1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate The US Politics 2.0 Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Point Given , Nov 11, 2020.

  1. Vaderize03

    Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Oct 25, 1999
    This may help keep Arizona blue. Be better if Democrats actually had an agenda to help people they could campaign on, but pointing out that SCOTUS may do the same thing nationwide come June with the Comstock Act seems to be all they've got at the moment.
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2024
  2. Jedi Knight Fett

    Jedi Knight Fett Chosen One star 10

    Feb 18, 2014
    I am reading a book on Enron as well as watching a documentary titled Enron: smartest guys in the room. And man the bushes loved that oil money. Which isn’t surprising that they were corrupt as hell. It’s just astounding to learn how corrupt they are. But then again almost every politician is corrupt at some levels. The Bush family just made it an art with Enron.

    I am writing about Enron for my business capstone paper and 900 words are dedicated to the bush families entanglements with Ken Lay out of a 3,500 word paper lol.
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2024
    BigAl6ft6 likes this.
  3. InterestingLurker

    InterestingLurker Force Ghost star 5

    Jun 15, 2011
    The Left-Wing Authoritarians Shutting Down the Democratic Party:
    Liberals would justifiably freak out if the right was doing this to Biden.

    Uhh... Yeah?
    Rew, grd4 and Lord Vivec like this.
  4. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Apr 17, 2006
    "You don't believe the people you view as bad should have rights" - Conservative, after thinking the people he views as bad shouldn't have rights.
    InterestingLurker likes this.
  5. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    May 4, 2003
    Erm. He literally makes that point. That’s part of his argument for why it’s a bad thing to do.
  6. 3sm1r

    3sm1r Force Ghost star 6

    Dec 27, 2017
    Any comment about Yellen yelling about the fact that the Chinese market is a bit too competitive when it comes to clean energy ?
  7. blackmyron

    blackmyron Chosen One star 7

    Oct 29, 2005
    Another spotlight that needs to be made: the Arizona Supreme Court was made conservative by... just adding Supreme Court justices to the state Supreme Court, aka "the thing that absolutely can't be done with the US Supreme Court, that would be wrong"
  8. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Aug 16, 2002
    It's funny that the major complaint is the PRC is subsidizing solar panels and electric vehicles (President Xi, please sell me a $15,000 car) as though the US doesn't do the same thing routinely and could use the same tactics to make its "green" industry "competitive."

    US capital and the US government gutted manufacturing capacity and moved it to China over the past 40 years, and now they're whining that China is better at making and selling things.
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2024
  9. 3sm1r

    3sm1r Force Ghost star 6

    Dec 27, 2017
    Yes, that's pretty much where I was getting at.

    It feels like the celebration of free market only works as long as it benefits us.
  10. mnjedi

    mnjedi JCC Arena Game Host star 5 VIP - Game Host

    Nov 4, 2012
    Im sure some of it is a lot of people worked so hard to convince everyone that it is literally impossible for renewables to be competitive and China is ruining it.
    anakinfansince1983 and 3sm1r like this.
  11. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Nov 8, 2001
    I should be getting just a massive tax credit this year for installing solar in last tax year...

    So you are spot on there...
    3sm1r and Vaderize03 like this.
  12. Fire_Ice_Death

    Fire_Ice_Death Force Ghost star 7

    Feb 15, 2001
    But without our fossil fuel overlords (pbut) green energy would kill everyone. According to them.
  13. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Oct 13, 2003
  14. Luke02

    Luke02 Chosen One star 6

    Sep 19, 2002

    There is little doubt in my mind that this woman (if you want to call her that since that, to me, is an insult to all women) will eventually be SOTH. She will simply keep asking to speak with the manager until they finally make her the manager. Then, she will complain about herself.
    Juliet316 likes this.
  15. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Nov 8, 2001
    She'll be what?

  16. DarkGingerJedi

    DarkGingerJedi Chosen One star 7

    Nov 21, 2012
    If she becomes the Manager, then she'll complain about the Customers. That's how that works.
  17. Luke02

    Luke02 Chosen One star 6

    Sep 19, 2002
    @DarkGingerJedi MTG already does that. She complains all the time about anyone who isn't in the Trump cult. God knows my wife and I, being public educators, are up high on MTG's complaint and really enemies list, which I must admit we wear as a badge of honor. That won't change when she becomes Speaker. She will complain about former speakers "ruining" everything for her and her saying the quiet apart aloud, aka accidentally outing herself as the problem.
  18. Luke02

    Luke02 Chosen One star 6

    Sep 19, 2002

    Get the lettuce head ready. Didn't think there could be a worse Speaker then Kevin McCarthy. I was wrong.
    Yodaminch likes this.
  19. darth-sinister

    darth-sinister Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Jun 28, 2001
    MTG is so stupid that if she becomes Speaker, that she will end up getting voted out herself.
    Juliet316, Yodaminch and jcgoble3 like this.
  20. Yodaminch

    Yodaminch Chosen One star 6

    Mar 6, 2002
    If Jim Jordan couldn't get the job, no way Marge ever gets it.
    Juliet316 and SithOverlord101 like this.
  21. ZanderSolo

    ZanderSolo Jedi Grand Master star 4

    May 18, 2007
    Shes going to introduce the vote to get rid of herself and then vote herself out probably.
    Juliet316 likes this.
  22. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    May 4, 2003
    To pick up on your earlier theme, this again shows us the truth of Republican politics. Donald Trump was complimenting this guy on Friday. We've not even made it a full 4 days before he's distancing himself. They all run scared from whomever is willing to do the stupidest, most conspiratorial, vilest thing imaginable. Often times that's Trump, but he'll just as often yield to whatever idiot happens to outdo him at a given moment. Just like the Congressional Republicans, even though he knows this is completely self-destructive, he's too scared to say that directly and so dances away from the topic, letting it seem more and more credible that deposing the Speaker moves forward despite him not wanting it to happen. Meanwhile, their base is more and more radicalized because all sides are too scared to say something that might contradict how radical they're already thought to be.
  23. anakinfansince1983

    anakinfansince1983 Skywalker Saga/LFL/YJCC Manager star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Mar 4, 2011
    If they actually manage to find jurors for this trial, they will be even more oblivious to real world events than the OJ Simpson jurors were. People who watch dumb reality shows on repeat—but not The Apprentice. No wonder Trump wants to take the stand. Such people are more likely to fall for his nonsense because he is charismatic.

    And the Trump cult wants some Staten Island Trumper to Trojan Horse their way onto the jury so he’ll be acquitted no matter what. Liberals could do the same, scrub their social media of anything anti-Trump and change their voter registration to unaffiliated, maybe follow a right wing page on social media, but they won’t.

    Trae Crowder had a good video about selecting a jury that has literally been asleep for the past nine years and wakes up and says ‘Trump? The guy from The Apprentice? WTF happened?…oooohhh.’
  24. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Jun 28, 2006
    I think the OJ Simpson trial covers a lot more about a prosecution that didn't handle it well and that jurors are ruling on the case provided to them.
    Example points from attorney Scott Turow:
    "And when it takes you six months to make your case, the jury is going to be left with either one of two impressions: Either your evidence is overwhelming, or in point of fact it's not, and you're laboring day by day to make it appear to be better than it is. And unfortunately in this case, it was the latter impression that the jury got left with."

    "So it's not very hard to understand that the suspicion of the L.A. police department in the minority community was enormous, and I think that the only way to have won that case once decisions were made that led to having an almost exclusively minority jury was to be able to stand in front of that jury and say: "I know what you've heard about the L.A. police; I've heard it, too. But I'm going to show you that's not the case here; that's not how we're prosecuting this case. Everything's on the up-and-up." Instead they went in the complete opposite direction."

    And Law Professor Peter Arenella:
    "There was no reason for the prosecution to rush to a trial. They could have started a grand jury investigation and then carefully got all their ducks in a row that looked at not only the physical evidence, but other evidence that could have been gathered. Evidence that was gathered for the subsequent civil trial could have been gathered in a reliable timely fashion for the criminal prosecution."

    Given how many commentators noted also that the prosecution was putting black women on the jury thinking that they'd be sympathetic to trying to make a case that domestic violence was a proof to murder (Law Prof Donald Jones: " See there were two cases, and you can't try two cases, you can only try one case. And the domestic violence case had tremendous appeal as a spectacle, [but] it had no value as evidence. Thousands and thousands cases of domestic violence occur every year, but a very much smaller number of murders occur. You can't convict a person because they're a member in a group, that amounts to a profile."). Looking at a jury where the presence of black women was considered key, and then in analogy dismissing them as oblivious to real world events seems to skip over that one of the factors may well have been that they were all too aware of real world events, it was just the daily real world events of a system that is often prejudicial towards black men.

    That sort of point comes from both Prof Kimberle Williams Crenshaw ("I think there are a lot of reasons. Some of them have to do basically with what we know about the African American community in general, not necessarily distrusting the police, but not giving them trust either. And I think that was somewhat across the board for all African Americans, and maybe a lot of urban dwellers in Los Angeles.

    I think second, if the idea was that the case was going to turn around certain images, namely that [it was] Nicole [Brown Simpson] being the angelic, lovely victim and O.J. being the savage bestial monster of a killer, that that kind of framework wasn't really going to work unless you could get a set of jurors who would identify with Nicole as the angelic victim. And for all sorts of reasons, that wasn't a narrative that was going to play well to a lot of different jurors, but particularly not to African American women jurors. They would see that as being a particular kind of race and gender card, if we want to use that language, that the prosecution was willing to play.") and Simpson defense team member Alan Dershowitz ("I think [prosecuting attorney] Marcia Clark believed that gender would trump race with black women, and it turned out that wasn't the case; that many of these women identified much more with their brothers and fathers and uncles, who had seen police harassment. They were black first and women second.")

    That's not the picture of people oblivious to "real world events".

    Prof Charles J. Ogletree did frame it as a prosecution that was in a bad situation: "A [third] was that the scrutiny of their evidence -- all these flaws [in it] were known. How can you put on this DNA evidence when you know it's going to be seriously challenged by experts? How can you put on this forensic evidence when Dr. Henry Lee, the most noteworthy criminalist of his time, had grave doubts about it? How could you put on Mark Fuhrman as a credible, central eyewitness to critical details in the case -- critical details -- when you knew that he had many flaws in the way that he thought, his views about African Americans and his conduct in many years in law enforcement?"

    Or as attorney Robert Ball puts it, as he represented one of the jurors, "Brenda said that they just could not buy the connection between O.J. Simpson having previously engaged in domestic violence and him murdering his ex-wife. That was too big of a leap. And she couldn't understand why they spent so much time trying to make that connection. [The jury] just didn't buy it. They didn't buy the lack of blood or other physical evidence in O.J. Simpson's home. She was of the belief -- and many jurors were of the belief -- that whoever committed this heinous murder had to be covered with blood. Well, in the trial it came out that O.J. Simpson came home and took a shower, and the LAPD did Luminol tests to check for blood in the shower. And they took loose his plumbing and pipes, and they found no [traces of] blood. And it was those sort of things that just in the minds of Brenda and the jurors, [was] enough to make them believe there was a reasonable doubt."

    It's on the jurors to rule on the case provided to them, not on what they otherwise think the case should be. And a bad case, or a prosecution relying on untrustworthy people, is going to allow reasonable doubt to start to show up. That's not on the jury.

    And with a jury where 10/12 were women and 9/12 were black, the "they're just too ignorant of the real world" feels like a really questionable take.

    (All comments can be found from PBS: )
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2024
  25. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Apr 25, 2004
    Juliet316 likes this.