djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 9, 2024 12:41:36 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 18:55:14 GMT -5
i have mixed feelings about that.
i would rather the House GOP go down in flames.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 15:40:50 GMT -5
The familiar irony at the bottom of Trump’s selective prosecution argument
In a new motion filed Thursday, Trump’s lawyers argue that a Chinese immigrant’s case provides the precedent for throwing out the charges in Florida. It’s hard to think of a famous Supreme Court plaintiff with whom former President Donald Trump has less in common than Lee Yick, a Chinese immigrant who was convicted of operating an unlicensed laundry in late-19th-century San Francisco. Yick sued, arguing that San Francisco’s pattern of denying permits to virtually every Chinese applicant while granting them to virtually every white applicant violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in his case, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, still stands today. It says that the application of a race-neutral law, such as San Francisco’s laundry-permitting scheme, can be so obviously discriminatory that it demonstrates an intentional (and actionable) violation of the Constitution. Donald Trump is no Lee Yick. And yet, in a motion filed Thursday in Florida, his lawyers argue that Yick’s case provides a precedent for throwing out the charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents prosecution. They say federal prosecutors are engaged in unconstitutional “selective prosecution” of Trump. There are two different, but equally fatal, problems with Trump’s argument. First, for better or worse, the Supreme Court has made selective prosecution claims notoriously difficult to prove. Second, Trump is just about the worst possible person to bring a selective prosecution claim — since so much of his allegedly unlawful conduct in the Mar-a-Lago case is unprecedented. A claim for selective prosecution is, in essence, a claim that the government chose to prosecute a defendant for the exact same conduct for which it chose not to prosecute a different individual. The claim includes the argument that there was no good reason (and, indeed, a nefarious one, like race or political views) for treating the two cases differently. The argument is not that the defendant is innocent; it’s that the government’s misconduct in singling out the defendant ought to be punished — by barring the prosecution of even a guilty defendant. Perhaps because the stakes are so high, the Supreme Court in recent decades has made selective prosecution claims much more difficult to prove. Under a series of cases in the late 1990s, for instance, the justices regularly held that to establish a selective prosecution claim, the burden is on the defendant to identify materially similar cases that the government did not prosecute. And even then the selective prosecution claim would fail if the government had a good reason for not having brought the other case: Say, a suspect in that case cooperated with law enforcement or there were evidentiary issues. Only if the defendant could prove that the government had deliberately and intentionally singled him out from other similarly situated suspects without any good reason would such a claim succeed. This is why, for instance, it is exceedingly difficult to prove racial profiling claims. To establish that a police officer only gives speeding tickets to Black motorists, for example, a plaintiff would have to provide evidence of the officer not pulling over other non-Black motorists engaged in the same behavior. The plaintiff would have to prove a negative. Rest of article here: The familiar irony at the bottom of Trump’s selective prosecution argument I saw this article the other day and got somewhat confused. Is Trump claiming selective prosecution because Biden and Clinton and Obama (according to Trump) all ‘got away’ with having classified documents in their homes/private offices (In Clinton’s case, in his sock drawer) and they didn’t get prosecuted, but poor Trump, who has done nothing worse than other presidents did before him, is getting the book thrown at him (according to Trump)? He keeps whining about that, but the cases are not the same at all. Especially the Clinton ‘sock’ case- what Clinton had in his sock drawer were some tapes of interviews someone had done with him - not government documents. Yet somehow Trump has fixated on that. the issue was never having the documents. the issue was KNOWINGLY having them and then REFUSING TO RETURN THEM. that combination is what Trump is in trouble for. this is a very clearcut case. it would not take two weeks to prosecute it, if Cannon would simply bring it to court.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 15:36:43 GMT -5
I guess you can kill any idea of ever going back to the Republican Party, can't you? at this point, i can't even imagine why one would vote in that party. i mean, seriously. the GOP is no longer interested in politics. that has been clear for at least a decade. i am. ergo.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 15:35:35 GMT -5
Yet still it is an issue that a country does individually. Look at COVID everyone had their own rules. No need for a kum by ya jerkoff fest We had US employees embedded in Chinese labs and were able to identify threats before they left China. Trump pulled them out. Even if Covid had escaped China, the response of the entire world may have been different if we had more warning. China lied to us (the whole world) at every point they could. Trying to isolate ourselves failed because we are not isolated. We are integrated internationally- financially, for innovation, for manufacturing - raw materials, semi-finished and finished goods. We buy from the world and the world buys from us. That includes everything from t-shirts to energy production, movies to groceries. No industry is untouched. And of course - the biggest money suck of all - defense. If we just pulled out of all the countries we are all tangled in - there would be a void. Who will fill that void? Russia? China? And how does our status in the world change when countries have no loyalty to the US and are best friends with another big country that wants the US to lose status? Did you see Mean Girls? We could Regina George ourselves under a bus. What power will we hold if we have no international presence? How will we rank when we want something? how about nobody? we were never invited most of these places, we are unwelcome there, and they would cheer our leaving.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 15:27:10 GMT -5
RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brainRobert F. Kennedy Jr. said doctors told him a parasite ate part of his brain, after experiencing memory loss and brain fog in 2010. The New York Times reviewed a deposition of Kennedy from 2012 that detailed his experience with his symptoms and the dead parasite. The Times reported that Kennedy started dealing with memory loss and mental fogginess in 2010, prompting concerns from a friend that the now-presidential candidate may have had a tumor. Kennedy gave the 2012 deposition during divorce proceedings from his second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy. Kennedy discussed his symptoms in the deposition because he argued his cognitive struggles in relation to the situation had diminished his earning power, according to The Times report. Several doctors who had first concluded Kennedy had a tumor found a dark spot on his brain scans, The Times reported. However, just as he was packing up to have surgery and remove the tumor, he said in the deposition that another doctor called him and told him he believed Kennedy instead had a dead parasite in his brain. The doctor told him he believed the spot on the brain scan “was caused by a worm that got into my brain and ate a portion of it and then died,” Kennedy reportedly said in the deposition. Rest of article here: RFK Jr. says parasite ate part of his brain So that does raise a question, I guess.... "Exactly how much of one's brain being eaten by a worm should be disqualifying for a presidential candidate?" Now obviously the answer will be different for Democrats and Republicans, considering who Republicans have nominated for both this election and various offices in the past, but what about for someone who is essentially neither? "none" works for me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 11:23:20 GMT -5
well, most of them will NOT vote for Biden. but most of them will ALSO not vote for Trump. i would guess Kennedy, if i were to guess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2024 11:21:24 GMT -5
forever is a strong word.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 17:27:00 GMT -5
can he rescind it? probably not. but that would be funny.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 17:26:10 GMT -5
did she say WHY it was "imprudent"?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 16:37:07 GMT -5
i didn't realize NZ had an outbreak in 2022. they ended up getting a B+ instead of an A. i stopped paying attention in the last two years, apparently. my A list is now Australia, South Korea, and Japan. Japan is most notable since they have a large elderly and urban population (even moreso than the US) and the virus originated less than 1000 miles away from them. if we had done as well as Japan, we would have saved over 1M lives. but apparently, we are such a great nation that we ended up 24th among the 25 most populous nations (Greece beat us out by a whisker). MAGA!!!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 16:12:27 GMT -5
PS- you will note in #1837 i said "decent". that is to say, "average to good". an excellent job would have saved upwards of 1.2M lives. if we did as well as New Zealand, we would have saved more than 1.3M lives. but they were truly exceptional.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:34:17 GMT -5
Trump does win the award for the largest, non war related death toll since the Spanish flu. But that is what he likes to call “fake news”. But at least there weren’t any large scale terrorist attacks. Yeah for us! you're being generous. i contend that if we had done a decent job of testing (we could have done that. we had the resources, and the international community offered us the test kits), masking, and isolation, we would have saved over 1M lives. i can back that up by comparing our death rates to those that did that did an A rated job. Trump is personally responsible for killing more Americans than any president in US history, including the Civil War era and the Spanish Flu. this DESPITE having huge advantages in terms of resources in technology is one of the best cases for rating Trump absolute last. if he wanted to be a dictator for a day, it should have been the day we determined that COVID was going to be a problem for us. he would probably still be president, if he had done that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:28:22 GMT -5
i saw the interview. disqualifying.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:27:22 GMT -5
The 80s was awesome. The whole country must have thought so too look how he won his second term. The mortgage rates were 12.5% in July 1985. There is much whining now about 7. Reagan tripled the national debt while pretending to be fiscally responsible. He presided over Iran~Contra and all the criminality that entailed, including tons of cocaine. AIDS. Crack. Just an all around wonderful time. all of that, and Reagan would have to run as a Democrat, if he were to run today, given how far to the right the GOP has gone since then.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:25:46 GMT -5
Here is an easy one. With the ease of world travel, disease control is global. Yet still it is an issue that a country does individually. Look at COVID everyone had their own rules. No need for a kum by ya jerkoff fest you just made a strong case for better international cooperation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 7, 2024 14:24:15 GMT -5
i listed two of them already: ICBM's and climate related matters (IE, CO2 emissions). there are literally dozens of other ones i could give you, but a few include immigration/migration, poverty and disease control, water and food scarcity, and human rights issues. Everything except the exaggeration of climate change are all non global and fairly local to the country ok. do you believe that we should abide by our constitution? edit: i disagree fervently that immigration is a "local issue". it is INHERENTLY regional/global in nature, and requires international cooperation in order to ensure that it is as tidy as possible. i am sure, given the amount of back and forth we have had on this discussion, you must agree. this is not just a "border" issue. if it were, then extradition would not be a tool in our arsenal for dealing with it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2024 15:38:18 GMT -5
incidentally, this argument they keep bringing up about how great things were under Trump? here is the inflation rate that Trump had, compared to his predecessor:
Trump 2017 - 2021 1.9% Obama 2009 - 2017 1.4%
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2024 15:33:14 GMT -5
I think he would pick the 80’s - under Reagan. That hits the heart for capitalism, racism, sexism and nostalgia. If he is trying to get people younger than that it has lore, and their parents probably spoke of it fondly consistently throughout their childhood. This would work on conservatives and conservative leaning independents. that is arguably better than now. but it is not arguably better than before Trump, by any measure you can name. this is what i mean about this argument. it eventually ends up at "where do we want to go?" i think it is a good debate to have. but nobody even talks about it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2024 14:29:26 GMT -5
I agree that someone should ask him. However, however he answers will be a bunch of bullshit. see above post. i agree that he would not say something like "1957", which is an acceptable answer. he should say not only WHEN but WHY. and that, i would agree, is out of the question. there is no why to his nonsense. i doubt there is a when, either.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2024 14:28:08 GMT -5
i think it would be GREAT for someone with a HISTORY background to ask him that question, and then point out all the crap that was wrong with the WHEN he gives them as an answer.
and if he doesn't answer, then we can assume he agrees that America has never been better, which renders his catchphrase ridiculous.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2024 14:23:54 GMT -5
back when America was "great"...... (note to the board- i have often reflected on what Trump or his many followers mean when they say this. America was not viewed as great in 1800. it was viewed as a remote outpost, far from the centers of wealth and power in Europe. as time went on, we gained power, particularly having saved all but a glancing blow in WW1/WW2 compared to the dominant powers at the time, emerging arguably one of several major world powers. and that is where we remain today- arguably the LAST Superpower. viewed through this lens, we have never been "greater". we are not Denmark, being shrunk to the size of Connecticut, or even the UK, just a shell of it's former self. we are astride the world. so, i think what Trump means is "make America even more gargantuan than it is", which is FINE. i just wish he didn't phrase it in the nativist and nostalgic way he does) I think you're being far too charitable. I think he really wants to go back to when women and people of color knew their place and the white man reigned supreme. that was a long-winded way of me saying this: "when was America greater?" has anyone ever asked him that? i mean, i don't see anything wrong with the question. it has an implicit claim that we are currently great (which i think is true), and directs Trump to articulate what he thinks is BETTER.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2024 14:19:04 GMT -5
you have asserted otherwise, previously. even on this thread. you have stated it makes him MORE likely to become president. and that might be true. i might also point out that this would require far more coordination among democrats than they have. they are not as clever or powerful as that, scgal . in fact, they are a bunch of kutzs. globalism is not kum-bay-yah for me. it is a logical conclusion. we have global problems. there are only two ways to solve them: 1) take over everything 2) work with others. agree or disagree? List 3 global problems before I answer i listed two of them already: ICBM's and climate related matters (IE, CO2 emissions). there are literally dozens of other ones i could give you, but a few include immigration/migration, poverty and disease control, water and food scarcity, and human rights issues.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 6, 2024 14:15:24 GMT -5
let's see how serious he is about ignoring court orders.....
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2024 19:26:57 GMT -5
George Conway, who is admittedly a blowhard, thinks there is a 100% chance he will be convicted.
it is not a good idea to dismiss him entirely. he has a legal background, i believe. unlike most people who make predictions about Trump skating.
i think he has a 75% chance of being convicted this year, and that his case will be on appeal in November. i think the chances of a second trial starting before November are higher than that. in other words, i think he will be fighting a headwind all the way through 2024. i think his appeals will likely be following him until he dies. not kidding on that. he will be in courts for the rest of his life. this is what his life has become. he is OJ Simpson on steroids. utterly irresponsible, entitled and reckless.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2024 19:21:35 GMT -5
i was guessing about Denmark. it is actually closer to the size of Massachusetts. i have never been to Denmark, or i would know better.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2024 18:08:29 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, what things will have to happen to reshape the country the way it was "intended to be"? What needs to be implemented and what needs to be ended. No brown people, but the black people can stay and we will make them slaves - legal to beat and rape them. As for women - no agency whatsoever. No jobs, no votes, no rights. I’m pretty sure that was the original intention. back when America was "great"...... (note to the board- i have often reflected on what Trump or his many followers mean when they say this. America was not viewed as great in 1800. it was viewed as a remote outpost, far from the centers of wealth and power in Europe. as time went on, we gained power, particularly having saved all but a glancing blow in WW1/WW2 compared to the dominant powers at the time, emerging arguably one of several major world powers. and that is where we remain today- arguably the LAST Superpower. viewed through this lens, we have never been "greater". we are not Denmark, being shrunk to the size of Connecticut, or even the UK, just a shell of it's former self. we are astride the world. so, i think what Trump means is "make America even more gargantuan than it is", which is FINE. i just wish he didn't phrase it in the nativist and nostalgic way he does)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2024 13:27:38 GMT -5
LOL. yeah. forgive me for cutting a whole yard when a foot would do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 5, 2024 13:09:27 GMT -5
I will leave it up to the courts that's doesn't mean I think he should even be there. All this is a sham just to stop him from becoming president again. I read your post of globalism I find all that kum by ya stuff sickening. The thing is, SC, if these lawsuits are truly shams, the judges, many of them conservative judges, would be helping Trump get out from under them. Remember the 60 or so law suits that Trump filed after the election, attempting to get the votes thrown out. Many of them were with conservative judges - many of the conservative judges were judges Trump himself had appointed, people who should naturally be biased in his favor. Almost every one of those cases were against him. Look at his current lawsuits - he does have one judge, Judge Cannon in Florida with the MAL documents, who is pro Trump and who is trying to help Trump, but the best she has been able to do is continually delay the trial to the point now that it may not start until after the election. If Trump wins, we can expect he will tell the DOJ, which will be run only by Trump loyalists, to drop that case. If the case is a sham case, Cannon should be able to easily shut it down. The best she can do is delay it. You know that Trump tends to spin things to his advantage - rather than believe him when he claims to be the subject of witch hunts, google that Mar A Lago case in particular, and see what he’s been caught red handed doing, and then compare it to other government workers who got caught carrying classified documents home. Even if you only look at what Fox News says, I’m guessing you’ll find out why that case is not a sham. exactly. the narcissistic universe is one in which failure is impossible. therefore any "sign" of failure must be excused by some sort of conspiracy. as the failure increases, the conspiracy widens to fit it. i posit that the GOP is living in a NPD fantasy land of Donald Trump, which is a really dangerous place to live. Ockham's Razor would be a valuable tool at this time. which is a simpler explanation: 1) that Trump has built his life and fortune on lying and cheating (usually at the outer boundary of the law, but occasionally beyond it), and by NEVER admitting failure (even though his record clearly shows it). had he kept a lower profile, he could have probably carried his reputation (as fake as it was) to his grave. but with the higher scrutiny that all politicians get, his many ILLEGAL indiscretions are coming home to roost in a tidal wave of litigation, much of which has to do with the brazenness of his more recent illegalities. OR 2) that the "deep state" is out to get Trump. the "deep state" seems to include pretty much everything other than MAGA at this point, although at one point it was only clandestine agencies within the federal government. before you answer, i want to again reiterate something that Noam Chomsky said to me in our one and only email exchange. i had inquired with him about the likelihood that the Deep State was responsible for 911. if anyone would invite such a theory, it seems as if Chomsky would be the kind of man that would. but he didn't. he said something like this (paraphrasing): the US government can't seem to keep popping a party balloon a secret. how could they possibly coordinate an attack involving planes, foreign nationals, and buildings without anyone stepping forward and ratting them out? to add to the above, consider the first couple years of Trump, where people WITHIN HIS ADMINISTRATION ratted him out. and what he was doing was not nearly as serious as 911. anyone that believes that this is some sort of coordinated attack against Trump should consider the breadth of it, and how difficult it would be to pull that off without anyone "finking". edit: i forgot to add that option 1 only involves ONE PERSON. it is as simple to "coordinate" as analyzing the motivations and actions of that one person. option 2 involves MILLIONS OF PERSONS. we can't even agree on this board that Trump is one of the 5 worst presidents in US history. is it REALLY easier to believe that millions of people are working against him for the danger he poses to all of us than ONE MAN working in his own self interest?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 4, 2024 14:28:14 GMT -5
i am watching a 5 part HBO series on OJ Simpson right now.
i encourage everyone here to watch it. i remember my reaction to that trial- that everyone felt it was a miscarriage of justice. but this is a case that was determined by getting the best possible jury for the defendant. but the inherent bias among OJ's supporters** was a serious problem that was not addressed by the prosecution. we shall hope that in THIS case, that is properly addressed.
fortunately, that will NOT be the case in Trump's trial. as much as i dislike the bias of a couple of the jurors, the best that Trump can hope for is a hung jury. and i would contend, based on the defense so far, that is PRECISELY what they are shooting for.
**the reason i encourage everyone here to watch it is that the biases present in this trial are very similar to MAGA. you will see what i mean if/when you watch it. celebrity does something to the mind of the public. it makes them incapable, in many cases, of finding fault in a person, no matter what their misconduct.
then there is Bill Cosby.
|
|