The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Oh, and speaking of "whistleblowers"...

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/14...h-impeachment/



And you folks wonder why I ignore most of the media.

Confirmation bias

[aretood2]

Oh, and speaking of "whistleblowers"...

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/14...h-impeachment/



And you folks wonder why I ignore most of the media.

But it's okay if it's in favor of Trump? It's especially rich with Fox News having an article on it when it is basically our de facto state media. Double standards much?

But the clips I heard on the video...it really doesn't say much. Zucker wants to focus on impeachment...media outlets always pick an issue to focus on. Fox News is also focusing on impeachment. And honestly, Fox News does have a lot of crap on the channel that isn't news and is practically Trumps' personal Public Relations agency, just take a look at "Fox and Friends". It's gotten so bad that an actual journalist decided enough was enough.

It sounds to me that Zucker just wants to say what's happening. Trump is being impeached, Fox News is covering for him quite clearly (that's the propaganda) and people like Hannity do peddle in fake news all the time.

[Coco Pops]

Fox News doesn't cover any news negative to Trump so keeps the cult happy and in a bubble.

[Annoyed]

there you go, changing the law's part of politics

sure it can it does so regularly against the commonfolk (fines, civil assets forfeiture, IRS visits etc.) that's why I said it's time the government go after the elites instead

not the sort of thing you can do in a snap is it
seizing the factory on the other hand...

That "changing the laws" would be changing the Constitution. Not possible in this environment.

From the constitution:

The 4th Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”



The 5th Amendment further protects property, by stating:

“No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So there are defined circumstances, such as taxes levied by the legislatures, or for public use via eminent domain, and there are civil forfeiture laws involving criminal activities as well.

But to do what you want, arbitrarily seizing assets of wealthy individuals, they would have to pass specific legislation to do so, and this would be on a go-forward basis only (No ex-post-facto legislation). So, Sanders or whoever would have to start the legal process to do that. That would be time consuming. And in the meantime, once it looks like it's gonna happen, the targets would be out of the jurisdiction far sooner than the laws could be enacted. If they could even be enacted.

[Annoyed]

But it's okay if it's in favor of Trump? It's especially rich with Fox News having an article on it when it is basically our de facto state media. Double standards much?

Just addressing one point for now. There is no "state media", but considering where they get their money from, I would say the closest would be the CPB, which operates PBS/NPR and others.

https://www.cpb.org/faq#1-3

How is CPB funded?

CPB is a private nonprofit corporation that is fully funded by the federal government. Ninety-five percent of CPB's appropriation goes directly to local public media stations, content development, community services, and other local station and system needs. Less than five percent is allocated to administrative costs – an exceptionally low overhead rate compared with other nonprofits.

Remember the golden rule here. "He who has the gold makes the rules"

[SoulReaver]

That "changing the laws" would be changing the Constitution. Not possible in this environment.

From the constitution:


So there are defined circumstances, such as taxes levied by the legislatures, or for public use via eminent domain, and there are civil forfeiture laws involving criminal activities as well.

But to do what you want, arbitrarily seizing assets of wealthy individuals, they would have to pass specific legislation to do so, and this would be on a go-forward basis only (No ex-post-facto legislation). So, Sanders or whoever would have to start the legal process to do that. That would be time consuming. And in the meantime, once it looks like it's gonna happen, the targets would be out of the jurisdiction far sooner than the laws could be enacted. If they could even be enacted.

ah but that's where precedence comes in: in your country Government legally violates those same constitutional rights on a daily basis (deprivation of both private property & life)

how did eminent domain & civil assets forfeiture laws get passed despite the constitution?
how come suspects in a crime can also have their property legally seized?
logic says there must be some workaround

so if this applies to the commonfolk they can find a similar legal workarounds against the elites, QED

[Annoyed]

ah but that's where precedence comes in: in your country Government legally violates those same constitutional rights on a daily basis (deprivation of both private property & life)

how did eminent domain & civil assets forfeiture laws get passed despite the constitution?
how come suspects in a crime can also have their property legally seized?
logic says there must be some workaround

so if this applies to the commonfolk they can find a similar legal workarounds against the elites, QED

Eminent domain is explicitly laid out and defined in the 5th Amendment.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Regarding eminent domain: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Now, I admit, this has been misused all the way up to the SCOTUS, see"Kelo vs New London. 2005 for details.

The other relevant part to this discussion is this : nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Note the phrase "without due process of law". Meaning criminal punishments, etc.
If they do attempt to rewrite laws to basically steal from the rich, the rich will do what the commonfolk can't. Leave.

[SoulReaver]

The other relevant part to this discussion is this : nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

see? without due process that's what I meant that's what's allowed the neocons to infringe on commoners' rights. time to change the rules

If they do attempt to rewrite laws to basically steal from the rich, the rich will do what the commonfolk can't. Leave.

that's back to where we started the elites can go where they want it's their wealth that's of interest - freeze & seize it illico

via due process of course :|

[Gatefan1976]

the kurds and Syria

on one hand, i recall one of my first posts here ended with "don't trust america any more"

but, this is the way to go

1- neither the US or any European nation has any business getting involved in "round 1000" of Kurds versus everyone in the mid east

2-Turkey, under its current leadership, is the true 'islamic state'

and lets not forget how so many isis fighters got into Syria with so many Turk border guards just not seeing them all, somehow

and who was the main beneficiary of the sale of stolen Syrian oil by ISIS? turkey

until at least Putin had their operation blown up

3- the Turks have as cannon fodder the newly formed 'Syrian national army'. well more like newly named. this is just a rebranded 'free syrian army' and is probably comprised of all of the worst dregs that were in the FSA--islamists and criminals

this action gives the 'rebels' a new start and new base of operations to attack Assad and the legit govt of Syria

so, the Turks claiming 'we are making a safe zone free of terrorists and a area for refugees to return to' is just BS. Erdogan can surely sling that BS as good or better than trump

even if the refugees did move in there, they are not from there, they would do nothing but destabilize an area of syria that they are not from

4- last, there is no way such a small number of american, french, british and a few other troops were ever going to stop such a determined Turkish goal. as the turk 'accidental' shelling of american positions shows, they do not fear america or nato, yet, will cite their nato alliance when it suits them.

shortly after the Trump-Erdogan phone call, the joint coalition airspace command for northeast syria, kicked turkey out. this means that turkey cannot go on bombing kurds from syrian airspace under the auspices of the anti ISIS air coalition

so they have been mainly releasing their payloads from their own airspace, not as effective

no matter who the president is, this is the right thing to do--stay out of it and get the hell out of syria, a illegal action on our part to begin with.

the only foreign militaries who are there in accordance with international laws, are the Russians and the Iranians and any of their proxies (like the reported north korean brigades who have been rotating in and out to gain combat experience)

the call to 'not abandon our allies' is an emotional one. a lot like how the lead up to invade iraq was heavily influenced by post 9/11 emotions.

Seeing this, especially the last part from a MILITARY man is disgraceful.
In fact, it's disgusting.
You should not have gotten involved, true, but you did, and to abandon your allies now is outright cowardice.
What would you think if Australia just abandoned the USA in Veitnam or Korea?
You made a commitment, honour it, or is your military cowards?
Or just owned?

[Coco Pops]

Abandoning the Kurds to their fate is disgraceful

[Annoyed]

see? without due process that's what I meant that's what's allowed the neocons to infringe on commoners' rights. time to change the rules


that's back to where we started the elites can go where they want it's their wealth that's of interest - freeze & seize it illico

via due process of course :|

And there is no "due process" to do that. And if they smell one on the oven, they'll be gone before the bell rings.

[Annoyed]

This ought to give most of you the warm fuzzys.

Trump is on his way to an easy win in 2020, according to Moody’s accurate election model

Supposedly, that prediction model has only missed once since 1980.

I've said this before. People vote their pocketbooks, and like it or not, what Trump is doing is working.

[jelgate]

My tomatoes are going to look great with this fertilizer

[Gatefan1976]

This ought to give most of you the warm fuzzys.

Trump is on his way to an easy win in 2020, according to Moody’s accurate election model

Supposedly, that prediction model has only missed once since 1980.

I've said this before. People vote their pocketbooks, and like it or not, what Trump is doing is working.

Trump is riding the wave created by Obama, just people are not willing to accept that. You won't see the impact of trump until 2020, and when you crash, again, you will blame everyone but yourself.
But sure, it's all trump, and WHEN you crash, you will blame the house, senate, and POTUS, especially if they are democratic.

[Annoyed]

You folks are in deep, deep, deep denial. Yes, that's three deep.
Obama's policies were anti-business, anti-growth.

Here's what he had to say about it.

https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/...l-for-economy/

Nov 7, 2010 8:00 pm ET

President Barack Obama warned in an interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes about the danger of a “new normal” taking hold of the economy – an environment in which businesses become accustomed to fewer employees and the U.S. job market never regains its footing.

What's our unemployment rate these days?