I'm wondering what kind of documents Putin has. :devil:
Printable View
I'm wondering what kind of documents Putin has. :devil:
Apparently we have. The lesson seems to be that there's a big difference between accidentally taking them home versus intentionally taking them home and then denying it, obfuscating about it, and ultimately refusing to give them back until the FBI comes to your beach house and take them away after finding them in a scattered sloppy mess of storage that was likely accessed by multiple people without the security clearance to see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
The laws regarding classified documents are fairly detailed on the subject and one of the key things in them is that presidents and VPs are treated differently from almost anyone else due to their ability to classify and declassify things. The laws that trump appears to have violated don't have to do with his taking the documents with him when he left the white house, they have to do with how he dealt with the situation when he was advised that he needed to give them back. Biden and Pence did not do anything (that we know of) to try and keep the documents once they were aware of the documents' existence in their homes and have both cooperated fully with the government in the government's efforts to retrieve them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
JP summed it up …
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
So, if I'm getting this correctly, there is not a law prohibiting a president or VP from taking home top secret documents and then keeping them for some unknown time, even after they no longer hold office? I understand the difference between accidentally ending up with things vs. knowingly keeping them, which would be up to a court to decide if such a law exists. And that as you say, the law is fairly explicit about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I get the difference with Trump, which seems to fall into obstruction of justice realm from my basic understanding. And that the shear volume might indicate ill intent.
It turns out that female athletes in San Francisco schools have been required to answer those questions for the past 20 years or so as well. Damn Republicans!Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I’m actually relieved to hear there is a secret strong hold of Republicans in San Francisco. It’s a great and wonderful city, a jewel of our United States, so maybe it won’t go into the crapper completely after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
So you're both into super creepy stuff regarding high school athletes having to divurge incredibly personal info about their sexual organ functioning.? Hmmmm. I'd ask you to tell me more but frankly in this case I'll just say " PLEASE STOP TALKING. YOU ARE BOTH CREEPY AS ****."Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I guess if these folks were really concerned about the safety of women's sports, they'd do something about the coaches and team doctors that sexually abuse the young athletes.
Not at all. If my daughter was into sports, which would be highly unlikely, and if she brought home that form, I’d say you don’t need to tell them that stuff. End of story.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Who brought up this “super creepy stuff” in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Lol. You’re probably right. I should’ve taken the Republican style for dealing with awkward topics like racism. Pretend the subject doesn’t exist and let the unfortunate girls suffer the embarrassment and indignity by themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I'd have to live with myself if I voted Republican. It would also be a direct insult to my Grandfather on my mother's side - her father. When Mom was 18 and about to vote for the first time in Austria, her father took her aside and said words than resonate today. Namely, let us not forget why we have national health care and six paid weeks off a year plus one month's salary bonus at Christmas - the Social Democrats. Wise words to heed. Rob
So you raise a topic, making the reductive assumption that any “super creepy” practice in Florida must be the doing of dastardly Republicans. When others point out this has been the practice for decades in places like California and New York, you dissolve into splenetic name-calling because they mention the topic you introduced. And then the boilerplate accusations of racism and insensitivity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
But you’re not alone. There’s a great piece in the Washington Examiner about “The Media Menstruation Meltdown” that walks through the process.
If you are implying jp needs some new material…Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
It’s depressing that this female sports medical questioning issue seems to be something that both republicans and democrats have participated in. The idea that anyone would think it’s ok to ask student athletes such intimately personal questions is awful. Not every kid has a theoretical (or real) parent like iris (or me) who would push back against sharing such info with school officials.
But either way I’ll let this ugly issue go. I’m sure the republicans won’t disappoint me by failing to come up with new absurd things to discuss.
I could imagine there are legitimate health reasons for female athletes to be concerned about those sorts of questions, to avoid athletes causing themselves harm by overdoing training and/or eating in an unhealthy fashion. And I wonder if schools have been held responsible for those issues in the past when female athletes overtrained.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
However, I'm not convinced the school or the coaches or the medical supervisor for the team should be the one asking the questions, perhaps an educational campaign directed at the athletes would be more appropriate.
I get subjected to all sorts of very intrusive ongoing personal health monitoring to be a firefighter, or even a mere EMT. If I wish to do the job, I cannot escape them. Then again, I'm not a minor.
My own daughter chose not to participate in the organized sports in her high school here, because they wanted the kids to sign some sort of demented "student athlete" contract controlling their behaviour outside school hours, and she found that alone repulsive enough, so she spent the time becoming a swordswoman with private instruction.
They didn’t. You did. Just read the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Actually the republicans did. Because of course they did. In Missouri they looked at DeHateis from Florida and their don't say gay bill and said "hold my beer, watch this." And in Iowa they went with "lets make Dickens novels and Upton Sinclair's The Jungle look like sweet fairy tales." But whatever. Keep defending the gross idea that school officials, regardless of political affiliation, should be asking high school students for intimate details about the functioning of their sexual organs.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
And then what about Huckabee's "normal vs crazy" speech. Based on bae's photos, I wonder what side of the aisle "crazy" is on?
Personally I loved the Jerry Springer vibe that republicans brought to the SOTU. It seemed very on brand for them.
I thought it was more of a pale imitation of Britain's Parliament in the midst of a campaign rally disguised as a SOTU address.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
That’s what I thought of too, the jeering and yelling in Parliament. The first time I heard that it in the staid House of Commons I was shocked, but then later learned that not unusual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
So you thought the republicans did a sad sack half assed attempt to look like British people? They worked really hard at their clown show. I’m sorry you weren’t impressed. Although I suppose you’ll keep voting for those clowns either way so you probably weren’t their target audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I thought the reaction to the President's attempt to slander them all by mis-representing their goals was reminiscent of most every meeting of Parliament I've ever seen. Nothing more, nothing less. Spin it as you wish.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I think the speech revealed the broad outlines of what a Biden presidential campaign will look like. Alternate calls for unity with partisan attacks. Portray climbing out of an economic hole as soaring. The early polls show it seemed to work with Democrats, with the percentage wanting him to run again increasing from 38% to 54%.
My take was this was pre-planned to demonstrate that Biden is still sharp and in charge of his mental facilities. He laid a trap which the GOP fell for. I can guess it was something the speech writers came up with rather than Biden himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
But yes, there was a reminisce of Parliament.
I was especially impressed with how he demoted Chuck Schumer to minority leader.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogar
If only there was an alternative party that actually was concerned about deficits.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I think both parties are concerned about deficits, the problem is there's only two obvious ways to deal with them, cut the rate of government spending or take more money from citizens tomorrow to pay for what you're spending today. There seems to be differing opinions on which one is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Yes. Republicans are so concerned about the deficit that the last time they controlled the White House and both branches of congress they implemented laws that both cut taxes (for rich people at least) and increased spending.
Both side want to spend your money like sailors in port for a weekend.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/us-d...ercent-3306296
Entitlements take up so much of the US budget that there’s not much to play around with, it’s military, and the departments that are discretionary.
Well, we could start by cutting the military budget in half.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Yes some could be cut, true. As could everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Food stamps are being reduced as we speak. Those wascally republicans! Or…maybe it has nothing to do with the current Congress.
It was stated trump/republicans increased the deficit by 25% in just 4 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
I wish COVID emergency spending was more carefully done.Flinging thousands of dollars at me, for instance—dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
But already the hue and cry is happening all over about the perfectly reasonable cutback of “emergency” food stamp money.
perhaps you would rather the excessive spending continue? Also to remind you it is 2023 and Donald J. Trump is not President now, although I am not sure one could know that from dipping into places like MSNBC.
While it's true that trump is not the president currently, it's also true that he is currently the only republican who has announced a candidacy for 2024. But we could just as well be discussing the previous 3 republican administrations. The only one that actually attempted to be fiscally responsible only lasted one term because of that. If any voter is actually looking for fiscal responsibility they will have to look outside of our two main political parties because there's absolutely zero chance that we will ever see a candidate from either of them that actually delivers on that. They all realize that doing that will insure that they have as much success as Bush the elder did in his reelection effort. Voters only want cuts to programs that they don't benefit from and there are enough federal spending programs out there benefiting enough people that that makes pretty much all of them untouchable beyond a performative but meaningless level.