US Politics Thread 2021-24

[vienna]

Nothing like have the learned views of a former pro-wrestler on US politics...


...can he also tell us if a left Twixt is better than a right Twixt...?...



<O>

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by vienna

This past Saturday, 23 Dec, Trump had his attorneys file an urgent motion of appeal to ask he U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule that Trump has full Presidential immunity and to throw out his court cases(s); this is interesting given how Trump and his legal team were so feverish to have the SCOTUS not expedite a decision on his claims of full immunity...


Trump's lawyers ask appeals court to rule on immunity in late-night filing --

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-a...ling-immunity/


“Be careful what you ask for”: Experts warn Trump’s “immunity” filing could backfire with judges --

https://www.salon.com/2023/12/26/be-...backfire-with/


I suspect what Trump is hoping for is a very, very, very long-shot affirmation of his claim of "absolute immunity" by a lower court so that he can then rush to the trial court and demand the trial court use the appeals court ruling to throw out his case(s); fat chance, Fat Donny: likely the trial judge will allow the prosecutors their day in court to appeal Trump's team's motion and stay any action on a motion to dismiss, pending a higher appeal ruling; this may actually serve to invoke what Trump has been seeking to avoid: by making waves now, an expedited resolution may be the best way forward for the courts...




<O>

The 23’d was the deadline set by the court for a motion from Trump and the 30th will be the deadline for Jack Smith’s response. Oral arguments are set for January 9th. That’s the expedited schedule and the likely reason why the SCOTUS turned down Smith’s writ of certiorari.

There was also an amicus brief accepted by the court that pretty much spills all the wind from Trump’s sails based on Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
https://www.scribd.com/document/6949...1208578840-0-5

That section of the Constitution also names the presidentcy as an office.

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Made a search and found this article

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democra...poll-analysis/

There's also a Danish article about the same thing.

As it is written in the Danish version

Many Senators and Congress members seem to have little trust in Biden, but who could take his place and win over Trump.

Markus

According to polls, if they are to be believed, voters overall have little trust in Biden:

https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA...L/nmopagnqapa/


The second part of the question is perhaps more mercurial. I would submit that when all is said and done, it is Trump who could defeat Trump.

https://nypost.com/2023/12/14/news/r...h-endorsement/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other...mp/ar-AA1lJNk4

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...mp-haley-team/

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by vienna

Nothing like have the learned views of a former pro-wrestler on US politics...


...can he also tell us if a left Twixt is better than a right Twixt...?...



<O>

His views were published by Sky News Australia for world-wide consumption for millions of daily viewers in an interview with Piers Morgan.
Your views were published on your own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread.


Big difference.

[August]

Originally Posted by bweiss

His views were published by Sky News Australia for world-wide consumption for millions of daily viewers in an interview with Pearce Morgan.
Your views were published on your own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread.


Big difference.

[Catfish]

People, eat sh .... Millions of flies cannot err

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by bweiss

According to polls, if they are to be believed, voters overall have little trust in Biden:

From what I've seen most of them still believe Sleepy Joe is the anointed son of Barrack and can still do no wrong. They believe any bad is the result of President Trump's prior policies.

I think the news is going to believe their own lies so much so that when we do find ourselves in Greater Depression 2.0 it's going to be so much worse because we'll be five years into it before they admit it's happening. They might be literally eating out of dumpsters, and still calling things fine and dandy. They'll just say the hot new trend is Pagpag from Philippine cuisine. Meanwhile buy yourself a wheel barrow so you can carry enough greenbacks for a serving of Pagpag.

[bweiss]

Originally Posted by em2nought

They might be literally eating out of dumpsters, and still calling things fine and dandy.

The Blue Plate Special, "coming right up; would you like Meal Moths with that"...?






https://www.gatesfoundation.org/abou...1/08/inv032416


https://insectipro.com/










From the movie: The Longest Day


Major General Gunther Blumentritt :

"This is history. We are living an historical moment. We are going to lose the war because our glorious Führer has taken a sleeping pill and is not to be awakened. Sometimes I wonder which side God is on."

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

The 23’d was the deadline set by the court for a motion from Trump and the 30th will be the deadline for Jack Smith’s response. Oral arguments are set for January 9th. That’s the expedited schedule and the likely reason why the SCOTUS turned down Smith’s writ of certiorari.

There was also an amicus brief accepted by the court that pretty much spills all the wind from Trump’s sails based on Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
https://www.scribd.com/document/6949...1208578840-0-5

That section of the Constitution also names the presidentcy as an office.

Thank You for correcting me about the dates for the deadlines; I had switched around the Trump and Smith filing dates; yet another senior moment...


In support of my point of how amicus briefs are routine filed by almost anybody; this is an amicus brief filed in the unlimited immunity case by, among others, members, including a former US Attorney General and other Justice Dept. officials, from five Republican Presidential administrations


Former GOP officials say allowing Trump’s immunity claim could open floodgates to future crimes --

In an amicus brief accepted by the D.C. Circuit, officials from five Republican presidential administrations argued that granting Trump immunity would “encourage” future presidents to go rogue.


https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/la...ief-rcna131314


...and this is the actual filing:


MOTION BY FORMER OFFICIALS IN FIVE REPUBLICAN
ADMINISTRATIONS,ET AL., FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMICI CURIAE BRIEF SUPPORTING APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re..._6.pdf#page=10


The amicus brief situation is a bit like a poker game: "I'll see your, amicus brief and raise you an amicus brief..."...






<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by bweiss

His views were published by Sky News Australia for world-wide consumption for millions of daily viewers in an interview with Piers Morgan.
Your views were published on your own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread.


Big difference.

Originally Posted by Catfish

People, eat sh .... Millions of flies cannot err

Gee, I'm puzzled...


Am I supposed to consider this a righteous burn on me when it is, in fact, perpetrated by someone who is posting from his "own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread."...?...


Seems a bit meta to me...


Apparently he enjoys giving himself a hot foot...


...to say nothing of his implied opinion of the rest of the forum members...


In reference and agreement with Catfish's succinct summation, being in the view of millions, or billions, is not the sole metric of whether or not a view, opinion, or belief is consequential or valid; you presented the ruminations of a fairly washed-up former "pro" wrestler as a sort of "Aha!!" in support of the view you were trying to put across; it is to be expected that someone might see the humor of such a laughable "endorsement" of a particular view; you presented as substantive the comments of, as I said, a washed-up former wrestler who made his name in the widely mocked and derided faux sport of pro wrestling, which little more than a glorified carny sideshow; those comments were expressed on a show hosted by someone who made his own name by muckraking and scandal, along the way garnering every sort of ostracism and censure and, even termination for his questionable antics, as he tries desperately to pass himself off as a "legitimate journalist"; the show is on a network that has already paid out over a billion dollars to satisfy legal actions against it for the conduct and utterances of its on-air personalities, while also finding itself in the unenviable position, among the world of journalism, to have had to admit it routinely published knowingly false (extravagantly false!) information as actual factual news to the public, and is facing yet another forthcoming $2.7 Billion court case in the Smartmatic defamation case, which, if Fox doesn't settle out of court, Fox will most very likely lose...


SO, if the idea of a wonky, faded, punch-drunk, "pro" wrestler, on a TV show hosted by a sleazeball parasite of a host, on a network that routinely lies to its viewers and pays dearly for being pricks being cited as a reference in otherwise relatively serious discussion and debate should seem amusing to me, well, pardon me for finding the whole thing ridiculous and pointing out the absurdity in a joking manner...


But you go ahead, make your case using pop culture to support serious political ideas; looking forward to your posting citing the great political authority of the Kardashians, or maybe a redux of Tyrus, or some other one name expert like Madonna, Cher, or maybe Beyonce...


I have had disagreements with some on this and other SS forums on various issues, but I have always respect them when the have presented their views in thoughtful, and occasionally humorous, fashion; agree or not, I respect them and their ability to contribute to a discourse...


I do find it difficult not to want to comment on a blatant absurdity...


...and I will continue to enjoy the musings, considered opinions, and given information provided by those who sit behind their "own keyboard in a game forum for perusal by the few individuals who daily wander into the U.S. Pollitics thread"...




PS: there's only one "l" in "politics"...





<O>

[Buddahaid]

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Donald Trump’s stay request in the E Jean Carroll case set for trial in January.

[Buddahaid]

Trump has been disqualified in Maine.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...llo-rcna131375

[Jimbuna]

Wonder if further states will follow.

[August]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Wonder if further states will follow.

My guess is yes and we haven't seen the limits of just how far they will go either. The democrats will try anything to keep Trump from beating them next year and I would not put an assassination attempt past them if all else fails.

[mapuc]

Why remove Trump from their Ballot if Supreme court goes against them.

I would say they should wait until Jan 9th to hear what S.C. has to say about Colorado's step to remove Trump from their Ballot.

This I know for sure well I'm 150 % Sure.
If S.C. gives Colorado green light, you will be witness to an avalanche throughout the states in USA.

Markus