Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 6054 Location: My own little piece of reality
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 7:59 pm Post subject:
eddiejonze wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Quote:
Natalie Andrews @nataliewsj
NEW: Sen. Feinstein loses the support of abortion rights group NARAL, says the top Dem on Judiciary "offered an appearance of credibility to the proceedings that is wildly out of step with the American people. As such, we believe the committee needs new leadership."
The freakin' state of California needs a new senator.
Schiff is the one I'm hoping for!
Schiff can fill Kamala's spot once she is VP. We need him there ASAP.
I think Feinstein's term is up in 2024, just about when Katie Porter should be ready for the senate. _________________ “There is always light if only we're brave enough to see it, if only we're brave enough to be it.” --Amanda Gorman
Joined: 19 Nov 2001 Posts: 17659 Location: Orlando
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:25 pm Post subject:
Wilt wrote:
trmiv wrote:
XTC wrote:
Quote:
Kelly O'Donnell
@KellyO
·
1h
Trump in Georgia on risk of losing: "I'm gonna say, I lost to the worst candidate in the history of politicsI'm not gonna feel so good. Maybe I'll have to leave the country. I don't know."
Well, yeah he may try to flee because he’ll probably be facing jailtime.
It’s cute that he thinks he’d be allowed to leave, or that he wouldn’t be extradited. First there’s no way US Intelligence and the Secret Service is letting a former president flee the country and risk him being picked up by a hostile nation and interrogated. Second if he somehow did leave, I don’t think there’s a country outside of maybe North Korea that wouldn’t extradite him when he’s facing charges here.
He can easily leave between November 3 and January 20 under the pretense of signing some agreement or whatever. No one would stop him.
Russia would not extradite him.
I think he may try, but it won’t happen. Despite what he thinks US Intelligence isn’t stupid, and they would know exactly what he would be up to. Especially after he literally said the quiet part out loud. I don’t there’s a chance of him being allowed to to be possibly interrogated by an enemy nation.
If the President of the United States wants to leave the country while in office, intelligence can't stop him. Under what authority would they stop him? _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Well that’s (bleep) cool. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 19 Nov 2001 Posts: 17659 Location: Orlando
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:58 pm Post subject:
Wilt wrote:
Intelligence has known this for four years.
If the President of the United States wants to leave the country while in office, intelligence can't stop him. Under what authority would they stop him?
Like he’s going to walk off a plane by himself? It’s not like he’s going to just hop on a commercial flight or charter a private plane and then disappear. If he ordered Air Force One to take him somewhere he’s going with a full secret service detail. Even if he did leave he would followed by secret service and the CIA. Once he ceases being the president on Inauguration Day, they could pick him up immediately. I just don’t see a US President being allowed to just flee to a foreign country.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:58 pm Post subject:
Wilt wrote:
Intelligence has known this for four years.
If the President of the United States wants to leave the country while in office, intelligence can't stop him. Under what authority would they stop him?
Interesting. You’ve been the saying that the military etc. would be the ones to stop Trump from effectively stealing the election. But now you say they’d have no authority to stop him leaving the country as a lame duck president? _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
If the President of the United States wants to leave the country while in office, intelligence can't stop him. Under what authority would they stop him?
Like he’s going to walk off a plane by himself? It’s not like he’s going to just hop on a commercial flight or charter a private plane and then disappear. If he ordered Air Force One to take him somewhere he’s going with a full secret service detail. Even if he did leave he would followed by secret service and the CIA. Once he ceases being the president on Inauguration Day, they could pick him up immediately. I just don’t see a US President being allowed to just flee to a foreign country.
Yes, but not from Russia. I don't think we even have an extradition treaty with them. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
If the President of the United States wants to leave the country while in office, intelligence can't stop him. Under what authority would they stop him?
Interesting. You’ve been the saying that the military etc. would be the ones to stop Trump from effectively stealing the election. But now you say they’d have no authority to stop him leaving the country as a lame duck president?
Leaving the country as president, even under false pretenses, is different than stealing an election and a coup.
I certainly hope the military would somehow prevent him from stealing it (not sure what mechanism that would entail, but even some Republicans like Sasse are starting to distance themselves from him in case he loses), but I'm quite sure the tens of millions of people will ultimately prevent it. Those that have waited 11 hours to vote won't let him. And those of us who had a far easier time voting (in my case, I literally drove to a library and dropped off my ballot without even leaving my car) would also prevent it. _________________ ¡Hala Madrid!
Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Posts: 19865 Location: Prarie & Manchester, high above the western sideline
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:56 pm Post subject:
phayze one wrote:
I was sadly ignorant about how much of my fellow Filipinos are pro-Trump. My dad has fully bought into it, some aunts/uncles in the bay area, and a couple cousins here in LA have as well. Luckily my mom hasn't nor have my siblings. I have seen some of my high school friends (Filipinos) share posts from Trump surrogates, though it's hard to say if they're all in or they just don't know any better.
Can confirm. My mom's side of our family is ultra-catholic conservative. They don't buy into the more toxic aspects of conservative politics, but they like tough on crime, they like Reaganomics, they like bootstrap culture, they dismiss any social critique post-1960. They fancy themselves the higher class of Filipinos because they're college educated and are more Spanish than indigenous. They don't care so much who the candidate is or to hear about his faults...they'll always roll R for the reasons stated above.
More niche minority support for Trump that I've observed from within my social circles:
The majority of Indian-Americans vote blue, and those who don't gravitated to Trump because they perceive him as friendly to their ethno-nationalist anti-Muslim fight in the motherland. That, plus anti-black racism, a common thread for mercantile Asian immigrants. They also hate taxes. Here's a TV spot on Indian channels made by a Florida business owner
Coptic Christian Arabs, specifically Egyptians, see themselves as a persecuted group, and their religious leaders lament genocide in Egypt at the hands of its Islamic majority. They hold Obama/Hillary responsible for the Arab Spring. There is misogyny and homophobia that pervades this community and doesn't get talked about. They consider themselves Caucasian and also see post-1960 critical theory as a threat to traditional Christian family values.
here's a video of a Vietnamese Americans rally for Trump that just happened in San Diego
I was sadly ignorant about how much of my fellow Filipinos are pro-Trump. My dad has fully bought into it, some aunts/uncles in the bay area, and a couple cousins here in LA have as well. Luckily my mom hasn't nor have my siblings. I have seen some of my high school friends (Filipinos) share posts from Trump surrogates, though it's hard to say if they're all in or they just don't know any better.
Can confirm. My mom's side of our family is ultra-catholic conservative. They don't buy into the more toxic aspects of conservative politics, but they like tough on crime, they like Reaganomics, they like bootstrap culture, they dismiss any social critique post-1960. They fancy themselves the higher class of Filipinos because they're college educated and are more Spanish than indigenous. They don't care so much who the candidate is or to hear about his faults...they'll always roll R for the reasons stated above.
More niche minority support for Trump that I've observed from within my social circles:
The majority of Indian-Americans vote blue, and those who don't gravitated to Trump because they perceive him as friendly to their ethno-nationalist anti-Muslim fight in the motherland. That, plus anti-black racism, a common thread for mercantile Asian immigrants. They also hate taxes. Here's a TV spot on Indian channels made by a Florida business owner
Coptic Christian Arabs, specifically Egyptians, see themselves as a persecuted group, and their religious leaders lament genocide in Egypt at the hands of its Islamic majority. They hold Obama/Hillary responsible for the Arab Spring. There is misogyny and homophobia that pervades this community and doesn't get talked about. They consider themselves Caucasian and also see post-1960 critical theory as a threat to traditional Christian family values.
here's a video of a Vietnamese Americans rally for Trump that just happened in San Diego
I was sadly ignorant about how much of my fellow Filipinos are pro-Trump. My dad has fully bought into it, some aunts/uncles in the bay area, and a couple cousins here in LA have as well. Luckily my mom hasn't nor have my siblings. I have seen some of my high school friends (Filipinos) share posts from Trump surrogates, though it's hard to say if they're all in or they just don't know any better.
Can confirm. My mom's side of our family is ultra-catholic conservative. They don't buy into the more toxic aspects of conservative politics, but they like tough on crime, they like Reaganomics, they like bootstrap culture, they dismiss any social critique post-1960. They fancy themselves the higher class of Filipinos because they're college educated and are more Spanish than indigenous. They don't care so much who the candidate is or to hear about his faults...they'll always roll R for the reasons stated above.
More niche minority support for Trump that I've observed from within my social circles:
The majority of Indian-Americans vote blue, and those who don't gravitated to Trump because they perceive him as friendly to their ethno-nationalist anti-Muslim fight in the motherland. That, plus anti-black racism, a common thread for mercantile Asian immigrants. They also hate taxes. Here's a TV spot on Indian channels made by a Florida business owner
Coptic Christian Arabs, specifically Egyptians, see themselves as a persecuted group, and their religious leaders lament genocide in Egypt at the hands of its Islamic majority. They hold Obama/Hillary responsible for the Arab Spring. There is misogyny and homophobia that pervades this community and doesn't get talked about. They consider themselves Caucasian and also see post-1960 critical theory as a threat to traditional Christian family values.
here's a video of a Vietnamese Americans rally for Trump that just happened in San Diego
Being religious is already halfway to being susceptible to being conned, by anything or anyone. _________________ “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52657 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:11 am Post subject:
Nice, but it's time for these Republicans to put their name on it.
43 Alumni for Biden - "Team 46" _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Not until he’s been charged, Bob. But once Trump is charged, a judge CAN order him to surrender his passport, restrict his travel or . . . order him into pretrial detention if a judge concludes by clear and convincing evidence that he’s a flight risk.
Quote:
Bob Skylstad @BobSkylstad
Can the NY State AG order the President not to flee the Country when he loses the election since there are active investigations into criminal behavior?
"After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties.”
"After a 19-year old pregnant prison inmate was repeatedly raped by a prison guard, Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the county responsible for the prison could not be held liable because the sexual assaults fell outside of the guard's official duties.”
That's pretty bad, and a unanimous 3 judge panel decision.
I couldnt find a quick link to the actual decision. That decision may depend on a few things, including whether the attorney proceeded with the correct theory.
One article said they were provided training materials by the Prison (suggesting the prison was "reasonable"). But thats not the end of the inquiry in my mind.
Of note, another site says in a separate case that:
Quote:
In a similar case this year, however, Barrett joined a majority of the full Seventh Circuit Court to find that Wisconsin's Polk County was liable in a case where a jail guard sexually assaulted five women hundreds of times.
I'd be curious as to what factual differences, if any, made Barrett choose one decision over the other or whether the victim's attorney just messed up in how they presented the case, or some other issue altogether.
1. "Her only surviving claims against County at trial were her claim for indemnification under § 895.46" [possibly suggesting there were other claims her attorney could have successfully brought but for some reason did not]
2. " Martin did not introduce any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude the sexual assaults were of the same or similar kind of conduct as that which County employed Thicklen to perform." [suggesting perhaps the Plaintiff attorney could have done a better job in producing more evidence to fit the parameters the court was looking for]
3. Seemed to me a strained decision, they kept suggesting the acts performed didnt benefit county or were really were in scope of employment, but that missed the mark to me since he was doing this under the cloud of authority provided by the County, inside their building, and was mixed with him doing things that an inmate would believe were serving the County [e.g. taking her to see an attorney, etc.]. It provides no incentive for a county / jail to better ensure these types of things dont occur.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:38 pm Post subject:
Basically, she ruled that in the one case the county distributed materials that said you couldn’t have sex with the inmates, and in the other they did not. And since they did in the one case, it wasn’t on them that an individual decided to use his authority and rape a woman multiple times. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:47 pm Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
Basically, she ruled that in the one case the county distributed materials that said you couldn’t have sex with the inmates, and in the other they did not. And since they did in the one case, it wasn’t on them that an individual decided to use his authority and rape a woman multiple times.
Under California law, that would be per se liability. However, that is because California law protects employees. Thats not the same in every state which, at worse, offers no more protection than Federal law might. In other words, this may be a complaint of how the laws are written more than her specific decision. I'd have to look into it more though to be sure. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90307 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:53 pm Post subject:
It seemed her argument was that if they adopted a minimal amount of training to tell the employees not to rape their charges, then they crossed her bar of doing enough not to be liable. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum