Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place


Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, gianmarco said:

I'll submit to the bolded.  However, here are the 3 main issues with their current actions

1)  They are withholding funds and access to the transition team.  That has never happened before and it is literally costing Americans their lives while we are at the height of a pandemic.  Allow the access/funds and if things are reversed, so be it.  That is beyond petty and is unAmerican and unpatriotic. 

2)  You can't claim fraud, fraud, fraud in the media and then when you show up to court admit to there not being fraud.  That is what is happening.

3)  Along with the two points above, the administration is sowing doubt into the election process that can't be undone.  Claiming the election was stolen is, once again, unAmerican and does a disservice to our country and all the work election officials did across this country in an awful situation as well as every single person that cast a vote.  If it turns out this is all a mirage (which it obviously looks like), that's irreversible damage.  And there should be penalties for doing what they've done.

These are the kinds of things that I think are major violations of conservative ideals and why I don't think I consider Trumpism as being true conservatism. The respect for the voter and our Democratic process, the respect of the Constitution and legal tradition, honoring of the rule of law to me are major conservative ideals. I do not see respect for that from Trump or his backers. People who had deep respect for our nearly 250 years of democratic elections and peaceful transfers of power would not so brazenly make these kinds of accusations of fraud and dishonesty without hard evidence. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

She said she is hoping to file this week. I want to see what she has.

Have you already dismissed whatever she brings already? Don't you want to hear her out? 

I'd like to see what she has too, but I think I already know what she has -- squat.

After all this time, with so many accusations and not one of them with a shred of real evidence, with nearly 30 court cases rejected entirely (the only post-election case Trump has won was shortening the cure deadline in PA for a small subset of rejected mail-in ballots from 9 days to 6), to think that there is anything substantive at this point in time that would alter the election results seems beyond reason to me.

She's gone down some bizarre roads about Venezuela and a long-dead Chavez, George Soros, and other weird claims of how this election was interfered with -- if all she has is the mere specter of impropriety around unprovable tampering of machines swayed by mysterious motives of unseen holding company owners, without any provable evidence, then this is truly frivolous litigation and an abuse of the judicial process. And worse, this stalling for time delays actions that can be taken -- around COVID an a lot of other things -- in the meantime. 

So far, in terms of the two member of Trump's "elite strike force" that was going to change the results of the elections, we've seen one have all her ties -- campaign and personal representation -- officially cut by Trump's administration, with the other's head literally melting on TV as he rubbed snot all over his face.

It would be a hilarious farce if it wasn't so sad and a waste of time the American people don't have.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Filing frivolous lawsuits and engaging in dangerous political speech isn't treason that i know of.

We should be careful with the words we use when engaging Trump.  When you fight certain people on their level they drag you down and beat you with experience.

I admit to not being a Constitutional law expert (or an attorney at all).  I think what Giuliani and Powell did last week rises above "dangerous political speech", however.  If it's not treason, is it actionable in any way?  It seems clear to me that it should be legally actionable (assuming they never produce evidence) in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I admit to not being a Constitutional law expert (or an attorney at all).  I think what Giuliani and Powell did last week rises above "dangerous political speech", however.  If it's not treason, is it actionable in any way?  It seems clear to me that it should be legally actionable (assuming they never produce evidence) in some way.

Treason is mainly a violent action; war or aiding our enemy in a war. That isn't what is going on.

Sedition usually requires physical actions as well, i.e. some form of war, insurrection or revolt that is violent.

Conceding an election has been the act of honorable men treating the importance of our political system with its own level of honor. Trump and his kind have proven they have none, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

Attorney's enjoy a certain level of immunity in what we say in a courtroom so that we can zealously represent our clients.

Political speech is given a wide, wide arena and we would rather err on the side of allowing more than less.

Powell is a nutcase who is going to walk into a disbarment hearing if she keeps this up. Giuliani has already made what was once a legacy worth remembering into nothing more than footnote of political vanity. He will never be anything more than a joke now. 

Beyond that, short of sanctions for these truly incompetent filings, I don't see much at the moment.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Treason is mainly a violent action; war or aiding our enemy in a war. That isn't what is going on.

Sedition usually requires physical actions as well, i.e. some form of war, insurrection or revolt that is violent.

Conceding an election has been the act of honorable men treating the importance of our political system with its own level of honor. Trump and his kind have proven they have none, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

Attorney's enjoy a certain level of immunity in what we say in a courtroom so that we can zealously represent our clients.

Political speech is given a wide, wide arena and we would rather err on the side of allowing more than less.

Powell is a nutcase who is going to walk into a disbarment hearing if she keeps this up. Giuliani has already made what was once a legacy worth remembering into nothing more than footnote of political vanity. He will never be anything more than a joke now. 

Beyond that, short of sanctions for these truly incompetent filings, I don't see much at the moment.

 

Yeah my first thought on all of this is whether she's already received a bar complaint from another attorney or a judge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Yep and being 18 from an a very white Catholic suburban school in a town whose wealth was entirely tied to the auto industry, it definitely made sense to me at the time. 

I can see that. Pat also thinks entering WW2 was wrong, but he didn't develop that part of his, um, appeal until later. Imagine a nuclear-armed Third Reich. It's why I think Trump getting out of the Iran deal was one of the best things about his administration. Inspected by Iran and reported upon by Iran? No way, Jose.

Edited by rockaction
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should be awfully, awfully careful about punishing our political opponents once they leave office. Unless rank corruption is the order of the day, I don't see any way in which we should bring charges against the President. That's been a longstanding thing. A certain degree of unspoken immunity is needed to do the job.

Anybody not preaching the exercise of caution (but just this time!) regrading this is either a fool or a blowhard and shouldn't be taken seriously.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, rockaction said:

We should be awfully, awfully careful about punishing our political opponents once they leave office. Unless rank corruption is the order of the day, I don't see any way in which we should bring charges against the President. That's been a longstanding thing. A certain degree of unspoken immunity is needed to do the job.

Anybody not preaching the exercise of caution (but just this time!) regrading this is either a fool or a blowhard and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Caution is merited. But if he did commit crimes, he can not be immune to prosecution and redress. The President can not be completely above the law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gr00vus said:

Caution is merited. But if he did commit crimes, he can not be immune to prosecution and redress. The President can not be completely above the law.

It would have to be a very serious, clear and obvious crime with undeniable hard evidence.

Edited by Ilov80s
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I can see that. Pat also thinks entering WW2 was wrong, but he didn't develop that part of his, um, appeal until later. Imagine a nuclear-armed Third Reich. It's why I think Trump getting out of the Iran deal was one of the best things about his administration. Inspected by Iran and reported upon by Iran? No way, Jose.

Do we have a plan though with Iran now? I think I read something recently that said Iran has developed a significant stockpile of uranium since the deal was ended. And as for Pat, I definitely wasn’t on board with that WW2 take. Hell I was in favor of the Iraq War at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gr00vus said:

O.k. - though those are all potentially subjective considerations.

In that case anything is subjective but I agree with Rock we should be very very cautious about seeking criminal charges on political opponents and especially ex-Presidsnts. It’s a bad precedent with dangerous possibilities. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rockaction said:

We should be awfully, awfully careful about punishing our political opponents once they leave office. Unless rank corruption is the order of the day, I don't see any way in which we should bring charges against the President. That's been a longstanding thing. A certain degree of unspoken immunity is needed to do the job.

Anybody not preaching the exercise of caution (but just this time!) regrading this is either a fool or a blowhard and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Very fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Do we have a plan though with Iran now? I think I read something recently that said Iran has developed a significant stockpile of uranium since the deal was ended. And as for Pat, I definitely wasn’t on board with that WW2 take. Hell I was in favor of the Iraq War at the time.

No, we really don't have a plan with Iran. But we were just speeding toward the obvious instead of at least delaying it. There really is no plan. They're a country that is determined on nuclear energy. What that energy is used in is the question. My feeling is that the clerics that run Iran are dead set on enriching uranium for weaponry. A nuclear-capable Iran is something I shudder to think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rockaction said:

We should be awfully, awfully careful about punishing our political opponents once they leave office. Unless rank corruption is the order of the day, I don't see any way in which we should bring charges against the President. That's been a longstanding thing. A certain degree of unspoken immunity is needed to do the job.

Anybody not preaching the exercise of caution (but just this time!) regrading this is either a fool or a blowhard and shouldn't be taken seriously.

It's been a longstanding tradition to not prosecute a sitting president as doing so is disruptive to running the country.

What's the case for not prosecuting a president once he no longer holds office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Stompin' Tom Connors said:

GSA Administrator Emily Murphy approves transition.

Looks like Trump himself gave Murphy the go-ahead -- posted this elsewhere, but it seems to fit in multiple threads:
 

NYT reporter Maggie Haberman thinks Trump's tweet is 'the closest to a concession' he'll give (The Week, 11/23/2020)

Quote

President Trump has yet to concede the election, and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman thinks his Monday evening tweet about what is in "the best interest of our country" is "the closest to a concession Trump is going to get."

Trump wrote that he spoke to Emily Murphy, the head of the General Services Administration, and recommended that she "do what needs to be done with regard to initial protocols," adding that he has "told my team to do the same." Murphy needed to ascertain the election in order to formally start the transition process, and after weeks of delays, she sent President-elect Joe Biden a letter on Monday telling him the transition can officially start.

Haberman tweeted that she's been told some of Trump's advisers "had been urging him" to let the transition begin before Thanksgiving, "even if he never said the word 'concede.'" Between the Trump campaign and other Republicans, more than 30 lawsuits have been filed in six swing states, in an attempt to contest the election results, NBC News reports. Despite Trump and members of his legal team claiming there has been widespread voter fraud, no court has found a single piece of evidence.

Trump's election legal team is being led by his longtime friend and personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City. Giuliani has been "key in stoking Trump's conspiracy theories," Haberman said, but people with knowledge of the matter told her that a recent court loss in Pennsylvania made Trump realize "Giuliani was not painting an honest picture" of his chances of actually changing the election results. Giuliani, she added, took control of Trump's legal team after the campaign dropped a lawsuit in Maricopa County, Arizona, and he warned Trump that "other advisers were lying to him."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

 

@Max Power - With respect to gianmarco's second two points above (#1 has nothing to do with Powell, best I can tell), this is where I also take serious issue with the way in which Powell has gone about her claims.  If it turns out she's full of it, the damage she's doing can't be undone.  To that end, I would support treason charges against both her and Giuliani for their actions if they can't back up their claims with real, actionable evidence.  Thoughts?

Treason is out of the question. I find that a little silly since I didnt see these same calls for treason coming when the head our intelligence agencies were going on the news saying Trump is colluding with Russia. THAT was undermining our democracy.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Treason is out of the question. I find that a little silly since I didnt see these same calls for treason coming when the head our intelligence agencies were going on the news saying Trump is colluding with Russia. THAT was undermining our democracy.  

If/when neither Giuliani nor Powell can produce any evidence whatsoever, what should occur?

Edited by Rich Conway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Treason is out of the question. I find that a little silly since I didnt see these same calls for treason coming when the head our intelligence agencies were going on the news saying Trump is colluding with Russia. THAT was undermining our democracy.  

One could make the argument that those who were calling for treason when the head of our intelligence agencies were going on the news saying Trump is colluding with Russia are not even entertaining the idea that this is treason.*

 

* I don't think either are treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Yankee23Fan said:

Treason is mainly a violent action; war or aiding our enemy in a war. That isn't what is going on.

Sedition usually requires physical actions as well, i.e. some form of war, insurrection or revolt that is violent.

Conceding an election has been the act of honorable men treating the importance of our political system with its own level of honor. Trump and his kind have proven they have none, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

Attorney's enjoy a certain level of immunity in what we say in a courtroom so that we can zealously represent our clients.

Political speech is given a wide, wide arena and we would rather err on the side of allowing more than less.

Powell is a nutcase who is going to walk into a disbarment hearing if she keeps this up. Giuliani has already made what was once a legacy worth remembering into nothing more than footnote of political vanity. He will never be anything more than a joke now. 

Beyond that, short of sanctions for these truly incompetent filings, I don't see much at the moment.

 

When this is all over history will not be kind to these individuals. I’m thinking 30 years from now the kids will be learning about this era and the lessons will be loud and clear. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.axios.com/israeli-military-prepares-trump-iran-0d0a5725-c410-4f5c-a0ea-9c6f9add4966.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100

Quote

The Israel Defense Forces have in recent weeks been instructed to prepare for the possibility that the U.S. will conduct a military strike against Iran before President Trump leaves office, senior Israeli officials tell me.

Why it matters: The Israeli government instructed the IDF to undertake the preparations not because of any intelligence or assessment that Trump will order such a strike, but because senior Israeli officials anticipate “a very sensitive period” ahead of Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20.

The IDF's preparedness measures relate to possible Iranian retaliation against Israel directly or through Iranian proxies in Syria, Gaza and Lebanon, the Israeli officials said.

Flashback: Last week, the New York Times reported that Trump raised the possibility of attacking Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz in a meeting with senior members of his national security team.

Trump raised the idea after being briefed on an International Atomic Energy Agency report about Iran’s growing stockpiles of enriched uranium, but top officials — including Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — warned about the risks of regional escalation, per the Times.

Trump seemed convinced that it would be too risky to strike Iran directly, but has considered other options, the Times reports.

What's happening: Israeli minister of defense Benny Gantz spoke twice in the last two weeks with Christopher Miller, Trump's acting defense secretary. They discussed Iran as well as Syria and defense cooperation.

Last Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. One of the main issues discussed was Iran, Israeli officials say.

Pompeo visited Israel and several Gulf countries last week to discuss Iran. State Department officials traveling with Pompeo told reporters “all options are on the table."

While Pompeo was in the Gulf, U.S. Central Command announced that B-52 strategic bombers conducted a “short-notice, long-range mission into the Middle East to deter aggression and reassure U.S. partners and allies." That was seen as another signal to Iran.

Hossein Dehghan, an adviser to Iran’s leader and a possible candidate in Iran's upcoming presidential elections, told AP last week that a U.S. military strike against Iran could set off a “full-fledged war” in the Middle East.

What’s next: Senior Israeli officials tell me they expect Israel will get prior notice ahead of any U.S. strike against Iran. But they're concerned that won't be sufficient to fully prepare. Thus the order to the IDF to start taking preparatory steps under the assumption that such a scenario is possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

We can keep saying that...but have we seen any reason to believe it will hurt them?

IMO it appears that Republicans have been influenced to look at Democrats as the biggest threat to freedom and stability in comparison for example to Russia, brazen corruption and the advancement of the top 1% in income in relation to the regression of the lower and middle classes

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

We can keep saying that...but have we seen any reason to believe it will hurt them?

The lack of outrage of Trump's attempts to subvert our elections through appealing to state legislatures and officials to ignore the popular vote suggests apathy at best regarding preserving the democratic process.

Edited by Moonlight
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, shader said:

Trump pardons Flynn

Is the pardon just for the charges he is guilty of, or do they include any future charges that may be bought against him?

I've often wondered if it would be worth it for the DA to hold back something for a situation like this.  That's why I've always been curious about Trump pardoning himself.  He hasn't got any charges against him, so how does he know what to pardon himself for?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, flapgreen said:

Oh yes 

I realize that victories have been few and far between for Trump supporters recently, so I kind of understand the idea of disproportionately cheering for any shred of a win, no matter how small.

But celebrating a United States military officer who lied to the government and admitted to it? Why be proud of that? Why die on that hill? Just take the W and quietly move on.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

I realize that victories have been few and far between for Trump supporters recently, so I kind of understand the idea of disproportionately cheering for any shred of a win, no matter how small.

But celebrating a United States military officer who lied to the government and admitted to it? Why be proud of that? Why die on that hill? Just take the W and quietly move on.

That's funny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonlight said:

IMO it appears that Republicans have been influenced to look at Democrats as the biggest threat to freedom and stability in comparison for example to Russia, brazen corruption and the advancement of the top 1% in income in relation to the regression of the lower and middle classes

 

Agreed and it’s incredibly dangerous for our country and world for this to be the case. Sadly, I think that has been present for the other side as well where Democrats have painted Republicans and Republican leaders previously as more dangerous than the true threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Chaz McNulty said:

Is the pardon just for the charges he is guilty of, or do they include any future charges that may be bought against him?

I've often wondered if it would be worth it for the DA to hold back something for a situation like this.  That's why I've always been curious about Trump pardoning himself.  He hasn't got any charges against him, so how does he know what to pardon himself for?

"Any and all crimes committed or alleged to have been committed prior to the date of this pardon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2020 at 5:03 PM, Kao-Lin said:

How much did the Marc Rich pardon hurt Democrats, all told?

(IMO, zero).

I don't think it hurts the political party, but it does effect the public's perception of the outgoing president, IMO.   I didn't have a lot of respect for Clinton, and I lost some more when he pardoned Rich.   Likewise, I didn't have a lot of respect for W, but I gained some when he stiff armed Cheney over the Scooter Libbey pardon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/23/2020 at 1:31 PM, Max Power said:

I can understand being skeptical that she has anything. I just don't understand those who are outright dismissing anything she could bring.

Election integrity should concern us all. 

How about her integrity?????

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1333789738373767172?s=20

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • knowledge dropper changed the title to TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...