View Full Version : Trump-related civil unrest this week?
Donald Trump seems to believe he will be arrested this Tuesday.
He has asked people to “Protest, take our nation back”.
He has been blaming his predicament on the “Deep State” in the US intelligence services, the State Department, the judicial system, and so on.
Do you anticipate any “fun” to arise this week if he is indeed arrested?
Highly doubt there will be anyone rioting in support of Trump in Chicago, but the hood rats don’t need much of an excuse to cause trouble.
I think both Trump and the media jackal pack will be disappointed at the level of violent response.
frugal-one
3-18-23, 3:23pm
I think both Trump and the media jackal pack will be disappointed at the level of violent response.
Hopefully, you are correct. Heard over 700 from Jan 6th can expected to yet be charged. Hopefully, that wii weigh on possible trump “supporters”.
I doubt there'll be any violence or mayhem associated with the physical perp walk, despite Democrat and media's hopes. I think the problem comes into play when it becomes obvious that New York is attempting to use state law to charge a federal offense for political purposes.
Federal prosecutors have been looking at the details of this case for 6 years or so and have decided there's not enough there there to justify prosecution. Having a state prosecutor jump through hoops trying to make a federal case that the feds have already rejected seems like a stunt designed to achieve a political goal. It would be a shame if political independents and old school Republicans decide to punish the Democrats for going to such lengths. Many of you excited about the prospect of Trump being prosecuted may regret it less than two years from now.
Trump loves any kind of attention. I just wish he would be history.
If it does happen, no doubt the media will aggrandize things, but he'll probably be immediately released on bail and back on the streets. It's not like he's a flight risk. I'd imagine his high priced lawyers can delay anything further for a few more years.
gimmethesimplelife
3-18-23, 8:59pm
We all know my take on DJT. No need to revisit that.
All I will say is that between a possible indictment of Trump, possible rioting by what remains of his supporters, and possible further bank collapses of small and regional US banks this week - not a dull moment this week. Rob
I just can't figure out Trump's math, since he hasn't even been indicted yet.
Even if they decided to do so Monday morning, I don't see how that's time enough to have him "arrested" as he claims by Tuesday.
His rants are pretty....interesting.
He's been a tax cheat and scofflaw all his adult life. If Martha Stewart can do prison time, Trump can, too.
I wonder if all the journalists who, during his failed presidency, opined that perhaps he'd finally started on the path towards "acting presidential" every time he did something that wasn't completely bats**t nuts have finally given up after seeing the current unhinged screed. Because his obscene, traitorous behavior has become so normalized it's not even more than moderately newsworthy what he actually said. Frankly I'm appalled that there are still plenty of voters who would happily, proudly vote for this turd again.
OUR NATION IS NOW THIRD WORLD & DYING. THE AMERICAN DREAM IS DEAD! THE RADICAL LEFT ANARCHISTS HAVE STOLLEN OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND WITH IT, THE HEART OF OUR OUR COUNTRY. AMERICAN PATRIOTS ARE BEING ARRESTED & HELD IN CAPTIVITY LIKE ANIMALS, WHILE CRIMINALS & LEFTIST THUGS ARE ALLOWED TO ROAM THE STREETS, KILLING & BURNING WITH NO RETRIBUTION. MILLIONS ARE FLOODING THROUGH OUR OPEN BOARDERS, MANY FROM PRISONS & MENTAL INSTITUTIONS. CRIME & INFLATION ARE DESTROYING OUR VERY WAY OF LIFE…
NOW ILLEGAL LEAKS FROM A CORRUPT & HIGHLY POLITICAL MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE, WHICH HAS ALLOWED NEW RECORDS TO BE SET IN VIOLENT CRIME & WHOSE LEADER IS FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS, INDICATE THAT, WITH NO CRIME BEING ABLE TO BE PROVEN, & BASED ON AN OLD & FULLY DEBUNKED (BY NUMEROUS OTHER PROSECUTORS!) FAIRYTALE, THE FAR & AWAY LEADING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE & FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILL BE ARRESTED ON TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK. PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!
frugal-one
3-19-23, 7:44pm
Disgusting turd whereby his base still does not hold him accountable… see Alan’s post above… a prime example.
....the current unhinged screed.
Typically in my community when we see someone on the street chattering away like that, we try hard to get them access to the mental health services they require.
We don't generally put them up for election.
Disgusting turd whereby his base still does not hold him accountable… see Alan’s post above… a prime example.
Alan isn't against holding him accountable. He just thinks that none of the attempts to hold him accountable have been the appropriate action at the appropriate time. He felt that impeachment wasn't appropriate because the senate had dragged their feet and didn't hold their mock trial until after he was no longer president, so it should be the regular legal system that holds him accountable. Now that the legal system is potentially going to hold him accountable it's the wrong laws that are being used to hold him accountable. (Although I'm curious about that since I haven't seen what charges are going to be brought against him tuesday, so I don't quite know how one can preemptively say that the wrong laws are being applied.) I'm sure eventually he'll agree that someone's action related to holding trump accountable for his actions will be the correct way of doing so... I mean, I'm sure Alan would tell us all that he believes in the rule of law and that everyone should be treated equally under the law.
Alan isn't against holding him accountable. He just thinks that none of the attempts to hold him accountable have been the appropriate action at the appropriate time. He felt that impeachment wasn't appropriate because the senate had dragged their feet and didn't hold their mock trial until after he was no longer president, so it should be the regular legal system that holds him accountable. Now that the legal system is potentially going to hold him accountable it's the wrong laws that are being used to hold him accountable. (Although I'm curious about that since I haven't seen what charges are going to be brought against him tuesday, so I don't quite know how one can preemptively say that the wrong laws are being applied.) I'm sure eventually he'll agree that someone's action related to holding trump accountable for his actions will be the correct way of doing so... I mean, I'm sure Alan would tell us all that he believes in the rule of law and that everyone should be treated equally under the law.
Yes, they should. Though in this case a prosecutor is attempting to elevate a misdemeanor charge that is years past its statute of limitations to a felony charge for a political result. This sort of thing usually only happens in banana republics so you'd think reasonable people would be against it, regardless of who's being prosecuted. I can only assume we're running low on reasonable people.
Abuses of the legal system seems to go both ways. If he were ever convicted he could probably appeal to a higher court, although a hush-hush plea deal seems possible? The charge hardly seems like the attention it's getting if it were a normal citizen, but I suspect he has enemies in the courts regardless of politics. You know what they say about goes around... I've been realizing since Trump that the scales of justice are often not balanced.
Yes, they should. Though in this case a prosecutor is attempting to elevate a misdemeanor charge that is years past its statute of limitations to a felony charge for a political result. This sort of thing usually only happens in banana republics so you'd think reasonable people would be against it, regardless of who's being prosecuted. I can only assume we're running low on reasonable people.
It’s also usually the case that only in banana republics do presidents who lose the election attempt a coup. Maybe we’re closer to having our presidents dress in fatigues than we are willing to admit.
And by the way, thank you Alan for sharing your legal expert opinion about charges that haven’t yet been announced. I assume you have an inside source that shared the info with you.
And by the way, thank you Alan for sharing your legal expert opinion about charges that haven’t yet been announced. I assume you have an inside source that shared the info with you.
News outlets have been reporting the scope of the grand jury investigation for some time. The result of that investigation hasn't been announced since they apparently have another witness scheduled on Monday but it seems to be common knowledge that it revolves around monies paid to Stormy Daniels in return for her silence regarding an extra-marital affair(a misdemeanor several years past it's expiration date).
It sounds very much like a version of the John Edwards indictment and prosecution in 2011 which resulted in a not guilty verdict on one charge and the dropping of several others. But it did keep the news cycle booming for a time and ruined his political future. I'm not sure that was the goal in that case but I'm pretty sure it is in this latest one.
It’s also usually the case that only in banana republics do presidents who lose the election attempt a coup. Maybe we’re closer to having our presidents dress in fatigues than we are willing to admit.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
frugal-one
3-22-23, 1:47pm
Yeah, it is just so easy for people to move….inexpensive and family can all move too…. sheesh
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/climate/global-warming-ipcc-earth.html
Here in the PNW, we seem to be relatively safe for the time being and I'm glad about that.
Here in the PNW, we seem to be relatively safe for the time being and I'm glad about that.
My magic 8 ball thinks the PNW will be good:)
If I lived in the mid-west more floods and tornados will be an issue. I could guess that people may still live in Phoenix, but heat extremes and water will make it much less desirable. If I lived a place like New Orleans especially or south Florida and expected to stay there, I'd be shopping for a new place. Just educated speculation.
frugal-one
3-22-23, 4:28pm
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/climate/global-warming-ipcc-earth.html
It is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
Do not have a subscription so cannot read the article you are referring to.
It is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
Do not have a subscription so cannot read the article you are referring to.
If you google recent IPCC report you can pick your source. I sort of like going to the source document sometimes when I have time, and that's out there, too.
Here in the PNW, we seem to be relatively safe for the time being and I'm glad about that.
Some parts of the state of Washington are in regions with interesting tectonic plate activity, and are either being thrust up by plate collisions, or rebounding still from the weight of glaciation from the last Ice Age, and are rising as fast or faster than sea level rise.
Downside of course is local-sourced earthquakes, mudslides, undersea mudslides causing tsunamis, and other fun stuff.
My house on the beach here, which I intend to move into some day, is "zero-bank" waterfront, but I suspect it won't flood out because of sea level rise, directly. However, it faces northwest up a stretch of water where there is unimpeded fetch for 70 miles or so. Increased storm energy will produce bigger and bigger waves hitting the shoreline, which may cause issues.
My house is perched on a hillock that hasn't given way yet, through 30 years of windstorms, gully-washers, and the occasional earthquake, and it's elevated far enough from the lake to make me think it won't turn into a houseboat if we experience a rise in water level. I feel relatively safe here.
littlebittybobby
3-23-23, 2:10am
Okay---Sooner that that Dude Trump is in custody, the better. Charged with Treason, Sedition, Espionage, election-rigging, violating the Mann ACT, and having the worst-looking, most uncool, orange hair I've ever seen! Dude needs LIFE in Supermax in Colorado. 526952695269
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.
So you approve of the federal government protecting the life of potential future humans by limiting the liberties of actual existing humans. Got it.
So you approve of the federal government protecting the life of potential future humans by limiting the liberties of actual existing humans. Got it.
I don't want to interrupt you discussions, but right now it seems that the issue has been passed along for the states to decide. Is it up the the federal government or is it more appropriate to be a state decision. Without any specific law passed by Congress, it been up to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and it seems like they has passed the responsibility to the states, but not outlawed abortions per say. Although it does seem like the scales of justice are unbalanced.
The SCOTUS said the federal government had no constitutional authority to create a federal right to abortion. Which it doesn’t. They didn’t “pass the responsibility to the states”, they ruled that the feds never had it in the first place. That the Roe decision, with its “penumbrae and emanations” amounted to faulty legal logic.
It’s not the role of the courts to twist the law into desired outcomes. It’s to make decisions on the law as written. The law as written limits what powers the federal government can exercise, and anything not specifically enumerated rests with the states.
iris lilies
3-23-23, 9:41am
The SCOTUS said the federal government had no constitutional authority to create a federal right to abortion. Which it doesn’t. They didn’t “pass the responsibility to the states”, they ruled that the feds never had it in the first place. That the Roe decision, with its “penumbrae and emanations” amounted to faulty legal logic.
It’s not the role of the courts to twist the law into desired outcomes. It’s to make decisions on the law as written. The law as written limits what powers the federal government can exercise, and anything not specifically enumerated rests with the states.
I agree with this, and I’m fine with it. But I want Republicans to remember that if/when they get into full power, they do not get to make a federal law against abortion. Either it is a state’s right or it isn’t.
I agree with this, and I’m fine with it. But I want Republicans to remember that if/when they get into full power, they do not get to make a federal law against abortion. Either it is a state’s right or it isn’t.
I think that’s right. Short of a constitutional amendment, it’s hard to see how we could see abortion as a federal right.
I think one of the reasons our politics are so stupid and dishonest right now is that so many people of all political stripes view the federal government as a grantor or withholder of rights and privileges and that the Chief Executive is a sort of monarch who can grant wishes. I don’t blame our political class for this. I blame immature and ignorant voters.
The SCOTUS said the federal government had no constitutional authority to create a federal right to abortion.
Seems to sort of depend on how the SCOTUS is stacked and who's interpreting the constitution. There was a time when they did have that constitutional authority and it could possibly change again. The scales tip one way or the other and legal precedence to heck.
Seems to sort of depend on how the SCOTUS is stacked and who's interpreting the constitution. There was a time when they did have that constitutional authority and it could possibly change again. The scales tip one way or the other and legal precedence to heck.
Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg thought Roe was a bad decision that was likely to be overturned. And she was right. People want to treat the courts as a legislature of last resort to get what they want, and it sometimes results in lousy decisions. They don’t want to make the effort to change the constitution or make new law at the appropriate level. They just want some wizards in silk robes to legislate from the bench.
flowerseverywhere
3-23-23, 2:39pm
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-raises-1-5-million-presidential-campaign-since-warning-arrest-looming-nyc-indictment
Shocking, but just another attempt to raise money for himself. me me me me me witch hunt me me me George Soros me me me. More money for me. From fox news, no less.
I agree with this, and I’m fine with it. But I want Republicans to remember that if/when they get into full power, they do not get to make a federal law against abortion. Either it is a state’s right or it isn’t.
I'm curious how the GOP feels about states' rights when it comes to local/state-level criminal investigations in progress....
frugal-one
3-23-23, 5:32pm
Wages… states have minimum wages but if less than federal law the employer is in violation. Federal overrides state in this scenario. I’m sure there are other examples. Hopefully womens’ rights follow the same path.
Like so many federal powers, the original Fair Labor Standards Act was justified on an interstate commerce basis. That, and the income tax are two of the major tools used by the federal government to impose its will on the states. There is no constitutional hierarchy privileging federal over state law. That is why certain states can legalize cannabis use in contravention of federal law.
I don't want to interrupt you discussions, but right now it seems that the issue has been passed along for the states to decide. Is it up the the federal government or is it more appropriate to be a state decision. Without any specific law passed by Congress, it been up to the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and it seems like they has passed the responsibility to the states, but not outlawed abortions per say. Although it does seem like the scales of justice are unbalanced.
While you are correct that it is currently for the states to decide, multiple members of congress (both houses) and potential presidential candidates, and Alan, have expressed a desire to toss federalism out on it’s ass because they want to restrict women’s liberty across the country and realize that this would be the only way to accomplish their anti-freedom goal.
While you are correct that it is currently for the states to decide, multiple members of congress (both houses) and potential presidential candidates, and Alan, have expressed a desire to toss federalism out on it’s ass because they want to restrict women’s liberty across the country and realize that this would be the only way to accomplish their anti-freedom goal.
I don’t see how Congress could pass a federal abortion law absent a constitutional amendment. Of course, I also couldn’t see how presidents could think they could pull off power grabs like Biden’s student debt giveaway.
But fair’s fair. I don’t think Republicans should adopt the tactics used by their opposition. I would like to see the Trump wing of the party abandon their statist tactics. We haven’t seen a prominent Reaganite since Paul Ryan.
I also didn't think we'd see a president attempt a coup to remain in power and then the senate would not find that worthy of conviction in the subsequent impeachment. Yet, here we are. And with the same people who defended the the senate's decision now getting their knickers in a twist that the "regular" legal system is trying to hold the guy accountable for his various illegal actions. And some of those same people have expressed agreement in the idea that there should be a federal abortion ban. Because wen republicans screech state's rights they only actually mean the state's right to discriminate against various groups of people that cishet white men don't like. Nothing more.
I'm curious how the GOP feels about states' rights when it comes to local/state-level criminal investigations in progress....
When one's who existence is based on being a performative asshole who doesn't actually do one's job state's rights becomes an irrelevant distraction. Surely LDAHL is pleased with this though since he mentioned congress conducting investigations into important matters as one of the things he likes about the currently in power republicans.
And some of those same people have expressed agreement in the idea that there should be a federal abortion ban. Because wen republicans screech state's rights they only actually mean the state's right to discriminate against various groups of people that cishet white men don't like. Nothing more.
I'll assume you're talking about me. For the record, again, I'm not interested in a federal abortion ban, I'm interested in federal legislation recognizing the constitutional rights of human fetuses at whatever stage of their development is scientifically appropriate. Sorry if you think that's discriminatory or a violation of states rights, cause it's not.
flowerseverywhere
3-25-23, 6:23pm
I'll assume you're talking about me. For the record, again, I'm not interested in a federal abortion ban, I'm interested in federal legislation recognizing the constitutional rights of human fetuses at whatever stage of their development is scientifically appropriate. Sorry if you think that's discriminatory or a violation of states rights, cause it's not.
I'm interested in the constitutional rights of existing humans not being gunned down in the streets or schools. To each his own.
I'm interested in the constitutional rights of existing humans not being gunned down in the streets or schools. To each his own.
It doesn't have to be either or, though I'm not sure how we legislate non-violence, especially during a period when violent crimes have been de-prioritized by prosecutors in the cities most affected.
It doesn't have to be either or, though I'm not sure how we legislate non-violence, especially during a period when violent crimes have been de-prioritized by prosecutors in the cities most affected.
I wonder why the prosecutors do that? Seattle has really gone to heck over the past decade or so, to the point where I basically won't go down to do anything there unless it is essential.
iris lilies
3-25-23, 6:40pm
It doesn't have to be either or, though I'm not sure how we legislate non-violence, especially during a period when violent crimes have been de-prioritized by prosecutors in the cities most affected.
I know, why the false dichotomy arguments? They are tiresome.
why can’t humans stop shooting each other AND bringing into the world children they will not properly parent? Perhaps we should pass a whole passle of laws about that because that works so well in guiding human behavior. (Not really)
See, when I am Queen I will be a fixin’ that bs. But that is not something legislators can address. They CAN address some of the hard stuff in their sohere of authority like balancing a budget but they will choose not to do that.
iris lilies
3-25-23, 6:44pm
I wonder why the prosecutors do that? Seattle has really gone to heck over the past decade or so, to the point where I basically won't go down to do anything there unless it is essential.
This is absolutely stunning ro me, that laid back hippie/tech lands of Seattle and Portland experience some of the violence of St. Louis. I never woulda guessed. While yes I think their populace deserves it for being so complacent for so long, I can’t say it is nice.
St. Louis managed to keep a lid on the out of control-ness foe some years but once the Girl Squad squad came into power with their “coddle the criminals” mindset, all bets were off.St. Louis now has female Mayor, City prosecutor, President of the Board of Alderman, and Comptroller. Girl Power!
I wonder how the current crime stats compare to 20, 30, 40 years ago. Are we really drowning in a mega crime wave due to DAs not prioritizing certain crimes or is this just a false cudgel used by some to whine about elected officials?
I also wonder what the constitution says about future, not yet human, embryos and fetuses? I suppose it’s true that the constitution didn’t seem to give many (any?) rights to female actual humans so I suppose it’s not much of a leap to claim that future humans had more rights under the constitution than existing women.
This is absolutely stunning ro me, that laid back hippie/tech lands of Seattle and Portland experience some of the violence of St. Louis. I never woulda guessed. While yes I think their populace deserves it for being so complacent for so long, I can’t say it is nice.
St. Louis managed to keep a lid on the out of control-ness foe some years but once the Girl Squad squad came into power with their “coddle the criminals” mindset, all bets were off.St. Louis now has female Mayor, City prosecutor, President of the Board of Alderman, and Comptroller. Girl Power!
Iceland has been run by women in the recent past, with no problems that I've heard of. And I remember Angela Merkel fondly. Just thought I'd mention that.
Iceland has been run by women in the recent past, with no problems that I've heard of. And I remember Angela Merkel fondly. Just thought I'd mention that.
Maggie Thatcher was well known for her Girl Power soft-on-crime outlook...
I also wonder what the constitution says about future, not yet human, embryos and fetuses?
At what point of your gestation period did you become human? If you can honestly answer that question then you'll know when it's not ok for someone to terminate your existence. If you're just guessing, then you're wasting our time by bringing it up.
I suppose it’s true that the constitution didn’t seem to give many (any?) rights to female actual humans so I suppose it’s not much of a leap to claim that future humans had more rights under the constitution than existing women.The constitution wasn't created to grant rights, but rather to protect natural rights, and I'm not familiar with any natural rights enjoyed by males that don't also apply to females.
Or perhaps you're implying that the constitution should grant rights to specific genders or races or sexual identities exclusively? Probably not since we've discussed that extensively on other subjects and I seem to recall you being staunchly against that. But if I'm wrong and you do feel that way, should the right to terminate a viable human fetus rest only with the mother or should it extend to fathers or close relatives or maybe even strangers? And if not, why not?
iris lilies
3-25-23, 9:40pm
Iceland has been run by women in the recent past, with no problems that I've heard of. And I remember Angela Merkel fondly. Just thought I'd mention that.
Right. Because the demographic make up of the city of St. Louis and Iceland is nearly identical. Where is thatbeye roll emoji when I need it.
But seriously, that doesn’t mean that Iceland doesn’t have its own set of problems, because of course it does, every place does, and whoever governs has challenges.
look, I do not expect our Girl Squd to solve the problems of the City of St. Louis. But it is remarkable how quickly things have gone downhill since they all stepped in. Well, to be honest, Darlene Green, the comptroller, has been in office for decades. And to be honest, we had a cracker jack city prosecutor for a very long time who is female. But this group sucks big-time
iris lilies
3-25-23, 9:42pm
Maggie Thatcher was well known for her Girl Power soft-on-crime outlook...
God that we had Margaret thatcher to step in to the city of St. Louis to knock heads and take names.
I would be perfectly happy to see some law and order imposed on all the meth heads and scofflaws in Seattle and Portland, as long as it was done with an even hand. I don't have a single liberal friend who thinks unchecked lawlessness is a good idea.
frugal-one
3-25-23, 9:55pm
Like so many federal powers, the original Fair Labor Standards Act was justified on an interstate commerce basis. That, and the income tax are two of the major tools used by the federal government to impose its will on the states. There is no constitutional hierarchy privileging federal over state law. That is why certain states can legalize cannabis use in contravention of federal law.
You are wrong. I was a fed and enforced various laws. Whichever law is the most strict is the one to be followed. If the state had a less strict law than the fed, there is a violation.
Apparently the ‘law and order’ republicans in congress have come up with a solution for trump’s likely crimes. So away with law and order. At least as far as former presidents are concerned.
Maybe someone would like to explain to me what the Republican Party stands for again?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-criminal-charges-waco-rally-b2308057.html
Another case if big gobermint interfering with states rights? On top of the obvious political game of thrones.
Apparently the ‘law and order’ republicans in congress have come up with a solution for trump’s likely crimes.
As a practical matter, I can't see how anyone is likely to convict Trump of anything if he has a jury trial. Even in my county, the most progressive county in one of the most progressive states, there would likely be a hardcore Trumpist on the jury. ~23% voted for Trump in the last election, so ~3 Trump jurors. Roughly half of them believe the election was stolen, and Trump is a target for some pizza-eating pedophile Deep State conspiracy. So 1-2 people on the jury who likely wouldn't vote to convict him for shooting someone at high noon on 5th Avenue livestreamed on Fox.
Only takes one juror to prevent a conviction.
flowerseverywhere
3-26-23, 8:02pm
should the right to terminate a viable human fetus rest only with the mother or should it extend to fathers or close relatives or maybe even strangers? And if not, why not?
Here is why abortion bans can go wrong. This one clinic used to see one or two 10-11 year old victims of rape or incest a year, now they see that many per month.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/south-bans-abortion-thousands-turn-illinois-clinics-98119305
Only about 25% of custodial parents get full child support. Around 45% get none. Who will support, nurture, clothe, feed these children? Taxpayers? So men should have a say and not pay?
full abortion bans are cruel to these young pregnant children. You can't even discuss sex, periods and so on in some of these states, yet you can force them to have a baby? Or are these fetuses OK to terminate?
This one clinic used to see one or two 10-11 year old victims of rape or incest a year, now they see that many per month.
What difference does it make to the unborn human being, and its rights, whether rape or incest were involved in its creation, or how old the mother is, so long as she can bear to term?
At what point of your gestation period did you become human? If you can honestly answer that question then you'll know when it's not ok for someone to terminate your existence. If you're just guessing, then you're wasting our time by bringing it up.
The constitution wasn't created to grant rights, but rather to protect natural rights, and I'm not familiar with any natural rights enjoyed by males that don't also apply to females.
Or perhaps you're implying that the constitution should grant rights to specific genders or races or sexual identities exclusively? Probably not since we've discussed that extensively on other subjects and I seem to recall you being staunchly against that. But if I'm wrong and you do feel that way, should the right to terminate a viable human fetus rest only with the mother or should it extend to fathers or close relatives or maybe even strangers? And if not, why not?
My existence could also have been moot if my dad had let himself get suckered by the woman he was dating before he had to report to the army. (She was desperate to marry someone, anyone, before they went into the army so that she could move out of her parents' home.) If I hadn't been born I wouldn't particularly care. Just as I doubt the 5 miscarried fetuses my mom had before my sister and I were born care. I certainly don't recollect any thoughts from my time in the womb. It's only since being born that my life particularly matters to anyone, including me. If my conception was such an important date I'd have a conception certificate instead of a birth certificate.
At a bare minimum I think that a currently existing human having autonomy over her body should far outweigh any right that a future human being might have to use that body prior to the future human being's ability to be viable outside of that existing human's body.
frugal-one
3-26-23, 10:46pm
Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
should the right to terminate a viable human fetus rest only with the mother or should it extend to fathers or close relatives or maybe even strangers? And if not, why not?
The right to terminate should belong to whomever is going to have and be responsible for it. From what is happening, republicans feel they have the right to decide about the birth but afterwards the mother (in most cases) is left to her own devices on how to pay or care for the child. republicans are now attempting to cut SNAP and other social services that aid the mother. It makes no sense. republicans spout wanting less government interference but not so when it promotes their agenda. Hypocrites!
frugal-one
3-26-23, 10:53pm
[QUOTE=bae;423059]As a practical matter, I can't see how anyone is likely to convict Trump of anything if he has a jury trial. Even in my county, the most progressive county in one of the most progressive states, there would likely be a hardcore Trumpist on the jury. ~23% voted for Trump in the last election, so ~3 Trump jurors. Roughly half of them believe the election was stolen, and Trump is a target for some pizza-eating pedophile Deep State conspiracy. So 1-2 people on the jury who likely wouldn't vote to convict him for shooting someone at high noon on 5th Avenue livestreamed on Fox.
Only takes one juror to prevent a conviction.[/QUOTE
Is a jury trial mandatory?
Why does there have to be a jury trial?
Seems to me it has something to do with the 6th Amendment...
frugal-one
3-26-23, 11:19pm
As a practical matter, I can't see how anyone is likely to convict Trump of anything if he has a jury trial. Even in my county, the most progressive county in one of the most progressive states, there would likely be a hardcore Trumpist on the jury. ~23% voted for Trump in the last election, so ~3 Trump jurors. Roughly half of them believe the election was stolen, and Trump is a target for some pizza-eating pedophile Deep State conspiracy. So 1-2 people on the jury who likely wouldn't vote to convict him for shooting someone at high noon on 5th Avenue livestreamed on Fox.
Only takes one juror to prevent a conviction.
Disgusting to say the least! Hopefully, the scumbag will be barred from running from any office again.
gimmethesimplelife
3-27-23, 12:03am
Trump strikes me more and more as yesterday's news. It's true he maintains a loyal fan base but more and more conservatives dislike him. Even at that group of guys I knew in high school meet up - all Conservatives and only one still likes Trump. I just would like to believe that after the Trump Years, especially after 2020 and 01/06/21, that he won't really get realistically get reelected.
To put it in gay terms, a Trump reelection would be TraGIC! Totally tragic. Rob
I wonder what happened to the investigation into the investigation into his role in the 1/6 incidents. That's sort of dropped out of the news I see and much more significant than some sort of hush hush payment.
I seriously doubt this will go to trial before the election due to big money lawyers. I also seriously doubt it will ever go to trial for the same reason and plea bargaining down, which is the American way.
[QUOTE=bae;423059]As a practical matter, I can't see how anyone is likely to convict Trump of anything if he has a jury trial. Even in my county, the most progressive county in one of the most progressive states, there would likely be a hardcore Trumpist on the jury. ~23% voted for Trump in the last election, so ~3 Trump jurors. Roughly half of them believe the election was stolen, and Trump is a target for some pizza-eating pedophile Deep State conspiracy. So 1-2 people on the jury who likely wouldn't vote to convict him for shooting someone at high noon on 5th Avenue livestreamed on Fox.
Only takes one juror to prevent a conviction.[/QUOTE
Is a jury trial mandatory?
I don't think we have court martials for private citizens.
I find this whole effort to arrest and try Trump for these charges to be very transparent and merely a desperate attempt to keep him from running, and will probably backfire.
There are only two ways to keep Trump from getting in the White House: a) enough people who don't like him and don't want him in vote against him. b) enough people see more promise in another candidate.
Thank goodness it's still up to the people.
I don't think we have court martials for private citizens.
Even in normal times, there are paths through the criminal justice system that do not involve the defendant having a jury trial.
Pleading guilty, plea bargaining, electing for a bench trial, and so on.
In non-normal times, it is possible to court martial a private citizen. Rehnquist wrote a nice little book on how that works.
Even in normal times, there are paths through the criminal justice system that do not involve the defendant having a jury trial.
Pleading guilty, plea bargaining, electing for a bench trial, and so on.
In non-normal times, it is possible to court martial a private citizen. Rehnquist wrote a nice little book on how that works.
I figured I probably had that assumption wrong... interesting.
iris lilies
3-29-23, 11:23am
You are wrong. I was a fed and enforced various laws. Whichever law is the most strict is the one to be followed. If the state had a less strict law than the fed, there is a violation.
If your point is that Congress can make any random law it wishes and not usurp states’ rights, you are wrong.
We all know there are federal laws that trump state laws, that’s federal laws coming from constitutional support.
In other words, no, the feds can’t just unilaterally make any law that states have to follow.
frugal-one
3-29-23, 2:46pm
Think what you will. I enforced a number of federal regulations. The strictest of the laws, be it state or federal is what prevails,…. whether you like it or not. Whether or not they are enforced in certain areas I cannot say. I can only tell you what I know to be true by experience.
Think what you will. I enforced a number of federal regulations. The strictest of the laws, be it state or federal is what prevails,…. whether you like it or not. Whether or not they are enforced in certain areas I cannot say. I can only tell you what I know to be true by experience.
There's a difference between regulations and laws. Executive departments or federal agencies cannot create law, but they can churn out regulations on demand, there's a difference.
Think what you will. I enforced a number of federal regulations. The strictest of the laws, be it state or federal is what prevails,…. whether you like it or not. Whether or not they are enforced in certain areas I cannot say. I can only tell you what I know to be true by experience.
What does "prevail" mean in this context?
Does the Federal government have the power to require county-level law enforcement to enforce Federal laws?
For instance, say Twinkies were illegal at the Federal level, but both the State of Washington and my county were fine with the sale and consumption of Twinkies made entirely locally. Could the Federal government require my county Sheriff to arrest someone for the Federal charge of Twinkie-possession?
frugal-one
3-29-23, 3:04pm
Here you go…
https://indivisiblesb.org/laws-vs-regulations-and-why-the-difference-matters/
frugal-one
3-29-23, 3:07pm
What does "prevail" mean in this context?
Does the Federal government have the power to require county-level law enforcement to enforce Federal laws?
For instance, say Twinkies were illegal at the Federal level, but both the State of Washington and my county were fine with the sale and consumption of Twinkies made entirely locally. Could the Federal government require my county Sheriff to arrest someone for the Federal charge of Twinkie-possession?
Bae read the last two sentences of post #83.
iris lilies
3-29-23, 3:21pm
Here you go…
https://indivisiblesb.org/laws-vs-regulations-and-why-the-difference-matters/
Do you understand that we all know this?
My up close experience is handling hundreds of volumes of the Federal Register over decades of its publication. I’m well aware of the meters of rulemaking the feds make.
Are you aware there’s a constant stream of these presidential dictims/regulations/rules/bullshit paraded before the Supreme Court to rule on their constitutionality?
I guess we find out now whether trump can still inspire mobs to defend the indefensible…
I guess we find out now whether trump can still inspire mobs to defend the indefensible…
As long as the dominant political party condones and encourages the use of the judicial system to go after their political opponents, it's very likely that dissent will grow. I wonder if that's the goal?
Grand juries are political?
gimmethesimplelife
3-30-23, 6:47pm
I can't believed DJT was actually indicted. Rob
frugal-one
3-31-23, 3:41am
As long as the dominant political party condones and encourages the use of the judicial system to go after their political opponents, it's very likely that dissent will grow. I wonder if that's the goal?
Unbelievable! Corruption and abuse of power… that trump committed is obviously ok by you?
Randy Rainbow does it again--a rollicking send-up.
https://twitter.com/RandyRainbow/status/1642875666067517440
Randy Rainbow does it again--a rollicking send-up.
https://twitter.com/RandyRainbow/status/1642875666067517440
That is great!!
iris lilies
4-3-23, 12:42pm
Randy Rainbow does it again--a rollicking send-up.
https://twitter.com/RandyRainbow/status/1642875666067517440
I liked the song best, funny. DJT is so easy to mock.
Reading through the indictments, I'm curious how the prosecution plans to show Trump had the “intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.", beyond a reasonable doubt.
It seems that might be a bit tricky. I'm hoping they have some rock-solid evidence of intent, otherwise, well...
Fareed Zakaria offers up:
Given the circumstances, this case has the feel of zealous prosecutors minutely examining all possibilities to find some violation of the law. This upends the notion in Anglo-Saxon law that you first have a crime and then search for the criminal, rather than first looking at the person and searching to see if he or she has committed a crime.
https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/wherethebeef.PNG
Grand juries are political?
What does "political" mean in this context?
I'd have to think that, by definition, any indictment of a politician is, by definition, "political" in some way or other, as it certainly seems like to influence elections and campaign strategies. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's "bad".
What does "political" mean in this context?
I'd have to think that, by definition, any indictment of a politician is, by definition, "political" in some way or other, as it certainly seems like to influence elections and campaign strategies. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's "bad".
And the flipside, the decision to not indict a politician despite the facts appearing to indicate criminal behavior, is also a political act. At the end of the day it seems like a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" situation.
Personally I'll start to worry that this is politically motivated when trump spends 11 hours testifying and wrongdoing isn't found, like happened in the "but her emails" silliness. Is this the point when we're supposed to start chanting "LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!"
And the flipside, the decision to not indict a politician despite the facts appearing to indicate criminal behavior, is also a political act. At the end of the day it seems like a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" situation.
Personally I'll start to worry that this is politically motivated when trump spends 11 hours testifying and wrongdoing isn't found, like happened in the "but her emails" silliness. Is this the point when we're supposed to start chanting "LOCK HIM UP! LOCK HIM UP!"
Or we could chant “It’s just about sex!” like in the good old days.
I’m not sure these charges will result in much beyond a lot of fundraising and stochastic stupidity. I’m much more hopeful the obstruction of justice stuff could take him off the board.
I’m much more hopeful the obstruction of justice stuff could take him off the board.
There's clearly a trap waiting for him in this case if he behaves in his historical fashion about it.
Here's an interesting take:
(opening in an incognito window can often get you access to the content if it is paywalled)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opinion/trump-bragg-indictment.html
Here's an interesting take:
(opening in an incognito window can often get you access to the content if it is paywalled)
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/05/opinion/trump-bragg-indictment.html
If even left-leaning sources like Vox and the NYT are critical of the quality of the indictment, you have to wonder how it will survive the trial or inevitable appeals process. I understand Bragg was under a lot of pressure to open up a new lawfare front, but maybe he should have stuck to turning felonies to misdemeanors rather than the other way around.
Unless hating Trump is what gets you up in the morning, or you’re one of his fundraisers, this case doesn’t seem worth getting excited about.
iris lilies
4-7-23, 10:58am
If even left-leaning sources like Vox and the NYT are critical of the quality of the indictment, you have to wonder how it will survive the trial or inevitable appeals process. I understand Bragg was under a lot of pressure to open up a new lawfare front, but maybe he should have stuck to turning felonies to misdemeanors rather than the other way around.
Unless hating Trump is what gets you up in the morning, or you’re one of his fundraisers, this case doesn’t seem worth getting excited about.
This court case keeps our news Trump News All The Time which is also good tool for propelling him into the White House again tho secondary to the money he makes for news media. So I have to wonder just how much of mainstream media’s budget is going to those prosecuting DJT.
My hatred for The Donald isnt enough to get me up in the morning or even get me to plan a special outfit and cookery dish for his demise. This effort puts me to sleep, yawn. Wake me when they actually get him on J6 charges.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.