penalty or punishment from it, regardless of whether he committed insurrection. And whilst you mention the separation of powers, it is worth noting that this is a federal presidential election and not a state election so no court system in Colorado has any legal right to remove his name  from a federal ballot paper. Its basically nothing more than a symbolic gesture as the Supreme Court will vote it Down.

Not quits as black and white as you indicate if yo consider am alternate view from School of Law at University of Virginia:

 

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/202301/can-presidents-be-prosecuted-or-sued-professor-explains-differing-visions-immunity

 

And, if you accept wikipedia, essentially legally untested:

 

"it is legally untested whether they also enjoy criminal immunity from arrest or prosecution.^[a] Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute."

[MPH]

1 hour ago, oxford blue said:

Not quits as black and white as you indicate if yo consider am alternate view from School of Law at University of Virginia:

 

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/202301/can-presidents-be-prosecuted-or-sued-professor-explains-differing-visions-immunity

 

And, if you accept wikipedia, essentially legally untested:

 

"it is legally untested whether they also enjoy criminal immunity from arrest or prosecution.^[a] Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted in the Constitution or any federal statute."

Its a bit of a stretch to say its been criminally untested although essentially true.  'its criminally untested' because it has  been considered previously to be against the law to prosecute a president for anything done in office.  Thats why there have been no previous prosecutions. Its only this modern day democratic party who are looking into this and excuse my  nonchalance about their chances, but I believe this Democratic party will stop at nothing to  try and stop Trump from being  president again.. But again, as mentioned previously, do not take this as me supporting trump. I have never and will never vote for him.

 

I think i mentioned in my post about how they will interpret the law- as per usual Democrats and Republicans will interpret the law differently.  and  as per usual in American politics, It will go along party lines.

 

 

Also in the virginia law article it does say this:

 

Can a president be prosecuted while in office?

 

 

It remains official Justice Department policy that presidents can't be prosecuted and therefore no U.S. attorney will ever indict or prosecute a sitting president. Although i accept that doesn't mean, according to that statement, it would be illegal to do so.

Edited 22 December 2023 by MPH

[dsr-burnley]

14 hours ago, reporterpenguin said:

I’m not so sure about there being a conspiracy against him, I’d argue all the cases are correctly being pursued and have been brought upon himself. 
 

Asking for votes that don’t exist to be found in his favour seems a quite clear cut example of attempting to subvert democracy. 
 

Holding documents he had no right to have and actively hindering attempts to get them returned also seems pretty obvious. 
 

I don’t understand much of the detail about the NY fraud case, but it seems compelling from what I’ve seen that he did falsely inflate the value of his assets. 
 

I’d argue it’s reasonable to see his actions around the capitol riots as inciting them, at least contributing to the events. 
 

The cases are being brought about by what he’s done, not because of a shadowy conspiracy. That’s not to say there’s not a motive behind them being brought, but it’s his own doing. 

"Conspiracy" and "Shadowy conspiracy" are not synonyms.  Numerous members of the Democratic Party are going after Trump, including those in the legal system who are nothing like as politically independent as our legal civil servants.

 

The problem with the basic principle of asking for votes that don't exist to be found is that that is just what the Democrats did after Gore lost to Bush jnr.  They counted the Florida votes again and again in hopes of finding a different result.  There are certainly differences in degree as to how Trump did it and how Gore did it, but there is no specific principle that asking for a recount is unconstitutional.  There may be a fine line that must not be crossed, and it may be that Trump crossed it and Gore didn't, but it's not an absolute.

 

The problem with the NY fraud case is that Trump may or may not have lied about his loan application, but the transaction didn't involve government money, it was a loan between a person who wanted to borrow it and a company that wanted to lend it, both parties were happy with the transaction and still are, and the loan was paid in full and on schedule.  There is no reason other than a witch hunt to pursue this through the courts.  There must be thousands of mortgage applications from way back when, in this country as well as over there, that contain lies and/or mistakes, but I don't see a team of prosecutors trawling through them to see if they can prosecute anyone.

 

It's certainly reasonable to see his actions as inciting riots, but if he hasn't been prosecuted then he shouldn't be found guilty.  

[Dunge]

46 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

"Conspiracy" and "Shadowy conspiracy" are not synonyms.  Numerous members of the Democratic Party are going after Trump, including those in the legal system who are nothing like as politically independent as our legal civil servants.

 

The problem with the basic principle of asking for votes that don't exist to be found is that that is just what the Democrats did after Gore lost to Bush jnr.  They counted the Florida votes again and again in hopes of finding a different result.  There are certainly differences in degree as to how Trump did it and how Gore did it, but there is no specific principle that asking for a recount is unconstitutional.  There may be a fine line that must not be crossed, and it may be that Trump crossed it and Gore didn't, but it's not an absolute.

 

The problem with the NY fraud case is that Trump may or may not have lied about his loan application, but the transaction didn't involve government money, it was a loan between a person who wanted to borrow it and a company that wanted to lend it, both parties were happy with the transaction and still are, and the loan was paid in full and on schedule.  There is no reason other than a witch hunt to pursue this through the courts.  There must be thousands of mortgage applications from way back when, in this country as well as over there, that contain lies and/or mistakes, but I don't see a team of prosecutors trawling through them to see if they can prosecute anyone.

 

It's certainly reasonable to see his actions as inciting riots, but if he hasn't been prosecuted then he shouldn't be found guilty.  

Sorry, but there are big problems with this.

 

Firstly, this isn’t about asking for a recount (legitimate and frankly expected in tight votes), this was about asking for extra votes to be found. You must know the difference between these two things. You must.

 

Secondly, you’re making a massive, massive assumption later on that the courts in America are free of political influence. That is in itself the big problem. Your last half-sentence is meaningless in current America. This isn’t something that happened behind closed doors somewhere where people are after a transcript, the insurrection happened in plain sight of the world. Trump said his words into a microphone and still looks like getting away with them. And he’s getting away with them for one reason: Because a big proportion of the American public are letting him. If they were up in arms then the Republican Party would show how tiny and shrivelled its balls really are and they would throw Trump to the wolves. Instead, there’s pressure, counter-litigations, trying to make out that “oh, but also the Democrats”, trying to pin an impeachment on Biden too so that they’re equal when they blatantly aren’t.

 

It genuinely boggles the mind looking from the outside that anyone could vote for the Republicans and Trump right now - they brazenly tried to rip democracy out from underneath their own country and the populace are too cozy in false comfort for it to even concern them. There was a literal attempted insurrection and they’re still casting their votes on the nuances of taxation plans.

[dsr-burnley]

58 minutes ago, Dunge said:

Sorry, but there are big problems with this.

 

Firstly, this isn’t about asking for a recount (legitimate and frankly expected in tight votes), this was about asking for extra votes to be found. You must know the difference between these two things. You must.

 

Secondly, you’re making a massive, massive assumption later on that the courts in America are free of political influence. That is in itself the big problem. Your last half-sentence is meaningless in current America. This isn’t something that happened behind closed doors somewhere where people are after a transcript, the insurrection happened in plain sight of the world. Trump said his words into a microphone and still looks like getting away with them. And he’s getting away with them for one reason: Because a big proportion of the American public are letting him. If they were up in arms then the Republican Party would show how tiny and shrivelled its balls really are and they would throw Trump to the wolves. Instead, there’s pressure, counter-litigations, trying to make out that “oh, but also the Democrats”, trying to pin an impeachment on Biden too so that they’re equal when they blatantly aren’t.

 

It genuinely boggles the mind looking from the outside that anyone could vote for the Republicans and Trump right now - they brazenly tried to rip democracy out from underneath their own country and the populace are too cozy in false comfort for it to even concern them. There was a literal attempted insurrection and they’re still casting their votes on the nuances of taxation plans.

It also boggles the mind that anyone could vote for Biden.  What other walk of life would the choice between a nutcase and a person with dementia be a good choice?  Would you let them operate on you?  Or drive your taxi?  Or teach your children?  

 

Trump may well win because there are significant numbers of people who think he's the best choice, and very significant numbers who don't want either but have to toss a coin.

 

When is it going to occur to the Democrats that if they can't find a candidate that can comfortably beat Trump, then there must be something seriously wrong with their party?

[Dunge]

Of course Biden shouldn’t be the Democrat candidate, no question.

But of course people should vote for him, no question.

[Super_horns]

These guys have had better Christmas l meals.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67808645

[reporterpenguin]

10 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

"Conspiracy" and "Shadowy conspiracy" are not synonyms.  Numerous members of the Democratic Party are going after Trump, including those in the legal system who are nothing like as politically independent as our legal civil servants.

 

The problem with the basic principle of asking for votes that don't exist to be found is that that is just what the Democrats did after Gore lost to Bush jnr.  They counted the Florida votes again and again in hopes of finding a different result.  There are certainly differences in degree as to how Trump did it and how Gore did it, but there is no specific principle that asking for a recount is unconstitutional.  There may be a fine line that must not be crossed, and it may be that Trump crossed it and Gore didn't, but it's not an absolute.

 

The problem with the NY fraud case is that Trump may or may not have lied about his loan application, but the transaction didn't involve government money, it was a loan between a person who wanted to borrow it and a company that wanted to lend it, both parties were happy with the transaction and still are, and the loan was paid in full and on schedule.  There is no reason other than a witch hunt to pursue this through the courts.  There must be thousands of mortgage applications from way back when, in this country as well as over there, that contain lies and/or mistakes, but I don't see a team of prosecutors trawling through them to see if they can prosecute anyone.

 

It's certainly reasonable to see his actions as inciting riots, but if he hasn't been prosecuted then he shouldn't be found guilty.  

As @Dunge said, Trump asking to “find” a specific number of votes is quite different to asking for a recount. When you listen to the call it’d be a very generous interpretation of his words to think he was simply asking for a recount. In the case of Gore they were asking for a recount in the hope of finding votes in their favour, not saying “I need this many votes, say you recalculated and found them”. 
 

On the point about NY, just because the two parties agreed doesn’t mean fraud wasn’t committed. Fraud between individuals is still fraud and still a crime. Government money being exchanged is irrelevant. I take your point about there likely being many examples of lies or mistakes on mortgage applications, but the scale of the amounts involved isn’t comparable. Sure they should all be investigated, but realistically only those of the highest value will be looked into. 

The January 6th case is less about the riots, and more about the overall attempt to overturn the democratic process that was removing him from office. That’s what he’s being tried for, and given his actions in the time between the election and the riots it’s surely not unreasonable for him to be indicted. Whether he is found guilty is for the courts to decide. 

As I said originally, I’m not saying there isn’t a motive behind these charges. Apologies if I misinterpreted your original description of a “conspiracy” against him, my point was that this whole mess is down to his actions. 
 

And I agree that Biden isn’t fit for office, but that’s not relevant when it comes to Trump’s legal battles. 

[Daggers]

 St Stephen’s Day, the patron saint of stupid journalism

 

 

[fox_favourite]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12899799/christmas-dinner-ruined-morrisons-turkey-dinosaurs.html

 

I for one would find it funny having turkey dinosaurs for me Xmas meal 

[Sly]

On 23/12/2023 at 02:03, dsr-burnley said:

It also boggles the mind that anyone could vote for Biden.  What other walk of life would the choice between a nutcase and a person with dementia be a good choice?  Would you let them operate on you?  Or drive your taxi?  Or teach your children?  

 

Trump may well win because there are significant numbers of people who think he's the best choice, and very significant numbers who don't want either but have to toss a coin.

 

When is it going to occur to the Democrats that if they can't find a candidate that can comfortably beat Trump, then there must be something seriously wrong with their party?

It’ll be similar when we have an UK election, let’s be true. 
 

No one really likes Starmer or Sunak. 

[MPH]

On 22/12/2023 at 21:03, dsr-burnley said:

It also boggles the mind that anyone could vote for Biden.  What other walk of life would the choice between a nutcase and a person with dementia be a good choice?  Would you let them operate on you?  Or drive your taxi?  Or teach your children?  

 

Trump may well win because there are significant numbers of people who think he's the best choice, and very significant numbers who don't want either but have to toss a coin.

 

When is it going to occur to the Democrats that if they can't find a candidate that can comfortably beat Trump, then there must be something seriously wrong with their party?

 

 

I think another reason why Trump may get elected is that less Democrats are likely to go out and vote for Biden simply because of his health and apparent state of mind. It will hardly galvanize and inspire voters to go and vote to be lead by such a man. If the Democrats went for someone else, ANYONE else, they'd be a shoe in. Many democrats are also appalled by Biden's stance with regards to his support for Israel. This will also likely cause people to not want to vote for him. It's short sighted when you look at the consequences,  but welcome to politics..

Edited 26 December 2023 by MPH

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

 St Stephen’s Day, the patron saint of stupid journalism

 

 

 

 

 That's unbelievably bad journalism.