|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2020 13:36:43 GMT -5
To keep from mixing apples and oranges, look at the history of confirming Supreme Court Justices. Over the years the matter has become more and more political. My memory goes back to when Bork became a verb. And some judges have traditionally been sly enough to sometimes surprise their pickers, subsequently.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2020 13:51:38 GMT -5
I can understand how you perceive it that way, but answer this: how many months ago would Trump moving to fill the seat not been an act of corruption? Couldn't acting on an interest in keeping the court an even number also be perceived as corrupt? Same answer as I gave inavalan, it won't matter anyway. If the Supreme Court should have to decide upon election matters, similar to Bush vs Gore, the new Judge will recuse herself. I'm sure she will have more sense than Trump. This whole thing is probably going to be musical chairs, with a lit fuse, b_l_a_n_k hidden under a chair. Law of unintended consequences. Just saw Romney will vote to confirm, so that question is probably settled. And L Graham says it will happen before the election, so it probably will. But I don't think the election will be close enough to have to go to the Supreme Court....anyway... Next question. After loss will Trump resign so he can be (pre)pardoned by Pence? Yes. You didn't answer the question: would it have been corruption for Trump to have nominated a replacement for Ginsburg if she'd died 3 months ago? 6 months ago? A year ago? At what point does his nominating someone become corrupt because they might break a tie on the (now apparently) inevitable election litigation? And if it's corrupt for Trump to nominate someone because it's so close to the election, why isn't it just as corrupt to want the court to tie in a vote on that litigation? Isn't it corrupt to want to undermine the electoral process with the chaos of litigation? Which side is it that's involved in that particular act of subversion of the election process? Which side is it that didn't accept and has actively denied the results of the last presidential election? Your logic as to why the eventual new appointment would supposedly have to recuse themselves is deeply flawed, quite naive, and has about as much to do with the law as the supposed rbg deathbed wish. By that standard, Ginsberg and Breyer should have arguably recused themselves in Bush v. Gore because Al was Bill's vp and perhaps even Souter and Thomas should have as well because they were appointed by W's dad. The new appointee would only be expected to recuse if they had ruled on the case as a lower-court judge, but, don't take my word for that. One platitude repeated endlessly during impeachment was that "noone is above the law". Well, you see, that notion is based on and derives directly from the idea that we are a "nation of laws, not men". Who is it that want's to supersede the letter of the constitution based on personal preference and for political gain by demanding a delay in the appointment or a recusal of the appointee? Is it the Republicans, or the Democrats? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2020 18:38:54 GMT -5
Same answer as I gave inavalan, it won't matter anyway. If the Supreme Court should have to decide upon election matters, similar to Bush vs Gore, the new Judge will recuse herself. I'm sure she will have more sense than Trump. This whole thing is probably going to be musical chairs, with a lit fuse, b_l_a_n_k hidden under a chair. Law of unintended consequences. Just saw Romney will vote to confirm, so that question is probably settled. And L Graham says it will happen before the election, so it probably will. But I don't think the election will be close enough to have to go to the Supreme Court....anyway... Next question. After loss will Trump resign so he can be (pre)pardoned by Pence? Yes. You didn't answer the question: would it have been corruption for Trump to have nominated a replacement for Ginsburg if she'd died 3 months ago? 6 months ago? A year ago? At what point does his nominating someone become corrupt because they might break a tie on the (now apparently) inevitable election litigation? And if it's corrupt for Trump to nominate someone because it's so close to the election, why isn't it just as corrupt to want the court to tie in a vote on that litigation? Isn't it corrupt to want to undermine the electoral process with the chaos of litigation? Which side is it that's involved in that particular act of subversion of the election process? Which side is it that didn't accept and has actively denied the results of the last presidential election? Your logic as to why the eventual new appointment would supposedly have to recuse themselves is deeply flawed, quite naive, and has about as much to do with the law as the supposed rbg deathbed wish. By that standard, Ginsberg and Breyer should have arguably recused themselves in Bush v. Gore because Al was Bill's vp and perhaps even Souter and Thomas should have as well because they were appointed by W's dad. The new appointee would only be expected to recuse if they had ruled on the case as a lower-court judge, but, don't take my word for that. One platitude repeated endlessly during impeachment was that "noone is above the law". Well, you see, that notion is based on and derives directly from the idea that we are a "nation of laws, not men". Who is it that want's to supersede the letter of the constitution based on personal preference and for political gain by demanding a delay in the appointment or a recusal of the appointee? Is it the Republicans, or the Democrats? I would say the ~normal~ time for confirmation is about 3 months, plus or minus, so say 2 & 1/2 months. So August 15 would have been the cut off date for beginning the process. August 15, without a doubt. Before August 15, no corruption, after August 15, corruption. August 15 11:59PM ET. Trump has created ALL the chaos around the prospect of illegal voting. He did the same thing in 2016, because he didn't expect to win. Daddy Kennedy probably tipped the scales in 1960 in Chicago and handed the Presidency to JFK. S**t (corruption) happens. All's fair in love and war and politics. There's a bunch of babies in the Senate and House, crying about the results in 2016. Hillary still thinks Trump stole the election, nonsense. She just can't admit she ran a stupid campaign. She thought she was "anointed" to be President. I don't think you read, or remember an earlier post. I'm glad! Trump will get to pick another SC Justice. Most of the talk by Democrat opposition is just posturing, just blabbering nonsense. If the shoe were on the other foot, of course the Democrats would move forward and confirm a nominee. To the victors go the spoils of war. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2020 19:35:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 23, 2020 0:47:29 GMT -5
Yes, I think it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. And I actually do think that people are interested in the truth and in a true cause but that this kind of genuine interest gets diverted and subverted all the time by very skilled players in the game. And so when you factor in what people are exposed to all day coming from all sides plus that people are more inclined to react to whatever happens in front of their noses than making an effort to focus on what they really want (instead of what other people want them to want), it's not a surprise that we see what we are seeing right now. So be careful where you put your attention these days. There are currently a lot of attention grabbing things happening that may lead you down a path you don't really want to end up on. I like your way of putting that about "attention". I always think about "consciousness" or "awareness" and these words are commonly discussed on this forum. I haven't paid as much ... attention ... to "attention". Like you said we want to be careful where we put it. But another thing... what the heck is it? It's like a spotlight or direction of consciousness, seemingly affected by will. Try observing yourself thru-out the day if you can see a connection between what you focus upon and your mood during the day, like a day with 24/7 news watching vs. a day with no news at all. And when you see a connection there, try observing if you can see a connection between your mood and how your day goes, what conversations you have, what people and situations you run into. I tell you a personal story. Earlier this month, the riots grabbed my attention. I started looking into it a bit more, researching it. Well, after more than a week of consuming plenty of video footage showing people getting hurt in numerous ways, on a Sunday, I went to the pool with my family as usual and hurt my left hand in the pool. Really just a scratch, it didn't even hurt at the time, I only noticed later. Nevertheless, it seemed odd. But I put some band aid on it and forgot about it. The next day, in Monday morning, still half asleep, I grabbed a fork from the cupboard and hurt my right hand on a sharp piece of metal. Really just a scratch again, but right under the fingernail, so this time it really hurt and it also took a while to stop the bleeding. But it's been a busy month and I had no time again to give it much thought. Put on some band aid again and moved on. The next day, I dropped something but managed to catch it in mid air but twisted my thumb really badly in the process. And that really, really, really hurt. Picking up things, putting on clothes, even typing suddenly became a problem. And now finally I thought to myself, "I think I'm seeing a pattern here and it's definitely not the direction I wanna go". And then it dawned on me, that I had been watching people getting physically hurt for weeks, day after day. So I stopped doing that because that's not the road I wanted to end up. Life is full of such little, seemingly inconsequential, seemingly unrelated things and events, but which, in total, largely determine the direction our lives go, because it's adding up. So it's worth keeping your eye on the emotional scale when you watch the news, when you interact with others, even what conversations you have here on the forum. The rule of thumb is, whatever is manifesting in your experience will give you clues about how you are doing yourself. Now, A-H would call that post-manifestational awareness, i.e. the damage is done and only then you realize something is off; as opposed to pre-manifestational awareness, i.e. no harm done yet, but you feel significantly uneasy which makes you realize something is off. I've noticed something similar with natural disasters, people who have to live with tropical cyclones. Some leave long before disaster strikes, some only leave when disaster is about to hit during a mass evacuation and some just get hit seemingly out of the blue. It would be interesting to reconstruct the causal chain of decisions that led to these different experiences, the forks in the road that some took and others missed. Pre-manifestational awareness is always a good thing if you want to live an easy and comfortable life. But that seems to be rare. Most people only seem to wake up and become aware of their own creations under extreme contrast and hardship, when the wind is already blowing away their roof or when their neighborhood is already in flames. The problem with post-manifestational awareness is that in such a case your options are usually very limited. A-H always tell this joke about someone jumping out of an airplane, suddenly realizing that he doesn't have a parachute and now wanting to know what he should do. To which they always reply, hang on, it will be over soon. So, long story short, when disaster strikes, it's a bit late to act. Very often you can't do anything other than just to ride it out and hope for the best. But extreme contrast tends to have the effect of waking people up who have been asleep at the wheel, shaking them out of their daydreams and bringing them back into the NOW. And this can be a very memorable experience. I've heard stories about people who have lost everything in a hurricane, a fire or an earthquake and they said it was the best thing that had ever happened to them because it made them reevaluate their lives and realize what's really important. So as usual, it's all a matter of perspective and personal preferences. Some people actually seem to almost seek hardship, some just like to live on the edge of adventure. If there's a fire or an explosion somewhere, most people will run away, but oddly, there's always someone who will run right toward it. Fascinating. So my advice to all of you guys who are mesmerized by the news and the current political spectacle of the century - be careful! Try to become aware of what it does to you and to your lives. You don't need to know everything or even have an opinion on everything. And you don't have to fight other people's battles either. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Sept 23, 2020 2:56:28 GMT -5
To keep from mixing apples and oranges, look at the history of confirming Supreme Court Justices. Over the years the matter has become more and more political. My memory goes back to when Bork became a verb. And some judges have traditionally been sly enough to sometimes surprise their pickers, subsequently. TIL: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#Bork_as_a_verb |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2020 6:31:20 GMT -5
I like your way of putting that about "attention". I always think about "consciousness" or "awareness" and these words are commonly discussed on this forum. I haven't paid as much ... attention ... to "attention". Like you said we want to be careful where we put it. But another thing... what the heck is it? It's like a spotlight or direction of consciousness, seemingly affected by will. Try observing yourself thru-out the day if you can see a connection between what you focus upon and your mood during the day, like a day with 24/7 news watching vs. a day with no news at all. And when you see a connection there, try observing if you can see a connection between your mood and how your day goes, what conversations you have, what people and situations you run into. I tell you a personal story. Earlier this month, the riots grabbed my attention. I started looking into it a bit more, researching it. Well, after more than a week of consuming plenty of video footage showing people getting hurt in numerous ways, on a Sunday, I went to the pool with my family as usual and hurt my left hand in the pool. Really just a scratch, it didn't even hurt at the time, I only noticed later. Nevertheless, it seemed odd. But I put some band aid on it and forgot about it. The next day, in Monday morning, still half asleep, I grabbed a fork from the cupboard and hurt my right hand on a sharp piece of metal. Really just a scratch again, but right under the fingernail, so this time it really hurt and it also took a while to stop the bleeding. But it's been a busy month and I had no time again to give it much thought. Put on some band aid again and moved on. The next day, I dropped something but managed to catch it in mid air but twisted my thumb really badly in the process. And that really, really, really hurt. Picking up things, putting on clothes, even typing suddenly became a problem. And now finally I thought to myself, " I think I'm seeing a pattern here and it's definitely not the direction I wanna go". And then it dawned on me, that I had been watching people getting physically hurt for weeks, day after day. So I stopped doing that because that's not the road I wanted to end up. Life is full of such little, seemingly inconsequential, seemingly unrelated things and events, but which, in total, largely determine the direction our lives go, because it's adding up. So it's worth keeping your eye on the emotional scale when you watch the news, when you interact with others, even what conversations you have here on the forum. The rule of thumb is, whatever is manifesting in your experience will give you clues about how you are doing yourself. Now, A-H would call that post-manifestational awareness, i.e. the damage is done and only then you realize something is off; as opposed to pre-manifestational awareness, i.e. no harm done yet, but you feel significantly uneasy which makes you realize something is off. I've noticed something similar with natural disasters, people who have to live with tropical cyclones. Some leave long before disaster strikes, some only leave when disaster is about to hit during a mass evacuation and some just get hit seemingly out of the blue. It would be interesting to reconstruct the causal chain of decisions that led to these different experiences, the forks in the road that some took and others missed. Pre-manifestational awareness is always a good thing if you want to live an easy and comfortable life. But that seems to be rare. Most people only seem to wake up and become aware of their own creations under extreme contrast and hardship, when the wind is already blowing away their roof or when their neighborhood is already in flames. The problem with post-manifestational awareness is that in such a case your options are usually very limited. A-H always tell this joke about someone jumping out of an airplane, suddenly realizing that he doesn't have a parachute and now wanting to know what he should do. To which they always reply, hang on, it will be over soon. So, long story short, when disaster strikes, it's a bit late to act. Very often you can't do anything other than just to ride it out and hope for the best. But extreme contrast tends to have the effect of waking people up who have been asleep at the wheel, shaking them out of their daydreams and bringing them back into the NOW. And this can be a very memorable experience. I've heard stories about people who have lost everything in a hurricane, a fire or an earthquake and they said it was the best thing that had ever happened to them because it made them reevaluate their lives and realize what's really important. So as usual, it's all a matter of perspective and personal preferences. Some people actually seem to almost seek hardship, some just like to live on the edge of adventure. If there's a fire or an explosion somewhere, most people will run away, but oddly, there's always someone who will run right toward it. Fascinating. So my advice to all of you guys who are mesmerized by the news and the current political spectacle of the century - be careful! Try to become aware of what it does to you and to your lives. You don't need to know everything or even have an opinion on everything. And you don't have to fight other people's battles either. Watch it even more carefully. It is simply forming the conclusion, observing the pattern becomes very clear every time whenever you form this conclusion. Watch it from next time onwards. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2020 6:56:39 GMT -5
Just want to make clear, corruption is a transaction. If someone offers a quid pro quo and it is not accepted, no corruption. I recall vividly a scene from early on in A Man for All Seasons. Thomas More is giving young Richard-John Hurt and object lesson about bribery. More was given a silver cup, an expectation of a favorable ruling in a court decision. Judge More can't keep the silver cup because that would be a temptation to compromise his integrity, to keep the silver cup would be corruption. If you've seen the film, young Richard-John Hurt does not learn from the lesson. (Paul Scofield is great as Sir Thomas More). Many of Trump's people finally get enough of him and resign (or get fired). Some have written books. Trump asks for loyalty from those who cannot give it. He still does not understand he cannot run the country as a business. If you haven't seen the film Sir Thomas More rises to become second to the King in power in Great Britain, a bribe, an attempt at corruption. He expertly knows the law, and cannot accept the King Henry VIII's quid pro quo, but will not say why.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 23, 2020 11:01:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2020 11:28:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2020 12:10:13 GMT -5
You didn't answer the question: would it have been corruption for Trump to have nominated a replacement for Ginsburg if she'd died 3 months ago? 6 months ago? A year ago? At what point does his nominating someone become corrupt because they might break a tie on the (now apparently) inevitable election litigation? And if it's corrupt for Trump to nominate someone because it's so close to the election, why isn't it just as corrupt to want the court to tie in a vote on that litigation? Isn't it corrupt to want to undermine the electoral process with the chaos of litigation? Which side is it that's involved in that particular act of subversion of the election process? Which side is it that didn't accept and has actively denied the results of the last presidential election? Your logic as to why the eventual new appointment would supposedly have to recuse themselves is deeply flawed, quite naive, and has about as much to do with the law as the supposed rbg deathbed wish. By that standard, Ginsberg and Breyer should have arguably recused themselves in Bush v. Gore because Al was Bill's vp and perhaps even Souter and Thomas should have as well because they were appointed by W's dad. The new appointee would only be expected to recuse if they had ruled on the case as a lower-court judge, but, don't take my word for that. One platitude repeated endlessly during impeachment was that "noone is above the law". Well, you see, that notion is based on and derives directly from the idea that we are a "nation of laws, not men". Who is it that want's to supersede the letter of the constitution based on personal preference and for political gain by demanding a delay in the appointment or a recusal of the appointee? Is it the Republicans, or the Democrats? I would say the ~normal~ time for confirmation is about 3 months, plus or minus, so say 2 & 1/2 months. So August 15 would have been the cut off date for beginning the process. August 15, without a doubt. Before August 15, no corruption, after August 15, corruption. August 15 11:59PM ET. Trump has created ALL the chaos around the prospect of illegal voting. He did the same thing in 2016, because he didn't expect to win. Daddy Kennedy probably tipped the scales in 1960 in Chicago and handed the Presidency to JFK. S**t (corruption) happens. All's fair in love and war and politics. There's a bunch of babies in the Senate and House, crying about the results in 2016. Hillary still thinks Trump stole the election, nonsense. She just can't admit she ran a stupid campaign. She thought she was "anointed" to be President. I don't think you read, or remember an earlier post. I'm glad! Trump will get to pick another SC Justice. Most of the talk by Democrat opposition is just posturing, just blabbering nonsense. If the shoe were on the other foot, of course the Democrats would move forward and confirm a nominee. To the victors go the spoils of war. What, exactly, did Trump do in '16, and what is he doing now to create chaos around the prospect of illegal voting?  The facts of the cali ballot harvesting, are, what they are, and if you want to see examples of what corruption really look like, it's that, the attempt to nationalize it (or at least spread it to swing states), the grant of the franchise to noncitizens, the proposals to lower the voting age to 16, add two new states to imbalance the senate and add justices to the Sct. Responding any further to your definition of corruption makes me feel like the straight guy in a gag.  Your arbitrary resort to a median period ignores the fact that rbg was confirmed in 45 days, Roberts in 31 and O'Connor in 34. But, that's even besides the point. Can you explain why it's corrupt to try to rush an appointment before an election? Corruption refers to an abuse of power to assure a private benefit - like, say, if you influence a foreign government to fire a prosecutor looking into a no-show-sweetheart-deal with your son. Even if you can argue that Trump would personally benefit from the appointment, you can't prove that this is the only reason for taking this action, and you're ignoring that it's not an impetus that's personal or specific to Trump (what would Obama or Clinton have done in the same situation?), and, also, that he owes a responsibility to his electorate to try to make it happen, because there's far more at stake in the appointment -- which will probably last for decades -- than just one potential ruling on election litigation. Isn't your opinion about the corruption really about your distaste for the guy on a personal level? |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 23, 2020 13:15:55 GMT -5
I would say the ~normal~ time for confirmation is about 3 months, plus or minus, so say 2 & 1/2 months. So August 15 would have been the cut off date for beginning the process. August 15, without a doubt. Before August 15, no corruption, after August 15, corruption. August 15 11:59PM ET. Trump has created ALL the chaos around the prospect of illegal voting. He did the same thing in 2016, because he didn't expect to win. Daddy Kennedy probably tipped the scales in 1960 in Chicago and handed the Presidency to JFK. S**t (corruption) happens. All's fair in love and war and politics. There's a bunch of babies in the Senate and House, crying about the results in 2016. Hillary still thinks Trump stole the election, nonsense. She just can't admit she ran a stupid campaign. She thought she was "anointed" to be President. I don't think you read, or remember an earlier post. I'm glad! Trump will get to pick another SC Justice. Most of the talk by Democrat opposition is just posturing, just blabbering nonsense. If the shoe were on the other foot, of course the Democrats would move forward and confirm a nominee. To the victors go the spoils of war. What, exactly, did Trump do in '16, and what is he doing now to create chaos around the prospect of illegal voting? The facts of the cali ballot harvesting, are, what they are, and if you want to see examples of what corruption really look like, it's that, the attempt to nationalize it (or at least spread it to swing states), the grant of the franchise to noncitizens, the proposals to lower the voting age to 16, add two new states to imbalance the senate and add justices to the Sct. Responding any further to your definition of corruption makes me feel like the straight guy in a gag. Your arbitrary resort to a median period ignores the fact that rbg was confirmed in 45 days, Roberts in 31 and O'Connor in 34. But, that's even besides the point. Can you explain why it's corrupt to try to rush an appointment before an election? Corruption refers to an abuse of power to assure a private benefit - like, say, if you influence a foreign government to fire a prosecutor looking into a no-show-sweetheart-deal with your son. Even if you can argue that Trump would personally benefit from the appointment, you can't prove that this is the only reason for taking this action, and you're ignoring that it's not an impetus that's personal or specific to Trump (what would Obama or Clinton have done in the same situation?), and, also, that he owes a responsibility to his electorate to try to make it happen, because there's far more at stake in the appointment -- which will probably last for decades -- than just one potential ruling on election litigation. Isn't your opinion about the corruption really about your distaste for the guy on a personal level? I haven't heard Biden say he won't accept the results of an election. Hillary conceded. I heard her speech. She called and congratulated Trump. Who keeps saying if he loses then it's rigged? So you believe Trump won the popular vote? Just a simple question, if the Democrats are so adept at cheating why not stuff the ballot in the states Trump won by razor thin margins, like Pennsylvania for instance. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 23, 2020 14:15:24 GMT -5
What, exactly, did Trump do in '16, and what is he doing now to create chaos around the prospect of illegal voting? The facts of the cali ballot harvesting, are, what they are, and if you want to see examples of what corruption really look like, it's that, the attempt to nationalize it (or at least spread it to swing states), the grant of the franchise to noncitizens, the proposals to lower the voting age to 16, add two new states to imbalance the senate and add justices to the Sct. Responding any further to your definition of corruption makes me feel like the straight guy in a gag. Your arbitrary resort to a median period ignores the fact that rbg was confirmed in 45 days, Roberts in 31 and O'Connor in 34. But, that's even besides the point. Can you explain why it's corrupt to try to rush an appointment before an election? Corruption refers to an abuse of power to assure a private benefit - like, say, if you influence a foreign government to fire a prosecutor looking into a no-show-sweetheart-deal with your son. Even if you can argue that Trump would personally benefit from the appointment, you can't prove that this is the only reason for taking this action, and you're ignoring that it's not an impetus that's personal or specific to Trump (what would Obama or Clinton have done in the same situation?), and, also, that he owes a responsibility to his electorate to try to make it happen, because there's far more at stake in the appointment -- which will probably last for decades -- than just one potential ruling on election litigation. Isn't your opinion about the corruption really about your distaste for the guy on a personal level? I haven't heard Biden say he won't accept the results of an election. Hillary conceded. I heard her speech. She called and congratulated Trump. Who keeps saying if he loses then it's rigged? So you believe Trump won the popular vote? Just a simple question, if the Democrats are so adept at cheating why not stuff the ballot in the states Trump won by razor thin margins, like Pennsylvania for instance. Because they'd bought their own polling data telling them it wasn't necessary. Remember, Hill actually spent time campaigning in Texas during the weeks leading up to the election (rather than Wisconsin and Penn) because she believed it too. Yes, she conceded, but then spent the last four years complaining about how she was robbed by the system. No, Trump lost the popular vote, but that's not how Presidents are or ever have selected. Member's of her party were talking about impeachment essentially on the day after the election, and the popular vote is often one point that's cited as the basis for their call. As far as Biden never saying he wouldn't accept the results, have you read about a mock-up the Dem's did of election night with Podesta playing the role of Biden? It was an exercise, like a war game. Podesta-Biden's move on election night was to refuse to concede, begin litigation and call on the military to remove Trump from the white house. The Democrat assembly of a legal team to make this happen is no secret at this point. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2020 14:35:54 GMT -5
I would say the ~normal~ time for confirmation is about 3 months, plus or minus, so say 2 & 1/2 months. So August 15 would have been the cut off date for beginning the process. August 15, without a doubt. Before August 15, no corruption, after August 15, corruption. August 15 11:59PM ET. Trump has created ALL the chaos around the prospect of illegal voting. He did the same thing in 2016, because he didn't expect to win. Daddy Kennedy probably tipped the scales in 1960 in Chicago and handed the Presidency to JFK. S**t (corruption) happens. All's fair in love and war and politics. There's a bunch of babies in the Senate and House, crying about the results in 2016. Hillary still thinks Trump stole the election, nonsense. She just can't admit she ran a stupid campaign. She thought she was "anointed" to be President. I don't think you read, or remember an earlier post. I'm glad! Trump will get to pick another SC Justice. Most of the talk by Democrat opposition is just posturing, just blabbering nonsense. If the shoe were on the other foot, of course the Democrats would move forward and confirm a nominee. To the victors go the spoils of war. What, exactly, did Trump do in '16, and what is he doing now to create chaos around the prospect of illegal voting? The facts of the cali ballot harvesting, are, what they are, and if you want to see examples of what corruption really look like, it's that, the attempt to nationalize it (or at least spread it to swing states), the grant of the franchise to noncitizens, the proposals to lower the voting age to 16, add two new states to imbalance the senate and add justices to the Sct. Responding any further to your definition of corruption makes me feel like the straight guy in a gag. Your arbitrary resort to a median period ignores the fact that rbg was confirmed in 45 days, Roberts in 31 and O'Connor in 34. But, that's even besides the point. Can you explain why it's corrupt to try to rush an appointment before an election? Corruption refers to an abuse of power to assure a private benefit - like, say, if you influence a foreign government to fire a prosecutor looking into a no-show-sweetheart-deal with your son. Even if you can argue that Trump would personally benefit from the appointment, you can't prove that this is the only reason for taking this action, and you're ignoring that it's not an impetus that's personal or specific to Trump (what would Obama or Clinton have done in the same situation?), and, also, that he owes a responsibility to his electorate to try to make it happen, because there's far more at stake in the appointment -- which will probably last for decades -- than just one potential ruling on election litigation. Isn't your opinion about the corruption really about your distaste for the guy on a personal level? I originally made one point. I spoke again to that in the post above, saying corruption is a transaction. An attempt to corrupt is not corruption. Trump outright said he wanted to rush confirmation so that on voting day there will be nine justices who can rule on the question of illegal ballots. IOW, he's saying he's picking someone who will support his side of the question, IOW, he's asking for loyalty, IOW, I will pick you if you favor me. That's just how Trump has operated for 4 years, that's what the Impeachment was about. If you have no problem with that from the President of the United States, I'm sure I can't convince you otherwise. I'm just surprised, I would never have pictured you as a Trump supporter. Corruption would enter if the new Justice supported Trump, picked Trump in a decision, as a trade. I don't think that could ever be determined, as the reason for the decision could be a matter of conscience, held only in the mind of the new Justice. (She could give other ample public reasons for her decision). The film A Man For All Seasons came to mind. First, there is the example of More teaching Richard about bribery and corruption. Second (spoiler alert) Sir Thomas More would not support the divorce (annulment) of King Henry VIII. But he perfectly new the law, and would tell no one his reason of not supporting the King, not telling wife or daughter, no one. He was explaining why to his daughter. Hypothetically, seemed very innocent, if you were to say such-n-such, in public, they can cut my head off. So it took Richard, lying, perjuring himself, also a seemingly quite innocent remark he said he overheard More say, but he did lie in court, and they cut Sir Thomas More's head off. (Quite strikingly, after he was sentenced, he said, since you are going to cut my head off, I might as well give you my view of the King's divorce...). The other stuff, I may think on, make a list, may come back. But basically, Trump is an ignorant fool, despicable. His non-response to COVID-19 shows this in a nutshell. Interestingly, I would recommend the 3rd program of the series Hacking the Mind, on PBS tonight. First two, two of the best things ever on TV, explaining how we operate on autopilot. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 23, 2020 16:24:21 GMT -5
I haven't heard Biden say he won't accept the results of an election. Hillary conceded. I heard her speech. She called and congratulated Trump. Who keeps saying if he loses then it's rigged? So you believe Trump won the popular vote? Just a simple question, if the Democrats are so adept at cheating why not stuff the ballot in the states Trump won by razor thin margins, like Pennsylvania for instance. Because they'd bought their own polling data telling them it wasn't necessary. Remember, Hill actually spent time campaigning in Texas during the weeks leading up to the election (rather than Wisconsin and Penn) because she believed it too. Yes, she conceded, but then spent the last four years complaining about how she was robbed by the system. No, Trump lost the popular vote, but that's not how Presidents are or ever have selected. Member's of her party were talking about impeachment essentially on the day after the election, and the popular vote is often one point that's cited as the basis for their call. As far as Biden never saying he wouldn't accept the results, have you read about a mock-up the Dem's did of election night with Podesta playing the role of Biden? It was an exercise, like a war game. Podesta-Biden's move on election night was to refuse to concede, begin litigation and call on the military to remove Trump from the white house. The Democrat assembly of a legal team to make this happen is no secret at this point. The Democrats lost the 2016 election, no doubt. I'm not a registered Democrat, never have been. Only party I belonged to was the Green Party for a few years. But it irks me that your vote counts more than mine. Wanting to get rid of the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment, but this is a far cry from refusing to accept the election result. What the Democrats fear and I'd say the majority of us independents is exactly what Roger Stone called for, a martial law declaration. The Democrats are pushing for mail in ballots and extensions to allow for counting those ballots to give folks a chance to vote without having to crowd poll boothes during a pandemic. This seems reasonable. Trump is telling people to vote twice. Btw, this is a pandemic, that Trump called "deadly." As far as impeachment was concerned, he held up military aid to an ally at war with an adversary, a murdering a-hole, that Trump loves with a passion and actively helped Trump win the election,. As far as I'm concerned, it was a treasonous act, the Democrats didn't go far enough. but I accept that the Senate refused to convict. But you seem to reject the House's right to impeach? If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama had been caught holding up aid to an ally in the midst of a hot war, the Republicans would have drawn and quartered him. They spent years raking him over the coals over Benghazi. As a matter of fact, in my view, the 25th amendment was written exactly for someone like Trump. I can't imagine where you're coming from. It seems pretty far out there to me. The truth is we're sitting on a powder keg and this fool is lighting matches. If this thing blows up there'll be no winners only losers. I know he has some adolescent fantasy about being a military genius. He's not. He's a fool, a dangerous fool. If you don't see that then there's nothing more to say. We're both wasting our time. You can have the last word. I'm moving on to something nondual. |
|
The facts of the