The policy and politics of Trumpism

  • HELLO AGAIN, Guest! We are back, live! We're still doing some troubleshooting and maintenance to fix a few remaining issues but everything looks stable now (except front page which we're working on over next day or two)

    Thanks for your patience and support! MUCH appreciated! --Brett (BamaNation)

    if you see any problems - please post them in the Troubleshooting board!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bipartisan report. Remember who controls the senate and therefore controls, in essence, the report.


Quote:

A bipartisan Senate report released Tuesday affirms the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a far-ranging influence campaign approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin and aimed at helping Donald Trump win the White House.

The report rejects Trump’s claims that the intelligence community was biased against him when it concluded that Russia had interfered on his behalf in the election. It says instead that intelligence officials had specific information that Russia preferred Trump in the election, that it sought to denigrate Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and that Putin had “approved and directed aspects” of the Kremlin’s influence campaign.

Senators warned that the interference could happen again this presidential election year.
 
Bipartisan report. Remember who controls the senate and therefore controls, in essence, the report.


Quote:

A bipartisan Senate report released Tuesday affirms the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a far-ranging influence campaign approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin and aimed at helping Donald Trump win the White House.

The report rejects Trump’s claims that the intelligence community was biased against him when it concluded that Russia had interfered on his behalf in the election. It says instead that intelligence officials had specific information that Russia preferred Trump in the election, that it sought to denigrate Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and that Putin had “approved and directed aspects” of the Kremlin’s influence campaign.

Senators warned that the interference could happen again this presidential election year.
Until/unless the GOP admits that Trump was either involved, or knew of it and supported it, then this won't swing a single vote.

Trumpers are gonna trump. The GOP is going to pretend that Trump knew nothing about it.
 
Bipartisan report. Remember who controls the senate and therefore controls, in essence, the report.


Quote:

A bipartisan Senate report released Tuesday affirms the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election in a far-ranging influence campaign approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin and aimed at helping Donald Trump win the White House.

The report rejects Trump’s claims that the intelligence community was biased against him when it concluded that Russia had interfered on his behalf in the election. It says instead that intelligence officials had specific information that Russia preferred Trump in the election, that it sought to denigrate Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton and that Putin had “approved and directed aspects” of the Kremlin’s influence campaign.

Senators warned that the interference could happen again this presidential election year.
Independent UK
 

If Iran has flying boat technology we may not want to mess with them.

Its like he is doing a "Top 40 Idiot Supporter Pandering Stunts" replay. Kim Jong Un being sick really makes it tough for him to try and play the strong man. Granted he did say he got a very nice letter from him that NK is saying they never wrote.

Speaking of that, how much of a depraved idiot do you have to be to invent an imaginary pen pal relationship with a dictator. Of all the world leaders he picks KJU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seebell and B1GTide
The Important First Amendment Principle Now at Risk

No matter how many times Bud Abbott explained Who really was on first, Lou Costello never managed to get it. Costello would be right at home on today’s Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That rogue court has had four chances to apply a foundational First Amendment precedent, and has bobbled it each time. That mistake, in a case called Mckesson v. Doe, poses a threat to both freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

The Supreme Court has before it a petition to review the lower court’s Mckesson decision. Groups as diverse as the NAACP, the Rutherford Institute, and the Institute for Free Speech have filed amicus briefs on behalf of DeRay Mckesson, the civil-rights organizer threatened with financial ruin by the case. (Thus far, no one has filed a defense of the lower court’s decision—not even the plaintiff.) The right course would be a summary reversal. No briefs, no oral argument—a one-line, unsigned order entering judgment for Mckesson. Most important, no remand: The Fifth Circuit cannot be trusted with this case anymore.

More evidence that Trump's greatest threat is to the judiciary...
 
Apparently, Donald Trump and Tim Brando share the same twitter philosophy.

 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: 92tide and B1GTide
A law school friend and classmate, Pat Higginbotham is a senior justice on the 5th CCA. I haven't talked to him in years, but I may try to see if I can get him to go off record with me...

I just scanned his Wikipedia article. He was on the short list for SCOTUS after Bork (Lloyd Bentsen was pushing him) and was originally named to the bench by Ford to take the seat of the woman who swore in LBJ.

It didn’t go into much detail about his political leanings. I just found those two tidbits interesting. He was also on the tennis team at Alabama and finished college and law school in five years. Must be a pretty bright guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: seebell
I just scanned his Wikipedia article. He was on the short list for SCOTUS after Bork (Lloyd Bentsen was pushing him) and was originally named to the bench by Ford to take the seat of the woman who swore in LBJ.

It didn’t go into much detail about his political leanings. I just found those two tidbits interesting. He was also on the tennis team at Alabama and finished college and law school in five years. Must be a pretty bright guy.
"Brilliant" is a better word. He was also the captain of the tennis team. I actually thought he was several years older but he's exactly one year, sharing a birthday. He had an "aw shucks" personality/mannerisms. You'd never suspect his brains...
 
  • Like
Reactions: seebell
A law school friend and classmate, Pat Higginbotham is a senior justice on the 5th CCA. I haven't talked to him in years, but I may try to see if I can get him to go off record with me...

Read the article. The author, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, is no fan of conservatism or the 5th CCA.

That said, if he did present all the relevant facts, I'd agree that the 1982 precedent was reasonable, though I would expand liability of organizers a bit beyond personal incitation of violence, to include if they (1) scheduled speakers that they knew or should have known would incite violence, or (2) didn't know, but allowed speakers to continue to speak after inciting violence.

Generally, though, absent inciting violence, organizers shouldn't be personally liable for damages caused by bad actors, operating on their own.
 
Read the article. The author, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore, is no fan of conservatism or the 5th CCA.

That said, if he did present all the relevant facts, I'd agree that the 1982 precedent was reasonable, though I would expand liability of organizers a bit beyond personal incitation of violence, to include if they (1) scheduled speakers that they knew or should have known would incite violence, or (2) didn't know, but allowed speakers to continue to speak after inciting violence.

Generally, though, absent inciting violence, organizers shouldn't be personally liable for damages caused by bad actors, operating on their own.
The problem is predictability. Recently, at a peace rally in Huntsville's Big Spring Park, a pro-Trump demonstrator showed up parading back and forth with a sign, pulling a handgun out and brandishing it. He was arrested, but, if he had shot someone instead, should the organizer of the rally be liable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: seebell
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement

Trending content

Latest threads