yoink

Ron - what do you think Patriotism is? Maybe more importantly, what do you think is UNpatriotic?

Fair point. I think there is zero chance Trump will be convicted by the Senate, is probably a more accurate way to phrase it then.

So we're off to trial in the Senate. No real surprises there... Trump tweeted "If you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair trial in the Senate, and so that our country can get back to business." Question - does ANYONE here think that the Senate trial will be anything remotely close to fair & impartial? Anyone? I still believe there is zero chance Trump will be impeached. Even the fucking constitutional lawyer called by the Republicans yesterday weaseled out an answer about 'not doing impeachment this fast' rather than concentrating on the law and giving an opinion on the legality of Trump's behavior.

The Republicans are already calling it ‘unpatriotic’. Although I’m not sure what that has to do with the law...

Full house impeachment report (300 pages) available to read or download here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/03/politics/trump-impeachment-report-doc/index.html

How much do want to bet Trump's got money invested in it?

I'd quite like to see a Bloomberg / Warren ticket.

Outrage? Try reading what I read instead of imagining stuff. Firstly, I didn’t vote for Trump, I said that the idea of someone financing his own campaign resonated with me... that’s all. As it obviously did with you. But he didn’t. Doesn’t that bother you? So that’s the majority of your post that’s utter nonsense. Second, I can ask questions without being ‘outraged’. I find the current climate of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must be ‘outraged’ or ‘triggered’ or ‘woke’ or whatever other buzzword you use to be profoundly juvenile. I get that you think it’s funny if it were true - it’s just not real. No one here is ‘outraged’. You’re imagining it. It’s childish fantasy. Proper grown ups can actually discuss stuff without going into apoplexy. And finally in regard to answering my question on your thoughts of the Berlin Wall with ‘it would be lost here’ - yeah. That shows exactly how much you know about it.

But you didn't GET that, so I'm confused as to why you seem to think you did. I'm with you - I was genuinely hoping that Trump would finance his own campaign and remove the power of SuperPACs. They're a blight on the political system, so I agree that that was one of his sales pitches that resonated with me. But he didn't. He paid $66 million, which is a lot, but it's a fucking FAR cry from the 300 odd million his campaign spent. And 11 million of that went directly from the campaign back into his own Trump brand hotels and private jet. This is public information not some intellectual conspiracy. You can look it up yourself from information his own campaign submitted. His behavior over the last 3 years has proven that he values nothing so much as personal power and prestige - that's why he idolizes strong dictator leaders. So if you genuinely wanted a President who wasn't in it for the power and prestige then you should be howling at the fucking moon that not only is he not that, but he's the exact opposite. This is the bit I don't understand. Being taken for a ride by a con-man happens - They sell promises we want to believe in and sometimes it's worth a shot, but the continued 'we got what was promised / we wanted' defense is simply wrong. You bought snake oil and are continuing to tell yourself it's a miracle elixir because you don't want the embarrassment of admitting you were taken for a ride. Do you really hate liberals that much that you can't even have a stance and stand by it? Anything is defensible as long as it's not the Democrats?

Just so I’m clear, why do you think the Berlin Wall fell?

IIRC he was found not guilty of murdering prisoners, wasn't he?

Even IF it was true, it’s still not why he’s being investigated for impeachment. Didn’t you read my last 2 posts on exactly this subject? The president doesn’t get to try and dig this up by withholding aid during an election. That’s illegal. THAT’S what he’s being impeached for. If Biden has done something illegal or sketchy there are other avenues to investigate it. care to comment?

Absolutely agreed. That's my point... the nuance of what he's being investigated for might be getting lost in the 'QUID PRO QUO' media headlines. We already know that a majority of people don't listen to more than the headlines or read the title of articles - that's been proven in here time and again. And if that's so, then it's no wonder that people think he's being investigated for something that isn't illegal. You guys are all exceptional. You're in here because you ENJOY thinking about politics and discussing it. I'm prepared to bet that most people would simply say he's being investigated for 'quid pro quo' with Ukraine.

I can kinda understand where they're coming from. I think the message has gotten confused; particularly with the adoption of the Quid Pro Quo sound bite. I completely understand why Trump fans are saying this is a normal part of diplomacy and isn't illegal. That's because it is... Diplomacy is the art of negotiation and quid pro quo is usually how negotiation works. I'll give you something if you give me something. But that's NOT what Trump is being investigated for. It's got NOTHING to do with asking for a favor. It's because he did it in relation to an active election campaign that he's being investigated - That's the illegal part. But because 'Quid Pro Quo' sounds good as a sound bite that's what the media runs with and that's why some of his base don't understand the problem.

Giuliani? Never heard of him.

It should be criminal. But it isn't. And I suspect most Republican voters don't care. WE'RE WINNING! FUCK YOU. Maybe what you and I think is 'American', isn't.

It's not going to pass the Senate. And I still wouldn't be surprised if he wins a second term.

How does Jesus feel now you’ve found a new messiah? You certainly seem to have as much faith in Q, and he’s not even threatening you with eternal damnation! He’s probably right about the impeachment not going anywhere, but if so that’ll be because the Senate is utterly and criminally corrupt. I fully expect the impeachment bill to reach the Senate who will refuse to even consider it. It’ll never see the light of day, let alone a fair and responsible review.

Trump does.

Walking a lot of miles in those boots seems to have narrowed your perspective a bit, and given you a bit of a chip on your shoulder to boot. It's great that you've served. Thanks. It sucks that you seem to think you're better than a civilian because of it. While I think that soldiers do a really tough job that I wouldn't want to (or couldn't) do, I think that's true of a load of important positions for our society. In fact I'd rather be an infantryman than a highschool teacher... But while the President is the CIC, he's not JUST the CIC. I'd argue that that's his least important role, in fact. We have experienced generals and admirals to lead our troops. The military is a formal hierarchy that eventually ends up at a limited number of responsible individuals. Society isn't like that.... it's a flat structure rather than a vertical one. The President is the leader of education. Of healthcare. Of immigration. So your statement of insisting the president has military experience, while logical, is naive. He's not just looking after the military. He's looking after the COUNTRY and everything that that entails.

Hi Jerry, do me a favor? The nect time you speak with your son about stuff like this can you ask a couple of questions for me? I'd be really interested in his responses, from his perspective but also what he thinks the industry would respond as a whole. 1) When selecting a juror do you select based on who you think would be best for the LAW, or who would be best for your CLIENT? I guess this only applies to the defending side (hypothetically). 2) Any qualified attorney should be able to ask questions to determine if a potential juror is COMPETENT to sit on a jury without knowing specifics of the case. It follows, therefore, that if there are specific questions only a defending or prosecuting attorney would ask then those questions must necessarily relate directly to the case at hand and as such MUST NOT be asked in the selection process. I simply don't see how the law firms involved can't have a preferential bias to the jurors selected. I'm certain they have all sorts of data on the voting habits of various genders, ethnicities etc.

Certainly for juror selection there are a bunch of articles suggesting that Lawyers preferentially select uneducated jurors and dismiss those with strong opinions or higher education more than not. Because obviously if you’re a trial lawyer you want someone who’ll simply go with whatever you tell them rather than thinking. It’s making me question the process. I see the value in having a juror selection phase but I kinda feel like the selection part should be done by the judiciary, with support from a 3rd party lawyer. Make sure people understand the responsibilities and gravitas of the situation, confirm they’re not biased in any way and check they’re competent in logic, but I don’t think I approve of these thinly veiled questions that directly relate to the case you’d be sitting on. The prosecuting and defending attorneys can’t help but have a conflict of interests so shouldn’t be involved in the selection. I’m fully expecting to get instantly dismissed because of stuff like this.

I'm currently sitting in a standard juror selection room and they've been giving a presentation on the Grand Jury and getting people to apply to it. The position is 4 days a week for a commitment of 1 year, from 9am to 3pm, with 15 days vacation. They've used the word 'diversity' 6 times so far in their description and then stated that 'surprisingly the current 19 members are all senior citizens'. I WONDER WHY that could POSSIBLY be? Who the fuck else has that kind of time? Even unemployed folk aren't going to write off looking for a job for a whole year. It's great talking about diversity n'all, but when you stack the deck so that it's impossible to achieve it, why bother?

By that rationale they should also have been an investment consultant, a healthcare professional, a teacher and an immigrant as well as about a million other things. The US is more than just its military.

My family owns a gun store in California, so yeah, I'm pretty familiar with the problems from both sides. I've had a crash course in it since I got married to the daughter of the store owner. You? The laws are what they are and you can bitch about them all you want but Jim's post (the one I responded to) wasn't doing that. He wasn't complaining about what happens AFTER he submits an application but the difficulty he's having in doing the submitting in the first place. You may have missed that point in the rush to make your own. Jim was complaining about the difficulty he was having in his SPECIFIC circumstance and I was offering advice to make it easier. And if he was in the same circumstance in (for example) Texas, he'd face the SAME issue. You simply can't use a PO box to register a firearm (in most states as far as I'm aware), and I agree with that. And for what it's worth I agree, there are loopholes in the new ammunition licensing laws. Like many gun legislation laws the idea is fine. The execution is utter crap.