[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-24, 20:09, said:

Just because I only addressed one or two specifics, don't assume I condone other things.Although I will say that intelligence gathering is well within the CIA's mandate. As for the "killer robots", did I not say the US should not be interfering in other countries' internal affairs? It's not our right to go killing whoever we want, wherever we want, either.

actually no...you never said no interfering in internal affairs....in any case you do now....the issue is spying often very often involves interfering in internal affairs....but lets put that aside for now..

your main point stands including a drastic reduction in the army and withdrawal and retreat from the world ....

YOu are very vague when it comes to military involvement in outer space or cyber space...otoh you have offered your vision of the world and the usa....

[RedSpawn]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-23, 20:08, said:

I don't speak for anybody else, but I think we should withdraw our Army, and probably our Air Force, from everywhere except the United States and their territories. We should not get involved in the internal politics of other nations. We (specifically the CIA) should not be in the business of toppling regimes in order to put in place puppet governments that (we hope) will be friendly to the United States.

The Navy (and Marine Corps) is another issue. That organization is the President's arm for handling situations where an immediate application of force is necessary to deal with people and nations who initiate force directly against Americans outside the US. The Navy and Marines should not be invading Grenada or Panama (yes, I know more than the Navy and Marines were involved in those conflicts) in order to institute regime change or "bring to justice" (yeah, right) a dictator who had the temerity to defy Washington.

A standing army was anathema to the founding fathers. It ought still to be anathema to all Americans.

Amen. If you don't know your history, the standing government will spoon feed it to you in a way that serves their best interests, even when it conflicts with our constitutional republic.





Long story short, if you want a huge military behemoth that no American or global citizen questions, the price will always be your liberty and financial freedom.

[kenberg]

Time out: I was listening to 1-A on the way to a bridge game, the global news section, and the subject of Trudeau's speech about immigration came up. Apparently many Haitians who have been in the US for years are now thinking it is wise to scurry up north, and this is not appreciated. Some wit suggested that Canada should build a wall and make the US pay for it.

Ok, I now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.washingt...070a_story.html

And the noose around Venezuela tightens a bit more. . . .

Follow that oil and petrodollar hegemony and you will find our foreign policy at work!

https://www.cia.gov/...r/2244rank.html ===>Venezuela has the largest oil reserves per CIA.

Quote

4/14/2016 5:57 AM EDT
In 1984 OPEC restricted member countries to pumping a certain % of their known oil reserves. A year later, Kuwait discovered that their reserves were twice as large as they believed!? A couple of years later, the Saudis discovered that their reserves were larger too. The Saudis having overstated their reserves for decades. They've increased the # of rigs in operation but not production. Venezuelan oil reserves are larger than the Saudi's stated reserves. We need that oil on the dollar. Besides being Venezuela's second largest buyer of oil, China is deep in the country because of copper and gold. China serves as an alternative to international banksters for financing with low rate loans, while securing access to Venezuela’s oil at a fixed low price. That can't make the US, IMF and World Bank happy. The Nicaraguan canal will probably have a Chinese military presence so they can keep an eye on their investments in the region.

http://www.mintpress...markets/227831/ ===> REAL journalism, not that fluff cotton candy journalism we have come to expect

Has anyone noticed that WaPo painted this article with plenty of hints of American imperialism at work when Trump is already "on the ropes" from his Charlottesville debacle? Very coincidental.

[RedSpawn]

.

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-08, 10:11, said:

USA Today along with other sources are reporting a troubling development: that Erick Prince (aka as founder of Blackwater mercinaries) is suggesting his company be paid to intervene in Afghanistan - which to me is profiteering on war - at the same time Trump is claiming to have anger and unhappiness with his Afghanistan general's leadership.

This does not bode well.

Agreed. And HERE WE ARE AGAIN AFTER 16 YEARS SPENDING MORE MILITARY MONEY ON AFGHANISTAN!

[Winstonm]

I have been of the mind that an ineffective Trump is better than an effective Pence but after the Arpaio pardon I am uncertain of that position. It is beginning to look like the only way to preserve the rule of law is to impeach and remove Trump. This is and will be a disaster on many fronts.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-28, 18:33, said:

I have been of the mind that an ineffective Trump is better than an effective Pence but after the Arpaio pardon I am uncertain of that position. It is beginning to look like the only way to preserve the rule of law is to impeach and remove Trump. This is and will be a disaster on many front.

Doesn't the rule of law include the authority of the President to pardon whomever he wants? To oppose that is to oppose the rule of law as it now stands. So, are you opposed to the rule of law?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-August-28, 21:07, said:

Doesn't the rule of law include the authority of the President to pardon whomever he wants? To oppose that is to oppose the rule of law as it now stands. So, are you opposed to the rule of law?

Grow up or go away. The adults are trying to have a conversation.

[Winstonm]

https://www.theatlan...te-desk/538239/

Quote

As National Review editor Rich Lowry recently pointed out, the Breitbart ethos is also reflected in the president’s style and temperament:

Trump’s sensibility is highly unusual for a politician—let alone for the leader of the free world—but very familiar from the internet or social media. As his news conference showed, his level of argument is at the level of a good Breitbart blogger, or of a Twitter egg of yore. He would absolutely kill it in the comments section of a right-wing website or trolling a journalist.
Trump knows some things; covers the weaknesses of his case with sheer aggression; doesn't care about consistency or common sense; wants to play to the base rather than reach the persuadable middle; and feels liberated from any standards of respectability.

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-August-28, 21:07, said:

Doesn't the rule of law include the authority of the President to pardon whomever he wants? To oppose that is to oppose the rule of law as it now stands. So, are you opposed to the rule of law?

Doesn't the rule of law include the authority of the President to unload the USA's complete nuclear arsenal on Moscow? To oppose that is to oppose the rule of law as it now stands. So, are you opposed to the rule of law?

The authority to do something in special cases is not the same as an action that a POTUS of sound mind should take in normal times. The question asked is whether such abuses of executive power represent such a gross attack on the rule of law that even having a man such as Pence in the White House is preferable for the nation. A good question but an academic one given the make-up of Congress. Impeachment is simply not an option at present.

[mike777]

ldrews, on 2017-August-28, 21:07, said:

Doesn't the rule of law include the authority of the President to pardon whomever he wants? To oppose that is to oppose the rule of law as it now stands. So, are you opposed to the rule of law?

Not sure what your point is. Of course, of course citizens demand ...yes demand that a law be changed. Are you against citizens demanding that the law be changed? Are you against citizens opposing a law?

A common problem is when two laws or rights conflict with each other....this is common and we need some kind of process to resolve the conflict between two competing laws or rights without violence.


Regarding this latest pardon...if you find this pardon so horrible....we have a solution, an imperfect solution called the next election in 2020'

My guess is and only a guess it will change few so few votes ......

My guess is and only a guess the rocket that NK fired today over Japan will matter more....just a guess.

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2017-August-29, 00:36, said:

My guess is and only a guess the rocket that NK fired today over Japan will matter more....just a guess.

For the non-racists I would be inclined to agree with you. To the racists, the pardon might be more important making it an overall vote winner in the end. My guess is that this is also what the Trump team is thinking.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-August-28, 21:07, said:

Doesn't the rule of law include the authority of the President to pardon whomever he wants?

The President has an almost unlimited constitutional authority to pardon whomever he wants, but, an otherwise legal constitutional authority can be exercised in a manner that renders the act of pardon unconstitutional.

In particular, a pardon in furtherance of obstruction of justice clearly falls into this category. I have also seen arguments that the Arpaio pardon violates the separation of powers.
(Arpaio was brought up on criminal charges for violating court orders regarding the treatment of prisoners)

Quote

To oppose that is to oppose the rule of law as it now stands. So, are you opposed to the rule of law?

Wrong

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2017-August-28, 21:07, said:

Doesn't the rule of law include the authority of the President to pardon whomever he wants? To oppose that is to oppose the rule of law as it now stands. So, are you opposed to the rule of law?

I have been finding this thread discouraging. My legal knowledge is slim to non-existent and, as they say slim is boarding the plane. Let's suppose it is legal to pardon Sheriff Joe, it probably is. I am sure that we can all think of individuals who can legally be pardoned but that we would not want to see pardoned.

I know you find the Washington Post to be beyond the pale, and I know that Michael Gerson was a speechwriter for GWB and so is in the enemy camp, but any person on the right who gives any sort of a damn about how this is seen might want to look at Gerson's column today:
https://en.wikipedia.../Michael_Gerson

If your time is precious, I'll just give you his closing observation:

Quote

Any party that swallows the Trump/Arpaio ethic will be poisoned. And gagging, in this case, is a sign of health.

I think of myself as a realist. It is a fact that some see nothing wrong with this pardon, or with much of anything else that Trump does. A fact is a fact, and that's a fact. . Some presidents have the support, albeit sometimes reluctant support, from a majority. Trump's approach is to court intense support from a base while accepting, reveling in, the revulsion that the rest of us feel. It's an odd way to go about the job. Usually I wish a president well even if I did not vote for him. Not this president.

Since I am probably repeating myself, I will stop.

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-August-28, 21:07, said:

Doesn't the rule of law include the authority of the President to pardon whomever he wants? To oppose that is to oppose the rule of law as it now stands. So, are you opposed to the rule of law?

I raised the issue of why this pardon is being called an affront to the rule of law on Politics Stack Exchange.

[Winstonm]

If Hamilton, et al, could have known the bastardization of the pardon power that has occurred over time, I'm pretty certain they would have rethought the entire issue. Hamilton, especially, was quite specific in his reasoning for the pardon power and it was for episodes exactly like those that transpired after the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War - as a way to restore order to the nation, not to grant specific individuals a break.

[RedSpawn]

https://www.reuters....r-idUSKCN0VU0XE

So given that we decimated Iraq when it in fact had no weapons of mass destruction, what is North Korea's motivation to denuclearize when we ALL know what happened to Saddam Hussein when he refused to acknowledge weapons he did not have at the time of our ultimatum in 2003?

We really need to stop acting like our foreign policy toward North Korea isn't another permutation of our imperialistic policies. I am not sure we have departed from our 2003 positioning and treatment of the "Axes" of evil. It's important that we have a very healthy level of political and military skepticism.

[Winstonm]

This is a good recap of the problem with the Arpaio pardon. By Barbara McQuade:

Quote

The pardon of Arpaio is different from most other cases because of the nature of the underlying conviction. Most often, the president is exercising his executive power over a matter that was brought entirely by that same executive branch—a federal offense referred by a federal investigative agency and charged by the Department of Justice or one of the 94 U.S. Attorney’s offices. In those instances, the president is showing forgiveness in the interest of the public good. And although the work of the executive branch is cast aside, the public readily accepts that the president, as head of the executive branch, gets to make that call.
Here, on the other hand, the criminal contempt case against Arapaio originated within the judicial branch. The case was referred to DOJ for prosecution by a federal district court judge after Arpaio flagrantly violated the court’s injunction for 18 months in a civil case brought by private parties and then publicly bragged about it. By pardoning Arpaio’s deliberate flouting of the court’s order, Trump is undermining the judicial branch and the rule of law.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2017-August-29, 12:09, said:

If Hamilton, et al, could have known the bastardization of the pardon power that has occurred over time, I'm pretty certain they would have rethought the entire issue. Hamilton, especially, was quite specific in his reasoning for the pardon power and it was for episodes exactly like those that transpired after the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War - as a way to restore order to the nation, not to grant specific individuals a break.

A sort of amnesty, granted to encourage burying the hatchet....and not in the head of your opponent. Also, a way of overcoming political pursuits of individuals (witchhunts) that would restore balance to the political landscape. Obviously, "supporters" of Presidents getting off scott-free would encourage others to support, hoping for clemency. Part of the package...