Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[sugilite:Me]

Oh look a wall of text. Word count does not actually win debates. Substance does.
I will pick just one such utterance. It was mentioned that trumps met the criteria for being a fascist. You provide a coverall statement with the notion to dismiss said statement, when gently pushed you amend it to "you know kelly said things". Poof - gone is the coverall eh. The rest of the wall is much the same brand and does not merit any further comment from me.
You can indulge in the fantasy that trump is not a criminal when blatantly corrupt judges continue to run cover for him in plain sight. Just don't expect us to indulge in those same fantasies.
Same applies for your notion you still support conservatism. It cannot exist with a fascist wannabe dictator in charge who has been actively undermining democracy with never ending the election was stolen lies and destroying faith in government with lies such as his hurricane aid being blocked - running true conservatives out the party that won't sycophant over him like you do and much more. You are a propagandist for the man, just own it and move on.

[Berries]

Sometimes i wish the same, especially the bit about sending immigrants, both legal and non legal, back to their home countries.

How many generations do you want to go back? It's not like this country wasn't completely built on immigration.

[TheDemonLord]

Oh look a wall of text. Word count does not actually win debates. Substance does.
I will pick just one such utterance. It was mentioned that trumps met the criteria for being a fascist.

I have seen a myriad of people assert Trump as Fascist, but even the world renowned experts who say this (despite previously saying he wasnt) curiously do not reference what specifically about his policies are fascistic.

Especially when a big thrust of his Presidency was to deregulate and devolve power to the states, the very opposite of Fascistic.

The main claim seems to be his wanting to appoint people who are onboard with his agenda - which as far as Fascistic goes is laughable. Getting rid of people who are actively trying to oppose the things that you were voted in to do is entirely reasonable.

You provide a coverall statement with the notion to dismiss said statement, when gently pushed you amend it to "you know kelly said things". Poof - gone is the coverall eh.

Kelly made two claims:

One is Kelly stating his opinion - he is entitled to it, I think he is wrong (see above)
The other is Kelly claiming Trump said certain things - which have been disputed by other people who were there.

Him lying on the latter (and it is not just the disputes from other people who were there, it is this goes contrary to every other interaction when Trump has discussed military matters) casts doubt on the former.

You can indulge in the fantasy that trump is not a criminal when blatantly corrupt judges continue to run cover for him in plain sight. Just don't expect us to indulge in those same fantasies.

I have no comment on the corrupt judge claims - I have not bothered to look into it - but on the Criminal charge - you had a misdemenor, that was outside the statute of limitations, that then in order to upgrade to a felony (and get around said statute of limitations) it was asserted that it was in the commission of a crime - which Crime - well, the Jury could not agree on which Crime it was - but they were absolutely sure he was Guilty.

Just think about that last part for a second - "We know you are guilty, we just cant prove what of" - Does that sound like any form of Justice to you - or does that sound more like political persecution.

Same applies for your notion you still support conservatism. It cannot exist with a fascist wannabe dictator in charge who has been actively undermining democracy with never ending the election was stolen lies and destroying faith in government with lies such as his hurricane aid being blocked

Good thing that Trump is an Individualist who wants to limit the power of the State then, aye. Shrink Government departments, push power back to the States - you know, all those policies that are the polar opposite of Fascism (both historically and technically)

I said earlier in this thread - I am interested to see what the Voting stats are for this election - if they are more in-line with the previous elections (not 2020), will you admit that 2020 was an anomoly - I am not asking you to infere any malice or draw a conclusion about cheating or stolen - just that the voting tallies were unusual - See, I dont think you can say that (if it turns out to be true).

running true conservatives out the party that won't sycophant over him like you do and much more. You are a propagandist for the man, just own it and move on.

Which True Conservatives - the RINOs - the Warhawks? GWB types?

Propagandist - if that means pointing out the wider context of the half-truths that are used to gin up sensationalist headlines that are dishonest - then sure.

[TheDemonLord]

How many generations do you want to go back? It's not like this country wasn't completely built on immigration.

Also an argument that has been made elsewhere:

Aboriginal people in Australia: We want everyone else to go away = Perfectly acceptable
Maori in New Zealand: We want the foreigners to go back home = Fine
Indians in United States: You are all Migrants and we want you gone = Yeah! Decolonization
English in England: We dont want to import terrorists = OMG RAYYYYYYYYCISSSSSTS

The double standard is always amusing.

[Berries]

Aboriginal people in Australia: We want everyone else to go away = Perfectly acceptable
Maori in New Zealand: We want the foreigners to go back home = Fine
Indians in United States: You are all Migrants and we want you gone = Yeah! Decolonization
English in England: We dont want to import terrorists = OMG RAYYYYYYYYCISSSSSTS.

Three of those countries have thousands of years of human settlement, New Zealand doesn't, hence my comment.

[sugilite:Me]

I have no comment on the corrupt judge claims - I have not bothered to look into it

This one is worth quoting - why should we pay any credence whatsoever to walls of rubbish assertions posted by a willingly blind and lazy sycophant.

[pritch]

^Your previous posts in this thread in breathless defense of near all things trump render your comments as essentially being propaganda. You need new material. When ever I have chosen to dig deep into your posts and be relentless at digging for more actual facts from you, your "points" most often evaporate into big nothings - ala your barbershop blues and I'm still waiting for you to show me a larger right wing media organization than fox in the USA. Hint, there is not one.

Now that Trump's transition team is creating lists of appointees some details are becoming public. It was reported months ago that Judge Cannon had been offered a top job: Supreme Court, Attorney General, or similar. Nobody should be surprised. Well apart from surprise at her almost zero judicial experience that is. When the documents case was assigned to her she had a whole fourteen days experience in court.

As for his extremist leanings there were reports that when he was President Trump wanted the Army to shoot civilians. The generals told him that was illegal. He asked could they not shoot people in the legs or something. Then in frustration he called his military staff 'losers'.

A few years ago there was a widely reported news story about a missing soldier. A rather attractive one, the daughter of Mexican immigrants. Eventually she was found in a shallow grave. Trump told the family he would pay for the funeral. When the press asked if he often payed for military funerals he said he did.
When the bill came he raged, "It doesn't cost sixty thousand dollars to bury a fucking Mexican." And he refused to pay the bill. He is all class.

[onearmedbandit]

A few years ago there was a widely reported news story about a missing soldier. A rather attractive one, the daughter of Mexican immigrants. Eventually she was found in a shallow grave. Trump told the family he would pay for the funeral. When the press asked if he often payed for military funerals he said he did.
When the bill came he raged, "It doesn't cost sixty thousand dollars to bury a fucking Mexican." And he refused to pay the bill. He is all class.

Things like this all come down to who you want to believe. I read about that on the Atlantic, there were those who were present who said he never said anything of the type. So we (in this instance and certain others) are left with either believing those who support Trump or those that don't. Point is, neither should be spread as being the truth.

[TheDemonLord]

This one is worth quoting - why should we pay any credence whatsoever to walls of rubbish assertions posted by a willingly blind and lazy sycophant.

Okay - tell you what - I will look into this, with my usual skepticism and see what the furore is. Give me a couple of days - and I will honestly answer whether or not I think the Judge is corrupt or not.

[pritch]

Oh I say, how jolly inconvenient. In the spirit of full disclosure I should point out that Trump's spokeswoman says it's not true, but then she would wouldn't she?


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...effrey-epstein

[husaberg]

Oh I say, how jolly inconvenient. In the spirit of full disclosure I should point out that Trump's spokeswoman says it's not true, but then she would wouldn't she?


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...effrey-epstein

Just like When Key used his assistant to claim he never said he would re enter pike regardless of the costs. despite it being recorded.
Or when Auntie Helen had her assistant claim never never called a angry crowd feral inbreeds. when it was clear to numerous bystanders.

The trump suporters will have a "Katman conspiracy religious zealot" like 0% level burden of proof to even consider their endless lies like with McDonalds are fabrications.
Yet on the flip side require a 101% proof requirement to prove every detail before they accept he "might have" said what was reported, witnessed , recorded shown on film etc.
For instance Hunter Bidens laptop, Obama birth cert, election fraud."
That's not when trump supporters are just resorting to endless whataboutisnmsor just making claims like media biaas. when the media is ran on the most part by their supporters

[Pursang]

....
Sycophantic Apologists Everywhere!
...

[TheDemonLord]

This one is worth quoting - why should we pay any credence whatsoever to walls of rubbish assertions posted by a willingly blind and lazy sycophant.

So, I have looked into this:

The full 93 page decision from the Judge

The Meese Amicus brief - more for reference and interest than nothing else

That is about 100+ pages of legal argument - I shall attempt to summarize as best I understood them:

Historically, Officers (and people wielding Executive power in and on behalf of the US Government) must be appointed by the President or by Congress or by Law.

Officers being someone with greater authority than Officials or general staff members.

A Special Counsel, having limited oversight and wielding executive power meets the definition of an Officer.

The Attorney General can appoint Special Counsels for certain reasons, but these are subject to various criteria. A big section of the opinion is going into all the various criteria and exceptions and then outlining why they do or do not apply.

Much is made of United States vs Nixon - however, in that case neither side contested the Special Counsels legitimacy and the question of the legal means by which the Special Counsel was appointed was never put to the Supreme Court to decide.

So, full Transparency for your Sugi - this seems to be the area where there is the most legal debate

On the opposition side - They are saying that the Supreme Court were happy with what happened in US vs Nixon - therefore this represents the SC giving its assent.
On the ruling - they are saying that because neither side raised the question to the SC, the comment (which the opposition relies heavily on) it cannot be relied on as a decision on a question not asked.

There is a secondary element which is Morrison v. Olson - my understanding here is that this dealt with a Law that dealt with Special Counsels (and other things) went to the Supreme Court, was upheld (but with Justice Scalia dissenting - which is important) - but the law itself was sunset in 1999.

Finally - the Judge looks at the historical record of Special Counsels to see if there is a consistent manner in which they are appointed.

The conclusion is (as I understand it) the following:

- The constitution specifically separated the powers of the Judiciary and the Executive for a good reason. Any merging of those powers needs to have clear Law or clear language from Congress or the President.
- The question of Special Counsels was not asked of the Supreme Court, so any commentary on them is not an answer.
- The previous law that dealt with this has expired
- The functions and powers granted to the Special Counsel make them an Officer
- As such, they need either explicit Law, appointment by Congress or by the President.

Now - for my opinion:

This is absolutely the sort of nit-picking pedantry that fills my British heart with Joy. Reading the entire opinion, There are elements that I think are dubious - the biggest one is the Supreme Court comment in US vs Nixon - I understand the argument here - they are saying that if two parties went to the Supreme Court to decide on what the weather was:

Party A saying it is Blue sky therefore it is Sunny and warm
Party B saying is is Blue sky therefore it is windy and cold

The Supreme court decision saying that the Sky is blue - but the thermometer reading is what is important is not an acknowledgement that the Sky is always Blue - it is saying that because neither party asked the Supreme Court to decide IF the sky is blue, then their statement about the Sky being blue is not a decision.

I, myself, would tend to disagree here - as it points to accepted customs and practices that neither side debated it... However - the Court goes on to acknowledge that the history of Special Counsels is spotty and contradictory and not enough to draw an implied precedent from and even then - because of the constitutional implication(s) over the separation of powers, mere convention is not enough - it needs explicit law or plain words from Congress.

The argument that I find most convincing however - is the closing argument - and I want to quote this section:

[t]he accretion of dangerous power does not come in a day. It does come, however slowly, from the generative force of unchecked disregard of the restrictions that fence in even the most disinterested assertion of authority.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 594 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)

You asked me to comment on whether she was a corrupt Judge - reading the whole argument, I find that on the Nixon question, I am not convinced on her argument, despite seeing the rationale - but on the other sections, I think she raises a good point - that Government entities have given themselves powers and authority that are not backed by Law, Congress or the President, breaching the separation of powers as described by the Constitution.

On this point, I feel she makes a damn good argument about reigning in Government entities that are acting as feifdoms and laws-unto-themselves (something we have seen a lot of recently).

Is she Corrupt - No, I think that is a massive stretch. I think she raises an interesting Legal question and the majority of her arguments I find to have substantial merit.

On one section I think she reaches a bit, but to put in perspective, I have seen much more egregious over-reaches in other legal decisions - and despite this being a reach, her point that if the SC wants to make a test or a ruling, then they need to be asked the question on that specific matter is valid.

[Berries]

Still dodgy though.

[TheDemonLord]

Still dodgy though.

The only bit I found to be remotely dodgy - as I said, was the opinion on whether the SC decision in US vs Nixon had weight. I think she dismisses too easily - but I find her arguments to be well reasoned, even if I disagree on this point. Everything else I find to be good, legal and constitutional reasons.

The solution though for the above is for this ruling to be appealed and the question be raised to the Supreme Court, so they can apply a ruling and create a test on it.