homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » US election aftermath (Page 24)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  ...  40  41  42 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: US election aftermath
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032

 - Posted      Profile for Anselmina     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What's the issue with Meryl Streep playing the character of Margaret Thatcher? Are we supposed to hate or be disappointed in actors playing people we don't like? Or - I never saw the film - was the script untruthfully and unrealistically favourable towards the Iron Lady? And we're supposed to assume that all actors should be able to discern these things and choose their projects more carefully?

--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!

Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder if the unease was caused by the thought that someone playing Margaret Thatcher might make it seem as though she (Thatcher) had undergone some sort of ghastly and unholy resurrection....

[Ultra confused]

....and that would never do.

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The new Trump administration has announced the six prayer leaders who will pray at the inauguration. They include a Cardinal, a rabbi, and four conservative ministers who supported him during the campaign. They seem to be of the "Prosperity Gospel" sort that think that wealth is a mark of God's approval.
Any comments or is this what should be expected?

Pretty much what I would have expected. I believe that Trump's parents were devotees of Norman Vincent Peale, and that he followed them in this, so not surprised to see the Prosperity Gospel represented.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
trump advocates closer relations with Russia. Why is no one asking if this is because he is a double agent, blackmailed by Putin? It is hardly more startling that trumpy's birther Muslim claim re Obama.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people are asking this.
Yes, you can check out, for example, any Trump/Russia article on the Slate website, along with the enusing readers' comments, to find hundreds of people speculating that Trump might be a Russian agent.

Though I suspect the subtext of Prophet's question was "Why aren't the people who believed the Obama birtherism stuff also nodding their assent to the Trump-Russia stuff?" If so, it's because they were predisposed to believe bad allegations about Democrats but disbelieve bad allegations about Republicans.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
no prophet's flag is set so...

Proceed to see sea
# 15560

 - Posted      Profile for no prophet's flag is set so...   Author's homepage   Email no prophet's flag is set so...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually I thought it was simple racism Stetson.

--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/

Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597

 - Posted      Profile for Stetson     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Actually I thought it was simple racism Stetson.

Well, I think in most cases, it's probably a combo. If Ben Carson had won the GOP nomination, I suspect a lot of the racist Republican voters inclined to believe Obama was a Kenyan terrorist would find some reason to reject similar allegations about Carson.

--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!

Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
What's the issue with Meryl Streep playing the character of Margaret Thatcher? Are we supposed to hate or be disappointed in actors playing people we don't like? Or - I never saw the film - was the script untruthfully and unrealistically favourable towards the Iron Lady? And we're supposed to assume that all actors should be able to discern these things and choose their projects more carefully?

From what little I saw of it, getting angry at Streep for playing Thatcher would be like getting mad at Hopkins for playing Nixon. Or Forest Whittaker for playing Idi Amin. The film was hardly a love song to Thatcher.

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What about Bruno Ganz in 'Downfall' playing Hitler? I wonder if he got flak for this? I know it has been ripped off many times for comic effect, e.g. there is a Brexit version of that scene where Hitler shouts at everyone, 'what, you are telling me, that you have not calculated the effects of leaving the single market, Donner und Blitzen', etc.

Come on, we're gagging for a Trump version.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Think trump's soon going to have his own version. Quite frankly that guy is scary when he's crossed. Arm outstretched with finger pointed while maintaining fixed stare ahead.

How about Ant. Hopkins doing Hannibal Lecter next to Streep doing Thatch for damaged cred?

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here are der Failure's thoughts on Trump - probably NSFW:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZn1Juf4ha8&nohtml5=False

[Killing me]

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It can't merely be trying to influence voters. People spend millions trying to influence voters, and US law does very little to curtail it. Does trying to influence voters suddenly become illegal if you're foreign?

I don't know what our current laws about Americans trying to influence elections.

But illegal for foreigners? Duh.

Would you want foreign countries, ones with a frienemy history, influencing Australian elections???

And, BTW, I think it's been very wrong (and often catastrophic) for the US to interfere with other countries.

quote:
Given the law does nothing to prevent people voting for all sorts of crazy reasons, and apparently does nothing to sanction politicians themselves from influencing votes with a pile of lies and half-truths, it's not obvious to me that Russians lying to Americans to affect their vote is inherently worse than Americans lying to Americans to affect their vote.
{boggle}

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
FWIW:

I feel that some non-American Shipmates have done strange mental and rhetorical gymnastics. in their posts.

Two examples:

--People who were strongly against T being elected, before it happened, are suddenly denying that lots of Americans criticized T, and stood up to him directly. Is this amnesia, because they don't want to believe that he was elected?

--And other non-American Shipmates are taking the view that "well, T was elected, so it's undemocratic to fight it, even if people did mess around with the election; and Trump is bad, but he can't possibly be THAT bad; and you should just focus on reining him in; and surely he'll go with what the Republican elite say, or they'll control him; and you should just 'stop worrying, and love the bomb'". (Bomb quote per Dr. Strangelove.)

What the frack??? [Paranoid]

Counter-points to consider:

--American Shipmates (and other Americans) who didn't and don't support Trump are angry and afraid of this obviously (IMHO) insane and criminal man taking office.

--This is not about a politician we disagree with being elected. He is insane and criminal.

--If we have pre-existing rules and laws that permit us to do something about it, it's not wrong for us to use those rules and laws to try to keep an insane and criminal man from taking office.

--If we have an insane and criminal man in office, we'd have to live with the consequences, ***every day***.

--It seems illogical to me that non-American Shipmates would go from telling us how Trump could ruin the world, to "aw, just go with the flow, you can rein him in, he's not that bad, really", and *almost* saying "don't worry your pretty little heads about it".

This is...disturbing.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Golden Key:
quote:
--If we have an insane and criminal man in office, we'd have to live with the consequences, ***every day***.
You and the rest of the world... I can't speak for anyone else in the UK, but I'm (still) worried. I see his latest ploy is to praise Brexit to the skies and promise Britain a 'great trade deal'. Yes, I DO want to look this gift horse in the mouth.

[Help] [brick wall] [Mad]

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Apparently, Trump's normal approach to any option is simply whether it is legal or not. For example, if he has legal advice that divesting himself of assets may be a Presidential custom but is not actually required by law, then he feels free to depart from precedent and ignore the whole welter of advice re conflict of interest.

So, back on collusion, I am guessing that there may be provision under US law to pursue citizen (not President) Trump or his underlings under some provision of conspiracy law. That might be a hard route.

But so far as impeachment is concerned, I believe Congress can take a pretty broad view of reasons to impeach. Here's a quote from the Wiki article on impeachment.

quote:
The Constitution defines impeachment at the federal level and limits impeachment to "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States" who may be impeached and removed only for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor", especially since Nixon v. United States stated that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant. In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
So I guess that even the issue of behaviour before election might also constitute grounds for impeachment of a sitting president, if Congress is satisfied that it is wrong.

What is clear is that while he is in office, he can only be removed by impeachment. But it looks as though the articles of impeachment can be whatever satisfies Congress of his unsuitability for continuing in office because of proven "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors". I'd say that proven collusive links with the Russians to suborn a Presidential election might very well constitute cause for impeachment. Even if that collusion does not constitute any particular crime under US law, Congress could take a view that such behaviour must be outlawed for any sitting President, or aspiring President, because it is against the sense of the Constitution that elections should be free and fair.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jane--

Yes, I know it affects everyone else. And I'm sorry about the danger. [Angel]

However, some non-American Shipmates have gone from talking exclusively about the effect on the wider world, to basically telling us not to worry about it. (Others did apologize for the first part.)

And, however much T's actions would affect the rest of the world (shudder), we would have to deal with him more. A Republican Congress is unlikely to impeach him. They will not be able to control him. He may act on each and every one of the horrible, dangerous things he's said, or he may bluster but do nothing at all. Either way, we'd have a madman at the helm. And if he gets to stack the Supreme Court (where some of the moderates and liberals are very close to either retirement or death)...

Frankly, if we don't take care of this soon, AND I ABSOLUTELY AM NOT ENDORSING THE FOLLOWING IDEA, someone might decide to take more drastic measures. It might be assassination. There may be people, like some in the past, who decide they desperately need to get a message directly to the president, with nasty consequences for themselves.

So, if it is legally possible, T needs to be prevented from taking office. Pence seems to be a nasty piece of work, with some awful ideas--but he does seem basically sane. If he became president, it might be possible to find some way to work with him, or override him.

We're trying to find a legitimate way to prevent the horrors.

And, if we manage to do that, it will save the rest of you from him.

[Angel]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
blah, blah.. and criminal man taking office.

Can you provide a list of what laws he has been found guilty of breaking and what sentences the courts handed down?

Not what YOU think are crimes of course, that isn't worth anything. But real laws that he has broken.

[ 16. January 2017, 11:34: Message edited by: deano ]

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
blah, blah.. and criminal man taking office.

Can you provide a list of what laws he has been found guilty of breaking and what sentences the courts handed down?

Not what YOU think are crimes of course, that isn't worth anything. But real laws that he has broken.

Well, he has publicly admitted that he carried on affairs while married (although he did eventually serially marry the two women involved) which, in the State of New York is a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by up to 90 days in jail or a $500 fine): Penal Law 255.17 states that a person is guilty of adultery when he/she engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he/she has a living spouse. In this case, he has admitted his criminal behaviour and has not to my knowledge retracted his admission.

While he claimed to have sexually touched women without ascertaining their consent, he later said that he was not telling the truth ("locker-room talk") so, without a state attorney being satisfied that there was other credible evidence, we can't tell if he was a criminal in this respect. In any case, his guilt here would also be determined by the particular laws in the state(s) in which such foul and caddish behaviour might have taken place, and the dates of these instances (while I have always found it odd that there are 50-plus criminal régimes in the US, that's how it is).

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It can't merely be trying to influence voters. People spend millions trying to influence voters, and US law does very little to curtail it. Does trying to influence voters suddenly become illegal if you're foreign?

I don't know what our current laws about Americans trying to influence elections.

But illegal for foreigners? Duh.

I hardly think that Duh constitutes a valid legal argument.

And nor does a rhetorical question about what I would want to happen in Australian elections mean anything. My entire point is the difference between perception ("foreigners influencing our elections is bad, especially if they're Russian") and law ("foreigners influencing our elections in this way is illegal").

I'm not arguing with you about whether Russians influencing American elections is a bad thing. I'm asking whether it's an illegal thing.

And Duh does precisely nothing to explain why it's okay for me to try to persuade an American not to vote for Trump, but not okay for Vladimir Putin to try to persuade an American not to vote for Clinton. You didn't include that bit of my remarks in your quote, but it's absolutely crucial.

If there's a general Duh law about influencing American elections, then every single non-American on this forum that expressed a view on American politics may have broken it. We don't get a free pass just because we're from "nice" countries rather than from Russia.

[ 16. January 2017, 11:51: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
orfeo--

AFAIK, you are not the ruler of any country. That is the difference.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm not arguing with you about whether Russians influencing American elections is a bad thing. I'm asking whether it's an illegal thing.

That's not the question I'm interested in. But is it an impeachable offence for any Presidential Candidate to collude with such a covert process with a nation state which is in (to put it mildly) bad odour with the US government? The answer I find is that it is indeed an impeachable offence if Congress says it is.

Seeking to bugger up a free and fair election is an interference in the sovereign affairs of a nation state. Being commander in chief and having taken an oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend" the US Constitution is at variance with getting into bed, collusively, with a historical enemy, in order to obtain the highest office in the land.

Note I am not saying he has done that. I'm saying that his statements and actions certainly give pause for thought. For all I know (and given the confidential briefings, others in Congress probably know more), there may very well already be grounds for further investigation of this point.

[ 16. January 2017, 12:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
orfeo--

AFAIK, you are not the ruler of any country. That is the difference.

I work for the Australian Government. Still okay?

Again, I'm not talking about the political level of this, at all. I've got no problem with people being disturbed as all hell about the prospect of an American President being overly friendly with a Russian one.

What I am saying is that there's a need to separate the emotional reaction out of it when talking about legal consequences, including notions of claiming a President is "illegitimate" or a "criminal".

You admitted to not knowing the law about influencing elections re Americans, but now you're apparently making up the law when it comes to foreigners on the fly, going from Duh to saying that it's a law that applies to foreign leaders. As far as I can tell, the only basis for this is a continuing desire to reason backwards from the desired result of wanting the bad man Putin to have done something not just bad, but illegal.

The former Australian PM managed to weigh in on Brexit. Everyone felt it was appalling bad form. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting it was illegal. I remain highly skeptical that there exists a law that specifically targets the leaders of countries in the way that you suggest.
There are plenty of political sanctions for when countries are unhappy with each other, including the expulsion of diplomats which was Obama's response.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I'm not arguing with you about whether Russians influencing American elections is a bad thing. I'm asking whether it's an illegal thing.

That's not the question I'm interested in. But is it an impeachable offence for any Presidential Candidate to collude with such a covert process with a nation state which is in (to put it mildly) bad odour with the US government? The answer I find is that it is indeed an impeachable offence if Congress says it is.
Quite possibly. The whole notion of impeachment is pretty different to anything I'm familiar with. If the courts say that they won't examine the rightness of an impeachment then it pretty much does become a political exercise, with Congress judging both how angry it is and whether the populace is also sufficiently angry to accept an impeachment.

In some ways I find that somewhat worrying. Then again, my own country has shown itself perfectly capable of dumping Prime Ministers in various ways.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
orfeo

The U.S. Constitution says this

quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7

Which seems fine to me for a political process, leaving the law to decide whether any further action can or should be taken.

Congress may say no more (indeed it may say less) than it is turfing the office holder out on the grounds that in their view he's done things which make him unsuitable to continue in office. It is a political process; it doesn't necessarily have any further legal ramifications unless the articles of impeachment point to a crime punishable under the law. Even then in that case, the courts have to be satisfied that the President is provably a lawbreaker.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Orfeo writes:

quote:
If there's a general Duh law about influencing American elections, then every single non-American on this forum that expressed a view on American politics may have broken it. We don't get a free pass just because we're from "nice" countries rather than from Russia.
US elections law, if I interpret it correctly, only prohibits donating funds for those elections which fall under federal jurisdiction. Influencing, in general, would fall under impeachable activities which, as others note, is what the House of Representatives says it is.

As for Duh, I leave it for Homer Simpson.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
orfeo

The U.S. Constitution says this

quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 7

Which seems fine to me for a political process, leaving the law to decide whether any further action can or should be taken.

Congress may say no more (indeed it may say less) than it is turfing the office holder out on the grounds that in their view he's done things which make him unsuitable to continue in office. It is a political process; it doesn't necessarily have any further legal ramifications unless the articles of impeachment point to a crime punishable under the law. Even then in that case, the courts have to be satisfied that the President is provably a lawbreaker.

Yes, but removing a President from office is a pretty major deal.

As is talking about doing it before he's even taken office.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
orfeo

Fully understood. There may be a good deal of "ad hominem" going on in this thread so far as Trump is concerned. But that's because he's an asshole who gives daily proof of his unfittedness for high political office. Electing such an asshole to such a high office is also a big deal.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm going to be watching the inauguration while I care for my aged mother (fearful and anxious person who was seduced into supporting Trump). Don't feel much like getting into an argument with a 95 year old,so...

I'm going to keep a secret tally of how often he references himself in his speech (as opposed to the nation or ideals to strive for,etc).

sabine

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I do admit that I was hurt and disappointed by Meryl Streep's decision to play Thatcher. I said some nasty things about her to my wife.

For some reason no one is ever "hurt and disappointed" about an actor's decision to play the lead in Shakespeare's Richard III, despite the fact that the character is a murderous tyrant.
Shakespeare's Richard III was a fictional Character, but the terrible Thatcher was frighteningly real. My great fear was that the film about Thatcher was going to be a hagiography. I understand it wasn't. My wife, when it was on telly, called me in to watch the bit about Thatcher's descent into senility. That was good.
There was simply too much material for them to cover in a film of that length. You have the young Thatcher battling sexism in the Tory ranks and seizing the leadership after Heath's failure, Maggie in her pomp, Thatch going off her head after three election victories and senile Margaret having conversations with the dead Dennis and being looked after by Carol despite the fact that the hopeless boy Mark was her favourite. Imagine putting the Star Wars prequels and Vader's death scene in Return of the Jedi* into one film and you have some kind of grasp of the scale of the enterprise.

*Thatcher was less annoyingly whiny than Anakin and had better hair.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I'm going to be watching the inauguration while I care for my aged mother (fearful and anxious person who was seduced into supporting Trump). Don't feel much like getting into an argument with a 95 year old,so...

I'm going to keep a secret tally of how often he references himself in his speech (as opposed to the nation or ideals to strive for,etc).

sabine

There is no way on God's green earth I'm watching. No TV, facebook on Friday. Will spend the day celebrating daughter's birthday and getting ready for granddaughter's birth. So if something dramatic happens, please text me.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861

 - Posted      Profile for sabine   Email sabine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I'm going to be watching the inauguration while I care for my aged mother (fearful and anxious person who was seduced into supporting Trump). Don't feel much like getting into an argument with a 95 year old,so...

I'm going to keep a secret tally of how often he references himself in his speech (as opposed to the nation or ideals to strive for,etc).

sabine

There is no way on God's green earth I'm watching. No TV, facebook on Friday. Will spend the day celebrating daughter's birthday and getting ready for granddaughter's birth. So if something dramatic happens, please text me.
Alas, I can't get out of it without upsetting my mother, and her life is pretty bleak as it is.

sabine

--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano

Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I will not watch it. In fact, I'll be en route to a weekend getaway in a place that gives me great pleasure. If anything worth paying attention to happens, I'm sure I'll hear about it.

--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.

Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pigwidgeon

Ship's Owl
# 10192

 - Posted      Profile for Pigwidgeon   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eight years ago I watched it live (split screen on my work computer) and had tears in my eyes. It was such an exciting, hopeful occasion.

This Friday I will not watch a minute of it, but -- as Miss Amanda says -- we are sure to hear if anything of importance happens.

--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf

Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430

 - Posted      Profile for Bishops Finger   Email Bishops Finger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Doubtless it will be seen (in parts, maybe) on UK telly.

Given the right-wing element in this country, which sees The Mango Mussolini as The Saviour Of The World, it will probably be rather depressing and [Projectile] making....

OTOH, it (the Trumpuration, I mean) might almost be worth watching simply for the sheer ghastliness of it all.

IJ

--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)

Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alt Wally

Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245

 - Posted      Profile for Alt Wally     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The covert interference by Russia, under 'very senior direction', in the US Presidential election, demands a very strong response from the US.

What options do we exactly have? I don't think the current or soon-to-be administrations are exactly flush with good ideas. Our historical response to Chinese military and economic espionage certainly has been rather muted.

Until recently there were people celebrating the leaking and releasing of our state secrets through Assange and Snowden. I wonder if they are still considered heroes for transparency and democracy, or stooges serving autocracy. We aggressively pushed the Internet in the Arab Spring as a tool for political change, and it seems as though it is capable of just that. Though not in the way the evangelists of Twitter/Facebook,etc. probably envisioned.

quote:
Mattis's summary seemed spot on to me. The range of issues over which there can be bilateral co-operation is decreasing, the range of issues requiring confrontation is increasing. Trump's responses so far have been wholly inappropriate when faced with the reality of Putin's intentions and behaviour.

Are we looking at a return to the Cold War? It depends whether Putin can be persuaded that it is in his interests to back off.

I think General Mattis right in pointing out our common interests exist, and we will work with Russia where we can. I think he's correct that we have tried to engage with little success. We may be looking at a new Cold War, but it's not the same Cold War as before. Russia scored a victory, and not because they were able to get Trump elected; I don't believe that for a minute. They certainly attempted to intervene, but their real success has been to show with how little effort they can throw our Government in to turmoil. The Democratic party is now playing the illegitimacy game along with the Republicans. That is a dangerous omen for an era of partisanship which we may not have envisioned that could cause true paralysis. If the mission is destroy Trump, but not win his electorate, the effects could be catastrophic in terms of the divisions we could be facing.

[ 16. January 2017, 16:36: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]

Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
blah, blah.. and criminal man taking office.

Can you provide a list of what laws he has been found guilty of breaking and what sentences the courts handed down?

Not what YOU think are crimes of course, that isn't worth anything. But real laws that he has broken.

Well, he has publicly admitted that he carried on affairs while married (although he did eventually serially marry the two women involved) which, in the State of New York is a Class B misdemeanor (punishable by up to 90 days in jail or a $500 fine): Penal Law 255.17 states that a person is guilty of adultery when he/she engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he/she has a living spouse. In this case, he has admitted his criminal behaviour and has not to my knowledge retracted his admission.

While he claimed to have sexually touched women without ascertaining their consent, he later said that he was not telling the truth ("locker-room talk") so, without a state attorney being satisfied that there was other credible evidence, we can't tell if he was a criminal in this respect. In any case, his guilt here would also be determined by the particular laws in the state(s) in which such foul and caddish behaviour might have taken place, and the dates of these instances (while I have always found it odd that there are 50-plus criminal régimes in the US, that's how it is).

So that would be a "no" then.

Somehow I thought that would be the case.

The left just loves its hyperbole, or less charitably, lies.

How on earth the left expects anyone to trust its arguments over the merits of its political position is beyond me, because we can't believe a word it says.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341

 - Posted      Profile for Hilda of Whitby   Email Hilda of Whitby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
blah, blah.. and criminal man taking office.

Can you provide a list of what laws he has been found guilty of breaking and what sentences the courts handed down?

Not what YOU think are crimes of course, that isn't worth anything. But real laws that he has broken.

Well, Trump and his father were sued by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice for systemic violations the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."

Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the result was an injunction with no finding about breaching the law.

Crimes are particular things. They are not a general description for legal trouble.

Also, that was 1973.

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Roll Eyes]

If there was an injunction, then yes, they did break the law. That is how these things work. There was a bargain whereby there would be no finding of guilt, and no admission of guilt, in return for accepting and complying with the injunction.

That's how regulatory enforcement works in pretty much any advanced country you care to name.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, that isn't how an injunction works. An injunction is directed at future conduct. It isn't some kind of punishment for past conduct.

[ 16. January 2017, 21:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Deano posts:

quote:
So that would be a "no" then.

Somehow I thought that would be the case.

The left just loves its hyperbole, or less charitably, lies.

How on earth the left expects anyone to trust its arguments over the merits of its political position is beyond me, because we can't believe a word it says.

Actually, I thought it was a no to your first sentence, and a yes to your second, which I felt (and I could be wrong) provided a full and useful answer--not being questioned in a court, I can provide a wider response than a simple yes or no if I believe it to be helpful.

In the case of Mr Trump, he has admitted his crime (and adultery is a crime in the State of New York), and having claimed to have committed another, he then repudiates his admission. I really do not know what to make of this, but such people are not welcome at my table. Right and left has nothing to do with this.

Who the US Electoral College chooses is nothing over which I have any control, of course, but of the many US citizens I know, scholars, clerics, military, artsies, and just plain folks, I know no-one who is as caddish and marginal in behaviour as the president-elect. I am troubled that of the thousands of capable and qualified right-wingers or conservatives (not identical categories, but ...), this was the best which came up. I have tried to take care to leave right and left out of my observations, possibly because conservative Canadians qualify as outrageously bolshevik in conservative US circles (I have some good anecdotes on this from having attended conferences in my former RL, but another time).

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, that isn't how an injunction works. An injunction is directed at future conduct. It isn't some kind of punishment for past conduct.

[Killing me]

That is exactly how an injunction works in modern regulatory systems. Been there, done that. If there wasn't a reasonable basis in past conduct, the injunction would not have been issued.

There would have been standard "while we admitting no guilt, and as you will waive your right to sue, we will agree to this injunction." This is how regulators encourage settlement, compliance and save on enforcement.

I have a settlement agreement with my employer signed at the Labour Board where that extremely common legal maneuver features prominently.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:


OTOH, it (the Trumpuration, I mean) might almost be worth watching simply for the sheer ghastliness of it all.

IJ

Sort of like slowing down to gawk when you pass a horrible, fiery, bloody traffic fatality as you drive down the highway...

Except in this case you don't get to just drive on by... the car you're driving will ultimately end up in the same fiery heap.

[ 16. January 2017, 22:42: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, that isn't how an injunction works. An injunction is directed at future conduct. It isn't some kind of punishment for past conduct.

[Killing me]

That is exactly how an injunction works in modern regulatory systems. Been there, done that. If there wasn't a reasonable basis in past conduct, the injunction would not have been issued.

But that doesn't contradict what orfeo said. You may think it does, but it doesn't. It's the courts saying "Don't do X" without ever having found you guilty of doing X, or you having admitted to doing X.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338

 - Posted      Profile for L'organist   Author's homepage   Email L'organist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've managed to keep the vomit down (just) while watching Michael Gove "interview" The Donald; and leaving all else aside, the plain fact is that The Donald is incredibly thick.

So now we'll have four years to see if there is a base level of stupidity for would-be incumbents of the White House.

I think I'll do something uplifting on Friday: turn out the loft, paint the inside of the shed, maybe spring-clean the organ loft: anything rather than watch the nonsense in Washington.

--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet

Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, that isn't how an injunction works. An injunction is directed at future conduct. It isn't some kind of punishment for past conduct.

[Killing me]

That is exactly how an injunction works in modern regulatory systems. Been there, done that. If there wasn't a reasonable basis in past conduct, the injunction would not have been issued.

But that doesn't contradict what orfeo said. You may think it does, but it doesn't. It's the courts saying "Don't do X" without ever having found you guilty of doing X, or you having admitted to doing X.
We can, however, reasonably infer that X happened, given that the injunction was issued. Regulators do not issue injunctions without reasonable grounds and motivation.

Therefore, Trump's company engaged in 'colourable' conduct that caught the eye of the regulator.

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
We can, however, reasonably infer that X happened, given that the injunction was issued. Regulators do not issue injunctions without reasonable grounds and motivation.

We can infer that someone has good reason to THINK that X occurred. That there was smoke. But not necessarily that there was fire.

But even so that doesn't make the injunction a punishment.

[ 16. January 2017, 23:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I do not know the law well on this, but a lawyer friend once commented with respect to a specific case in which he obtained an injunction for his client that everyone knows it means that the party is guilty, but for the sake of costs and getting a solution, we will all pretend. Was it an hypocritical act, I enquired, and was told that it was, but it saved so much trouble and had a nice seal on the appropriate page.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sober Preacher's Kid

Presbymethegationalist
# 12699

 - Posted      Profile for Sober Preacher's Kid   Email Sober Preacher's Kid   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah, the substitution of process for substance. Modern politics at its best!

--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.

Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007  |  IP: Logged
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200

 - Posted      Profile for Og: Thread Killer     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Doubtless it will be seen (in parts, maybe) on UK telly.

..

Was watching a SKY Sports feed of the cricket ODI in India and suddenly between overs there was "Hail to the Chief" being played and Trump saying hopeful banal things - commercial for the event. Murdoch seems to be trying to make this into a seminal event.

Its a Friday - I'm not going to watch anything and will likely stay off twitter for a few hours.

--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."

Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
No, that isn't how an injunction works. An injunction is directed at future conduct. It isn't some kind of punishment for past conduct.

[Killing me]

That is exactly how an injunction works in modern regulatory systems. Been there, done that. If there wasn't a reasonable basis in past conduct, the injunction would not have been issued.

But that doesn't contradict what orfeo said. You may think it does, but it doesn't. It's the courts saying "Don't do X" without ever having found you guilty of doing X, or you having admitted to doing X.
We can, however, reasonably infer that X happened, given that the injunction was issued. Regulators do not issue injunctions without reasonable grounds and motivation.

Therefore, Trump's company engaged in 'colourable' conduct that caught the eye of the regulator.

You can infer all you like. What's missing is any realisation on your part that injunctions are also used sometimes before anything has happened, for the precise purpose of ensuring that it never happens.

Seriously, that's the purpose of injunctions: to stop things from happening. It's not actually a valid assumption that this inevitably means the thing has already started.

It is indeed perfectly possible to infer in a case such as the Trump one (from over 40 years ago, for God's sake) that someone believed something was already happening. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the legal principles involved. I'm talking about the fact that when someone specifically asks for proof, at a legal level, about Trump committing crimes or breaking the law, an injunction simply doesn't meet that standard of proof. It does not involve a court finding that a breach of the law has occurred, and no amount of use of emojis or sarcasm on your part will alter the way injunctions legally work.

Also, Regulators don't issue injunctions. Regulators go to courts to ask courts to issue injunctions. Your lack of precision is showing.

[ 17. January 2017, 00:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  ...  40  41  42 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools