Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

Good for them.

 

Supreme Court says President Trump cannot keep tax, financial records from prosecutors

 

The most surprising bit to me was this, as I seem to recall he was unwilling to commit to the idea during his confirmation hearings:

 

 

 

The SCOTUS kicked both cases down to the lower courts, so financial records and tax returns are unlikely to appear prior to the election.

[Lord Liaden]

37 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

The SCOTUS kicked both cases down to the lower courts, so financial records and tax returns are unlikely to appear prior to the election.

 

A politically as well as legally adroit move. This ruling reinforces the principle of the supremacy of the law, while avoiding accusations the court is exceeding its powers by interfering in the presidential election.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

If you're left-leaning I feel you have to be pleasantly surprised with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.  They have not turned out to be the blindly right-voting Trump-favoring justices many were concerned they would be.

 

Trump must be absolutely livid that his investment isn't paying off. Then again, he should be used to that by now. 😝

[Starlord]

IMO every elected official should be forced to reveal their taxes and financials, particularly POTUS.  Our leaders should be vetted out the wazoo.  YMMV.

[Lord Liaden]

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

I'm still not entirely convinced Kavanaugh has any business being there, but they didn't ask me.

 

I hadn't heard much dispute of Kavanaugh's legal credentials -- most concerns were over his character.

 

But if he's as weasely as he comes across, I wouldn't have put it past him to deliberately appear more dogmatic than he actually is, to be sure he'd get the job.

[Sociotard]

3 hours ago, Pariah said:

Good for them.

 

Supreme Court says President Trump cannot keep tax, financial records from prosecutors

 

The most surprising bit to me was this, as I seem to recall he was unwilling to commit to the idea during his confirmation hearings:

 

 

 

Don't be too quick to call this a Trump loss. He has some glossy silver linings there.

https://www.vox.com/2020/7/9/21318612/supreme-court-trump-mazars-vance-john-roberts-subpoenas-tax-returns

 

Notably, they made sure that Congress will probably not get to review anything until after the election.

[Lord Liaden]

That could have backfired on them, firing up Trump's base even more with accusations of "persecution."

 

But Trump is angry over the ruling, because he's afraid what he's hiding will still come out. He only got a reprieve, not an escape.

[DShomshak]

9 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

That could have backfired on them, firing up Trump's base even more with accusations of "persecution."

 

But Trump is angry over the ruling, because he's afraid what he's hiding will still come out. He only got a reprieve, not an escape.

 

Heard him on the radio. He's still claiming persecution. Hoax, Witch Hunt, no president has ever had to endure this but he's always won, the usual. He even brought up the Mueller investigation. The man speaks in macros. I've seen more creative language from an ELIZA program. But apparently his base thinks in macros, too.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Old Man]

ELIZA's output was grammatically correct.

[ScottishFox]

And, in the 2020 is Year of Endless Chaos category, The Supreme Court just gave half of Oklahoma back to the Muskogee nation.  That includes Tulsa and a very large part of Oklahoma.  Nearly two thousand convicted criminals will potentially be released as they were illegally (now) convicted by the State of Oklahoma on land they did not have jurisdiction on.

 

Everything in Orange goes bye-bye and is no longer Oklahoma because the treaty wasn't terminated properly.  Gorsuch was in favor of the 5-4 ruling.  Another proof he's going by  what he believes the law says and not what Trump wants.

 

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

On 7/9/2020 at 1:34 AM, Sociotard said:

Still mad my choices are "Sexual predator" and "Too handsy in the office and sniffs your hair, so sexual predator too but different grade, I guess"

Actually worse than 2016, when I had to check the box for "not a Predator, but stuck up for one for 8 years"

 

But hey. I'm in Idaho. Our border with Montana looks like Biden leaning in to smell hair.

 

Your choice is more between "potential sexual predator" (still disputed), and "potential sexual predator, confirmed compulsive liar, narcissist and possible sociopath, racist, ignorant, incompetent, demagogue would-be tyrant."

 

The choice may be between two evils, but given they're the only choices available, there's a very clear lesser one, and one that is much, much worse.

[DShomshak]

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/888906337/unholy-examines-the-alliance-between-white-evangelicals-and-trump

 

Heard July 8 on Fresh Air: Interview with journalist Sarah Posner on her new book, Unholy: Why White Evangelicals Worship at the Altar of Donald Trump.

 

Short answer: He doesn't speak Evangelical Christian, but boy howdy, he sure knows how to speak White Grievance. And White Evangelicals have cultural and political grievances oceans deep.

 

And Posner insists her calling their attitude 'worship' is not hyperbolic: Her subjects believe, as a new tenet of faith, that Donald Trump is the anointed servant of God, no matter how unlikely he appears.

 

(Personal additon: I have seen The Trump Gospel, whose author claims Jesus appeared to him and revealed Trump's divine role in returning America to Christian purity. I cannot guess whether the author is a true believer, a cynical grifter exploiting of the faithful and gullible, or a sincere grifter who thinks he's telling a noble lie to further the cause. All three are horrible in their way.)

 

Dean Shomshak

[BoloOfEarth]

1 hour ago, DShomshak said:

(Personal additon: I have seen The Trump Gospel, whose author claims Jesus appeared to him and revealed Trump's divine role in returning America to Christian purity. I cannot guess whether the author is a true believer, a cynical grifter exploiting of the faithful and gullible, or a sincere grifter who thinks he's telling a noble lie to further the cause. All three are horrible in their way.)

 

What about "bats*** crazy"?

[DShomshak]

Falls under "True Believer."

 

Dean Shomshak

[Lord Liaden]

The biblical story the Christian right uses to defend Trump

[DShomshak]

Correction: I checked, and it's The Trump Prophecy, not The Trump Gospel. And apparently more than one person  thought Donald Trump was God's prophet. Uff da. ☹️

 

Dean Shomshak

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Equating Trump in this way certainly doesn't do much to legitimize religion...😐

[Badger]

On 7/9/2020 at 11:39 AM, ScottishFox said:

 

If you're left-leaning I feel you have to be pleasantly surprised with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.  They have not turned out to be the blindly right-voting Trump-favoring justices many were concerned they would be.

And Robert's. Though unlike the others who  I believe legitimately vote on belief. I think he votes for the side that intimidates him more at any given moment. The man disgust me quite frankly.  I actually respect the other 8 though.

 

At least agree or disagree the only way I have been able to interpret his arguments.

[Ranxerox]

6 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

The biblical story the Christian right uses to defend Trump

 

Apropos of nothing, King Cyrus is not mentioned a single time in the New Testament.

 

[Lord Liaden]

But I've noticed contemporary evangelicals seem to have more of an affinity for the "smiting" and "eye for an eye" parts of the Bible, than the "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" parts.

[Badger]

I admit a failing of mine is to defer to eye for an eye over turn the other cheek.

 

Edit: mother and me have had many discussions over that. Right or wrong, I am not really wired to let wrongs go unanswered, especially after high school experience.

[pinecone]

On 7/9/2020 at 10:32 PM, Old Man said:

ELIZA's output was grammatically correct.

Cofefe that back!

[pinecone]

On 7/9/2020 at 10:58 PM, ScottishFox said:

And, in the 2020 is Year of Endless Chaos category, The Supreme Court just gave half of Oklahoma back to the Muskogee nation.  That includes Tulsa and a very large part of Oklahoma.  Nearly two thousand convicted criminals will potentially be released as they were illegally (now) convicted by the State of Oklahoma on land they did not have jurisdiction on.

 

Everything in Orange goes bye-bye and is no longer Oklahoma because the treaty wasn't terminated properly.  Gorsuch was in favor of the 5-4 ruling.  Another proof he's going by  what he believes the law says and not what Trump wants.

 

 

 

My relatives still on the Res will be happy, for how ever long it lasts...

[Sociotard]

 

[DShomshak]

17 hours ago, Badger said:

And Robert's. Though unlike the others who  I believe legitimately vote on belief. I think he votes for the side that intimidates him more at any given moment. The man disgust me quite frankly.  I actually respect the other 8 though.

 

At least agree or disagree the only way I have been able to interpret his arguments.

For what it's worth, self-proclaimed SCOTUS experts I've heard say Roberts is motivated to protect the Supreme Court by keeping it out of fights between parties and branches of government. The Trump tax rulings are typical: Don't give presidents unlimited immunity from investigation, but punt the disputes back to lower levels where they won't be resolved before the election, thus seeking to avoid any perception the Court is affecting the election with its rulings.

 

From this POV, I can imagine Roberts pulling Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aside and telling them they have got to side with the four liberals on some rulings that poke Trump in the eye, even if they don't really harm him. Because there's a chance that Dems take the House, Senate and Oval Office in November, and if the Court seems to be Trump's lackey there will be extremely strong pressure for Dems to pack the Court and abandon any pretense that it is anything but a political tool. For the moment, they must at least pretend to have judicial principles, which might operate in Dems' favor.

 

Of course, I am no mind reader. It's just what Dinesh D'Souza calls "an ideological hypothesis" (fancy talk for "a story without evidence, but it explains things the way I want.")

 

Dean Shomshak