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

US Politics Hamsterwheel V3.0

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

US Politics Hamsterwheel V3.0

Old 9th Jul 2020, 06:31
  #1221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Well at least, Winemaker, you are eligible to run. I, fortunately, am not!

Back to Kanye: we're hearing moaning of varying types here: Will Kanye steal some votes from Trump? Or will Kanye steal some black votes (i.e. from Biden)? Which is it to be?
obgraham is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 14:35
  #1222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
And why are you concerned that a man who you think has a mental disorder might run for President, when the man who definitely IS running for President is in a declining mental state that even his own supporters do not deny, and who has been advised by some of his ardent media supporters to "remain in your basement" rather than engage in a debate during the campaign?
Here, fixed it for you: And why are you concerned that a man who you think has a mental disorder might run for President, when the man who definitely IS President is in a declining mental state that even his own supporters do not deny?
Brakes on is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 15:17
  #1223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Ever wondered how he 'managed' to bankrupt three casinos?
Here are two examples of his math prowess:

“COVID-19 (China Virus) Death Rate PLUNGES From Peak In U.S.” A Tenfold Decrease In Mortality."
Are we now talking negative deaths?

"For the 1/100th time, the reason we show so many Cases, compared to other countries that haven’t done nearly as well as we have, is that our TESTING is much bigger and better. We have tested 40,000,000 people. If we did 20,000,000 instead, Cases would be half, etc"

1/100th time???

Half the tests would not produce half the cases. Depends on the number of positive cases from the tests.
And even if "half the cases" were true, do we then assume the other half are not infected? Is the formula: not tested=not infected?
Brakes on is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 15:18
  #1224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not scotland
Posts: 199
Trump loses Supreme Court battle with NY Prosecutor over his taxes and financial records.

His tweets this morning before the result were PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT! and PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!.

I wonder what now.

Toadstool is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 15:29
  #1225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44


Talking about mental disorder...
Brakes on is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 16:53
  #1226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,056
Originally Posted by Toadstool View Post
Trump loses Supreme Court battle with NY Prosecutor over his taxes and financial records.

His tweets this morning before the result were PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT! and PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!.

I wonder what now.
In the short term - nothing much. The SCOTUS sent this case (and the related one involving Congressional subpoenas) back to the lower courts, to be reconsidered, in the light of certain suggestions. That'll take some time - long past the election, at any rate.

Regarding Trump vs. Vance (New York) the prosecutor will probably get his documents. Then he has to review them, and put them before a Grand Jury (or not) in secrecy, and make a case there, and maybe get an indictment. And maybe (or maybe not) produce the documents as trial evidence.

It is significant that in both cases, SCOTUS threw out the Trumpian claim that a President has a "categorical immunity." By 7-2, with Trump's two appointees joining the CJ and the "liberal" wing. A President gets neither better treatment nor worse treatment than any other citizen. With which, I suspect, even the Trump conservatives here will agree. (S)he is Head of Government and Head of State, but not a monarch who can claim protection from lèse-majesté.

The same seven also distinguished (in the two cases) between courts and prosecutions - and Congress, which should not be a prosecutor of crimes in general, but only (rarely) high crimes and misdemeanors in office (Impeachment). Their main job is writing law, not enforcing it, and their subpoenas have to reflect that difference.

The President is subject to law like anyone else. The President as head of an equal-but-separate branch of government, is not a "subject" of the Legisative Branch, except under specific legislation-related circumstances, for which the House, in this case (thus far), made too weak an argument.
pattern_is_full is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 17:41
  #1227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,681
Regarding Trump vs. Vance (New York) the prosecutor will probably get his documents. Then he has to review them, and put them before a Grand Jury (or not) in secrecy, and make a case there, and maybe get an indictment. And maybe (or maybe not) produce the documents as trial evidence.
Nope, all that has to happen is the records get leaked.
West Coast is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 18:35
  #1228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Nope, all that has to happen is the records get leaked.
How could that happen?
obgraham is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 18:57
  #1229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not scotland
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
How could that happen?
Get Russia to do it. Ask them, like the emails.
Toadstool is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 19:05
  #1230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 0
Is the formula: not tested=not infected?
Yes, that's some of the new math Dear Leader wants taught in school..... along with the concept of the 1/100th time.
Winemaker is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 21:19
  #1231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,387
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
Nope, all that has to happen is the records get leaked.
Yup, and I suspect that some more fishing expeditions will get underway for a few more high level politicians. That's what DA's are for
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2020, 23:12
  #1232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,681
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
How could that happen?

“I’m going to dinner now, whatever you do don’t open my top right desk drawer and look in the Manila envelope”

It’s not like they haven’t before.
West Coast is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 01:49
  #1233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
What is this madman up to now?
First it's "the CDC guidelines for opening schools are too tough", now it's " schools not opening will lose funding". Is he actively trying to endanger school children (plus potentially their parents, grandparents etc.) to a virus already out of control? I think somebody should seriously start to think about Amendment 25. And don't say it's up to the schools to open or not. The problem is that a leader of a country is knowingly putting (trying to force) people in grave danger for entirely personal reasons to save his re-election.
Brakes on is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 03:20
  #1234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 0
From an MSNBC article today about the CDC, originally from The Washington Post https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cOj?li=BBnb7Kz

“The CDC is the nation’s trusted health protection agency and its infectious-disease and public health experts have helped deliver critical solutions to save lives. We encourage all Americans to continue to follow the CDC’s guidelines and use best-practices they have learned, such as social distancing, face coverings, and good hygiene, to maintain public health and continue our Transition to Greatness.”

But some health experts were indignant the agency had been ordered to rewrite guidance to reopen schools to “make it easier and cost less” — a demand that effectively “turns science on its head,” said Tom Inglesby, director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security.

“CDC should be giving their best judgments on how to lower risks to make schools safer,” he said. “That’s their job. If they aren’t allowed to do that, the public will lose confidence in the guidance.”he diminished role of the 74-year-old agency has bewildered infectious-disease experts, as well as members of the public seeking guidance.

After six states set one-day case records on July 3, Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean at Emory University’s School of Medicine, tweeted at Tom Frieden, a former CDC director, “Tom, where is @CDCgov ? Why are they not out there shouting ‘fire’?”

Frieden shot back: “They are still there, still doing great work, just not being allowed to talk about it, not being allowed to guide policy, not being allowed to develop, standardize, and post information that would give, by state and county, the status of the epidemic and of our control measures.”

Jeffrey Duchin, the health officer at Seattle and King County health department, added: “Agree. Muzzled, neutered and exiled.”

The agency has been largely invisible. After more than three months of silence, it resumed briefings for the public last month. There have been two.

By comparison, when the H1N1 swine flu pandemic hit the United States in the spring of 2009, the CDC held briefings almost every day for six consecutive weeks.

During this outbreak, the agency’s regular briefings ended abruptly after White House officials were angered when a top CDC leader warned that Americans could face “significant disruption” to their lives as a result of the virus’s spread to the United States.
I'm curious, ob. How do you, as a doctor, react to this? Do you think politicizing the CDC is a good or helpful idea?

Last edited by Winemaker; 10th Jul 2020 at 03:24. Reason: clarity
Winemaker is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 03:37
  #1235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
How do I react, Winemaker? With complete disgust that an agency formerly fully devoted to carrying out what it said on the sign by its door: "Communicable Disease Center" (in which realm it was one of the top 2 in the world) was diverted into a whole raft of unrelated fields, such as cancer statistics, cardiac population statistics, auto accidents, gunshot deaths (and by implication, advocacy of every idea of gun control that could be promoted) to the point where they changed the name, since infectious disease is now such a small portion of their work.

Outside of Academia, most docs lost interest in what CDC said about anything.

So now, that there actually is a "communicable disease" rampant, the CDC no longer has the tools to deal with it, nor the confidence of the medical community. They have been largely reactive in this, not proactive.

Please don't buy the line that politicization of tbe CDC is something new.
obgraham is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 05:44
  #1236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
How do I react, Winemaker? With complete disgust that an agency formerly fully devoted to carrying out what it said on the sign by its door: "Communicable Disease Center" (in which realm it was one of the top 2 in the world) was diverted into a whole raft of unrelated fields, such as cancer statistics, cardiac population statistics, auto accidents, gunshot deaths (and by implication, advocacy of every idea of gun control that could be promoted) to the point where they changed the name, since infectious disease is now such a small portion of their work.

Outside of Academia, most docs lost interest in what CDC said about anything.

So now, that there actually is a "communicable disease" rampant, the CDC no longer has the tools to deal with it, nor the confidence of the medical community. They have been largely reactive in this, not proactive.

Please don't buy the line that politicization of tbe CDC is something new.
Oh come on. When Obama left the White House there was a program addressing pandemic disease that was given to the new administration; this was just tossed by the Trumpsters because it was from Obama. Get a grip. This is just stupid governing; Trump immediately got rid of monitoring pandemic disease. Spin this how you will, but it was just stupid.
Winemaker is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 06:03
  #1237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Yakima
Posts: 0
Trump tells Hannity that he "very recently" "aced" a cognitive test: "I took it at Walter Reed, a medical center, in front of doctors, and they were very surprised"
I took that test last year and 'aced' it too. Let's see, I was told to remember three things, (which I still do; finger, river, something else) from a year ago, and asked to draw a clock showing 11:10 or something. I drew a beautiful clock, marked the numbers with Roman numerals, then was able to name the three nouns. Big ******* deal. 'Ace' it? There is something dreadfully wrong with this man if he thinks passing this stupid test is a big deal. I bet they were surprised....... This man can't speak a normal, rational, understandable sentence.....

ob, I don't hate this man, I'm just disgusted with him. The Emperor has no clothes. He's deficient in brain capacity, human capacity, and any ethics, morality, or humanity. He only thinks of himself. He is a blight on society and the United States of America. He should just shut the **** up.
Winemaker is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 07:00
  #1238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
It matters not a whit, Winemaker, if you dislike Trump in whatever sense you wish. That's why we have elections. And clearly in your and my state your view will prevail. So put a sock in it till then, why don't you.

Not everything you don't like is Trump's fault. In the instance we are discussing here, the devaluation of tbe CDC long precedes both Trump and Obama. In my opinion it goes back to when tne Boston Cabal was empowered to determine economic health policy. That was inthe Clinton era -- the two of them.
obgraham is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 09:08
  #1239 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,833
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/o...ribe-033bwc6t8

Oklahoma loses right to judge native American tribe

Much of eastern Oklahoma remains an American Indian reservation, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, threatening to throw its governance and thousands of convictions under state laws into chaos.

By a 5-4 majority the court decided that state prosecutors do not have authority to pursue criminal cases against American Indian defendants in parts of Oklahoma that include most of Tulsa, the second-largest city.

The ruling that only federal prosecutors can bring cases on native American land in Oklahoma, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and opposed by all his fellow conservatives, casts doubt on convictions won by state prosecutors.

It applies directly to territory given to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation but could be extended to land provided for the five American Indian tribes that were forced tosettle in Oklahoma between 1830 and 1850, the so-called Trail of Tears.

“We are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word,” Mr Gorsuch, 52, a conservative judge appointed by President Trump, wrote in a decision joined by the court’s liberal members.


“On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise,” he added. “Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the west would be secure for ever.”

The Supreme Court ruling was on the case of Jimcy McGirt, 71, who is serving a 500-year prison sentence for molesting a child. Oklahoma state courts rejected his argument that his case does not belong in state courts and that federal prosecutors should instead handle his case.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the dissenting opinion, said that the prior domains of the tribes were “extinguished” and the state of Oklahoma had maintained jurisdiction of the land for more than 100 years. “In statute after statute, Congress made abundantly clear its intent to disestablish the Creek territory,” Mr Roberts wrote.

Mr Gorsuch defended his interpretation against this argument, writing that “the federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity”.



ORAC is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2020, 11:52
  #1240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: heathrow
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
So now, that there actually is a "communicable disease" rampant, the CDC no longer has the tools to deal with it, nor the confidence of the medical community. They have been largely reactive in this, not proactive.

Please don't buy the line that politicization of tbe CDC is something new.
And when it was pointed out to you one reason why the CDC "no longer has the tools to deal with it"

Originally Posted by Winemaker View Post
Oh come on. When Obama left the White House there was a program addressing pandemic disease that was given to the new administration; this was just tossed by the Trumpsters because it was from Obama. Get a grip. This is just stupid governing; Trump immediately got rid of monitoring pandemic disease. Spin this how you will, but it was just stupid.
you immediately get defensive and ask the poster to "put a sock in it"

Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
It matters not a whit, Winemaker, if you dislike Trump in whatever sense you wish. That's why we have elections. And clearly in your and my state your view will prevail. So put a sock in it till then, why don't you.

Not everything you don't like is Trump's fault. In the instance we are discussing here, the devaluation of tbe CDC long precedes both Trump and Obama. In my opinion it goes back to when tne Boston Cabal was empowered to determine economic health policy. That was inthe Clinton era -- the two of them.
It seems like you are one of the people who likes to bring things into a discussion then when the very things that are brought up are shown not to help their argument, immediately backtracks.
Not exactly a good debating technique is it?
747 jock is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

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