President Biden, critics corner

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, billeisele said:

Thanks for the insights. Makes sense. No matter what happens there's plenty more drama to come.

Should note that Fani Willis has since said this will not impact her proceedings in Georgia, so I was wrong about that.

[billeisele 130]

On 6/14/2023 at 12:11 PM, JoeWeber said:

Thanks  but shouldn't we let Bill answer for himself?

What Wendy said :)

I thought it was clear enough. Yes, we have finally advanced in the little country town that I'm addressed too, population 590. The voting location uses a tabletop electronic voting machine. The first page has boxes to vote D or R. To vote for individual candidates one has to scroll through the various pages. When finished the vote is electronically recorded and a paper ballot is printed. The ballots are deposited in a box in case the machine fails.

One could click on the D or R box (pull the lever) and be done. Based on how long folks take to vote it appears that they are scrolling through the pages.

I still like the pull-the-lever image, like a slot machine, it's often a gamble regardless of the candidate.

[JoeWeber 2,940]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

What Wendy said :)

I thought it was clear enough. Yes, we have finally advanced in the little country town that I'm addressed too, population 590. The voting location uses a tabletop electronic voting machine. The first page has boxes to vote D or R. To vote for individual candidates one has to scroll through the various pages. When finished the vote is electronically recorded and a paper ballot is printed. The ballots are deposited in a box in case the machine fails.

One could click on the D or R box (pull the lever) and be done. Based on how long folks take to vote it appears that they are scrolling through the pages.

I still like the pull-the-lever image, like a slot machine, it's often a gamble regardless of the candidate.

What Wendy shouldn't have said, I think. Please reread my reply to post #3394 in this thread which references our original conversation where I asked : "Did you vote for Trump? Did you vote for Palin? Did you vote for Bush? I'll bet you did for a hat trick". You then claimed to have never stepped into the box and pulled the R lever. I then asked "Would that mean that in each of the three presidential elections I referenced you voted for the D candidates?"

Based on your postings here I am of the belief that you would typically vote a straight R ticket and would not be the type to throw away your vote for President. So what is your answer? Are you flat denying that you voted R in those elections?

[wmw999 2,588]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Interesting question. It seems that anyone should be able to do anything they want, regardless of how irritating, anti-social or aggravating it is, as long as it's not a violation of the law.

It would be great if the law and rules applied equally to everyone regardless of political party, race, sex, etc.

Having said that, it would also be nice if the clock could be rolled back to a time when civility was the norm. 

The thing is that the more people there are, then the larger number of them who impact others. Is it OK to drive an unmuffled Harley down the street at 6:00AM? Is it OK to loudly comment on someone who isn’t talking to you to speak English because they’re in America (that’s happened to me). Is it OK to want to legislate so that you, personally, are always comfortable, even if it means that plenty of other people have to modify their behavior (like, for instance, sodomy laws between consenting adults)? Is it OK to say that since your religion forbids certain behaviors, others must also abstain? 

I don’t think so, personally. I think that consideration is a two-way street, and that I should always think I’m giving more, because kind of like in marriage, if each person thinks they’re giving more than 50%, then most of the stuff is getting done.

Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,595]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

It would be great if the law and rules applied equally to everyone regardless of political party, race, sex, etc.

Sure. And charging Trump is a big positive step in that direction, isn't it?

[ryoder 1,590]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

 Is it OK to loudly comment on someone who isn’t talking to you to speak English because they’re in America (that’s happened to me).

Let me guess: You were speaking Portuguese?

Did you give them a shock by replying in English with an American accent?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

It would be great if the law and rules applied equally to everyone regardless of political party, race, sex, etc.

It would be, Trump would be in pre-trial detention right now if that were the case.

[ryoder 1,590]

9 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

It would be, Trump would be in pre-trial detention right now if that were the case.

And they would not have invited him to appear at the courthouse; They would have kicked in the door at Mar-a-Lago at 0500, and taken him into custody immediately.

[JoeWeber 2,940]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Having said that, it would also be nice if the clock could be rolled back to a time when civility was the norm.

Sometime prior to December 20, 1860?

[wmw999 2,588]

40 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Did you give them a shock by replying in English with an American accent?

The eyebrows were arched, too.

Wendy P. 

[billvon 3,118]

25 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Sometime prior to December 20, 1860?

Uncle Remus from Song of the South:

"Now, this here tale didn't happen just yesterday, nor the day before. 'Twas a long time ago. And in them days, everything was mighty satisfactual. . . .and if you'll excuse me for saying so, 'twas better all around."

That character was first introduced in 1880 by Joel Chandler Harris, writing about black folklore.

 

[ryoder 1,590]

Glenn Kirschner says Judge Cannon must remove herself, or be removed:

He has a long legal career, first in US Army JAG, then US Attorneys Office:

Wikipedia: Glenn Kirschner

Edited June 15, 2023 by ryoder

[SkyDekker 1,465]

55 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Glenn Kirschner says Judge Cannon must remove herself, or be removed:

He has a long legal career, first in US Army JAG, then US Attorneys Office:

Wikipedia: Glenn Kirschner

Kirschner is now a media personality and he is looking for clicks. 

With the information currently available, there is no way the DOJ files a motion to remove AC based on her ruling in the civil case. There is simply no precedent AND it would be way too easy to spin it into a purely political move.

It will only happen, IMHO, if the 11th has to overrule her a few times in a row AND those rulings are egregious. Only then would DOJ file for a motion to have her removed.

Edited June 15, 2023 by SkyDekker
faT fINGeRS

[JoeWeber 2,940]

15 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Kirschner is now a media personality and he is looking for clicks. 

With the information currently available, there is no way the DOJ files a motion to remove AC base don her ruling in the civil case. There is simply no precedent AND it would be way too easy to spin it into a purely political move.

It will only happen, IMHO, if the 11th has to overrule her a few times in a row AND those rulings are egrgious. Only then would DOJ file for a motion to have her removed.

I'm afraid you're right. Of course there are any number of sudden experts offering up rock solid pathways to get her off the case but from what I've read, that I believe, that's a damn tough pull. My strategy would be an end run outside the system. Find some way -or better someone- to get her to see that her Supreme Court audition is a very long shot play but that a distinguished judicial career with favors owed is in hand; the alternative being huge embarrassment and ignominy. Just recuse and be a hero. 

[brenthutch 444]

The only hope for Democrats is for Trump to get the Republican nomination.  This guy would not stand a chance against any other Republican candidate.

[normiss 897]

On 6/15/2023 at 7:11 PM, JoeWeber said:

I'm afraid you're right. Of course there are any number of sudden experts offering up rock solid pathways to get her off the case but from what I've read, that I believe, that's a damn tough pull. My strategy would be an end run outside the system. Find some way -or better someone- to get her to see that her Supreme Court audition is a very long shot play but that a distinguished judicial career with favors owed is in hand; the alternative being huge embarrassment and ignominy. Just recuse and be a hero. 

I read some judges were thinking she should be removed from the case due to her residence location. I think it was 1.5 hours one way to the courthouse.

Apparently she is the only judge that is outside the circuit for this court.

I expect that would make too much sense though.

[billeisele 130]

On 6/15/2023 at 3:33 PM, JoeWeber said:

What Wendy shouldn't have said, I think. Please reread my reply to post #3394 in this thread which references our original conversation where I asked : "Did you vote for Trump? Did you vote for Palin? Did you vote for Bush? I'll bet you did for a hat trick". You then claimed to have never stepped into the box and pulled the R lever. I then asked "Would that mean that in each of the three presidential elections I referenced you voted for the D candidates?"

Based on your postings here I am of the belief that you would typically vote a straight R ticket and would not be the type to throw away your vote for President. So what is your answer? Are you flat denying that you voted R in those elections?

You sound like that, "I did not have sex with that woman" guy. So demanding! It's been said that the louder they are, either they have something to hide or just like to intimidate. Neither are good.

Frankly, it's none of your business. If you somehow think you or anyone else has a right to know how anyone voted then we'll just have to disagree. 

But ... yes, I am flat denying that I voted only for R candidates in those elections.

[billeisele 130]

On 6/15/2023 at 3:56 PM, wmw999 said:

The thing is that the more people there are, then the larger number of them who impact others. Is it OK to drive an unmuffled Harley down the street at 6:00AM? Is it OK to loudly comment on someone who isn’t talking to you to speak English because they’re in America (that’s happened to me). Is it OK to want to legislate so that you, personally, are always comfortable, even if it means that plenty of other people have to modify their behavior (like, for instance, sodomy laws between consenting adults)? Is it OK to say that since your religion forbids certain behaviors, others must also abstain? 

I don’t think so, personally. I think that consideration is a two-way street, and that I should always think I’m giving more, because kind of like in marriage, if each person thinks they’re giving more than 50%, then most of the stuff is getting done.

Wendy P. 

We agree on much more than we disagree one. Didn't we already know that?

[billeisele 130]

On 6/15/2023 at 4:33 PM, jakee said:

Sure. And charging Trump is a big positive step in that direction, isn't it?

 Help all of us understand how this makes sense in terms of:

- Hillary with the basement server, the smashed blackberry, leaked classified documents that the convicted felon Weiner received, the 33,000 deleted emails (of which the FBI recovered 17,000 that were determined to be work related) and bleach bit

- Hunter and his laptop 

- Joe with his corvette files and the files found in other places

[kallend 2,148]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

 Help all of us understand how this makes sense in terms of:

- Hillary with the basement server, the smashed blackberry, leaked classified documents that the convicted felon Weiner received, the 33,000 deleted emails (of which the FBI recovered 17,000 that were determined to be work related) and bleach bit

- Hunter and his laptop 

- Joe with his corvette files and the files found in other places

Ah, whataboutism strikes again.

Trump's DOJ found no criminal intent for Hillary and had plenty of opportunity with Hunter and Joe.  Even Trump's AG Barr is disgusted with Trump, and the intent to obstruct and deceive is obvious (EVEN TO YOU IF YOU OPEN YOUR EYES).

[jakee 1,595]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

 Help all of us understand how this makes sense in terms of:

- Hillary with the basement server, the smashed blackberry, leaked classified documents that the convicted felon Weiner received, the 33,000 deleted emails (of which the FBI recovered 17,000 that were determined to be work related) and bleach bit

- Hunter and his laptop 

- Joe with his corvette files and the files found in other places

Hillary’s been covered many times. The FBI with a Republican Director under a Republican President who had pledged to send her to jail investigated for a very long time and found that nothing warranted criminal charges.

 

Hunter’s laptop - who should be charged and with what crimes? Be specific.

 

Biden’s files. Trump was not charged with anything that Biden also did. He wasn’t charged with anything that Pence also did. When Biden and Pence found they had taken some classified files, they gave them back immediately whereas Trump… fuck it, you don’t need me to tell you the difference. You already know what exactly what behaviour lead to Trump being charged, you’re just being obtuse. All I’ll say is “This is still secret. Look, look at this!” 

Edited June 18, 2023 by jakee

[jakee 1,595]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

Frankly, it's none of your business. If you somehow think you or anyone else has a right to know how anyone voted then we'll just have to disagree. 

But ... yes, I am flat denying that I voted only for R candidates in those elections.

True, it is only your business, but when you do give half an answer while refusing to give a full answer it makes it seem like you’re trying to make people infer something that isn’t true.

Did you vote for the Republican Presidential candidate in the elections referenced above?

[gowlerk 2,275]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

 Help all of us understand how this makes sense in terms of:

- Hillary with the basement server, the smashed blackberry, leaked classified documents that the convicted felon Weiner received, the 33,000 deleted emails (of which the FBI recovered 17,000 that were determined to be work related) and bleach bit

- Hunter and his laptop 

- Joe with his corvette files and the files found in other places

Trump is being prosecuted because of his blatant attempt to overthrow the constitution. He was not impeached when he should have been and he did not ride off quietly when he lost. He has brought the wrath of the nation’s leaders upon himself.

[Phil1111 1,183]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

 Help all of us understand how this makes sense in terms of:

- Hillary with the basement server, the smashed blackberry, leaked classified documents that the convicted felon Weiner received, the 33,000 deleted emails (of which the FBI recovered 17,000 that were determined to be work related) and bleach bit

- Hunter and his laptop 

- Joe with his corvette files and the files found in other places

Which casts doubt on the authenticity of your "almost a republican" when it comes to the ballot box. No I'm really a middle of the road common sense voter. But I'll swallow, digest and fully expose GOP talking points and nonsense.

[Phil1111 1,183]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Trump is being prosecuted because of his blatant attempt to overthrow the constitution. He was not impeached when he should have been and he did not ride off quietly when he lost. He has brought the wrath of the nation’s leaders upon himself.

Not at all equivalent to hunter's laptop. The constitution is less and less important now. Expectantly so since the court has its new biblical makeup.