The 2020 Election trump v. Biden

[ryoder 1,590]

11 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Well I was wrong about trump. I recently said that he will be writing pardons after the election. Stone is free.

I was wondering why Stone got a commutation instead of a pardon. And here it is:

It is interesting that Trump did not pardon Stone, but rather commuted his sentence. A presidential pardon takes away a person’s right to stay silent in court under the right established by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to self-incriminate. It does so because there is no need to worry about conviction: you've been pardoned. A commutation does not take away that right, so Stone now cannot be compelled to testify.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/posts/2344837658993620

[Phil1111 1,149]

9 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I was wondering why Stone got a commutation instead of a pardon. And here it is:

It is interesting that Trump did not pardon Stone, but rather commuted his sentence. A presidential pardon takes away a person’s right to stay silent in court under the right established by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to self-incriminate. It does so because there is no need to worry about conviction: you've been pardoned. A commutation does not take away that right, so Stone now cannot be compelled to testify.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/posts/2344837658993620

Perhaps this whole discussion is better in the Banana Republic thread? His lying and failure to testify make him pretty much a useless witness. Kinda like his former boss.

Even after this latest outrage of corruption his GOP, rue of law enablers of trump. Continue to worship the false profit, or is it prophet. Screw the law line your pockets the end is coming.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Phil1111

[yoink 321]

ANY self respecting politician should be disgusted with Trumps perversion of the justice system. 
 

If he loses in Nov I’m half expecting him to try and preemptively pardon himself from all wrongdoing.  

[kallend 2,027]

There is a new comet in the sky.

In the past comets were usually considered bad omens for kings or noble and powerful men.

[gowlerk 2,192]

7 minutes ago, kallend said:

There is a new comet in the sky.

In the past comets were usually considered bad omens for kings or noble and powerful men.

Don't they bring pestilence and disease to the land?

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Don't they bring pestilence and disease to the land?

Don't forget greed, sloth and gluttony.

[headoverheels 333]

 

[Phil1111 1,149]

5 hours ago, headoverheels said:

 

The Lincoln Project should run Biden's video advertising campaign.

[kallend 2,027]

Trump bragged that he aced his cognitive ability test.  Impressive!

It's a standard test given to older people (for example when signing up for Medicare).

Spell "world" backwards.

Draw a clock face.

What is today's date?

Remember these three words* for 5 minutes.

* examples being "table", "window", "book".

 

What a genius!

[billvon 2,991]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

Trump bragged that he aced his cognitive ability test.  Impressive!

 

That's nothing.  The other day he successfully picked up a glass of water - with one hand!

[ryoder 1,590]

How a "stable genius" wears a mask:

 

[JoeWeber 2,720]

On 7/8/2020 at 9:45 AM, Coreece said:

My objection was to dekker's opinion that the right leaning population was anti-science, not that liberals are more receptive to several subsets of science.  And there are plenty of liberal anti-vaxers and those into homeopathy - doesn't mean liberals are anti-science.

And aside from climate change and stem cell research, how would a typical person's receptiveness to the other three areas really matter to society as a whole?  And of the conservative/liberals that are receptive, how many are just blindly following without ever studying or truly understanding it?  How many couldn't understand it even if they tried?

One of the issues imo is that science is ever changing and modifying itself the more we learn, so of course there is going to be opposition to long term policy especially if it's in stark opposition to one's social/political/economic ideology.

Did you mean to say if it's in stark opposition to one's social/political/economic and religious ideology? Science is not ever changing. Only the results of science change when based on new evidence. To claim otherwise is to scapegoat the scientific method to avoid confronting the unscientific method supporting one's own held beliefs.

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by JoeWeber

[Coreece 190]

2 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

On 7/8/2020 at 9:45 AM, Coreece said:

My objection was to dekker's opinion that the right leaning population was anti-science, not that liberals are more receptive to several subsets of science.  And there are plenty of liberal anti-vaxers and those into homeopathy - doesn't mean liberals are anti-science.

And aside from climate change and stem cell research, how would a typical person's receptiveness to the other three areas really matter to society as a whole?  And of the conservative/liberals that are receptive, how many are just blindly following without ever studying or truly understanding it?  How many couldn't understand it even if they tried?

One of the issues imo is that science is ever changing and modifying itself the more we learn, so of course there is going to be opposition to long term policy especially if it's in stark opposition to one's social/political/economic ideology.

Did you mean to say if it's in stark opposition to one's social/political/economic and religious ideology? Science is not ever changing. Only the results of science that change based on new evidence. To claim otherwise is to scapegoat the scientific method to avoid confronting the unscientific method supporting one's own held beliefs.

I'm not going argue too much about it.  Science has it's place, but I will say that it is not the end all be all.  Science has limitations and cannot be applied to all facets of life and the decisions therein.  We are not automatons, nor should we be.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I'm not going argue too much about it.  Science has it's place, but I will say that it is not the end all be all.  Science has limitations and cannot be applied to all facets of life and the decisions therein.  We are not automatons, nor should we be.

Of course it can be applied to all facets of life and the decisions therein. But then so can yoga and ear candling. Now you might not hear what you want to hear when the results are in but someone might. For example, Cern just confirmed the existence of a new hadron, the tetraquark. Apparently it is composed of 4, count them 4, Charm quarks. And there are two each of Charm quarks and anti quarks. There is also a fifth something which we'll call a goober. No matter, no pun intended, but that's science. I'm not adjusting my schedule tomorrow as a consequence but if you think science is four parts goober and one part charm, and not the other way around, then you might take a second look.

[headoverheels 333]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

... if you think science is four parts goober and one part charm, and not the other way around, then you might take a second look.

That's Speaker's Corner, not science.

 

[kallend 2,027]

Biden leads in TEXAS.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/07/12/joe-biden-builds-lead-over-donald-trump-in-reliably-red-texas-as-voters-sour-on-handling-of-virus/

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

Biden leads in TEXAS.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2020/07/12/joe-biden-builds-lead-over-donald-trump-in-reliably-red-texas-as-voters-sour-on-handling-of-virus/

Yeah, 265k total cases, over 8k new yesterday. 3200 dead, 80 more yesterday.

 Maybe they are starting to realize that it's not 'just going to go away'. 
And that the responsibility for the magnitude of the disaster can be laid directly at Trump's door.

[airdvr 210]

Starting to wonder if propping up Biden isn't actually a plan to get the first woman POTUS when his brain collapses.

[normiss 800]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Starting to wonder if propping up Biden isn't actually a plan to get the first woman POTUS when his brain collapses.

It appears electing Biden is actually the best plan to replace the current collapsed and impeached brain.

Trump: As an example, we’ve done 45 million tests. If we did half that number, you’d have half the cases, probably around that number. If we did another half of that, you’d have half the numbers. Everyone would be saying we’re doing well on cases

[airdvr 210]

On 7/11/2020 at 10:11 AM, yoink said:

ANY self respecting politician should be disgusted with Trumps perversion of the justice system. 

You really should take a look at the pardons and commutations of all former presidents before bloviating about Trump.

 

[jakee 1,489]

23 minutes ago, airdvr said:

You really should take a look at the pardons and commutations of all former presidents before bloviating about Trump.

Ok, you go. Who was pardoned by previous presidents for illegal actions they undertook in direct personal service to that president, while continuing to cover up for that president? Not even Nixon was crass enough to pardon the Watergate conspirators who went down for him. 

 

(It's increasingly my belief that if you could show Nixon how Trump responded to the Mueller inquiry and Ukraine scandal then zap him back to 1972 he'd have survived his second term intact. Trump took stonewalling to a whole new level even from him.)

[airdvr 210]

Hehe...who did Clinton pardon for cocaine crimes?  We can go tit-for-tat on this one.  Your turn.

[jakee 1,489]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Hehe...who did Clinton pardon for cocaine crimes?  We can go tit-for-tat on this one.

Um, clearly you can't. There's no suggestion that Bill was involved in Roger's cocaine business or the Roger was covering up for him in exchange for a pardon.

 

Honestly I thought my question was pretty clear, but if you let me know which bit you don't understand I'll try and explain more clearly.

[airdvr 210]

2 minutes ago, jakee said:

Um, clearly you can't. There's no suggestion that Bill was involved in Roger's cocaine business or the Roger was covering up for him in exchange for a pardon.

 

Honestly I thought my question was pretty clear, but if you let me know which bit you don't understand I'll try and explain more clearly.

Yet you believe Bill's pardon of him was not a "perversion of the justice system".

[billvon 2,991]

25 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Quote

Who was pardoned by previous presidents for illegal actions they undertook in direct personal service to that president, while continuing to cover up for that president? 

Hehe...who did Clinton pardon for cocaine crimes?  We can go tit-for-tat on this one.  Your turn.

So we will take that as a "I can't come up with anyone."