US Politics Thread 2021-24

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by les green01

and again Section 3 of the 14th amendment is gone drop in the john and flush kick to the curb ran over by a semi and smash was drop remove by 1900 hell just as well call him a witch and use salem rules from 1600's biden a dumbass and can figure it out maybe hunter to

I do not doubt what you are saying(writing)Since I haven't that much knowledge about your Amendment and their sections.

What I wonder is, if it is true they have removed this section or Amendment why did Colorado use this then ?

Markus

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Gorpet

Oh Hell,You sound wealthy and Democrat,The most squawkers have the most to lose. What are you afraid of that hasn't already happened ?

Oh, Hell, you seem to be so consistently and so reliably wrong about so many people and subjects...

As far as "squawkers" are concerned, you also seem to be one of the squeakiest of the wheels in this thread; what are you so afraid of losing...?...

I also noted that, rather than argue the actual details of my post as a means of advancing you view, you chose instead to to use, what we used to call in debate tournaments, the Coward's Gambit: if you can't sensibly and factually argue against a debate point, hide behind an attack on the person advancing their point; I guess you were afraid you really didn't have a defensible point or argument to stand on; very sad, really...

I am very far from wealthy and, as I have stated numerous times in this thread, I am an Independent, beholden to no party or "wing" and free to use my own common sense and my own discretion without having to 'check in' with the current trend or fad of a party or "wing"; I'm nt afraid of anything that that may come, but I do think the possibility of a repeat of the cluster**** that was the waste of time embodied by the Trump debacle is something less than desirable for the next for years for the US; there are too many serious problems and issues facing our nation to have time, energy, efforts, resources, and funds wastefully expended, as they were 2017-2021, on coddling and and cleaning up after a egotistical, self-centered, ignorant, overgrown toddler and his whining and bitching tantrums...

My best argument against a repeat of the Trump Debacle? I offer up the evidence of the first two years of the Debacle itself: the GOP holding the White House and majority control of both the Senate and the House, managed to waste the opportunity rarely given to any party and squandered whatever they could have advanced in favor of kowtowing to the Great Orange Loser and addressing his petty grievances and soothing his fragile ego rather than actually doing any substantive work towards advancing the interests of the majority voters of the US; it was indeed amusing to watch the Far Right news outlets and pundits expressing shock (Shock!!) that the voters, in the midterms, deigned to oust the GOP from House majority control and reduce their hold on the Senate; they just couldn't seem to grasp the concept of 'if you don't produce results, you don't get to keep the control'...

The voters of the US spoke loudly in 2020 when they gave the bounce to the truly bad employee Trump, who now is making a spectacular case against the concept of "wrongful termination": an awful lot of the times, the person ranting they were wrongfully canned actually did deserve the sacking...

...and, as in real, normal life, someone who is sacked for being an annoying putz of a loser is very, very, very rarely rehired...


I really don't care which party is "in power" as long as the nation is not subjected to another unnecessary period of waste and needless turmoil...


The US, its citizens, and the system of government we have fought for and hold dear surely deserve better...



<O>

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by bweiss

I'm not certain of which D.C., case you refer to? If you mean Jack Smith's investigation/trial, I believe the Supreme Court just ensured that there will be an opportunity for an
appeal to be heard as they denied Smith's request that they expedite a ruling on the question of Presidential immunity. Which, will ensure appellate rights. Whether
or not they choose to hear it remains in their domain, or when to hear it for that matter.


BREAKING: Supreme Court Sends Jack Smith Packing – DENIES His Request For Ruling on Trump Immunity Argument
by Cristina Laila Dec. 22, 2023 1:52 pm

“The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly
decide the legal question, which looms large in Trump’s criminal prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference,” NBC News reported."

"Jack Smith will now have to wait for the US Circuit Court of Appeals for DC to make a decision. Oral arguments begin on January 9, 2024.

"The US Supreme Court may consider the appeal after the appellate court does, however there is a chance that the SCOTUS won’t take up this case in this term."

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...acking-denies/


As to the failed impeachments when he was in office, they didn't pass the Senate at the time they were submitted for vote, I doubt anything else will be heard of them.
Particularly in view of new evidence showing doubt as to just whom it actually was that conspired and instigated the J6 rally issues, and just whom it was that allowed
it to happen by ignoring repeated warnings of potential unrest, and denying requests for additional police resources.

The first impeachment attempt over the phone call with Zelensky, was a pipe dream with no there, there.

A trial arising from old impeachment attempts, would allow Trump disclosure rights, subpoena power, and a chance to turn the table on the accusers.

For vaguely similar reasons Jefferson Davis was never brought to trial as it would have provided him with the legal standing to fight the Civil War all over again before the Supreme Court.

That is the DC case I'm referring to and the reporting is essentially factual. Yes, the SCOTUS will allow the DC Court of Appeals to rule before deciding, which is the normal course, and not unexpected. Jack Smith's certiorari writ to the SCOTUS was an attempt to move things along but doesn't really count as a win for Trump, and one might think that Trump would welcome an earlier ruling since he's been claiming he has a water tight (or something) case for immunity and all of this would just evaporate.

Also, this DC case is not a retrial of the impeachment. Impeachment can only be brought to a sitting officer and it's successful outcome is removal from office..

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

That is the DC case I'm referring to and the reporting is essentially factual. Yes, the SCOTUS will allow the DC Court of Appeals to rule before deciding, which is the normal course, and not unexpected. Jack Smith's certiorari writ to the SCOTUS was an attempt to move things along but doesn't really count as a win for Trump, and one might think that Trump would welcome an earlier ruling since he's been claiming he has a water tight (or something) case for immunity and all of this would just evaporate.

Also, this DC case is not a retrial of the impeachment. Impeachment can only be brought to a sitting officer and it's successful outcome is removal from office..

In as much as questions have been raised about the source(s) I've cited, here are some well established, if not often spurious, alt-left wing sources:


Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute

By Devan Cole, CNN

Updated 5:47 PM EST, Fri December 22, 2023

"The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump"

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/22/polit...ith/index.html



Supreme Court declines to fast-track Trump immunity dispute in blow to special counsel
By Melissa Quinn, Robert Legare
Updated on: December 22, 2023 / 7:57 PM EST / CBS News

The Supreme Court's decision Friday is a blow to Smith and his team of prosecutors, who have pushed the courts to move quickly to hold trials in the Washington case and the second prosecution in Florida before the presidential election swings into full gear. Trump's attorneys, meanwhile, have urged the courts to delay the trials until after the election."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...ecial-counsel/


Trump transformed the Supreme Court. Now the justices could decide his political and legal future

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and LINDSAY WHITEHURST
Updated 9:33 AM EST, December 21, 2023

“The Supreme Court now is really in a sticky wicket, of historical proportions, of constitutional dimensions, to a degree that I don’t think we’ve ever really seen before,” said Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin."

https://apnews.com/article/donald-tr...2b8772753ed769



Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case on Trump’s Immunity Defense for Now

By Adam Liptak
Reporting from Washington
Dec. 22, 2023

"The decision to defer consideration of a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him around the country."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/u...-immunity.html


When I referred to the in-office impeachments, I was talking about any future effort to retry said impeachments now that Trump is out of office, as indicted in your previous post about the possibility of such a thing happening, and did not mean that it was connected in some fashion to the Jack Smith case. Sorry about any confusion.

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I do not doubt what you are saying(writing)Since I haven't that much knowledge about your Amendment and their sections.

What I wonder is, if it is true they have removed this section or Amendment why did Colorado use this then ?

Markus

Why did the bank robber wash his clothes before escaping? He wanted to make a clean getaway.

IMO, the answer is; because they can.

The point isn't so much that it might work, rather it is to consume more of Trumps funds fighting endless lawsuits, in an effort to harm his campaign ability, and the
negative information whether true or an outright fabrication, can and will carryover into the election cycle and maybe, just maybe influence people - (no matter how ridiculous
any story may be, there is always a percentage of people that will believe it, and a certain percentage that will claim they "don't know."

Also, bear in mind here the lawsuit that initiated all this was filed by a Trump political opponent to gain an advantage over a competitor, and filed with or through an opposing
political apparatus. Using the old; "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" tactic.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by bweiss

Why did the bank robber wash his clothes before escaping? He wanted to make a clean getaway.

IMO, the answer is; because they can.

The point isn't so much that it might work, rather it is to consume more of Trumps funds, in an effort to harm his campaign ability, and the negative information whether true
or an outright fabrication, can carryover into the election cycle and maybe, just maybe influence people - (no matter how ridiculous any story may be, there is always a
percentage that will believe it, and a certain percentage that will claim they "don't know."

Also, bear in mind here the lawsuit that initiated all this was filed by a Trump political opponent to gain an advantage over a competitor, and filed with or through an opposing
political apparatus. Using the old; an enemy of my enemy is my friend tactic.

Thank you for the explanation. I'm one of these who don't know more than what I read in this thread when it comes to US-Politics and I find it very interesting.

"Because they can" Here, it's gonna be interesting to hear what your Supreme court has to say about it.

Markus

[Catfish]

^ "Interesting", yes.
The corrupt supreme court has been installed by Trump's yes-men. Not that others would make it different, but up to Trump there had been at least a bit of decency.
To answer bweiss I will not delve into Trump's felt or real wrongdoings or whatever again, I did this ages ago and the net is full of it (sans Gateway pundit or Fox of course) and i am frankly not interested in wasting time anymore. If some people think Trump did it all correct and should not be prosecuted (for reasons of party politics or whatever) no one will be able to change their mind anyway. It is their country.

[August]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ "Interesting", yes.
The corrupt supreme court has been installed by Trump's yes-men.

Can you back up your claim that the US Supreme court is corrupt or that it's members are Trump "yes-men"?

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Thank you for the explanation. I'm one of these who don't know more than what I read in this thread when it comes to US-Politics and I find it very interesting.

"Because they can" Here, it's gonna be interesting to hear what your Supreme court has to say about it.

Markus

No problem shipmate, glad to be of service.

Being on the outside looking in as it were, you are fortunate to be living in a moment in time when dirty American politics is at the best of its worst in all of American history.

Some folks think the Brits have a patent on dirty politics, but IMO American politics, particularly at the Presidential level has always been a cut throat and back stab affair.
I believe it's a fair conclusion it rises at least to the bar set by the British and in view of current events, perhaps beyond.

Why it's even said that honest George Washington, who distilled his own whiskey producing nearly 11,000 gallons in 1799, was not averse to handing out jugs of it around the local
taverns to get election votes.

The current CEO, hands out our money to those who owe the government for the loans they received of, our money.

Same strategy, different tactic.

I prefer the one with whiskey...

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ "Interesting", yes.
The corrupt supreme court has been installed by Trump's yes-men. Not that others would make it different, but up to Trump there had been at least a bit of decency.
To answer bweiss I will not delve into Trump's felt or real wrongdoings or whatever again, I did this ages ago and the net is full of it (sans Gateway pundit or Fox of course) and i am frankly not interested in wasting time anymore. If some people think Trump did it all correct and should not be prosecuted (for reasons of party politics or whatever) no one will be able to change their mind anyway. It is their country.

That's your words.

I don't care who's the President or who will become the next in USA. What I care about is that Mr. Trump is treated fair, whether he's guilty or not in all these cases against him

Markus

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by mapuc

That's your words.

I don't care who's the President or who will become the next in USA. What I care about is that Mr. Trump is treated fair, whether he's guilty or not in all these cases against him

Markus

But who decides it's fair? Courts and the law decide, because from Trump's perspective, everything is unfair where he doesn't get his way. I'll continue to follow the litigation and read the motions which usually finds me at odds with pretty much everything that Trump, or Alina Habba, say out of court to the media.

In trying to prosecute Trump over the 2020 election results and aftermath, you have to wonder why basically all of the evidence against him comes from Republican testimony.

Also, the court case in Colorado which led to him being off the ballot, was brought by four Republicans and two unaffiliated persons, and those Republicans were not just random people off the street.

"Colorado law requires that, in order for a voter to challenge the placement of the candidate in the Republican presidential primary, that they be Republicans or unaffiliated voters," Sherman said in an interview. "So in order to have standing, they had to be Republicans."

But the petitioners aren't random Republican voters blindly plucked out of the Centennial State. Most have played a prominent role in politics or have been outspoken voices for their party.

The lead plaintiff, Anderson, 91, is a former state legislator who served as a Republican in Colorado's House of Representatives and state Senate.

[mapuc]

Yes He does act like a spoiled child sometimes.

Markus

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Yes He does act like a spoiled child sometimes.

Markus

Wonder why. Not that I really like it, but I can see why he says what he says.

So the story that's being crafted is that six random Colorado persons with nothing else to do decided to file this lawsuit I suppose out of the goodness of their hearts,
and presumably for the betterment of the entire world, but what one doesn't see so much attention about is just who's really backing all this, and more importantly
who is it that's doing all the funding? Where's the money coming from?


Always follow the money...

Turns out, it is an organization called Crew.

From a well established alt-left wing news site: (I prefer using citations as it is more credible than just espousing opinions).

Six Colorado voters sue to remove Trump from the state's 2024 ballot
Their lawsuit contends that Trump should be disqualified from running in future elections because
he violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment with his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Sept. 6, 2023, 2:15 PM EDT
By Rebecca Shabad

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...lot-rcna103660

Six voters in Colorado filed a lawsuit Wednesday seeking to remove former President Donald Trump from the state's election ballots because of his role in the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

The group called on the court to remove Trump from the 2024 ballot and declare that it would be "improper" and "a breach or neglect of duty" for Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold,
a Democrat, to allow his name to appear on any future primary or general election ballots.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and several law firms filed the lawsuit on behalf of the six voters — four Republicans and two unaffiliated.

What is the blazes is CREW you ask?

From "Influence Watch"

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-p...in-washington/

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)

"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a legal advocacy group with previous connections with political strategist David Brock.
The organization describes itself as a “nonpartisan” watchdog group directing litigation against government corruption in an effort to advance the public interest.
The group is part of Brock’s network of organizations including Democratic-aligned opposition research Super PAC American Bridge 21st Century (AB PAC) and media
criticism organization Media Matters for America."

"The organization has been recognized as having “played instrumental roles in building a stronger, more integrated progressive infrastructure” by the Democracy Alliance.
CREW has received funding from left-of-center foundations, including philanthropist George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and singer Barbra Streisand’s Streisand Foundation."

"CREW has received criticism for the appearance of pay-for-play advocacy on behalf of for-profit universities."

Focus on Republican Members

"CREW’s efforts at “accountability” and “ethics” have been criticized as a partisan vendetta against conservatives and Republicans. An attorney who represents
nonprofit groups said in an interview with the Hill that obvious one-sided slant of CREW’s IRS complaints could potentially jeopardize the group’s standing."

Brock’s Clinton Family Ties

"During his tenure within a leadership position with CREW, the organization’s “Most Corrupt” and “Worst Governors” lists, which occasionally mentioned the misdeeds of Democrats,
were discontinued."

"Brock’s close ties with the Clintons and his own personal political agenda ultimately worked to undermine CREW’s ability to objectively investigate certain organizations.


Bloomberg reported that “Some former staffers say that Brock, who has moved into the vice chairman role, has pulled the watchdog into a partisan agenda and, in doing so, weakened its impact.”

Activities during the Trump Administration

"In keeping with the agenda of its former board chairman David Brock, CREW has been an aggressive opponent of the Trump administration. The so-called “Brocktopus,” which includes CREW, declared an intention to spend upwards of $40 million to oppose the Trump administration in 2017. CREW was reported to be “a particular locus of activity.”

Data from Federal Agencies and U.S Congress

"According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, CREW filed 54 complaints between March 2004 and September 2017 in which 84%,
were directed at conservative or right-leaning organizations."

"In addition, FEC data shows that only 41% of civil penalties of $50,000 or more applied by the FEC since 1980 were against Republican supporters or politicians."

Now don't believe your lying eyes, plainly there is no radical alt-left wing politically biased influence manipulation or funding peddling from left wing elitist donors going on here.
Just six lil Coloradans who have lost their way.

The Clnton's, and George Soro's in the funding mix too! Now just where is it we have heard of those names dropping money all around on left wing extremist
ideological benders before? Oh, oh, and Media Matters, also mentioned above as a co-operator in this little Colorado insurrection. Let's see, Media Matters...

According to "Allsides", it appears that Media Matters didn't pass the mustard with regard to the neutrality test for media. Apparently, media does matter.
Just not the media that lacks any credibility. They score a solid 4.5 definite alt-leftie, just a couple clicks near full blown extremists.

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/media-matters-bias

More of the same ole-same ole, from the same ole people. "It's juss all fer the lil children..."

[Buddahaid]

As far as Trump's attitude, I'd sympathize some except the behavior is nothing new with him.

[Gorpet]

Yes,The Politicians " Actors and Liars" the most wealthy in every state across the United States. And the world, They have become our leaders and they are also the worst of society.They swoon amongst themselves loving themselves to the point there is only themselves.And this planet can only be overseen by the swoon.And to preserve this planet for themselves Let's start with a virus from 2 bats having sex in a Chinese cave. And we will call it 19 teen for a start.Ok so it goes good, millions of people across the planet are killed.

But what happens to the swoon? None of the oldest of the swoon die. Everybody at their age and our family members and neighbors die. But none of the swoon around the world dies.All the leader's and their family members that are eligible to die don't.They get 2 -3 weeks and the swoon are as good as new and today they are jet setting around the world.

So the crux of the biscuit is don't eat the yellow snow the swoon will feed you.