Trump

[Mightysword]

I don't like the Tango. It's... dumb.

I guess you never tried Waltz?

Plus if you find another woman hot in the presence of your wife ... I don't think it's the Tango's fault.

He could have "stuck to his gun" by crafting that position right in front of everyone's face the way he wanted it to be. IF he wanted to "stick to his guns" by appearing to be a defiant partisan, then he managed to do that quite well. It's a mistake, IMO, though.

In a situation where two people are points gun at each others, ideally you would think if ONE person diffuse the situation by lower his gun, the other would then do the same. But the other possibility is that the whole reason no shot hasn't been fired yet because the only thing that keeps both side from getting shot is the fact they are pointing a gun each others. The current situation is not because two side are TRYING to understand each others and simply fail to do so. Be it politicians on the different isles, or voters on the different spectrum I don't believe people are having trouble understanding each others. The problem is that's not the goal, most are operated in a permanent search and destroy mode at the first sight of opening. In this case, the moment a person lower his gun, the most likely outcome that will follow is he will get shot.


I really want to agree with your thinking, I really do, but the reality of what I see give me no reason to. Like I said, if we are currently able to afford the scenarior you wish for, we won't be here in the first place. Right now you have mainstream media lambasting Barr's refusal to show up for the House's hearing and all that, yet if you look at the set up that was awaiting him at that hearing ... well, even if I gonna say "he should go per his duty", I can't help but also say "but I also understand why he didn't go". You're talking about trying to avoid a war ... I think we're already passed that, it wasn't a set up for a possible peace conference, it was an ambushed on a battlefield. Can't fault a man for not wanting to walk into his potential death.

[Morkonan]

It's especially unfun when the female dance instructor is your partner and she's hot and your wife is looking at you with that "you had better not enjoy dancing so close to her" look on her face.

That's most of the point of Tango - hate, lust, passion, contempt, desire, all ****** up whichever way you like it .. Especially the Argentine Tango.

The Donald and Kamala. Maybe.

EDIT: Another entertaining one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRMpb1N01P4

That was pretty cool. Though, I like "professional" dancers and such rather than the sort of "Dancing with the Stars" dancing. I actually like watching "Dance" and the expressions and emotions that can be generated by exceptional dancers and choreography. It's very cool stuff.

For myself, though, I ain't gonna be challenging Mr. Six anytime soon... I am a "I don't dance" kinda guy. Yeah, sure, I have "danced." With a purpose. One that I pursued much more diligently during the fires of youth than today. Today, it's just an occasion for a knee injury... I will dance for a special occasion using classic couples technique designed for slower dancing rather than subject anyone to my "White Boy Dance."

PS - It may be weird to some, but I really do love seeing good dance. I will watch it on youtube, here and there, and enjoy all forms. Though, I'm more particular to some classic forms of ballet and "break dancing" if you could believe such a pairing. No foolin'. But, enough about myself - Here's a great clip of truly good dancer many would recognize, posted 'cause this is likely what my preferred method of self-expression through dance would be:

YT- Carlton Dance

(Do you realize how difficult it actually is to do the White Guy Dance at an Iron Maiden concert? I think not! )

I guess you never tried Waltz?

That's friggin' hard...

Plus if you find another woman hot in the presence of your wife ... I don't think it's the Tango's fault.

Ever-faithful, but I was "married," not "dead."

In a situation where two people are points gun at each others, ideally you would think if ONE person diffuse the situation by lower his gun, the other would then do the same. But the other possibility is that the whole reason no shot hasn't been fired yet because the only thing that keeps both side from getting shot is the fact they are pointing a gun each others.

A fair point. But, in the same realm of thought, my suggestion is that he not be there to be shot. Not by avoiding being there, but by avoiding giving increased opportunity to his enemies.

(Pointing out, by the way, that I do not necessarily support Barr or Trump, of course, but I see what he did as typical of what I would call an mistake in tactics. Then again, Trump got elected and I didn't, so those tactics may be effective. That still doesn't mean they're not stupid. "Stupid" can win if there is enough of it.

I really want to agree with your thinking, I really do, but the reality of what I see give me no reason to.

You don't have to agree and am glad you don't! Seriously, that's what this is all about. We are exchanging information about our opinions and our interpretations of events. I am reading your words and "seeing through Mightysword's eyes." That's valuable to me. I can, for instance, use this insight to temper or reform my own opinions. And, even if it does not apply itself to that, I can at least comprehend an opposing viewpoint much more clearly. I consider that a win/win situation no matter if I sway opinion, which is not my intent, or not.

...Can't fault a man for not wanting to walk into his potential death.

I agree with this and what you also wrote.

We are talking about "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat" here, That's hard to do, especially when it's a battlefield not of one's own choosing. That's what the House Committee represented to Barr - A poor battlefield for him with little cover (No Republican Domination) and few allies in a situation where he was going to be bombarded continuously for hours and wouldn't have the chance to fire back very often. Gotta keep your head down an' all that. But, he could have arrived with something that the House Committee couldn't have threatened - A stellar performance in the Senate hearing. That would have been an asset that he could have maybe relied on a bit to at least retain a tenable position after both "battles." Win one, fight to a draw on the other = Ahead by a point.

Anyway, just because I may argue against a position or strongly for a position does not mean that I do not value the entire exchange, no matter the outcome. I always do value that sort of thing as long as it's open and honest and the points made are clear. Even if I were to not value the "Facts" presented as being substantive, the "opinion" is valuable. Here, your opinion is likely shared by many. I can't ask "many" what their opinion is nor will they be able to explain it to me. But, I can ask you and you can explain your's to me.

Win/Win

[RegisterMe]

@Mightysword

Except for the fact that the reason "we" have different branches of government, with co-equal powers, is precisely to stop anybody from:-

a) taking so much power that they can take everybody else for granted
b) being so disgruntled by the imbalance of power that they feel they have no recourse other than (political?) violence
c) the ring is, or at least should be, held by the third branch, a studiously neutral judiciary
d) the "free press" is there to sell copy and be a **** pain in the arse to the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

In my opinion the only one of the above that has garnered any respect, to date, is the press (though not perfect, I grant you).

As much I disagree with some (but by no means all) of what you've said over the six hundred odd pages of this thread I do appreciate, and learn from, the perspective you provide.

As a Brit with no say in the matter, and no rights in the matter, let me ask you a question.

Will you vote for Trump in 2020?

[Mightysword]

You don't have to agree and am glad you don't!

heh, I can dream with you if that is of any condolences.

We are talking about "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat" here, That's hard to do, especially when it's a battlefield not of one's own choosing. That's what the House Committee represented to Barr - A poor battlefield for him with little cover (No Republican Domination) and few allies in a situation where he was going to be bombarded continuously for hours and wouldn't have the chance to fire back very often. Gotta keep your head down an' all that. But, he could have arrived with something that the House Committee couldn't have threatened - A stellar performance in the Senate hearing. That would have been an asset that he could have maybe relied on a bit to at least retain a tenable position after both "battles." Win one, fight to a draw on the other = Ahead by a point.

Hum, interesting, I thought you didn't like anime? Because that scenario you just describe is about as anime as it gets

@Mightysword

Except for the fact that the reason "we" have different branches of government, with co-equal powers, is precisely to stop anybody from:-

a) taking so much power that they can take everybody else for granted
b) being so disgruntled by the imbalance of power that they feel they have no recourse other than (political?) violence

And those power are still there. This may not or may not answer your concern, but there is one thing that has been bugging me for a while now, especially with the current reaction around various topics. I have been looking for an opportunity to bring it up, so might as well do it now. Sometime I want to ask people "do you understand the constitutions, do you understand the actual role of a judge or jury? Do you know how the law works". Because base on people's reaction I think they just go with their intuition rather than the actual knowledge.

The American Constitution is very careful with the concept of check and balance to ensure no one agency can eclipse the others, and it has it on multiple layers. Also there are two VERY important details that safeguard it:

- You can not make a law that take away what is granted by the constitution.
- It is VERY hard to change the Constitution.

So I can guarantee you, whatever mechanism for check and balance that granted by the constitution still exist. Yet in the "narrative" of overreaching power, obstructing justice, compromise check and balance ...etc... especially regarding the current situation make it sound like either a real risk or it already happened. How so? But before I offer my take on this, I want to mention another aspect: check and balance isn't meant so that each branch can get in each other way whenever they feel like it. One of the thing that annoys me the most when I was a HS student was how easy it was for some idiot to cancel class. There exist a policy that as soon as the fire-alarm go off, all students must be evacuated. I understand it's a good policy to accept no risk, but it is way too easy to abuse. If someone want to skip class, the idiot just have to light a towel and throw it into the bin in the restroom, and sometime that happens 3 times in one week.

The constitution ensures this kind of abuse is minimized by making "Check and Balance" associate with a cost. Like I said it's multi-layers, ranging from something that can be cordial worked out between brances, to trying to overcome opposition, to flat out pushing the nuclear button. And of course, the associate cost at each level also increase, it is to ensure that if someone want to evoke these "sacred" power, they need to have the conviction, the belief, the will, and the support to do it.

Which bring me back to the previous point. The reason the aforementioned narrative exist is because our dear politicians want to use that as excuse. It's not they can't do it, they are NOT brave enough to do it. I had explained it before, it all comes down the political calculus at the end. And with enough allies in the media, sadly it's fairly easy to convince the people to buy into such narrative. Believe me, the holy sword of the Constitution is still there, it wasn't stolen, its edge hasn't dulled. It's just that it has become a mere symbol of meaningless worship instead of an actual tool, because there is no champion with enough virtue to wield it.

Will you vote for Trump in 2020?

If I am to give you an answer now, that it will nothing more than a meaningless and premature answer seeing how far it is. I am a neutral, and as such, I'm not part of the "I will never vote for Trump and even a dog is better than him" crowd. Right now I have some candidates that are better than him, but who know what the election race gonna do to them. I thought I would vote for Clinton in the last round, I ended up didn't.

[Morkonan]

...Hum, interesting, I thought you didn't like anime? Because that scenario you just describe is about as anime as it gets

Yeah, but the reasons they got in that position in the first place are just stupid...

Wait a sec! Are you saying that Trump and Barr and all the rest of this is an Anime movie? It all makes so much sense, now...

... Believe me, the holy sword of the Constitution is still there, it wasn't stolen, its edge hasn't dulled. It's just that it has become a mere symbol of meaningless worship instead of an actual tool, because there is no champion with enough virtue to wield it.

A nice analogy. But, the thing is that there is a failure-point somewhat built-in to our system of Government. Our system is an "adversarial" one in that if one "Branch" of the government does something wrong, the other two can correct it. Inside Congress, there are things there that act to distribute authority between the House and Senate, too. And, within each, there are mechanisms that further break that down to "control" and committees and chairpersons and such.

But, however unlikely the case, it's still possible for "bad things to happen" in a system with as many adversarial checks and balances worked into it as ours. For us, today, that could be bad. It would certainly be corrected at a later time, since there is nothing anywhere at all in any legal document that can not be changed - Any "wrong" can be "righted." (Within reason.) But, that knowledge does nothing for those who experience the "wrong" at the time it is committed.

"What if" Trump really is guilty of every single thing even his most violent opposition claims he is guilty of? It's wildly possible that he would never, ever, be brought up on any Congressional or legal charges for those things. It could happen. Further legal prosecution is just a Presidential Pardon away. And, a conservative President elected after Trump finishes his second term and enthusiastically lends his support to that candidate might just be so inclined... to keep the support of the left-overs from Trump's base.

Clinton and Obama, though there was no "pardon" involved, had a similar arrangement. Clinton got her money back and an Administrative Position out of it.

[Mightysword]

Yeah, but the reasons they got in that position in the first place are just stupid...

*Look at around*. You mean our current situation isn't ?

Wait a sec! Are you saying that Trump and Barr and all the rest of this is an Anime movie? It all makes so much sense, now...

That's why I love anime, that shit is more real then the crap from Hollywood most of the time.

A nice analogy. But, the thing is that there is a failure-point somewhat built-in to our system of Government.

I wouldn't call it a failure. Failure means something doesn't work as intended. If the design, for greater reason, will produce a flaw on purpose, then that flaw itself is not a failure. After all, what is "THE" most important principal of our system? It's preferable to let the guilty walk free, then convict an innocent. For what you describe to be considered a failure, then the original statement need to be something like this: "we will make sure not criminal ever walk free". I would like to think our system is designed in a way that it gave up the pursuit of the perfect outcome in order to have a failsafe against the worst outcome. And for that I am thankful. To cast a net tighted enough that it will ensure we don't miss anyone, we'll more then likely also catch the innocent as well.

"What if" Trump really is guilty of every single thing even his most violent opposition claims he is guilty of?

Then the system is working as intended. It was never a system to pass judgement of what actually happened, but to pass judgement of what can be "proven". Now I know that sounds pretty asine at first glance, but think about one very important element: who has the power to always know "the" truth? No one. And we have seen so many examples, especially recently that it is much much much much easier to "convince" (read: manipulate) people of what is the truth than "prove" it is the truth. The alternate to what we have now is a stuff of nightmare that I don't think a lot of people truly appreciate until perhaps they experience it themselves, but here hoping we will never have to.

What is the role of a judge or jury? To decide guilty or not guilty, but base on WHAT? This is one of the principle that I think people are forgetting around the Mueller/Barr report lately. I think a lot of people are working with the belief that the judge should have a crystal ball, or research as much as possible to ensure he can make the best judgement ... no, that's not the job of the judge. A judge's duty was never about "discovering" or "try to find the truth", but to determine "what is the truth" based on "evidence provided by the prosecutor and defender". People tend to misunderstood why Jury are barred from outside contact during a critical trail as "to avoid outside influence", and that's the mean. The end goal of that protocol is to ensure they will make judgement based ONLY what presented in the courtroom. If the prosecutors can not provide enough evidence to prove that accused's guilt, then it is the duty of the judge/jury to declare a non-guilty verdict, regardless of what the "real fact" could have been.

[RegisterMe]

The founders of the US constitution, for fear of a (tyrannical) king, had the foresight to see a situation where the sitting President might be suspected of being in breach of certain laws. They even had the foresight to foresee a situation in which the head of the Judicial branch of the government might be suspected of being in breach of certain laws. And they saw that they didn't have the wisdom to foresee every possible situation that might become the United States of America.

So they empowered a structure in which the nation exercised its rights via different arms - executive, legislative, and judiciary.

The ultimate arm being political, with the judgement, essentially, in the hands of the people.

Now I know where @materbagger stands. I don't agree with him, but I respect the fact that he's argued his case consistently, and, in the main, with good humour, over these past 600 odd pages.

Where, @Mightysword, do you swing your blade?

[Mightysword]

uhm ... the wording on your question is a bit too grand that the intended meaning kinda lost on me. Do you mind provide a simpler version of what you are asking me?

I'm not being a smart a-double-s, but I would prefer to understand the question before I answer them.

[Masterbagger]

The founders of the US constitution, for fear of a (tyrannical) king, had the foresight to see a situation where the sitting President might be suspected of being in breach of certain laws. They even had the foresight to foresee a situation in which the head of the Judicial branch of the government might be suspected of being in breach of certain laws. And they saw that they didn't have the wisdom to foresee every possible situation that might become the United States of America.

So they empowered a structure in which the nation exercised its rights via different arms - executive, legislative, and judiciary.

The ultimate arm being political, with the judgement, essentially, in the hands of the people.

Now I know where @materbagger stands. I don't agree with him, but I respect the fact that he's argued his case consistently, and, in the main, with good humour, over these past 600 odd pages.

Where, @Mightysword, do you swing your blade?

2016 was more than just the Executive Branch. Winner got to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. Not just any justice but the tie breaking person and potentially the one loyal to the party that put them there. It was a huge deal. It is the biggest thing that President Trump has gotten so astoundingly right.

[eladan]

2016 was more than just the Executive Branch. Winner got to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court. Not just any justice but the tie breaking person and potentially the one loyal to the party that put them there. It was a huge deal. It is the biggest thing that President Trump has gotten so astoundingly right.

???

It's 'right' to have a supreme court justice who is politically motivated to support one party over another? I'm afraid that I consider that to be one of the biggest problems that your country has. Stop cheerleading for your 'side' of politics and start thinking about the consequences of having judicial matters influenced by partisan politics.

[Golden_Gonads]

It's 'right' to have a supreme court justice who is politically motivated to support one party over another? I'm afraid that I consider that to be one of the biggest problems that your country has. Stop cheerleading for your 'side' of politics and start thinking about the consequences of having judicial matters influenced by partisan politics.

Indeed. The idea that the highest court in the US is run by stooges for the political parties baffles me. I understand that a lot more people in the US take their politics more seriously than many other places and that there's never any true segregation of law and state, but there has to be a better way.

[BugMeister]

- More lurid tales from the Despicable Don..

uhm ... the wording on your question is a bit too grand that the intended meaning kinda lost on me. Do you mind provide a simpler version of what you are asking me?

I'm not being a smart a-double-s, but I would prefer to understand the question before I answer them.

- the universal method of deflection, as used by the fake oligarch Trump himself..

the Entirely Dishonourable AG, Barr is under pressure to respond to subpoena's..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgCgf67Cp5g

- heavy daily fines for his absence might be more appropriate..
- I think that's how they normally proceed..??

meanwhile Putin "smiles down the phone" to Donny-Boy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2AZYOxqbCM
- he's nutz..

- having taken over the political system in the US, the corporations are now attempting to take over the judicial system..
- creeping corporate fascism continues to erode free-speech and to enforce its own agenda on government..
- they call it lobbying, but we know it as bribery and corruption..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a-68fHbV3k

Trump is pressuring McGahn to refuse to cooperate with Congressional oversight - while at the same time denying obstruction of justice..
meanwhile, hiding behind an OLC advisory statement regarding the possible criminal culpability of a president, Trump throws tantrums in public..
and now we await phase 2 of the Russian attack on the US elections with 2020 elections looming..
The Russians and their allies will continue to meddle - they haven't given up hope of destroying democracy in the west..

PS: - and what's all this about the "faux-Christian" Jerry Falwell and "racy photos" - ' appears to have been the reason why the televangelist gave his support to Trump's campaign in 2016..??
apparently there is a tape somewhere showing proof - and Michael Cohen has confided this info to Tom Arnold.. is this yet more evidence of the Despicable Don''s gangster methodology of blackmail and extortion..??

[Len5]

Trump was phenomenal. Played some not so great sessions in the tournament, still he's the deserved world champion. Higgins played really well in the final, but Trump still beat him with a 9 frames difference.

Or is this topic about a specific Trump, not just any Trump?

[fiksal]

How many Trumps are there?

so what's new today:
linky

However: Moments ago, Chairman Nadler announced that the Justice Department had informed him that the “President has asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials.”

Did someone suggest to Trump yet that he can just roll tanks through the House and that'll work faster?

[BugMeister]

Trump was phenomenal. Played some not so great sessions in the tournament, still he's the deserved world champion. Higgins played really well in the final, but Trump still beat him with a 9 frames difference.

Or is this topic about a specific Trump, not just any Trump?

a brilliant champion..!!

[BugMeister]

the Despicable Don, a man who lost a billion dollars as a businessman
a man who didn't pay any tax at all for years.. gives a huge tax cut to the very wealthy..
and then crows about how clever he is, because he knows how to avoid paying tax..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LslJN7CY47g

- wow, now that really is hypocrisy on a monumental scale..!!

[RegisterMe]

So Michael Desmond, who was pushed aggressively by Trump as his appointment as the IRS chief legal council, used to work on tax issues for Trump's businesses.

You couldn't make this **** up.

[BugMeister]

there is far too much "denial" going on, when it comes to the history of Donald Trump..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkT_2N6gEm8

Trump has ALWAYS been a shady and dubious character..
since long before he became president, Trump has had close dealings with the seamier side of society
being president has made it difficult (-if not impossible) for him to hide the facts from public scrutiny

- which begs the question, why was his Republican ticket accepted for nomination in the first place..??
- the Republican party has some serious explaining to do..

here's more evidence of the extreme lack of meaningful political ideas coming from the Republicans- if you needed any:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWLXtA8g5tw
- never thought I'd agree with Andrew Neil, but he does a very good job here..
- great to see him challenge Shapiro on his religious ethics - caught him completely off-guard, there..
- Ben Shapiro shows just how baseless and idiotic his yada-yada political ideas are..

Randi Rhodes hits the button again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGVCiLHGWAI

AOC and Sanders join forces take up the struggle against usury in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzVX_NaYelg

- get up, stand up - stand up for your rights..

[Chips]

I'm being very lazy... someone lent me Crimes of Grindlew.... erm, Harry Potter fantastic Creatures part 2... so not doing much searching.

But I notice every time there's a twitter (not tweet, but murmur) in the media about Trump, China, various taxes etc - a fund of mine (not China) takes a few percentage points hit. It's basically gone no-where in 9 months. I'm annoyed.

Has Trump's protectionist pontifications given any benefit to the US? He's talked about blah blah, just wondering if it's just what people want to hear or having a positive impact?

Now it may be too early, but there should be some signs surely?

[fiksal]

I'm being very lazy... someone lent me Crimes of Grindlew.... erm, Harry Potter fantastic Creatures part 2... so not doing much searching.

But I notice every time there's a twitter (not tweet, but murmur) in the media about Trump, China, various taxes etc - a fund of mine (not China) takes a few percentage points hit. It's basically gone no-where in 9 months. I'm annoyed.

Has Trump's protectionist pontifications given any benefit to the US? He's talked about blah blah, just wondering if it's just what people want to hear or having a positive impact?

Now it may be too early, but there should be some signs surely?

American mutual funds are performing quite terribly compared to last 12 years. Could be worse, I suppose.