ADVERTISEMENT

This is the Republican Party

astonmartin708 said:
This, according to what I’ve seen has not been proven to be true.

Two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity stated that the target of the October 14, 2011, airstrike was Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[8] Another U.S. administration official speaking on condition of anonymity described Abdulrahman al-Awlaki as a bystander who was "in the wrong place at the wrong time", stating that "the U.S. government did not know that Mr. Awlaki's son was there" before the airstrike was ordered.

I’m more lenient if it were unintentional, I’m also more lenient when it did involve actual combatants (which can unfortunately result in collateral damage of non-combatants) even so, the situation we’re discussing should certainly have the ability to be punished if it’s severe enough.
Click to expand...
This isnt a game. Its not something where you can be "lenient" or look the other way.

If you had any experience in this area, you would know that, even in a war zone, where two or more state actors are in a state of war, you still have an affirmative duty to take every practicable step to avoid innocent loss of life, as well as undertake the killing, if otherwise justified, using principles of proportionality and distinction. This is basic law of warfare stuff. What you are quoting is basically a confession that laws were violated because they failed to take these precautions and the death of an American child resulted. And they are obviously authorized "leaks" to try to mitigate the blowback from this incident.
 
HuffyCane said:
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
STFU, yes I have read about the history of America including that of the war in Tripoli. A better example you could have used would have been the Indian wars of the 1800’s.
HuffyCane said:
Actually, Thomas Jefferson paid off Algeria and Tunisia to avoid a three front conflict and launched an extended war with present day Libya over Muslim piracy in the Mediterranean. Given the number of US ships seized and their crews sold into slavery, Im pretty sure he would pretty much be OK with our strategic and tactical decisions in the Middle East lately.

For his trouble, Jefferson was accused by Adams of secretly being a Muslim. History does repeat itself. Adams proposed paying all of the piracy states off, as Europe had for centuries, because it would be cheaper than raising a navy to defeat them. Reasoning not too dissimilar from the logic of Reagan and Trump and their tactics in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
The next time you compare Donald Trump or Ronald Reagan to Thomas Jefferson or any other notable founding father I’m blocking you. They aren’t anywhere near that standard and Trump much less so than Reagan.
 
Last edited:
HuffyCane said:
This isnt a game. Its not something where you can be "lenient" or look the other way.

If you had any experience in this area, you would know that, even in a war zone, where two or more state actors are in a state of war, you still have an affirmative duty to take every practicable step to avoid innocent loss of life, as well as undertake the killing, if otherwise justified, using principles of proportionality and distinction. This is basic law of warfare stuff. What you are quoting is basically a confession that laws were violated because they failed to take these precautions and the death of an American child resulted. And they are obviously authorized "leaks" to try to mitigate the blowback from this incident.
Click to expand...
I can tell you have experience in this stuff…. and you’re clearly part of the problem.

As I said, REPEATEDLY. I do think laws were violated with drone strikes and the extrajudicial killing of people without a declaration of war or an authorization of military force with specific levels of oversight and boundary from Congress should be prosecuted. This would mean that future administrations should not be allowed to direct their subordinates to do it with the scope they have to this point (since 9/11 and Iraq) No man should be considered above the law or immune from justice. Not should they be allowed immunity by constitutional loophole based on which party controls 41 seats in the senate.

I don’t play by your partisan bull:crap: rules. If someone (no matter what office they hold) broke criminal law, I hope they are held accountable no matter if they are Democrat or Republican. You clearly only think that Democrats should be held accountable.

The one thing I will say is that Obama did ask for Congress to clarify its authorization for use of force from the 2001 AUMF. In his view, “without Congress showing much interest in restraining actions with authorizations that were written really broadly, you end up with a president who can carry on perpetual wars all over the world, and a lot of them covert, without any accountability or democratic debate.”
 
Last edited:
Gmoney4WW said:
It's too bad we couldn't put the ghost of congress past, (those in office in Nixon's presidency) in place of our present congress, during Trump's second impeachment. I think there is a good chance they would have convicted him.
Click to expand...
Yep they would have convicted him.. both the Senate and the House were democrat controlled...with a Left leaning court to back them up..
 
noble cane said:
Yep they would have convicted him.. both the Senate and the House were democrat controlled...with a Left leaning court to back them up..
Click to expand...
He would have had many Republicans voting for conviction. Them controlling Congress really had nothing to do with it. They had convictions and ethics back then. But you go on blathering about something that had nothing to do with whether he would have been convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: astonmartin708 and drboobay
Nixon resigned only when he saw enough Republicans go public on a yes vote that there was enough to get to the 2/3 majority to remove.

At that point Senator Barry Goldwater and Minority Leaders Rhodes and Scott, along with RNC Chair George HW Bush met with the President in the Oval to tell him that the release of the so-called “smoking gun” tape on August 5th had eroded his support in the Senate to less than 10 known votes. On the tape, Nixon discussed obtaining $1 million dollars in cash to pay off the Watergate burglars. It was August 7th. Nixon announced his resignation later that evening after Nixon’s private secretary prevented his family from intervening and his Chief of Staff General Alexander Haig had sufficient time to notify the military, our allies and representatives of the Soviet Union. He left office the next day, 8 August 1974, at noon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
HuffyCane said:
Nixon resigned only when he saw enough Republicans go public on a yes vote that there was enough to get to the 2/3 majority to remove.

At that point Senator Barry Goldwater and Minority Leaders Rhodes and Scott, along with RNC Chair George HW Bush met with the President in the Oval to tell him that the release of the so-called “smoking gun” tape on August 5th had eroded his support in the Senate to less than 10 known votes. On the tape, Nixon discussed obtaining $1 million dollars in cash to pay off the Watergate burglars. It was August 7th. Nixon announced his resignation later that evening after Nixon’s private secretary prevented his family from intervening and his Chief of Staff General Alexander Haig had sufficient time to notify the military, our allies and representatives of the Soviet Union. He left office the next day, 8 August 1974, at noon.
Click to expand...
If that same congress was voting on Trump, I'm not even sure he would have 10 known votes.
 
HuffyCane said:
What you do not hear on MSNBC is that the Supreme Court ruled on this exact issue 100 years ago. They construed the disqualifying portions of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment together with Section 5, as any honest lawyer should. Section 5 states that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are to be enforced exclusively by the U.S. Congress to the exclusion of all others. This necessarily includes enforcement by inferior courts such as the Colorado Supreme Court, even so far as it would apply to whether particular candidates or parties appear on the federal ballots in their particular states.

Congress actually passed legislation regarding acts related to insurrection and provided for civil and criminal penalties. Though the word "insurrection" appears only in the title and is not defined in the statute, the code prohibits 5 different types of activities. The Biden political team has attempted to boot strap that into insurrection. The first two clearly do not apply: (1) conspiracy “to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States,” and (2) conspiracy “to levy war against” the United States. The mob was a riot that intended, misguided in their minds, to preserve the government and maintain Trump in the Presidency. While observers might view their actions as an attempt to overthrow the government, that was not their intent, and the prosecutors know it. They obviously did not declare war on the United States. And in any event Congress convened three hours later.

The remaining three parts of the code is what the Biden DOJ appears to be relying upon: (3) “to oppose by force the authority” of the United States government, and (4) conspiracy “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” (5) conspire to forcibly seize U.S. Government property.

The most serious indictments to date have focused on 3 and 4, but none of those cases has named President Trump as an un-indicted co-conspirator. Neither charge, although very serious, is sedition, much less, insurrection as the word was used with the general public meaning at the time the amendment was adopted.

The people filing these lawsuits all know this. This isnt really difficult legal analysis. A third year law student can get through it all over a weekend. The Supreme Court decision will bind every jurisdiction and remind everyone that this issue was decided before we were all born - that Congress decides what insurrection is, not Colorado judges. Something the Colorado trial judge pointed out and was overruled on appeal by judges directly appointed by democratic governors.

The only question is whether and how the decision can be rendered without tearing the country apart. I have confidence that the court will act to preserve the dignity of our institutions and the integrity of the court, just as they did with Obamacare. I am hopeful it will be in the form of a 9-0 decision solely on the Section 5 argument and the remaining issues left until after the conclusion of any trial convicting the party to be disqualified, in this case, President Trump, of seditious conspiracy or insurrection.

Whether they intended it or not, the people out there and on here advocating for the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump are doing exactly what they condemn Trump and his allies for doing. Hanging on to highly dubious, nearly universally rejected legal theories to try and hamstring or interfere the orderly election of a President.
Click to expand...
So when are states allowed to decide to take people off the ballot? Only when it is obvious? What if the states believed he committed insurrection? So the court is now going to have to define insurrection, right?

That is going to be wild for them to say because so many Republicans have said he was trying to overturn the vote. It all changed when they realized he was still the guy who could influence primaries and raise the cash. So I guess that isn't "insurrection" then? Despite losing by 10M votes, calling a mob, bringing a huge amount of people to tell mike pence to do his job and not certify the election and send the vote back to the states to where he thought legislatures could overturn the voters in their states.
 
HuffyCane said:
What you do not hear on MSNBC is that the Supreme Court ruled on this exact issue 100 years ago. They construed the disqualifying portions of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment together with Section 5, as any honest lawyer should. Section 5 states that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment are to be enforced exclusively by the U.S. Congress to the exclusion of all others. This necessarily includes enforcement by inferior courts such as the Colorado Supreme Court, even so far as it would apply to whether particular candidates or parties appear on the federal ballots in their particular states.

Congress actually passed legislation regarding acts related to insurrection and provided for civil and criminal penalties. Though the word "insurrection" appears only in the title and is not defined in the statute, the code prohibits 5 different types of activities. The Biden political team has attempted to boot strap that into insurrection. The first two clearly do not apply: (1) conspiracy “to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States,” and (2) conspiracy “to levy war against” the United States. The mob was a riot that intended, misguided in their minds, to preserve the government and maintain Trump in the Presidency. While observers might view their actions as an attempt to overthrow the government, that was not their intent, and the prosecutors know it. They obviously did not declare war on the United States. And in any event Congress convened three hours later.

The remaining three parts of the code is what the Biden DOJ appears to be relying upon: (3) “to oppose by force the authority” of the United States government, and (4) conspiracy “to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.” (5) conspire to forcibly seize U.S. Government property.

The most serious indictments to date have focused on 3 and 4, but none of those cases has named President Trump as an un-indicted co-conspirator. Neither charge, although very serious, is sedition, much less, insurrection as the word was used with the general public meaning at the time the amendment was adopted.

The people filing these lawsuits all know this. This isnt really difficult legal analysis. A third year law student can get through it all over a weekend. The Supreme Court decision will bind every jurisdiction and remind everyone that this issue was decided before we were all born - that Congress decides what insurrection is, not Colorado judges. Something the Colorado trial judge pointed out and was overruled on appeal by judges directly appointed by democratic governors.

The only question is whether and how the decision can be rendered without tearing the country apart. I have confidence that the court will act to preserve the dignity of our institutions and the integrity of the court, just as they did with Obamacare. I am hopeful it will be in the form of a 9-0 decision solely on the Section 5 argument and the remaining issues left until after the conclusion of any trial convicting the party to be disqualified, in this case, President Trump, of seditious conspiracy or insurrection.

Whether they intended it or not, the people out there and on here advocating for the 14th Amendment to disqualify Trump are doing exactly what they condemn Trump and his allies for doing. Hanging on to highly dubious, nearly universally rejected legal theories to try and hamstring or interfere the orderly election of a President.
Click to expand...
These procedural arguments are pretty funny to me.

I thought these federal judges just blew them up the other day. So Trump could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his opponent, but because there was no impeachment, he could not be held criminally liable. His team danced around it and said yes.

Another followed up and asked how he reconciled his lawyers during the hearing, who said that he couldn't be impeached after the presidency because it was over, but there were criminal courts that could take care of it.

It is ridiculous.

If you think about it, Trump could wack out his opponents on the last day of his presidency and skate based on what that dip:crap: is saying or not be held liable because he isn't "impeached". They refused to separate the political from the criminal differences.

We are heading to the issue of the potential for a self-pardon and a bunch of originalism BS, and there is zero way in hell that I believe that the founders believed that a president should have been able to self-absolve himself. That is total madness. They will cite one framer's vague notion in one letter and say see, see, that is what they meant to skate.
 
TulsaRulzOSUdrools said:
So when are states allowed to decide to take people off the ballot? Only when it is obvious? What if the states believed he committed insurrection? So the court is now going to have to define insurrection, right?

That is going to be wild for them to say because so many Republicans have said he was trying to overturn the vote. It all changed when they realized he was still the guy who could influence primaries and raise the cash. So I guess that isn't "insurrection" then? Despite losing by 10M votes, calling a mob, bringing a huge amount of people to tell mike pence to do his job and not certify the election and send the vote back to the states to where he thought legislatures could overturn the voters in their states.
Click to expand...
Most people's problems with the current supreme court is they are unwilling to do things like define insurrection like you ask. Congress can define it. They failed to do it clearly. He hasn't been convicted of it. So its not our place to decide this question, nor is it the place of the Colorado Supreme Court. That will likely be the basics of the opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87
TulsaRulzOSUdrools said:
These procedural arguments are pretty funny to me.

I thought these federal judges just blew them up the other day. So Trump could order Seal Team Six to assassinate his opponent, but because there was no impeachment, he could not be held criminally liable. His team danced around it and said yes.

Another followed up and asked how he reconciled his lawyers during the hearing, who said that he couldn't be impeached after the presidency because it was over, but there were criminal courts that could take care of it.

It is ridiculous.

If you think about it, Trump could wack out his opponents on the last day of his presidency and skate based on what that dip:crap: is saying or not be held liable because he isn't "impeached". They refused to separate the political from the criminal differences.

We are heading to the issue of the potential for a self-pardon and a bunch of originalism BS, and there is zero way in hell that I believe that the founders believed that a president should have been able to self-absolve himself. That is total madness. They will cite one framer's vague notion in one letter and say see, see, that is what they meant to skate.
Click to expand...
"In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 74.
 
HuffyCane said:
"In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 74.
Click to expand...
Written by someone who participated in a rebellion. Lol

Also, a pardon is different than letting them run the government. Many confederates were pardoned, but the 14th amendment was still put in place.
 
Really interesting case headed to the Supreme Court. Does a state have the right to keep illegals from crossing into its borders from foreign country when they determine the Fed’s aren’t preventing the same ?

 
lawpoke87 said:
Really interesting case headed to the Supreme Court. Does a state have the right to keep illegals from crossing into its borders from foreign country when they determine the Fed’s aren’t preventing the same ?

View embedded media
Click to expand...
The court will say no.. but, Texas will tell the court to take a flying leap
 
lawpoke87 said:
Really interesting case headed to the Supreme Court. Does a state have the right to keep illegals from crossing into its borders from foreign country when they determine the Fed’s aren’t preventing the same ?

View embedded media
Click to expand...
Well conservative Roberts and Trump appointee Comer-Barrett voted with the libs to continue the invasion..

TX should tell the feds to pound sand.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Really interesting case headed to the Supreme Court. Does a state have the right to keep illegals from crossing into its borders from foreign country when they determine the Fed’s aren’t preventing the same ?

View embedded media
Click to expand...
According to precedent, no. But this court doesn’t care about precedent. Talk about an activist judiciary.
 
Taylor Swift Derangement Syndrome....and the NFL too.

thehill.com

The Memo: The politicization of Taylor Swift

A presidential race likely to be fought between two old men could be shaken up by the nation’s most famous 34-year-old woman. Taylor Swift’s astronomical popularity and her willingness to speak up …
thehill.com thehill.com
 
watu05 said:
Taylor Swift Derangement Syndrome....and the NFL too.

thehill.com

The Memo: The politicization of Taylor Swift

A presidential race likely to be fought between two old men could be shaken up by the nation’s most famous 34-year-old woman. Taylor Swift’s astronomical popularity and her willingness to speak up …
thehill.com thehill.com
Click to expand...
At least Nikki hasn't taken the MAGA koolAid

"Taylor Swift is allowed to have a boyfriend. Taylor Swift is a good artist," Haley said, while speaking with CNN's Jake Tapper. "I've taken my daughter to Taylor Swift concerts before. You know, to have a conspiracy theory of all of this, is bizarre."

Haley was responding to a question about the conservative criticisms and conspiracy theories surrounding Swift ahead of the November election. The global superstar's boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, has also faced attacks from right-wing figures.
 
watu05 said:
Gaetz Derangement Syndrome? McCarthy strikes back.

news.yahoo.com

Kevin McCarthy Is Out For Vengeance, Baby!

It's actually refreshing to see some old-school political payback play out.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
Just maybe he might be fighting the good fight to get those hooligans out of congress. What little bit of the swamp Trump actually replaced is worse for Democracy than the swamp. I think it's a little dismissive to say that McCarthy's only motivation is revenge. I would hope that in private, several Democratic politicians would be supportive of McCarthy's mission to get them out of there. They are holding up the immigration bill/support for Israel and Ukraine.

That's not a great article to post. If you believe it is wholly true, and you don't post any disagreement with the general bent of the article, that's problematic in my view.
 
watu05 said:
At least Nikki hasn't taken the MAGA koolAid

"Taylor Swift is allowed to have a boyfriend. Taylor Swift is a good artist," Haley said, while speaking with CNN's Jake Tapper. "I've taken my daughter to Taylor Swift concerts before. You know, to have a conspiracy theory of all of this, is bizarre."

Haley was responding to a question about the conservative criticisms and conspiracy theories surrounding Swift ahead of the November election. The global superstar's boyfriend, Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce, has also faced attacks from right-wing figures.
Click to expand...
Nikki never let the koolaid get near her, she just fought from the inside to temper the problem of Trump. As opposed to Cheney, who fought from the outside. Everybody doesn't use the same fighting methods. McCarthy, Nikki, Cheney, McConnell, etc, all are attacking the cancer in different ways. They are just trying to maintain some semblance of power, so they can keep fighting. If you ever thought Nikki took the MAGA koolaid then your judgement was questionable.
 
Gmoney4WW said:
Just maybe he might be fighting the good fight to get those hooligans out of congress. What little bit of the swamp Trump actually replaced is worse for Democracy than the swamp. I think it's a little dismissive to say that McCarthy's only motivation is revenge. I would hope that in private, several Democratic politicians would be supportive of McCarthy's mission to get them out of there. They are holding up the immigration bill/support for Israel and Ukraine.

That's not a great article to post. If you believe it is wholly true, and you don't post any disagreement with the general bent of the article, that's problematic in my view.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how anyone can either support or oppose a bill they haven’t read but the same seems to be done on a regular basis in Washington.
 
lawpoke87 said:
I’m not sure how anyone can either support or oppose a bill they haven’t read but the same seems to be done on a regular basis in Washington.
Click to expand...
Those bills are long and often complex, and you don't know which ones are going to get past committee for a vote. I saw something saying a representative had 40 bills that he composed, that were submitted to committees last year. The article also said that was not an unusual amount of bills for a member of congress to propose. I've also seen many years where there was over 10k bills proposed in Congress during that year. Even with the short ones that can be easily read, and the silly ones that don't merit reading,(like one proposed by George Santos that was doing something somehow related to Taylor Swift) that's a lot. Even eliminating reading the frivolous bills and quickly reading the short and/or simple bills, that's still a daunting task. That's 7 or 8 hundred bills a month conservatively. Reading crib notes would be necessary on some.
 
Don’t miss the overall.

You aren’t an expert on everything and you shouldn’t try to be. So you hire subject matter experts as staff members to dig into the bills and flag issues.

Similarly, lobbying organizations and think tanks provide you with feedback on bills so reading all of it is unnecessary.

You only have limited time, so the member needs to be focused on issues that suit their background, interests or re-election chances.

Because of the whips, the staff and the lobbyists, members don’t need to read everything. And indeed, shouldn’t. Even if you could possibly read it all, they need to be meeting with constituents to get feedback on voter needs, not sweating out a 500 page antitrust bill if they are a farmer without a college degree.

The problem is two fold: 1) bills negotiated in secret by bi-partisan elements and voted on minutes or hours later. 2) Continuing resolutions on spending.

If the system is set up for members to overcome their limitations, focus on their strength and keep things running smoothly, that can be exploited. You can exclude unhelpful or counter-positioned members of your own party. You can deny input from intraparty dissent. And you can never take on excessive government spending if everything is in a continuing resolution that blanket authorizes employees to work and get paid, many of whom work jobs not clearly defined or authorized by Congress. Government is a wild animal they don’t want caged. If you never get a good look at it, how can you capture it?

So it’s not that they don’t read the bills, and it’s not that they vote without reading them, that would happen anyway. It’s that the timing limits input by design. And if you are an egghead and not in a position of power, that really bothers you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: noble cane
watu05 said:
The period between Biden's election and taking office, was a very dangerous time in Washington DC.. 2024 is likely be much worse for the whole country, particularly if SCOTUS were to rule against Trump or if he is elected. Hobson's choice.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...e-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-our-democracy/
Click to expand...
we got a bogus gov investigation, two kangaroo court trials in congress, now civil and criminal trials, for political party gain; all at taxpayer expense.
 
Last edited:
noble cane said:
Time to start putting everything into canned food and shotgun shells...
Click to expand...
How silly do I feel stressing about things like nuclear war, EMP attack, asteroid, global pandemic, zombies, etc…when my focus should have been on the Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noble cane
No issue with trying to interview Putin. Huge issue if he doesn’t put him on the spot and ask him the tough questions which need to be asked. Wouldn’t mind interviews with Xi and Khamenei under those same ground rules
 
lawpoke87 said:
No issue with trying to interview Putin. Huge issue if he doesn’t put him on the spot and ask him the tough questions which need to be asked. Wouldn’t mind interviews with Xi and Khamenei under those same ground rules
Click to expand...
Like any of those political figures would allow someone to interview them, that would or could ask the tough questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L

2024 Election prediction/discussion

Replies
752
Views
15K
Crossfire
Tax Guy
T
R

If a presidential candidate can’t stand up to public scrutiny, they can’t stand up to our adversaries

Replies
7
Views
1K
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
C

Saw a 1955 Chevy Bel Air at QT today

Replies
3
Views
340
General Interest
'Cane-man
C
R

Elon / Trump highlights

Replies
0
Views
684
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
W

What to Republican's do now?

Replies
10
Views
598
Crossfire
Clong83a
C
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back