2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:15 am

As I understand it Muller says Trump did seek Russian help but not in illegal way, though his son and others (but not Sessions) were on thin ice and 10 possible attempts to obstruct justice repeatedly so wants Congress to investigate? Trump refused to speak to inquiry at all or even written answers on some questions and Trump sacked people who refused to comply with obstruction orders?
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 16867
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:07 pm

Dong Zhou wrote:As I understand it Muller says Trump did seek Russian help but not in illegal way, though his son and others (but not Sessions) were on thin ice and 10 possible attempts to obstruct justice repeatedly so wants Congress to investigate? Trump refused to speak to inquiry at all or even written answers on some questions and Trump sacked people who refused to comply with obstruction orders?

Trump is corrupt but not enough to prosecute. (Literally the definition of politician :lol: )

The 10 possible attempts of obstruction were identified and investigated by Mueller. He concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to determine if any of them were a crime, but there is enough evidence to be suspicious; so he’s just presenting what he’s found and letting Congress decide to act or not. (Which I assume the Dems will, because they’re desperate to validate their two-year-long narrative at this point.)

From what I’ve read from legal commentators, it’s nearly pointless to charge him with obstruction because it won’t survive the court process, since there was no crime to obstruct. Even if it’s determined Trump definitely tried to meddle with the investigation, the court will ask what did he prevent from happening, and the answer is nothing.

As for Trump’s non-participation, I think that’s due to him distrusting the investigators; that they would nitpick or misrepresent his words in order to get whatever it is they wanted. Whether that’s paranoia or valid, I’m unsure.

I want to say I’m happy this is all over but I think we’ve got another 2 years of this $%*@.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:26 am

Jia Nanfeng wrote:
Dong Zhou wrote:As I understand it Muller says Trump did seek Russian help but not in illegal way, though his son and others (but not Sessions) were on thin ice and 10 possible attempts to obstruct justice repeatedly so wants Congress to investigate? Trump refused to speak to inquiry at all or even written answers on some questions and Trump sacked people who refused to comply with obstruction orders?

Trump is corrupt but not enough to prosecute.


This is probably true, or least not enough has yet come to light. The headlines are looking for President Trump (and important title, because were he Mr. Trump an indictment may have already been sought people forget prosecutors are way if a sitting president can be indicted) but the substance of the report is not glowing at all.

The 10 possible attempts of obstruction were identified and investigated by Mueller. He concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to determine if any of them were a crime, but there is enough evidence to be suspicious; so he’s just presenting what he’s found and letting Congress decide to act or not. (Which I assume the Dems will, because they’re desperate to validate their two-year-long narrative at this point.)


Desperate is a partisan way to describe it. Hungry is also a way to describe it likely in same manner as they are not on shaky footing. The obstruction of justice charge requires establishing a burden of proof. As Mueller makes clear in his report " “A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” And in fact there is a lot of evidence, and Congress (not tied by the burden the criminal prosecutor is) can and should investigate those facts (especially those redacted).

From what I’ve read from legal commentators, it’s nearly pointless to charge him with obstruction because it won’t survive the court process, since there was no crime to obstruct. Even if it’s determined Trump definitely tried to meddle with the investigation, the court will ask what did he prevent from happening, and the answer is nothing.


I'm not sure what legal commentators you pay attention to, but many legal commentators are certainly speaking of the possibility of the report being a roadmap for later prosecutions by other US attorney generals. The experts I've read have near unanimous consensus that, although this report falls short of asking for an indictment, it presents disturbing evidence and patterns of behavior that will certainly be looked into.

In fact, my favorite part of the report so far is that while it paints a picture of him definitely trying to hinder the investigation " “largely because the persons who surrounded the president declined to carry out orders and accede to his requests.” Got to love the defense of a president not obstructing justice not because he didn't intend to, but those whom he controls refusing or ignoring his orders. Awesome.

As for Trump’s non-participation, I think that’s due to him distrusting the investigators; that they would nitpick or misrepresent his words in order to get whatever it is they wanted. Whether that’s paranoia or valid, I’m unsure.


From the sounds of it he didn't just distrust the investigators, he distrusted the process. Admirable trait of the sitting head of the executive branch. That said, if even a fraction of the narrative that is out there concerning how he's acted and how he's treated those around him If I was his counsel I'd advise him not to talk too.

I want to say I’m happy this is all over but I think we’ve got another 2 years of this $%*@.


I'm sad that we're at a part in our history where this is where we are, but I'm also proud that we (currently at least) have the necessary judicial and congressional functions to investigate wrongdoing of any citizen. Two years, ten years the work needs to be done (Trump could be open to such prosecution after his term(s) as president end).
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4377
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:26 am

Does Trump still believe vaccinations lead to autism given he is now telling people to get something he irresponsibly told them was dangerous?
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 16867
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Sun Fin » Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:00 pm

I honestly doubt he ever believed that, he was just playing to his voters.
Have a question about a book or academic article before you buy it? Maybe I have it!
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Vicar Factory

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Sat Apr 27, 2019 1:39 pm

I think Trump did believe it at one time, but it appears he’s changed his belief.

As for pandering to voters, that’s unlikely since antivax folk land mostly on the left in America. The only right leaning group I can think of that are antivax are some sects of Orthodox Jews. At one time the Republican Party had several antivax folk (Michele Bachmann was rather outspoken) but this issue seems to have switched sides.

We need a law on the books that no longer makes this an issue, tbh.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:40 pm

Whether he believed or not, he could make some redemption by making an address to the nation rather then five seconds here or there going measles is bad. Use his former quotes and talk of how he has learnt, how the autism claim is bunk and the doctor who claimed it is a monster, how not vaccines is hurting others and the children themselves. I would quite like religious leaders to make a stand to try to use their offices to influence, make clear that failing to vaccinate is a major sin (or equivalent of) and that they are cut off from religious sacraments if they fail to ensure child is vaccinated.

We need a law on the books that no longer makes this an issue, tbh.


I think everyone needs to ensure free and easy access (I would say England is good at that, less so on donations) to the vaccines, get the word out and make it an automatic sacking in public service not to take vaccine without medical reason (NHS staff did not take last flu vaccine in sufficient numbers which was not helpful).

In terms of making it law, I can see why governments do not, once you make such a choice then under forced medicine could start coming in and go down a dark path, there scandal when someone who can't take vaccine loses children or is arrested, getting the punishments right, the fear of touching religious freedom. I do think something needs to be done to force the matter though
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 16867
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Sun Fin » Sun Apr 28, 2019 4:37 pm

Dong Zhou wrote: I would quite like religious leaders to make a stand to try to use their offices to influence, make clear that failing to vaccinate is a major sin (or equivalent of) and that they are cut off from religious sacraments if they fail to ensure child is vaccinated.


I wouldn't go that far. As a training "religious leader" I would be happy to vocalise the debunking of bad science, and make it clear that our denomination doesn't accept the anti-vax arguments but I wouldn't be willing to describe it as a sin and definitely don't view it as a church discipline (withdrawing of sacraments) issue.
Have a question about a book or academic article before you buy it? Maybe I have it!
Check out my library here for a list of Chinese history resources I have on hand!
User avatar
Sun Fin
Librarian of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 7715
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: Vicar Factory

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:42 pm

Jia Nanfeng wrote:
We need a law on the books that no longer makes this an issue, tbh.


We agree on this, but the courts are probably never going to allow it.


Dong Zhou wrote:Whether he believed or not, he could make some redemption by making an address to the nation rather then five seconds here or there going measles is bad. Use his former quotes and talk of how he has learnt, how the autism claim is bunk and the doctor who claimed it is a monster, how not vaccines is hurting others and the children themselves.


I'm trying to imagine a demogogue like Trump doing this. :lol: [/quote]

I would quite like religious leaders to make a stand to try to use their offices to influence, make clear that failing to vaccinate is a major sin (or equivalent of) and that they are cut off from religious sacraments if they fail to ensure child is vaccinated.


Preach.

Sun Fin wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. As a training "religious leader" I would be happy to vocalise the debunking of bad science, and make it clear that our denomination doesn't accept the anti-vax arguments but I wouldn't be willing to describe it as a sin and definitely don't view it as a church discipline (withdrawing of sacraments) issue.


I'm happy to know as a training non-secular leader you are pleased to advocate on the debunking of bad science, we need that. But why not describe it as a sin? If Christian ideology proscribes killing why not describe the intentional infection of others as such?
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4377
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Dong Zhou » Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:41 am

Sun Fin wrote:
Dong Zhou wrote: I would quite like religious leaders to make a stand to try to use their offices to influence, make clear that failing to vaccinate is a major sin (or equivalent of) and that they are cut off from religious sacraments if they fail to ensure child is vaccinated.


I wouldn't go that far. As a training "religious leader" I would be happy to vocalise the debunking of bad science, and make it clear that our denomination doesn't accept the anti-vax arguments but I wouldn't be willing to describe it as a sin and definitely don't view it as a church discipline (withdrawing of sacraments) issue.


Is not harming others, when you had every chance to avoid doing so, a sin? Potentially killing or life long harm for another when you had every chance to prevent it but chose to destroy lives not a sin?

People use religion as a reason, that is why I want churches to take the step. Of course, first step should be information and help, some may well not vaccinate simply due to laziness and complacency so a good proverbial kick up the backside like threaten to excommunicate may well move those people to act, some will have failed due to ignorance and giving correct information will help.

If after being given help and correct information, they still refuse to vaccinate then they have chosen to deliberately harm people. There is room for redemption of course, when they vaccinate and whatever the version of confession is as first step back, but till then why allow those that cause deliberate harm to take the sacraments?
User avatar
Dong Zhou
A-Dou
A-Dou
 
Posts: 16867
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:32 pm
Location: "Now we must die. May Your Majesty maintain yourself"

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved