Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 104

Thread: Trump-related civil unrest this week?

  1. #21
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,908
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogar View Post
    With due respect, does that seem like a reason to bias the present legal situation.

    It does seem like he belongs behind bars on other charges, but it should have no bearing here. (Speaking of legal expertise).
    If the present legal situation is tenuous then I expect that trump’s lawyers will prevail. But I doubt that the DA would be bringing a case if he thought that likely.

  2. #22
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,520
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    If the present legal situation is tenuous then I expect that trump’s lawyers will prevail. But I doubt that the DA would be bringing a case if he thought that likely.
    I heard one of Trump's main lawyers on the radio today, and they sounded like Baghdad Bob.

  3. #23
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,908
    It’s weird how multiple high profile republicans, from Mike Pence to John Sununu to Kevin McCarthy all spoke out against the rule of law this weekend. I mean seriously ‘there ore other issues that really need to take precedent in terms of where this country needs to go.? We’re talking about a county DA here. Prosecuting crime is what they do. They don’t focus on the big picture of where the country should be going. Surely Sununu doesn’t think people are stupid enough to buy such a ridiculous statement. Or Pence ‘’I’m taken aback at the idea of indicting a former president of the United States.’ How embarrassing it must be for Republican voters to be associated with these clods that hate the rule of law so much.

  4. #24
    Senior Member bae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Offshore
    Posts
    11,520
    Hmmm, Tuesday seems to have come and gone, and Trump remains un-arrested. I guess he was wrong.

    I do note that lots of Republicans in Washington are stepping up to investigate the prosecutor/grand jury, even though so far we have seen no indictments. I guess interfering with a state-level criminal investigation by the House of Representatives is one of those new-GOP rule-of-law things?

  5. #25
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    9,908
    Quote Originally Posted by bae View Post
    I guess interfering with a state-level criminal investigation by the House of Representatives is one of those new-GOP rule-of-law things?
    I imagine one of those brilliant thinkers on LDAHL’s reading list would call it ‘the new federalism’. They call it that because part of the overarching new federalism concept is that the federal government needs to step in to insure that women have the freedom to have their bodies controlled by the government even in states where the state government chooses not to let women have their bodies be controlled by the government. Since Alan is a supporter of the concept that all women should have the freedom to have their bodies controlled by the federal government he can probably explain new federalism better than me.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    8,353
    I think the more patient among them would try explaining to you the difference between the rule of law and the rule of lawyers. That criticism of an office that twice deemed a charge nonprosecutable would decide to honor a campaign promise to indict anyway is not an attack on the very fabric of our society. That a federalist system requires limiting the federal government to powers enumerated in the Constitution, and that even a group of elite law school graduates can’t whip up rights out of phlogiston and good intentions.

  7. #27
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,426
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Since Alan is a supporter of the concept that all women should have the freedom to have their bodies controlled by the federal government he can probably explain new federalism better than me.
    You'd think that after years of discussing this subject you'd stop misrepresenting me, but if you insist I suppose I can tell you once more. I have no interest in having the federal government control women's bodies but I do recognize that one of our countries founding principles was the protection of life, liberty and all that jazz so I appreciate any efforts to do exactly that. I'm only sorry that you disagree.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  8. #28
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,267
    My crystal ball says that the red and blue political factions will polarize even further and as climate change worsens, there will be migrations away from the rising waters of the coastal areas and the intense heat of the southwest into states that share like philosophies. I'm a fan of giving states powers and I think that is some of the intents of the constitution. People who support abortions, general public welfare, medical care, any concepts of guaranteed income, logical drug laws, etc can move to the blue state of choice and enjoy the privileges. I'm hoping to live to see that.

    The red states that are more focused on money and profits can write their own future in their own conservative way, too.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    5,037
    Yeah, it is just so easy for people to move….inexpensive and family can all move too…. sheesh

  10. #30
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,267
    Quote Originally Posted by frugal-one View Post
    Yeah, it is just so easy for people to move….inexpensive and family can all move too…. sheesh
    In the 2030's or 2040's when climate change is more rampant, people may have more limited choices on where to live and more incentives to move...Sheeesh. I suspect people may already be migrating away from some areas due to weather extremes.

    I'm sure you keep abreast of the most recent IPCC reports to the UN or maybe know more than climate experts due to your expertise in the area or you can take a wild guess.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/20/c...pcc-earth.html

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •