Author Topic: Politics  (Read 224001 times)

jdc

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 6427
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Politics
« Reply #6270 on: October 14, 2019, 09:47:23 PM »
thanks.. should have known I can click the link, it just didn't stand out like a normal hyperlink to me.  It was a film that seemed entertaining enough at the time but I can't remember too well now.   He had taken a couple of leave of absence before while he was transitioning to a new country so thought he would re-appear eventually, but now I have lost hope.  I do miss DH's discussions.
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 20692
Re: Politics
« Reply #6271 on: October 15, 2019, 05:07:24 AM »
The Kingsman was an awful movie then and certainly hasn’t improved since.

valmz

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 383
Re: Politics
« Reply #6272 on: November 16, 2019, 03:02:34 AM »
One interesting thing to watch in the impeachment proceedings:

Will Hurd is a smart, principled former CIA officer on the House Intel Committee - who is not seeking re-election. You can seek his reasons for yourself, but one of the reasons he gives is, by his words, "I want to make sure there's 15, 20 folks like me that are in Washington, DC. ... I left the CIA in order to help my country in a different way. In addition to collecting intelligence I had to brief members of Congress and I was pretty shocked by the caliber of our elected officials."

With that being said, he is proceeding with his questioning in the impeachment hearings in an entirely different manner than the rest of the Republican participants. For instance, in the Yovanovich hearings he was intent on figuring out what Giuliani's motivations were, presumably because they were either not at all or not entirely directed toward the purposes of the impeachment hearings. Now, he did not have enough time to complete this line of inquiry - but it's also a legitimate line of inquiry (which may or may not exonerate the President) - but none of the rest of the Committee has much interest in a legitimate line of inquiry. That line of inquiry may also be beyond the capability of the House Intel Committee without the participation of a large part of the intelligence community, and that investigation is probably being performed currently with Giuliani under criminal investigation, but it is at least an example of a Republican using the hearings to actually extract new information from the witness that pertains to the subject. I will be checking in to Hurd's questioning in each of the hearings just to see what they SHOULD look like on the Republican side. I will not be paying attention to the deliberate stunts like the one pulled today where the Republicans tried to have a committee member speak who was not authorized to speak - a rule that applies equally to the Democratic members - just for it to be put up as red meat on FOX News' website without any context added.

IF the President were innocent, the Republicans would need several Will Hurds on the committee to protect the American people from falsely impeaching a President due to incompetence on the part of the Committee members. Unfortunately, we do not currently have that protection. Luckily, the idea that Trump didn't have corrupt intent - or, at the very least, "proceeded with such negligent due diligence as to be impossible interpreted as anything other than corrupt" - doesn't pass the laugh test.

(As has been touched on multiple times in the hearings, it is essential that investigations into corruption be conducted in a holistic manner and not selectively to avoid the appearance of preferential treatment, and it is essential that investigations into political opponents be handled entirely independently of those who stand to personally benefit in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and Trump violated both of these principles in his request, along with many, many other principles which are essential to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Oh, and much, much more...)

Dave the Necrobumper

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11060
  • My tinypic changed so no avatar for a little while
Re: Politics
« Reply #6273 on: November 20, 2019, 04:01:51 PM »
Climate change deniers and those that keep on voting them in drive me nuts. it is 9am in the morning here and it is already over 32C (~90F) and this is f'ing November the average temp is supposed to be 22C max during the month, it is going to hit 39C (102F) today, yesterday it was 35C. Bloody troglodytes. </rant>

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2886
Re: Politics
« Reply #6274 on: December 04, 2019, 04:39:15 PM »
I generally avoid this thread, but I've been following impeachment hearings very closely, currently catching up on today's hearings, and I must say Jonathan Turley's quoting of A Man For All Seasons* has forever endeared him to me. I don't know if I agree with his overall views on impeachment, but I find his testimony to be the most interesting by far. It helps that the Republican congressman seems a lot more competent than Devin Nunes did. I guess, because it's been obvious to me from basically day 1 that Trump was comitting impeachable offenses left and right, I find the counter-arguments to be much more relevant, especially as an outside observer.

* A film I would rank among the 10 best Oscar winners, which unfortunately seems to be an very unpopular opinion. Paul Scofield is an acting legend.

It also seems to me that Democrats are being procedurally quite uncooperative with Republicans, which I understand based on the way Republicans have behaved in the past few years (the whole Merrick Garland thing being the most obvious example), but doesn't entirely make sense in the context of an impeachment procedure in which they will need support from a significant number of Republicans senators to remove Trump for office. It suggests to me that they have not intention of actually removing Trump from office, they're just doing this to placate their voter base and say "Well, we tried".
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 04:44:11 PM by Teproc »
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2886
Re: Politics
« Reply #6275 on: December 04, 2019, 04:58:16 PM »
Another thought that occurs to me watching this is how much Constitutional Law discussions in the US seem to resemble theological discussion in Islam specifically: trying to determine the opinions and intents of very specific people from the past, with arguments being seen as strongest when they cite elements that are closest to the source: ie direct quotes from Madison etc. - much in the same way that the hadith works in Islamic theology. It's not about the ideas, it's about the people. From a French perspective, this seems particularly crazy. Our constitutional tradition leaves much to be desired compared to the US (the equivalent to the Supreme Court, such as it is, is a pretty shameful institution in which ex-Presidents are allowed to sit for no good reason, and most members are former politicians), but I do prefer looking at the ideas as they stand rather than what the intent of a Tocqueville or a Sieyès may or may not have been.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11267
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Politics
« Reply #6276 on: December 04, 2019, 05:30:46 PM »
It also seems to me that Democrats are being procedurally quite uncooperative with Republicans, which I understand based on the way Republicans have behaved in the past few years (the whole Merrick Garland thing being the most obvious example), but doesn't entirely make sense in the context of an impeachment procedure in which they will need support from a significant number of Republicans senators to remove Trump for office. It suggests to me that they have not intention of actually removing Trump from office, they're just doing this to placate their voter base and say "Well, we tried".

This is disconcerting.  :-\

It's all just theatre?
"I'm a new day rising."

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2886
Re: Politics
« Reply #6277 on: December 04, 2019, 05:38:47 PM »
It also seems to me that Democrats are being procedurally quite uncooperative with Republicans, which I understand based on the way Republicans have behaved in the past few years (the whole Merrick Garland thing being the most obvious example), but doesn't entirely make sense in the context of an impeachment procedure in which they will need support from a significant number of Republicans senators to remove Trump for office. It suggests to me that they have not intention of actually removing Trump from office, they're just doing this to placate their voter base and say "Well, we tried".

This is disconcerting.  :-\

It's all just theatre?

Well, I suppose the Democrats might say that they're making their case to the American people directly, and ignoring their Republican colleagues in that process because recent experience has proven that a fair bipartisan process is impossible in the current political climate. If they're truly trying to remove Trump for office, the condition that has to be met is that it has to be politically advantageous for a significant portion (I forget the number) of Republican senators to remove Trump for office, and I suppose it is possible that the Democrats do believe their way of doing it will achieve this.

But I think it's more likely that they think (perhaps rightly) that impeachment is basically impossible in the current political climate because it so fundamentally partisan, and that the whole impeachment procedure is, yeah, essentially political theatre. Which I wouldn't say is particularly outrageous, just slightly disappointing.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

Sandy

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11267
    • Sandy's Cinematic Musings
Re: Politics
« Reply #6278 on: December 04, 2019, 05:42:40 PM »
But I think it's more likely that they think (perhaps rightly) that impeachment is basically impossible in the current political climate because it so fundamentally partisan, and that the whole impeachment procedure is, yeah, essentially political theatre. Which I wouldn't say is particularly outrageous, just slightly disappointing.

"I'm a new day rising."

jdc

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 6427
  • Accept the mystery
Re: Politics
« Reply #6279 on: December 04, 2019, 10:23:30 PM »
I can’t say I watched or read about it closely, mostly from updates listening to the NPR Up First Podcast, which for me is usually what I listen to just before going to bed,

It did seem to be a lot of theatre and unless I missed it, I don’t think they ever connected T directly to directing Sondland on the proposal. He says everybody knew but not everybody was on the emails.  The link seemed to be Giuliani and maybe he will go down in the end but I don’t think they will get the votes in the Senate if the House decides to impeach.

If/when they fail, not sure any of the Democrats will succeed in 2020 at the moment... 
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution."  Homer S.
“The direct use of physical force is so poor a solution to the problem of limited resources that it is commonly employed only by small children and great nations” - David Friedman