Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 5th Oct 2018, 15:28
  #16101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Summer 2016; Obama told us and Trump: "Those jobs aren't coming back.. " He wanted Trump to tell him 'what magic wand do you have?'

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/...est-since-1969

Jobs up, including mfg jobs. Economy growing at a nice clip. Foreign investors lining up at the NYSE because unlike the FTSE and other markets, investors can rely on the US not to manipulate markets by fiat. Suck it BO. You were WRONG on economy, intl affairs, terrorism, race, and employment. MAGA.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 15:44
  #16102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by fitliker View Post
The thing that I find most disturbing is the lack of respect for the six amendment and truth, in this hunt by witches and warlocks " . The Sixth Amendment mentions the right to be informed of the accusations and be allowed to challenge the accusation and accusers" based on English common Law . The Law is clear innocent until proven guilty .Only those who have been reading too much Mao and Castro would think guilty before a trial "execute first, trial later".
fitliker, old chum, old bean - can you quote the first four words of the Sixth Amendment?

And then explain how that applies to a "job interview" before a Senate committee? Especially if one is an "orginalist" who believes the exact language of the Constitution is what must be applied? And without (watch his response, folks) twisting the words to mean something else, like some "liberal, relativist, interpretationist" justice?
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 15:56
  #16103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 946
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
You of course have reviewed his decades of experience as a lawyer, his 12 years on the lower court along with his measured performance at the actual judiciary hearings combined with the praise from the ABA on his judicial temperament before you rendered judgement?
You, of course, reviewed Merrick Garland's decades of experience as a lawyer, his 17 years on a lower court, along with his measured performance at the actual.... oh no, wait - he never even got an actual judiciary hearing.

Gimme a break - if you opposed Garland and wouldn't even give him a hearing, you did that based soley on who was appointing him.

What a sad little hypocritical tribalist you reveal yourself to be.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 16:18
  #16104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,796
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
You, of course, reviewed Merrick Garland's decades of experience as a lawyer, his 17 years on a lower court, along with his measured performance at the actual.... oh no, wait - he never even got an actual judiciary hearing.

Gimme a break - if you opposed Garland and wouldn't even give him a hearing, you did that based soley on who was appointing him.

What a sad little hypocritical tribalist you reveal yourself to be.
He didn't get a hearing because in keeping with tradition, as eloquently summed up by Joe Biden in 1992, the Senate does not consider a person suggested by a President for a Supreme Court Vacancy in a Presidential election year.

As pointed out to you in another thread the last such person suggested to the Senate who was appointed to the Supreme Court was in 1940 under FDR.
racedo is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 16:25
  #16105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,457
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
You, of course, reviewed Merrick Garland's decades of experience as a lawyer, his 17 years on a lower court, along with his measured performance at the actual.... oh no, wait - he never even got an actual judiciary hearing.

Gimme a break - if you opposed Garland and wouldn't even give him a hearing, you did that based soley on who was appointing him.

What a sad little hypocritical tribalist you reveal yourself to be.
Crawl down off your high horse and knock back some pepto for that case of indignation that’s clouding your vision.

I said then as I say now, Garland should have received a straight up and down vote. The process should have been honored.
West Coast is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 16:47
  #16106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ilmington, Warwickshire
Posts: 68
I’m no apologist for Trump, I saw him as the lesser of two evils that the US public had the choice of, but I doubt he would have been as ineffectual as the administration in power at the time of 9/11. Would The Donald have conveniently glossed over the fact that 15 out of the 19 perpetrators were Saudi? I actually believe he would have said it like it was and asked a lot of awkward questions, rather than appeasing a dictatorship which happens to be a big customer that no one wants to rock the boat. The leaders at that time used the momentum of outrage and anger of public opinion to target an annoying and rather irrelevant third rate dictator, rather than confront - quoting the oft used phrase - the inconvenient truth that one of their biggest trading partners was also a breeding ground of terrorism.

Trump may not be a professional politician, just a man with strong business background, but he seems a lot less ‘fluffy’ than most of the other Western leaders then bend in the wind of opinion polls, with an eye on the next election. Most politicians are egoists; you have to be, to believe that you are the only one good enough for the job. At least with DT, we can see what we’re getting.

I never thought i would would ever say this, but he’s growing on me.
BehindBlueEyes is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 16:57
  #16107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,137
Originally Posted by fitliker
The thing that I find most disturbing is the lack of respect for the six amendment and truth, in this hunt by witches and warlocks " . The Sixth Amendment mentions the right to be informed of the accusations and be allowed to challenge the accusation and accusers" based on English common Law

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

From The Legal Information Institute:
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. It has been most visibly tested in a series of cases involving terrorism, but much more often figures in cases that involve (for example) jury selection or the protection of witnesses, including victims of sex crimes as well as witnesses in need of protection from retaliation.
The Senate hearing was not a criminal prosecution or a public trial. So as much as you might like, IMHO, the Sixth Amendment doesn't apply. In fact, it wasn't the original confirmation hearing, but an additional hearing for the Senate panel learn of additional information about the nominee that was not made available during the original conformation hearing.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 16:58
  #16108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 589
fitliker, old chum, old bean - can you quote the first four words of the Sixth Amendment?
We can all read, PIF. (and now Turbine also) "In all criminal prosecutions". It means exactly what it says, not what you hope it means.

It does not say "but not in other matters", or "only".

Furthermore, the Democrats, through their sacrificial lamb, were accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault. That's a crime. Subject to the protections of the Constitution.

And that, my friend, is why we need judges like Kavanaugh on the USSC, rather than more of the "wise Latina woman" variety.
obgraham is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 17:04
  #16109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 36
Dont know about you guys, but I just saved a ton of money for Christmas gifts by talking politics on social media!
underfire is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 17:17
  #16110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions,
This was covered quite handily by the first person in the investigation warning Kavanaugh that he could face criminal indictments for not only the assault in MD, but also for federal crimes of misprision, and obstruction, as well as lying. There is ample evidence in the fed case register of trials, and convictions based on evidence given under penalty of perjury. All this was covered very well in the beginning of Kavanaugh's questioning. This investigation is the preliminary to the indictment, and carries the same rule of criminal law as in the 6th A. One could simply ask Martha Stewart about her 6th A rights. Go back and listen to the beginning of the questioning. He is warned quite clearly, and advises with an affirmative that he is being questioned in response to a criminal complaint by a citizen(Ford).

Last edited by ethicalconundrum; 5th Oct 2018 at 17:28.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 19:17
  #16111 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,878
Personally I find Kavanagh unappealing, but I have no way of knowing whether he is qualified for the Supreme Court. But then I find Hilary Clinton, DJT, Mitch McConnell and Bernie Sanders and the whole dishonest gang of them, Dems and Reps worse than unappealing [I DID respect John McCain though - at least he had some sense of decency].

The Reps treatment of Merrick Garland was simply unfair and undemocratic, but the Dems cretinous "disinterment" of some juvenile fumbling of Kavanagh's [that may have taken place, but probably didn't] 40 years ago is so disingenuous, so dishonest and so pathetic that it makes me reach for the sick-bucket.

Talking about buckets, Ginsburg is due to kick it soon; DJT will no doubt replace her by some lick-spittle hard-righter who will do as they are told.

True liberalism (yes GOP, I'm looking at you) oversaw the preserving of the Union, the end of slavery and the provision of equal rights to all men in the American Civil War and Reconstruction.

False liberalism (yes Dems, I'm looking at you now) has produced the muzzling of any opinions except those of the zany far-left, the right to have and to hold an opinion that differs from the accepted "politically-correct" canon and the very opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended.

The real America, where a dyed-in-the-wool Republican would gladly lend her lawn-mower to the Democrat neighbor who ferries her son to school, is as dead as a door-knob. Now they have been taught to feud like the Hatfields and the McCoys, with nary a thought for the fact that they are both, above all, Americans and that tolerance and cooperation will benefit both.

I have a fine old American book on civics, that teaches respect for the law, respect for the Flag, hard work, frugality, generosity, community service and help for those less fortunate among us. I translated it into Afrikaans and had it translated into Xhoza - I tried to interest the ANC and other parties in it, but was told that reparations/apologies for colonialism were more important.

Trump was elected, not by quasi-communist liberals, but by very ordinary, hard-working Americans who felt mocked and left out in a country where 1% own more wealth than the lower 90% [and 1% own most of that 1%].

"In the political sphere, norms, respect for the results of elections, institutional checks and balances, and even the most rudimentary notions of justice and fair play are quaint anachronisms. The Al Davis ethos (just win, baby) rules. If you stand in the way of the twisted freaks who infest the Capitol, and the political and media orcs that do their bidding, well, that’s just too bad for you. You are expendable, as are truth and justice."

A damned shame, but much of the world is going in the same sad direction.

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 19:55
  #16112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,796
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife View Post
The Reps treatment of Merrick Garland was simply unfair and undemocratic, but the Dems cretinous "disinterment" of some juvenile fumbling of Kavanagh's [that may have taken place, but probably didn't] 40 years ago is so disingenuous, so dishonest and so pathetic that it makes me reach for the sick-bucket.

Mac
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...s-in-1992.html

GOP behaved in same way Dems have previously and it is with precedent.

Last Justice nominated and approved to Supreme Court in a Presidential election year was in 1940 under FDR.
racedo is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 21:11
  #16113 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,878
GOP behaved in same way Dems have previously and it is with precedent.
Last Justice nominated and approved to Supreme Court in a Presidential election year was in 1940 under FDR.


What does the Law say? Is it legal or not to nominate and approve a Justice to the Supreme Court in a Presidential year?
Yes or No? If "No" then how could it happen?

Is it considered "bad form", impolite or "nor fair"?
If so, then why?

Just because the Dems (or Reps) have behaved in a way that is "bad form", impolite or "nor fair"
Does that mean that next time it happens, it is then OK for the Dems (or Reps) to behave like that.

Do two wrongs make a right (or two rights make a wrong)?

Or are ethics and decent behavior irrelevant in politics?

Mac
Mac the Knife is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 21:14
  #16114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 92
Ladies and germs, I give you our new supreme court jurist.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45766729

Dems have expended ginrmous amounts of political and media capital in their effort to derail the process, and demean the man. They have been laid bare in their venal work to reject, and abuse the constitutional means of the republican way of governing. Failure is now going to cost them what minor power they had back in July when the HR gains more Rep seats, and the Senate also goes further to the right. Folks, I didn't think that BO could have as big a CF as this. But - I was wrong. The Dems managed to anger and frustrate literally millions of potential voters who are going to take their anger out on the party in Nov.

Given the econ news, and this swirling toilet bowl of corruption and partisan malingering by the Dems, I predict a nice sweep next month. It will be a new day, a new way and there are going to be a lot of tears and outrage from the Antifa-Soros-BLM-LGBT-whatever group.
ethicalconundrum is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 21:40
  #16115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,137
The Mythical Biden rule

The right wingers on this thread and those that aren't on the thread (Senator Grassley) claim the "Biden Rule" was the reason of not nominating a person for the Supreme Court in the last year of a Presidency as if it was gospel. Maybe this is convenient or maybe a lack of history knowledge or just plain confusion. I'll go with confusion. In fact the original person that came up with this idea was a staunch conservative Republican. Confusion over judicial confirmations in the election years stems from the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule.” It was named for former Sen. Strom Thurmond a Republican at the time who opposed Johnson’s 1968 Supreme Court nominations, the informal rule suggests that judicial nominations shouldn’t be confirmed in the months leading up to a president election.

Joe Biden’s remarks were part of a long speech about revising the Supreme Court confirmation process after a tumultuous five-year period that had featured three bitterly contested nominees: William H. Rehnquist in 1986, who received the most “no” votes of any justice until that time; Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate in 1987; and Clarence Thomas, whose bruising hearings culminated in a vote in 1991 in which he drew even more opposition than Chief Justice Rehnquist had.

Then Republican Senator, Marco Rubio said, “There comes a point in the last year of the president, especially in their second term, where you stop nominating both Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges and suggested there’s no need for President Barack Obama to even try making a nomination."
— Marco Rubio on Sunday, February 14th, 2016 in comments on “Meet the Press"

Mitch McConnell picked Marco's ball up and of course Merrick Garland never got any consideration by the Senate. Actually, Marco was confused and dead wrong. George W. Bush appointed 32 and Ronald Reagan 33 lower level judges in the final years of their presidencies. 13 appointed were Federal Court of Appeal judges.

Just thought I would try to clear up the right wingers confusion on the "Biden Rule" issue.
Turbine D is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 21:41
  #16116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,796
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife View Post
GOP behaved in same way Dems have previously and it is with precedent.
Last Justice nominated and approved to Supreme Court in a Presidential election year was in 1940 under FDR.


What does the Law say? Is it legal or not to nominate and approve a Justice to the Supreme Court in a Presidential year?
Yes or No? If "No" then how could it happen?

Is it considered "bad form", impolite or "nor fair"?
If so, then why?

Just because the Dems (or Reps) have behaved in a way that is "bad form", impolite or "nor fair"
Does that mean that next time it happens, it is then OK for the Dems (or Reps) to behave like that.

Do two wrongs make a right (or two rights make a wrong)?

Or are ethics and decent behavior irrelevant in politics?

Mac
Precedent was set a long time ago.

Perfectly LEGAL but Senate is answerable to the electorate and they came up with that a sitting President would not get an appointment
'approved during a Presidential year.

GOP Senator hs openly stated the other day that he wil not allow a vote to proceed if there is a vacancy is last year of President Trump's
period in office.

The view from Senators (on both sides) in the past was a sitting President in last year of office (or potentially last year) does not get a nomination approved to
Supreme Court.

On every occasion since 1940 that this has occured it has not gone through.

They may be wrong but they have been consistent since 1940 and for politicians that is a first.
racedo is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 21:42
  #16117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 589
I predict a nice sweep next month.
I certainly hope you are right, EC, but there is a whole month left to go. Plenty of time for the Democrats to go out and buy more votes, intimidate union workers, and resurrect dead folks.

After this past week or two, those actions are no longer the lowest of the low.
obgraham is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 21:44
  #16118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 5,796
Originally Posted by Turbine D View Post
The right wingers on this thread and those that aren't on the thread (Senator Grassley) claim the "Biden Rule" was the reason of not nominating a person for the Supreme Court in the last year of a Presidency as if it was gospel. Maybe this is convenient or maybe a lack of history knowledge or just plain confusion. I'll go with confusion. In fact the original person that came up with this idea was a staunch conservative Republican. Confusion over judicial confirmations in the election years stems from the so-called ‘Thurmond Rule.” It was named for former Sen. Strom Thurmond a Republican at the time who opposed Johnson’s 1968 Supreme Court nominations, the informal rule suggests that judicial nominations shouldn’t be confirmed in the months leading up to a president election.

Joe Biden’s remarks were part of a long speech about revising the Supreme Court confirmation process after a tumultuous five-year period that had featured three bitterly contested nominees: William H. Rehnquist in 1986, who received the most “no” votes of any justice until that time; Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate in 1987; and Clarence Thomas, whose bruising hearings culminated in a vote in 1991 in which he drew even more opposition than Chief Justice Rehnquist had.

Then Republican Senator, Marco Rubio said, “There comes a point in the last year of the president, especially in their second term, where you stop nominating both Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges and suggested there’s no need for President Barack Obama to even try making a nomination."
— Marco Rubio on Sunday, February 14th, 2016 in comments on “Meet the Press"

Mitch McConnell picked Marco's ball up and of course Merrick Garland never got any consideration by the Senate. Actually, Marco was confused and dead wrong. George W. Bush appointed 32 and Ronald Reagan 33 lower level judges in the final years of their presidencies. 13 appointed were Federal Court of Appeal judges.

Just thought I would try to clear up the right wingers confusion on the "Biden Rule" issue.
I have specifically mentioned Supreme Court appointments, no others.
racedo is online now  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 21:49
  #16119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,137
Ethical,
Given the econ news, and this swirling toilet bowl of corruption and partisan malingering by the Dems, I predict a nice sweep next month. It will be a new day, a new way and there are going to be a lot of tears and outrage from the Antifa-Soros-BLM-LGBT-whatever group.
I love it when a far right winger counts his chickens before they hatch, how many seers have predicted the end of the world on a given date and that date has passed? Save your personal exuberance and get drunk tonight, don't drive from the bar, call Uber...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2018, 22:09
  #16120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 589
Turbine,
Biden’s remarks were part of a long speech about revising the Supreme Court confirmation process after a tumultuous five-year period that had featured three bitterly contested nominees: William H. Rehnquist in 1986, who received the most “no” votes of any justice until that time; Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate in 1987; and Clarence Thomas,
remind me, if you will, which candidates were subjected to the character assassination devices of the minority party? I believe it was two of the three you listed.

Did Republicans engage in such sewer-policies when they were opposed to a Democrat's candidates?
obgraham is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.