CYCLINGFORUM.COM - Where Cyclists Talk Tech --- Return To Home

 

    Register FAQ'sSearchProfileLog In / Log Out

 

****

cyclingforum.com ****

HOMECLUBS | SPONSORS | FEATURESPHOTO GALLERYTTF DONORS | SHOP FOR GEAR

Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
          View posts since last visit

Pardon me?
 Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Author Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield

8/21/17 5:12 PM

Pretty cool seeing Darth Vader in the cockpit, eh?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Tom Price
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 505
Location: Rochester, NY

8/26/17 3:59 PM

Yesterday President Pussy Grabber started testing his powers to pardon. It will be interesting to see how he uses the power in the future. He loves to break unwritten rules.

https://youtu.be/4sZupyqXrcI

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

8/26/17 4:39 PM

"to see how he uses the power"

'Ab'-uses more likely. Not just making a dig either. He is like a child that keeps finding a new foot/toe/penis etc.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6884
Location: Maine

8/28/17 12:53 PM

Tell us what you really think, Jen!

Twitter post from Jennifer Detlefsen, daughter of Secretary of the Interior Zinke, in response to Pres Trump's transgender ban:

"This man is a disgrace. I've tried to keep politics out of my social media feed as much as possible, but this is inexcusable. This veteran says sit down and shut the fuck up, you know-nothing, never-served piece of shit. #itmfa #wtf"

 Reply to topic    

PLee
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 3712
Location: Brooklyn, NY

8/29/17 9:56 AM

I hear so many pundits trying to figure out the strategy behind 45's actions. When it comes down to it, I prefer the simple, obvious, answer:

Paraphrasing - "The reason why he says and does terrible things is because he's a terrible person."

 Reply to topic    

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield

8/29/17 3:59 PM

He is an absolute genius, or idiot savant, or something, or possessed

The Arpaio pardon epoxied his base. With two years remaining he will have a 30% nugget, and it will be concentrated in rural states. With 1/3 unbreakable he needs less than 1/3 of the remaining votes.

The Kris Kobach voter suppression drive is in full swing.

The way things are going North Korea will wag the dog.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Craig
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 591

8/29/17 7:10 PM

Question from a Canadian:

Curious to know if the Republican Party can eject Trump from his seat of power even with a "basket of deplorables. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it" supporting him without any conditions. Like on the other side, when it would seem Bernie Sanders had the "common person's" vote for the Democratic party right up to the end when the Super Pack votes put Clinton in power. Is it enough for Trump to have the hard core support of the KKK et al for him to keep the leadership? Or can the GOP revoke his membership card and force him to run as an independent?

It would seem Paul Ryan is already on the campaign trail for party leadership. And McConnell and Tillerson are no longer Supporting Trump. The only ones who seem to be in his corner within the party are Christie (because no one else will have him) Giuliani, (same reason as Christie) and Pence (because he wants to be second in line for when it becomes first in line) (though can a President replace his VP?) I guess I could ask Google all these questions too...

Apparently a pardon comes with an admission of guilt so by pardoning Arpaio, he is admitting he did all he was charged with and accepting responsibility, save for the penalty portion of it.

I'm having a hard time with how easily the Trump propaganda machine works, how easily his base accepts what he says as the truth. When Trump says Arpaio was treated poorly by Obama the base believes it but Arpaio was convicted while Trump was in office. Though I guess there are many sides, many sides to Trump's truths.

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

8/29/17 7:43 PM

"Apparently a pardon comes with an admission of guilt so by pardoning Arpaio, he is admitting he did all he was charged with and accepting responsibility, save for the penalty portion of it. "

But how does this effect his civil liability then? I am guessing there are a lot of suites filed on the civil level.

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield

8/29/17 9:14 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong

Can the Republican Party can eject Trump from his seat of power?
--They can nominate anyone, place them on the ballot. Leading up to the election the rules are loose, it's party politics in a framework. Once he's in office, the actual seat of power, real legal statutes apply and he's out of reach of the party.

Your assessment of the Democrat's party politicking is accurate. The Republicans have the same freedom.

Just because he is President he is not guaranteed a place on any ballot but it is difficult to imagine his not being on the ballot if he is in office. President Johnson in 1968 did not run and that's the only time I can think of since the Great Depression that a sitting President did not run. But it was his choice, political parties usually don't abandon someone seeking reelection to any office. They all have great egos, Johnson included, but he was a pragmatist, a quality the current President has not demonstrated.

The "hard core support" is a convincing argument to put him on the ballot. He motivates them to actually vote, something that proved beyond Clinton's ability. If he is not on the ballot it's unlikely they will turn out in the same numbers for any other GOP candidate.

(GOP: Grand Old Party, a nickname for the Republican party used by everyone without irony.)

Ryan/Leadership: See, this is where things get muddled. Ryan is officially a leader, the Speaker of one of the legislative bodies, the House of Representatives. But there are also party leaders who only have power in the political parties, the loose framework mentioned above. But it's not unusual for the Speaker to also officially lead the party. But then there's the President and he is always the De-facto leader of the party because he is President. But the President never gets the "leadership" title because it is a real job and he's too busy. There's no law against it, it's just impractical.

McConnell is Majority Leader of the other legislative body, the Senate. FYI, the House writes tax bills, the Senate writes spending bills. They split all kinds of power. I'm not going to project whether McConnell will be pro-Trump in the future, he is a political chameleon.

Strictly speaking, Rex Tillerson had better-by-damn be pro-Trump. He is a member of the Presidential Cabinet, the head of international relations. Everyone up to this point in this reply was elected, to the House, to the Senate, President, even party positions: all elected in some way. Secretary of State Tillerson was appointed by Trump, approved by the Senate, but never the less hand-picked by the President. That said, I understand why you wrote "...no longer supporting..." It's very complex, and complicated.

Can a President replace his VP? A VP can resign or be impeached, but I don't think a VP can be fired before his term is up, I don't know. Roosevelt in the Great Depression and WW-II was elected with four different VP's, IIRC. During the election the Pres and VP candidates are elected together, one ticket. Some states have separate tickets for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, that's why I mention it like that.

Pardon, pardon, pardon, there are lawyers in Cyclingforum who know this topic professionally, theoretically. ;^) What Trump did was a real mess. I say he did it for pure epoxy-the-base politics. Literally, news of the pardon inspired the notion of 'epoxy' for me. To his base that action was nicotine laced crack smoked in a vodka pipe, a huge rush. To most everyone else it was, nicotenelacedcracksmokedinavodkapipe, i.e. stupid, dangerous and addictive.

An interesting point about pardoning people is they become both immune from prosecution and compelled to testify. So pardoning is very dangerous. --So I hear--

"...having a hard time with how easily the propaganda machine works..." Yes, it is truly dumbfounding. However it has precedent: Mussolini and Hitler for instance. But this Trump guy, he literally says everything. His hypocrisy is his greatest weakness. His spokespeople have run out of responses. The news media is onto the scam. Even most of Fox news wants consistency. RT for goodness sake is calling him on some things (transparently, but still.)

Sparky: Civil liability? The two O.J. Simpson cases sum it up for me:
He was not guilty for their murders. (criminal)
He was responsible for their deaths. (civil)

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

Craig
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Posts: 591

8/29/17 11:07 PM

Thank you for saving me hours on Google. Good information.

I had forgotten about the "compelled to testify" clause in any pardon. Probably doesn't affect Arpaio much, but I remember reading about that when it was postulated Trump would pardon his kids in regards to Russia, but then his kids would have to testify against Trump during an impeachment.

Reminds me of the old proverb/curse, "may you live in interesting times." [/i]

 Reply to topic    

Sparky
Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 19068
Location: PDX

8/29/17 11:26 PM

"kids would have to testify against Trump"

I see some serious perjury potential. If they bust the 'compelled to testify' is that a breach and nullify the pardon?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

daddy-o
Joined: 12 Apr 2004
Posts: 3307
Location: Springfield

8/30/17 4:48 AM

"If they bust the 'compelled to testify' is that a breach and nullify the pardon?"

Hopefully I've saved the JDs on the forum some time and they can weigh in with the authority of membership in the bar, because at this point I'm on the roof with a bed sheet painted "Help, Send A Lawyer!"

BTW, I left out the punch line to the joke:
What's the difference between guilty and responsible?

 Reply to topic     Send e-mail

dan emery
Joined: 11 Jan 2004
Posts: 6884
Location: Maine

8/30/17 12:29 PM

Since Daddy wants to hear from a JD

I don't know sh*t about Presidential pardons. The following is strictly ATMO.

I suspect that by "compelled to testify" you mean that the person pardoned loses the right to take the 5th (at least regarding the subject matter of the pardon). You can't incriminate yourself for something for which you've already been pardoned.

If they nonetheless refused to testify in a criminal proceeding, I don't think it would nullify the pardon, but might subject them to liability for contempt of court or something similar (like a reporter sent to jail for refusing to divulge his sources). I don't know what the liability would be for refusing to testify in an impeachment trial, which is a world of its own. I'm guessing subpoenas could be issued which could be enforced through the court system.

The difference between criminal guilt and civil liability is largely in the required standard of proof. Criminal liability must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" where civil liability generally requires something like "preponderance of the evidence" which more or less means "more likely than not."

 Reply to topic    


Return to CyclingForum Home Page CYCLING TECH TALK FORUM
           View New Threads Since My Last Visit VIEW THREADS SINCE MY LAST VISIT
           Start a New Thread

 Display posts from previous:   


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  
Last Thread | Next Thread  >  

  
  

 


If you enjoy this site, please consider pledging your support

cyclingforum.com - where cyclists talk tech
Cycling TTF Rides Throughout The World

Cyclingforum is powered by SYNCRONICITY.NET in Denver, Colorado -

Powered by phpBB: Copyright 2006 phpBB Group | Custom phpCF Template by Syncronicity