U.S. Politics-Hope Floats 2: We All Float Down Here

[Darth Richard II]

I've been out of the loop the last few days, but fuck Susan Sarandon.

[Bonnot OG]

 

 

Cops are not your friends and will always side with fascists and let them be violent while they brutalize leftists. 
Reasons not to be strictly peaceful protests and never use violence, fascists are always violent. 
 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Bonnot OG said:

Another fascist / white supremacist / neo nazi rally turns violent in PDX. It's almost like fascists are violent people following violent ideologies.

There was also this a week ago:

Quote

Police used witness accounts and TV news footage to identify Gregory C. Wagner, 58, as the driver who injured two people when he drove into a crowd of protesters around 10 p.m. at the corner of West General Robinson Street and Tony Dorsett Drive, according to a criminal complaint.

Mr. Wagner was elected as Republican councilman in November 2017, did not return requests for comment Friday. Bell Acres Mayor Ron Besong declined to comment.

Mr. Wagner is charged with three counts of reckless endangerment, as well as driving the wrong way and careless driving, court records show. One person suffered an ankle injury and the other a back injury, police have said.

 

[JGP]

This is uh.... fuck.

[Jace, Extat]

7 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

This is uh.... fuck.

Ha! HahaHA HAHA HAHA 

HA!

Don't worry though, you can still hang on to your 'hope'.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

This is uh.... fuck.

At the end of the link:

Quote

Many states, including New York, prohibit the trial of individuals who have been convicted for the same offense by the federal government.

So, considering New York is likely to be where in which they all get charges, it doesn't really matter, does it?

[JGP]

Maybe? I'm not a law scholar by any means, but the part that concerned me most about this is if say Trump, for the sake of the argument, were to pardon Manafort before he was convicted... [spreads hands] ...that might be gg. 

[DMC]

To clarify:

Quote

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a case in the fall to consider whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment bars states and the federal government from separately trying the same person for the same criminal offense.

So, the case is about whether state governments can charge individuals with the same crime they've been charged with by the federal government.  Then, again, there's this:

Quote

Many states, including New York, prohibit the trial of individuals who have been convicted for the same offense by the federal government.

So NY plus "many" other states already have this in practice.  Which, considering the state that would or could prosecute the Trump family, makes the case moot.

I have no idea why this case was granted cert (rule of 4).  Most likely for the reason everyone's been worried about.  But even if they push this, the decision won't be publicized til this time next year, and then they'd have to take another case to make it effective.  More likely, this is a signal among the conservative contingent that they will OK whatever Trump wants to do.  That's filed under the incredibly alarming but wholly unsurprising category.  Least likely, but still possible, is this case has nothing to do with anything.  Until someone actually looks into it, it's possible.

ETA:  Forgot to mention - What Trump and his campaign are being investigated for is out of any state's jurisdiction.  Collusion with a foreign entity is out of any state's jurisdiction.  The other litany of crimes this group is obviously guilty of, ok, but with Manafort we've already seen they're divvying that up.

[JGP]

OK. Perhaps I'm not understanding how Presidential pardons work then. One must be actually convicted of a crime then, yeah? No preemptives?

[DMC]

There can be preemptives.  Nixon was pardoned by Ford for any crimes he "may" have committed during Watergate.  This was after Nixon was already indicted as an unnamed co-conspirator.

[DMC]

Anticipating your next question, yes, that means the president could wipe the board clean of any charges leveled to an individual by the federal government.  But the president has no jurisdiction over state charges, which are entirely possible for all of his inner-circle.

[Jace, Extat]

I'm breathlessly anticipating the landmark case to strip hope away.

Fuck v Liberals 

[JGP]

Maybe I got too much sun today-- you can walk this out but don't see the problem here? 

[DMC]

Can't walk it out more than I already did.  The state and federal governments are almost always going to charge you with different crimes.  Very rarely do the charges align.  As has been seen with the charges leveled against Manafort.

[JGP]

Because it's pointless to try him concurrently for the same transgressions against state and fed law, and wouldn't happen if the feds have exerted their eminent domain if you will. However, they're both sovereign. In the event of a preemptive federal pardon, the state could still step in, even New York. But fast forward a ways, especially if the SCOTUS rules on the wrong side of this-- the states as individuals will have had their incisors pulled. This isn't to say that situations like this would crop up often, but in the case of corruption within the administration, a smart WH counsel with say, Sessions cooperating, could engineer more or less immunity to anyone they wanted to.  

[mormont]

On the one hand, a socialist won a Democrat primary and oh noes, swing voters might be put off.

On the other hand...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/394639-brothel-owner-who-won-gop-primary-accused-of-raping-prostitute?amp

Quote

Nevada legal brothel owner and HBO "Cathouse" star Dennis Hof, who won a GOP primary to run for the Nevada state Assembly earlier this month, was accused in a newly released police report of raping a sex worker at his brothel in 2005.

 

[Which Tyler]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

Sounds like you're looking for a tagline, but it literally is called a wasted vote.  That's what I've told every student I've ever instructed.  If you've got something catchier I'm all ears, but defensive or enabling ain't it.

I know this argument has probably run its course, but the phrase you guys are looking for is "tactical voting".

It isn't actually of life for countries with multiple parties, especially those with multiple parties AND first past the post.

 

It's a vote cast for the person most likely to defeat who you want to stop, rather than vote in favour of who you want.

[Seli]

10 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Maybe, but it doesn't make her responsible for Trump or his policies.

We're back to blaming those who didn't like Clinton, and this is what I knew to be hiding under the surface of the argument. 2,000 children in cages is Trump's fault, his administration's fault, and all the people that voted for him and support him. You can't put it on anyone else. When you try, you push away those voters that you need to buy into your "concept." 

Everyone who didn't vote for a democratic candidate in any of the races is to blame for the current situation. It is very simple. It is not like the GOP had been hiding their intent.

I do understand people want to hide away from that uncomfortable fact, but that doesn't make it any less true. And it doesn't solve anything when people can keep ignoring this basic principle of US style elections.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

5 hours ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

Everyone who didn't vote for a democratic candidate in any of the races is to blame for the current situation. It is very simple. It is not like the GOP had been hiding their intent.

I do understand people want to hide away from that uncomfortable fact, but that doesn't make it any less true. And it doesn't solve anything when people can keep ignoring this basic principle of US style elections.

And the basic principal that these people will keep not voting with you--even though they have like interests--is going to be continued because of that kind of attitude. The fact that the only way to not have Trump was to vote for the highly flawed Clinton puts the blame on the Democratic party and their forcing her down our throats. The DNC totally did everything they could to hand that nomination to her. Don't act like there was no antecedent. The Democratic party can only blame itself. IT lost the election to the worst possible candidate in modern history, and the Dems wants to blame everyone but themselves.

[Zorral]

It's insurrection, quite like that which made the War of Independence.  Nothing else works against the strangle hold by the few on our bodies, our rights, our work, our nation, who continue to work tirelessly and with every power and force advantage money can buy to squeeze ever harder.

People like Maxine Waters and many others know this.  But ye olden Dems will do anything including strangle us themselves to hold on to a vistag of their fangless power, so run about with heads cut off crying the sky is falling if there is any protest beyond a mild-mannered, "That's not nice.  You shouldn't."

https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/summer-of-rage.html