Skip to content

The Politics Thread

1367368370372373694

Comments

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    LegalEagle (A real lawyer) gives an overview of the legal considerations of President Trump abusing his office to pressure a foreign country to get dirt on his political rivals in this fascinating analysis.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD3my03ioio
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited September 2019
    If anyone is curious as to how Trump is "enjoying" impeachment, he has already reached the point where he is retweeting religious nutjobs warning of Civil War. It's been less than a week. The word many people continue to use to describe him at this point is "feral". It's not like he was ever all there to begin with, but the guy is completely losing his shit. It's time for every Republican lawmaker in country to stand up and be put on the record about this. The inquiry has essentially had ONE hearing with the acting DNI. There has been no formal vote, certainly no Senate trial. This thing has barely started and he's signaling he is perfectly willing to foment political violence if necessary. And it's becoming increasingly clear that is exactly what he will do when all other options have deserted him. This, as much as anything revealed in the whistleblower complaint, shows why he needs to be removed from office as quickly as humanly possible. He's a gangster with the nuclear codes and the bully pulpit. And he'll tear down the entire country to save himself. Let's set aside everything else for the moment and focus on the fact that this guy is fucking nuts. The only just result when all this is over would be a Republican Party forced to wander in the wilderness for 40-50 years.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    The only just result when all this is over would be a Republican Party forced to wander in the wilderness for 40-50 years.

    unfortunately this is reality and there's no guarantee for the just result. We could lose our democracy like so many others that have fallen victim to corruption, cronyism, nepotism and authoritarianism.
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835

    I have no idea why this thread is still unlocked. ( If it wasn't for free speech I'm assuming) Just the same 4-5 people posting the same shit over and over. All the people who have contributed for the last 2 years are pretty much gone or silenced. Shame, there were some awesome debates and people in this and the other politics thread. Now it's just an empty husk. Damn shame.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    Not true at all.

    As the impeachment of Donald Trump begins there are many uh exciting? developments.

    He's threatening the Whistleblowers life and also threatening the House Intelligence Chairman. He hasn't denied pressuring a foreign country to do his personal business and investigate domestic political opponents.

    If the topics seem to be one sided it's because there's literally no defense for these type of actions.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    @TakisMegas
    Donald Trump has become US politics. There are no other talking points apparently. I'm starting to think that the Democratic Party doesn't think they can beat him in 2020. Gee, that was a slam-dunk for them not long ago...
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    edited September 2019
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    @TakisMegas
    Donald Trump has become US politics. There are no other talking points apparently. I'm starting to think that the Democratic Party doesn't think they can beat him in 2020. Gee, that was a slam-dunk for them not long ago...

    The potential impeaching of a president is always a political hot topic. Nixon, Clinton, its always dominated poltical discussion in the rare times its come up.

    *edit* Oh, and I've gotten about 10 emails asking for donations to fund Trump's defense campaign since the las ttime I mentioned it. They are using the full sweet of Trump buzzwords too, "witchhunt", "Crooked Liberals", etc.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    @TakisMegas
    Donald Trump has become US politics. There are no other talking points apparently. I'm starting to think that the Democratic Party doesn't think they can beat him in 2020. Gee, that was a slam-dunk for them not long ago...

    The potential impeaching of a president is always a political hot topic. Nixon, Clinton, its always dominated poltical discussion in the rare times its come up.

    *edit* Oh, and I've gotten about 10 emails asking for donations to fund Trump's defense campaign since the las ttime I mentioned it. They are using the full sweet of Trump buzzwords too, "witchhunt", "Crooked Liberals", etc.

    Wow, I've only gotten two! You must be special! ;)
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,235
    The best part? They have been different emails. The address they came from has been the same, but the actual typed message has been different every time.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited September 2019
    Apparently if you're a white, off-duty cop, you can use the castle doctrine in someone elses castle. I swear to god if this woman gets off for walking into a guy's apartment and shooting him while he was on his couch eating cereal.......


    First we had the representative from the Texas Rangers in pre-trial arguing Botham Jean was a dangerous threat. Now this. An acquital here is nothing short of telling African-Americans they don't even have the right to exist in their own domicile.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    ThacoBell wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    @TakisMegas
    Donald Trump has become US politics. There are no other talking points apparently. I'm starting to think that the Democratic Party doesn't think they can beat him in 2020. Gee, that was a slam-dunk for them not long ago...

    The potential impeaching of a president is always a political hot topic. Nixon, Clinton, its always dominated poltical discussion in the rare times its come up.

    *edit* Oh, and I've gotten about 10 emails asking for donations to fund Trump's defense campaign since the las ttime I mentioned it. They are using the full sweet of Trump buzzwords too, "witchhunt", "Crooked Liberals", etc.

    You are in the vaunted company of Vladimir Putin and Monica Zelensky as far as people that Trump has begged for election help lol.
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited September 2019
    deltago wrote: »
    We can talk about the Green’s new proposal of a “robot” tax.

    Every time an automated machine take the job of a real worker, that company would have to pay a tax equivalent to the income tax paid by that laid-off employee. No note if this is a one time tax or an annual tax however.
    I might be missing something, but wouldn't the company without employees have higher income/profit, since it doesn't need to pay wages, and thus have higher tax to pay anyway?
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Ardanis wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    We can talk about the Green’s new proposal of a “robot” tax.

    Every time an automated machine take the job of a real worker, that company would have to pay a tax equivalent to the income tax paid by that laid-off employee. No note if this is a one time tax or an annual tax however.
    I might be missing something, but wouldn't the company without employees have higher income/profit, since it doesn't need to pay wages, and thus have higher tax to pay anyway?

    Yes. You're missing the "we can tax them even more," part of it.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,964
    Automation is a larger threat to jobs long term than illegals or China or whatever.

    Just look at your local Walmart. Half the cashiers have been let go and replaced by self-checkout machines. Of course not only cashier jobs are threatened, a full 25% of all jobs are threatened. Taxing companies for taking jobs can put some of the lost wages and benefits back in people's hands assuming you do vote in people that do believe in helping the middle and lower class.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/25/these-workers-face-the-highest-risk-of-losing-their-jobs-to-automation.html
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited September 2019
    Luddites have existed for over two centuries now, yet despite their fears our civilization had improved dramatically in pretty much all aspects since then. The entertainment industry is able to flourish today not in the least because automation took care of the heavy lifting needed to ensure survival.
  • TakisMegasTakisMegas Member Posts: 835
    deltago wrote: »
    TakisMegas wrote: »
    I have no idea why this thread is still unlocked. ( If it wasn't for free speech I'm assuming) Just the same 4-5 people posting the same shit over and over. All the people who have contributed for the last 2 years are pretty much gone or silenced. Shame, there were some awesome debates and people in this and the other politics thread. Now it's just an empty husk. Damn shame.

    Well your Canadian.

    We can talk about the Green’s new proposal of a “robot” tax.

    Every time an automated machine take the job of a real worker, that company would have to pay a tax equivalent to the income tax paid by that laid-off employee. No note if this is a one time tax or an annual tax however.

    That tax money would then go to fund educational and retraining programs.

    Now, I do like the thinking outside the box here, and I do give them credit for it, and I do think this would work for some lower paid jobs (I refuse to use self checkout when grocery shopping for example), but when it comes to actual automation skills, )such as car assembly) this will just chase business away from Canada.

    It will also be hard to distinguish between tools that make a job easier and actual machines doing a job. Take forestry as an outdated example: a person with a chainsaw can cut down trees faster than a 4 people just with axes. Would that chainsaw be considered regarding this tax as it eliminated 3 jobs?

    It also stagnates progress and efficiency.

    I think it is an interesting idea, but a lot more thought needs to be put into it.

    I also like the way she is trying to change the conversation. As an ex CAW member and Daimler Chrysler employee, the unions are in a constant fight with the BIG 3 about automation. They have kept it to the "High RIsk" jobs (jobs that are tooooo dangerous for humans) but eventually they will have to bend the knee to efficiency. The employee part of operations at the time I was employed was 2%-7%, so they can't win on that. Don't like the tax part but I like her think.

    Really looking at voting Green this time, NDP are a disaster.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    I like Singh the most out of all the leaders. I also like their commitment to keeping youth out of gangs:
    https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/election-2019/ndp-promises-money-for-youth-programs-to-help-prevent-organized-crime
    Though I am not a fan of $10B(!!) for 500,000 new child care spaces. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-child-care-1.5302892

    And that's the issue with NDP. They just bring up a problem, say they're going to throw money at it, but not state where all this money is going to come from. They'd be better off focusing on one or two of these pet projects per election, then use them as leverage if a minority government forms and have a more responsible party handle the finances of it. The Green's outside the box thinking on getting money is refreshing but it needs more substance and thought put into it IMO. I think the Green's have a chance to do to take advantage of a minority government this time around especially if it is a liberal minority but they do need to siphon off those NDP voters to do it.

    I'm still voting Conservative this time, but where I live is a deep red district that it really won't matter.

  • GundanRTOGundanRTO Member Posts: 81
    deltago wrote: »
    I like Singh the most out of all the leaders. I also like their commitment to keeping youth out of gangs:
    https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/election-2019/ndp-promises-money-for-youth-programs-to-help-prevent-organized-crime
    Though I am not a fan of $10B(!!) for 500,000 new child care spaces. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-child-care-1.5302892

    And that's the issue with NDP. They just bring up a problem, say they're going to throw money at it, but not state where all this money is going to come from. They'd be better off focusing on one or two of these pet projects per election, then use them as leverage if a minority government forms and have a more responsible party handle the finances of it. The Green's outside the box thinking on getting money is refreshing but it needs more substance and thought put into it IMO. I think the Green's have a chance to do to take advantage of a minority government this time around especially if it is a liberal minority but they do need to siphon off those NDP voters to do it.

    I'm still voting Conservative this time, but where I live is a deep red district that it really won't matter.

    On the other hand, the Green Party;s plan to create a universal child care program might be costly in its own right. I don't dislike the idea of the children's commissioner, though.

    Still, I'd rather have a party cite a specific figure, daunting as it may be, and then strive to come up with the means to pay for it (the NDP's hiking of the capital gains tax and increased tax on the extremely wealthy is likely what they're banking on for money to distribute to social programs/infrastructure), then create additional roles in government even if groups they're advocating for require additional representation.

    I'm voting NDP once again...The riding I'm looks to be going either red or orange, and I'd really rather not vote for the Liberals given the manner in which they've governed these past four years.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    GundanRTO wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    I like Singh the most out of all the leaders. I also like their commitment to keeping youth out of gangs:
    https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/election-2019/ndp-promises-money-for-youth-programs-to-help-prevent-organized-crime
    Though I am not a fan of $10B(!!) for 500,000 new child care spaces. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-child-care-1.5302892

    And that's the issue with NDP. They just bring up a problem, say they're going to throw money at it, but not state where all this money is going to come from. They'd be better off focusing on one or two of these pet projects per election, then use them as leverage if a minority government forms and have a more responsible party handle the finances of it. The Green's outside the box thinking on getting money is refreshing but it needs more substance and thought put into it IMO. I think the Green's have a chance to do to take advantage of a minority government this time around especially if it is a liberal minority but they do need to siphon off those NDP voters to do it.

    I'm still voting Conservative this time, but where I live is a deep red district that it really won't matter.

    On the other hand, the Green Party;s plan to create a universal child care program might be costly in its own right. I don't dislike the idea of the children's commissioner, though.

    Still, I'd rather have a party cite a specific figure, daunting as it may be, and then strive to come up with the means to pay for it (the NDP's hiking of the capital gains tax and increased tax on the extremely wealthy is likely what they're banking on for money to distribute to social programs/infrastructure), then create additional roles in government even if groups they're advocating for require additional representation.

    I'm voting NDP once again...The riding I'm looks to be going either red or orange, and I'd really rather not vote for the Liberals given the manner in which they've governed these past four years.

    I definitely agree with the bottom statement. If I was in a left leaning area, I’d be voting for the party that’d remove the Liberals more than the party of my choice.

    Universal Childcare is a huge undertaking, but also an extremely leery one. Do we really want the government in charge of how our kids are raised? It is something that needs a serious discussion.
  • BillyYankBillyYank Member Posts: 2,768
    Amber Guyger has been found guilty of murdering Botham Jean.

    Jury Convicts Ex-Police Officer Who Fatally Shot Neighbor

    The jury had the option of finding her guilty of manslaughter as well as finding her not guilty.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2019
    BillyYank wrote: »
    Amber Guyger has been found guilty of murdering Botham Jean.

    Jury Convicts Ex-Police Officer Who Fatally Shot Neighbor

    The jury had the option of finding her guilty of manslaughter as well as finding her not guilty.

    If she had an ounce of the actual remorse her crocodile tears were meant to convey during the trial, she would have plead guilty and begged for leniency. Since her defense was the most patently absurd tripe I've ever heard in a courtroom, I hope she spends the rest of her life in prison.

    From the beginning, there was never a shadow of a doubt about the facts of this case. What the defense was arguing was that as long as you BELIEVE you are in danger and BELIEVE you are in your own home, regardless of the reality, you can justifiably kill someone. Apply this logic across the spectrum of criminal cases and imagine the kind of Pandora's Box a acquittal on that basis would open up. "I don't know what to say judge, I absolutely believed in my head the speed limit was 100 mph".
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited October 2019
    From the beginning, there was never a shadow of a doubt about the facts of this case. What the defense was arguing was that as long as you BELIEVE you are in danger and BELIEVE you are in your own home, regardless of the reality, you can justifiably kill someone. Apply this logic across the spectrum of criminal cases and imagine the kind of Pandora's Box a acquittal on that basis would open up. "I don't know what to say judge, I absolutely believed in my head the speed limit was 100 mph".
    Did you just assume her motive? :trollface:
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited October 2019
    Ardanis wrote: »
    From the beginning, there was never a shadow of a doubt about the facts of this case. What the defense was arguing was that as long as you BELIEVE you are in danger and BELIEVE you are in your own home, regardless of the reality, you can justifiably kill someone. Apply this logic across the spectrum of criminal cases and imagine the kind of Pandora's Box a acquittal on that basis would open up. "I don't know what to say judge, I absolutely believed in my head the speed limit was 100 mph".
    Did you just assume her motive? :trollface:

    She walked into a man's apartment and shot him dead while he was eating a bowl of ice cream on his couch. I don't really give a shit what her motive was. Especially after she painted herself as the person in danger and the real victim. If she wanted a manslaughter charge instead, she should have attempted to plea to it instead of mounting this inane defense. Because manslaughter would have been the BARE minimum she was guilty of.
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,371
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    BillyYank wrote: »
    Amber Guyger has been found guilty of murdering Botham Jean.

    Jury Convicts Ex-Police Officer Who Fatally Shot Neighbor

    The jury had the option of finding her guilty of manslaughter as well as finding her not guilty.

    If she had an ounce of the actual remorse her crocodile tears were meant to convey during the trial, she would have plead guilty and begged for leniency. Since her defense was the most patently absurd tripe I've ever heard in a courtroom, I hope she spends the rest of her life in prison.

    From the beginning, there was never a shadow of a doubt about the facts of this case. What the defense was arguing was that as long as you BELIEVE you are in danger and BELIEVE you are in your own home, regardless of the reality, you can justifiably kill someone. Apply this logic across the spectrum of criminal cases and imagine the kind of Pandora's Box a acquittal on that basis would open up. "I don't know what to say judge, I absolutely believed in my head the speed limit was 100 mph".

    I really doubt she intended to walk into a stranger's apartment and blow him/her away. The reason she didn't plead guilty is more than likely because of her shitty lawyer's advice. As for 'crocodile tears' I call bullshit unless you have some evidence that she felt no remorse. Her emotional phone call to 911 didn't sound phony to me...
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    BillyYank wrote: »
    Amber Guyger has been found guilty of murdering Botham Jean.

    Jury Convicts Ex-Police Officer Who Fatally Shot Neighbor

    The jury had the option of finding her guilty of manslaughter as well as finding her not guilty.

    If she had an ounce of the actual remorse her crocodile tears were meant to convey during the trial, she would have plead guilty and begged for leniency. Since her defense was the most patently absurd tripe I've ever heard in a courtroom, I hope she spends the rest of her life in prison.

    From the beginning, there was never a shadow of a doubt about the facts of this case. What the defense was arguing was that as long as you BELIEVE you are in danger and BELIEVE you are in your own home, regardless of the reality, you can justifiably kill someone. Apply this logic across the spectrum of criminal cases and imagine the kind of Pandora's Box a acquittal on that basis would open up. "I don't know what to say judge, I absolutely believed in my head the speed limit was 100 mph".

    I really doubt she intended to walk into a stranger's apartment and blow him/her away. The reason she didn't plead guilty is more than likely because of her shitty lawyer's advice. As for 'crocodile tears' I call bullshit unless you have some evidence that she felt no remorse. Her emotional phone call to 911 didn't sound phony to me...

    Drunk drivers do not intend to get into car accidents that kill other motorists either.
  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,601
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    BillyYank wrote: »
    Amber Guyger has been found guilty of murdering Botham Jean.

    Jury Convicts Ex-Police Officer Who Fatally Shot Neighbor

    The jury had the option of finding her guilty of manslaughter as well as finding her not guilty.

    If she had an ounce of the actual remorse her crocodile tears were meant to convey during the trial, she would have plead guilty and begged for leniency. Since her defense was the most patently absurd tripe I've ever heard in a courtroom, I hope she spends the rest of her life in prison.

    From the beginning, there was never a shadow of a doubt about the facts of this case. What the defense was arguing was that as long as you BELIEVE you are in danger and BELIEVE you are in your own home, regardless of the reality, you can justifiably kill someone. Apply this logic across the spectrum of criminal cases and imagine the kind of Pandora's Box a acquittal on that basis would open up. "I don't know what to say judge, I absolutely believed in my head the speed limit was 100 mph".

    I really doubt she intended to walk into a stranger's apartment and blow him/her away. The reason she didn't plead guilty is more than likely because of her shitty lawyer's advice. As for 'crocodile tears' I call bullshit unless you have some evidence that she felt no remorse. Her emotional phone call to 911 didn't sound phony to me...

    I haven't followed this case super closely, but to believe her version of events is super hard for me. The apartment wasn't on the same floor. I can't imagine the layout of furniture, etc was so similar that she didn't immediately recognize it. According to the prosecution in this case, she didn't attempt to apply any first aid or any aspect of that part of her police training to the man -- even after she must have known it wasn't her apartment.

    I'm not saying her version of events is a complete fabrication. But it's almost certainly not the complete truth either.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    Surprised she didn’t get manslaughter. That is what she deserves. I can see her lawyers appealing on that.
Sign In or Register to comment.