[US_Politics] Y'know, I think that this really is a legitimate information-security concern ...
 

Unfortunately, "The Executive has a perfectly legitimate(!!) concern here.

In spite of "all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment," he now realizes that 100% percent of his "confidential (sic ...)" exchanges, both with Mexico and with Australia, were in fact word-for-word public.

So, "does the POTUS(?!?!), in fact, actually possess an expectation of privacy with regard to his supposedly-highest-level(!) communications?" Quite understandably, and with apparently very-good reason given the present circumstances, "the POTUS concludes that he does not."

... and, likewise quite-understandably, "the POTUS does not Accept this." :mad:

(And, neither would your boss. Fact is, "your a*s would be grass.")

And "this just in, from the same source," which I would like to be considered together . . .
... but then, the man goes on ... and, waitaminit, perhaps we should actually start listening to him ...

And then ... (I'm not making this stuff up, folks!)

Gentlebeings, I think we need to pause and digest all of this, in a way that "the popular American press" does not seem too keen for us to do.

I mean, "this President truly is ... different!"

That is why the media controlled by the NSA/CIA is out to get him. The US policy of detente is bad for those inside the government that thrive on every single crisis and war, and if there isn't one, they'll make one if they have to. Right now we just have mainly the democrats behind all this pushing things anyway they can, I am sure though when republicans jump on board, Trump might be doomed and it will be a return to business as usual.

I think this is now relevant here too:

"what happens when I'm dealing with the problem of North Korea?" This has already happened -where privileged info was spread out all over the party table, with waiters and others milling around, taking videos and pictures. So much for the integrity of Trumps' intentions.

And shining 'smart' phone lights on the tables and documents. Flashlight apps have been notorious for turning on the mic and camera and streaming audio and video to remote sites.

Oh well. I guess no situation is so egregious and illegal that it can't be poke fun of:

http://www.theonion.com/article/mar-...ious-cab-55311

You know, I can't look beneath the cover-word, ##CLASSIFIED##, but I do know that the amount of money spent on nuclear missiles and nuclear submarines and paying people to sit there "holding that football" and having their hands inches away from the proverbial trigger. Don't those people ever get bored doing that sort of thing? Or, does the thought of being able to vaporize the planet make them feel important instead of impotent?

I don't think we're going to go back to "business as usual" anytime soon. This guy is no push-over (unlike many of his recent predecessors). You don't become a billionaire without a very keen knowledge of human nature, money, and power ... something that "a professional politician" really does not have. A politician makes his living by manipulating other people. A businessman, at least in his direct dealings, seeks to profit other people and, along the way, of course himself as well. If you succeed at doing it ... if you fabulously succeed in doing it ... then you "bring something to the table of pure politics" that hasn't been there before.

"Get along with" Russia? Unthinkable! Or, is it?

I find it rather interesting that Whitehouse.Gov is publishing transcripts of press conferences in their entirety. You can hear the loaded questions being asked. You can hear the reporter trying to steer the response into (Dirty Laundry) "gimme something we can use." Whereas the original source office is publishing the entirety of the source material. A very original idea that is also "very Internet." Simply encouraging the press to stop being "yellow journalism" is also a good thing to be saying in a calm voice from the podium.

If there's anything that I could say about people's present feelings, both in the USA and outside of it, it would be that people want their leadership to think – and to act - differently, and to put their interests and those of their country first in all negotiations and "deals." That is how "real, mutually-beneficial trade" is done.

Relevant here too:

RT - Trump on Russia: Getting along is great, sinking their ship is not

-edit

Just wow, you will never see a seasoned politician say anything like this at all. CIA/NSA and the MSM must be livid.

H.A. Goodman - DNC DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ WANTS TRUMP RUSSIA PROBE: DWS Accuses Trump of Russian Collusion

Ain't that rich? This dumb broad (yea I'm going to refer to Schultz that way and I make no apologies - and actually I could have used a different adjective) - wants a probe - how about we also probe the DNC itself? Pot calling the kettle black much? :rolleyes:

-edit

Also this:

H.A. Goodman - TRUMP AND SPY AGENCIES GO NUCLEAR: CIA Might Be Hiding Intelligence From Trump

H.A. Goodman - NEW CLINTON EMAIL SCANDAL: Clinton IT Staffer Bryan Pagliano Facing Grand Jury Charges

-edit

I do hope he flips and puts Clinton under the bus :D

Is this the Donald Trump fan club or something? I'm trying to cut this man some slack, even though I dislike him, because I believe in democracy and I understand the mood of the people who put him in power. And, to give him credit, he did start out by immediately trying to put into practice the policies he was elected for. I've never seen a head of government do that before either in America or over here. But he's floundering badly now.

The trouble with trying a completely new approach to being president, is that a lot of the new untried ways of doing things don't actually work. I'm not talking about policy now, I'm talking about administration, about how you actually get things done. Trump's methods are chaotic. His appointees either can't get acceptance or resign within weeks. He's got more holes in his leading team than Jeremy Corbyn! He can't get his policies past the US courts. And the worst of it is he can't see it. He thinks he is running a "well-oiled machine".

Frankly I don't like thinking about the nuclear codes being in the hands of a man who lives his whole life in an alternative reality full of alternative facts, because you and I are going to be stuck with this reality.

Then why don't we find a way to get rid of those damned "nuclear codes?" That was a Cold War thing that never should have been done in the first place (Hiroshima plus Nagasaki in a bread-box), and I don't think we actually need to keep it. It is a relic, and a dangerous one, to have someone constantly following the President around just in case Moscow suddenly launches a thousand ICBM's at us and (as humanity's last official act) the USA launches their thousand ICBM's back. Which is all of what "the nuclear football" is all about.

How much p-u-b-l-i-c ... m-o-n-e-y are we wasting on that? And, what do we get in return?

"Think Different.™"

As for having a President who has "a new approach to being President?" Who (according to the press, anyway) "tries a bunch of things that don't work?" Frankly, I think that this is precisely what the people of the country wanted, because they are fully aware that what has been done now for the past forty years, hasn't worked, either.

"The Establishment" had the Establishment candidate ready-to-go and was stunned when she didn't win. Tony Blair can't rationalize that the British people actually will abandon their "big trade agreement," either.

The American Press can't stand the thought that Donald Trump might possibly succeed, and that he might transform the Presidency in doing so. Until now, they totally controlled the popular discourse – the public's view of the President and of the Presidency. Likewise there are forces in Washington, DC who feel threatened because they've been ripping off the American taxpayer (or simply, increasing government debt by millions of dollars a minute), and, until now, everybody's been just playing along.

However, if they would just stop and think about things and start actually trying (go ahead ... try ...) to work with the man, he might actually succeed in doing things that "everyone said couldn't be done." Simply because he's saying it.

Old war hawks – (emphasis, o-l-d) – like John McCain fear him most, because they have amassed their political fortunes by "feeding the pig." The thought of a President using words like "get along with Russia" or "talk to <Anyone>" is unthinkable.

But, whose side are these people really on? Certainly not the country's.

Seems so. Bye now.

No, but it's time for people to come to grips with: "This is the President you've got!"

Frankly, what I get very tired of is: "Trumpadumping.™" The endless howling of people who still cannot accept who won the election, and who, instead of giving this man so much as an inch, are fixated(!) on either kicking him out of office ... or worse. :eek:

Like it or not, you are on the same team, and this man is your Chief Executive Officer. He was put there with a popular mandate to change a lot of things, and by the way he is extremely popular, except in the press's polls. It doesn't look good to be singularly fighting against a boss that you refuse to accept.

Meanwhile, are you paying close attention to what the Congress is doing right now ... doing, no matter what color shirt they choose to wear? Well, maybe you should, because "distracting the public" is the first step in some really awful magic tricks.

Quite frankly this Trump bashing is having the opposite affect in my opinion - the media still refuses to realise it and the DNC quite honestly is a hopeless cause. I am watching them very closely, and if they still insist on the same failed strategy and sticking with corporate democrats, then they have no chance.

This is interesting: The DNC Revolt over Ellison that the Corporate Media Won't Cover

Since I am way to young, I wonder if Reagan faced anything like this during his presidency. I do not know, but this is a new era because the legacy media no longer has the monopoly like they did 30 years ago to spin it without any sort of counter analysis - hence why you are seeing this 'fake news' witch hunt that I do not agree with - because I already know that the corporate legacy media will be using that for justifying the suppression of information - effectively censorship.

Well, "speaking of Mr. Reagan," as a contemporary of those times I think that he was really the first President to see the Office as a motion-picture role. The people who made your movie wanted to introduce radical changes to economic principles that had served us well since the Great Depression ended – and, IMHO, to re-introduce many of the principles which caused it. Which they proceeded to do, through and including Clinton's presidency.

There were some amazing "paper successes." (Who can forget "Dot Bomb," when every kid was told that the way to fame and fortune was to dream up something-or-other, attach "dot-com" to the end of it, and then Go Public®?) Massive speculation, the removal of the Glass-Steagall Act, and a little bit of time, and here we are today:

• A public University that I attended as an out-of-state student for $11,000 and change (about $3,000 over the course of four years if you were in-state) for my entire B.S. degree, now says here that next year's tuition for an in-state student will be $4,272 per semester, or $12,331 out-of-state. And that's just for a 12-credit hour load. Now, it takes "120 credit hours" to earn a four-year degree there. So, that's at least a $42,700 or $123,310 piece of vellum in your hands . . . actually far more, since "tuition is only the beginning of the expense." In round numbers, your degree's going to cost you out-the-door about 1.45 times that amount. (Some say, "about 3.5 times.")
• You can't go to the doctor or to the hospital. There is no "public hospital." The hospital exists to make a profit, and the only way you can pay for it is to buy insurance from a separate company who would make more profit if you were dead than if you were cured ... and, as I personally saw with my father and my uncle, is perfectly capable of putting you in the ground to save $850.
• It is far more attractive to purchase labor from half a world away, and to keep them in conditions of indentured servitude for three years, than to hire a citizen if that citizen had a college education – which he can no longer practically afford to do.
• "Pawn shops everywhere." Why lend money at 4% to 6% as a "bank" when you as a "finance company" can fund loan-sharks who get 3,500% interest?
• It's far more profitable to build your next factory "anywhere else but at home."
• ...
• ...
• ... and our present leaders (those who still can't comprehend that their side lost) act completely mystified at the thought that people might want change.

It will not be easy nor quick – this President has rightly said that he "has inherited a mess, a mess that has been with us for a long time," and he's exactly right. But I think that, most of all, people want this "mess" to be dealt with. And they don't want it to be dealt with by conventional thinking that only perpetuated the grievances of the past four decades.

To me, the "Trumpadumpers" are just in denial – not only of a political loss, but of the entire political situation which has been curdling at their hands for all this time. But they're also refusing to be team players, and, to me, that means they have also ceased to be leaders.

Well then he has his work cut out for him, and I imagine he is going to make more and more powerful enemies actually:

H.A. Goodman - TILLERSON FIRES DEEP STATE SHADOW GOVERNMENT AT STATE DEPARTMENT: 7th Floor Experiences Layoffs
H.A. Goodman - WIKILEAKS VAULT 7 WILL EXPOSE CIA DEEP STATE: WikiLeaks Publicizes Deep State Shadow Government

I have a feeling that they are paid protests most likely backed by Soros, and the usual establishment democrat side. If Trump keeps bypassing the legacy media and communicates directly to the population, I think it will be hard if not impossible for him to lose. It would have to be some sort of major scandal or fsck up on his part, and I still yet to see any grounds for impeachment as much as the left would like.

Classic, lol! :D

President Trump is mired within the " SWAMP " that is Washington, D.C. where everything is about backstabbing and dirty tricks!!

But, then again, he made billions of dollars in two other similar swamps: Atlantic City, and New York!

So, maybe part of Washington's beef is that this man actually wasn't born yesterday.

Could it be that a man like this is bearing exactly the elixir that Washington, DC desperately needs to drink? :eek:

Trump labels the news media and his opponents as "dishonest" and "liars", then turns around and says so many things that are verifiably untrue. Reminds me of when, as kids, we used to say, "It takes one to know one!"

(Sigh.) On the one side, we have those who believe that Trump will "Make America Great Again". On the other side, those who feel that Trump stokes hatred, fear, and divisiveness.

Interesting times, for sure. Kick back, relax, and pass the popcorn; the show's only just beginning.

Well, I've rumbled you now, Sundial! You're actually a traditional Democrat, sore and alienated because your party has been taken over by rich metrosexual liberals who are only interested in political correctness and don't understand the Democratic Party's working-class roots. You would have voted for FDR if you'd had the chance. Probably for Sanders too.

It's a nice illustration of my thesis that modern populism doesn't honour the traditional left-right boundary. Whether a particular populist party or politician falls on the left or the right side of that boundary seems to be largely accidental. Because in terms of the old politics, most people would say that Trump aligns with Reagan.

Democrat party, bunch of hypocrits backed by corporate money
 

Of course he is rumbled, and I am too even though I never considered myself a democrat. If you look back and see the abuse Bernie supporters faced, and dig deeper it is clear that those big-heads at the DNC did everything they could to cheat Sanders out of the election. Remember, here you also have groups that try to even deny candidates appearing at debates. Well, sounds a bit fishy to me then.

I also keep pointing out that the DNC is still on the same path, and refusing any criticism of themselves citing that it is 'too divisive' - yea well the truth hurts but that is what they need.

I guess though what is most amusing is the sheer fact how much money was thrown at Trump, and they just lost badly not only they lost they were humiliated and rightfully so. Personally though I do not see any use in sticking with this party if I were a democrat, again I would bee looking into the 'Justice Democrats' - though again I think the nomenclature is rather cheesy but oh well. I hope they are successful and taking over the party. Also a note - it wasn't taken over by rich metrosexual liberals, but effectively taken over by corporate donors. This is why you see the party skirt around the issue of not taking any corporate money - which is another thing the Justice Democrats have pledged not to do.

Also again about Sanders, I feel bad for the guy because at one end he is ridiculed - but then the very same party that ridicules him asks him about his own email list for help. Pfff! :rolleyes:

And now a slight change of topic - but still relevant:

H.A. Goodman - CIA $600 MILLION CONTRACT WITH WASHINGTON POST OWNER: Julian Assange Tweets CIA WaPo Connection

Article link mentioned by Goodman: https://medium.com/@SarahRRunge/amaz...02e#.7nm638c8k

Mccarthyism 2.0
 

RT - 'MSM hate Trump because he is shaking up status quo' (I am beginning to love RT more and more now :p ) I wonder how much more the MSM can keep this up, until they are just yelling to an empty room. Viewership has already dropped and keeps dropping, and again people are looking towards alternate sources (probably not RT), but they aren't listening to THEM anymore, and man do they hate it :D.

Lionel Nation - Conspiracy Theory: Trump Was the Only One Who Could Beat Hillary and Is Pence’s Stalking Horse

About that: RT - Sophie & Co - Use of tactical nukes would still spell full-blown nuclear war – ex-US Defense Sec

And now back to our 'trustworthy' media - this is also rather interesting:

Though that article is months old now - and I wonder why nobody talked about this either, hrmmmmmm I wonder. :jawa:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...lary-advisors/

Just keeps entertaining us! ;-)
 

Donald Trump last night:

Terror attack? I still don't believe it! :p


I do believe (and agree with) you though, hazel! :D What proof? See quote above! :D:D

Lionel Nation - Trump’s Bloody War Against Mainstream Media Fake Newsers and the Palace Coup That’s Rumbling
Lionel Nation - Mainstream Media Alt-Left Anti-Trump Fake News: Fighting for Their Life Push Lie That Trump’s Insane

As others have said, "if your objective is to 'drain the swamps,'" expect turmoil in the swamps!

The west-coast Federal Court is supremely confident that it will continue to be able to "create law by proclamation," overruling both the President (who is attempting to exercise power granted by Congress), and the Legislature (who sought to grant those powers), and for that matter the judges in all other Circuits, just as they have always done.

They quite calmly and expectantly consider themselves to be the sole arbiters of what the President may or may not do; and of what laws the Congress may or may not enact. Anyone who doesn't like what anyone else is doing must merely pray (file a lawsuit) and these Judges Kings will hand down an(other) edict. And every other part of the United States Government shall do obeisance to these Kings, on bended knee...

"... for surely none of them can do anything about it." Why? "Because the Court said so, that's why!" :eek:

"Uhh, but who gave the Court this authority? Where in the Const..." There is a thunderous explosion of noise. "We are OZ, the Great and the Terrible! Pay no attention to the men sitting on that bench with black robes on!"

Just as Thomas Jefferson(!) foresaw.

Here, for perhaps the first time in about two hundred years, we have a President who is very outspoken(!) in calling such things to question. As, I think, he should be.

"The Swamp™," you see, is much more than corruption in a particular legislator, judge, or government official. It's really about "how the whole damned thing works right now." The US Federal Government, as a whole, has become very, very sick. And part of its sickness is that no one has yet shown a light upon it and started to ask serious questions, such as: "Why?"

For example: the Constitution never said, anywhere, that the Courts (at any level) could declare that a President could not exercise his lawful powers as granted to him by the Legislature, nor that the Courts could overrule, countermand, or in any way alter an act of the Legislature. Nevertheless, "creeping" over time as Jefferson and his contemporaries warned, the Court has done precisely this.

As Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton and many others warned us, in so doing it has surreptitiously usurped the power of both the Executive and the Legislature(s), placing itself alone as the true "law-uttering" monarch privy council of the land.

Then, an Executive comes along and asks a simple question: "Why?"

Does, in fact, the Honorable Court have any authority or any prerogative whatever to do such things?

And, is the Court correct in ruling based on its previous rulings, instead of what the Legislature has done?

The Constitution never says that any judge or justice is appointed "for life." (The judges in your town or county, for example, are routinely re-elected ... by you!) It never said that the President is the one to appoint them. It never said. It never said. It never said. What should we do?

All of these are very valid (and, very old) questions. But they haven't been (re-)asked in a very long time.

Too long, I think.

But it's not that simple. The point at issue is whether what Trump has proposed is lawful under the Constitution. If it is not, then Congress had no right to grant him that power.

As I understand it, the American Constitution forbids any organ of government to discriminate either in favour of or against a particular religious community. Of course your founding fathers never envisaged a time when one particular religion would spawn a form of religious terrorism that would actually threaten the United States. But it has, and now there is no way of stopping these people that will not impact disproportionately on members of their religion compared with followers of other religions (or none). So the President's constitutional duty to protect his people clashes with his equal constitutional duty not to discriminate against people on religious grounds.

This seems to me to be precisely the kind of situation in which judges have to decide what the Constitution mandates here. In the UK, the position could be regularised by Parliament passing a law to say what the government is permitted to do. There have been many occasions in the past when Parliament has passed legislation to correct a judicial ruling that was clearly wrong. Parliament can do this because Parliament is supreme (or was before we joined the EU). But in America, the Constitution is supreme, and Congress cannot overrule it. At least that's how this Englishwoman understands it.

What the US Constitution actually says, in Amendment #1: is ... ... and "that's it!"

The Courts, acting on their self-appointed philosophy of "the shadow of the Constitution," decided ruled that this meant that "no organ of government may discriminate either in favor of or against a particular religious community," as decided entirely by the Courts."

(Notice, in particular, that such matters ... according to the Courts ... are not eligible to be decided by, say, the Congress. Nor even that the Congress is allowed to have any say in the matter.)

Notice also that the Courts are responding – not to the law as supposedly created by Congress – but to "a law unto themselves." Namely, "their prior judicial decisions." A lower court rules, and higher courts rule on the rulings, and the Supreme Court rules on them, and all of this ... this body of judicial decisions ... becomes both "the effective law" and "the determinant of what Congress and the President may henceforth do." Which, of course, is "less and less and less."

Likewise, this "shadow of the Constitution" is free to be interpreted by serve as the basis for a new edict by the Courts ... and by the Courts alone ... with regard to anything and everything, including a national-security prerogative granted to the President by the Congress.

- - -

The problem, in the end, is that "the Constitution simply doesn't say." The entire document is one handwritten page. It has been formally amended only a few dozen times. Its actual role in Government is mostly symbolic, because it ... specifically, its "shadow" ... authorizes The Courts, in their sovereign prerogatives, to rule. Any act or opinion either of the Executive or the Legislature notwithstanding.

You see, even though the Congress authorized the President to have and to exercise sweeping powers, it really only takes a postage-stamped letter mailed by a lawyer to a Court in Washington State to create a new edict. The President cannot act, nor can the Congress issue any legislation whatever, but that the Superior Court Ninth Circuit shall grant imperial license that it be so ... until such time as the Superior Court may change its mind.

For law, in the United States, is not enacted by Congress through legislative process: it is enacted by decree, by the Imperial Courts (of a particular group of States). Likewise, the President has no power whatsoever, except as allowed him by the Imperial Courts.

The United States of America is, in fact, a monarchy, in the old-school sense of the word, ruled by a small handful of men and women in various places who – ruling for life with the Divine Right of Kings™ – hear the supplications of their penitents (anywhere in the nation, and likewise anywhere in the supposed Government thereof), and dictate according to their Sovereign Pleasure.™

- - -

This is obviously not what the framers of this Government intended, and it is very specifically an embodiment of precisely the thing that they feared the most.

Sundial, I wasn't going to reply to this thread at all, but I gotta say that most (if not anyone) I talk to here in OZ thinks your President is a joke!

The court for starters is an INDEPENDENT body, that decided that your president's order is unlawful. Based on your American Constitution, that the court did not write themselves. This is why the court exists, to make a decisions BASED on the law.

Why? Because it's CLEAR to any level minded person that he does not like Muslims and his "travel ban" was AIMED solely at them. And had NOTHING to do with keeping your country safe, and if so, then why has there not been an attack in Sweden, my country, etc for a long time now (at least a year)?

I also find it very interesting that NONE of the country's on that SAME list, where one's he has done business in before!

Your president has been caught out a number of times now, lieing! In the most recent example, making up that very same thing, he accesses the mainstream media for (see my post above, for ONE example)!

And sorry but a FACT is a FACT, NOT alternative fact, NOT "fake news"!

I'm sorry but your president cannot handle any criticism!

If he where running in an election here, I could NOT see him winning (or having a chance of that).

Don't misunderstand me, I DO understand why people voted for him (whether I personally agree with them OR NOT), but a lie IS a lie, full stop!

So that's why Trump believes there has been a terrorist attack in Sweden! You've just solved a riddle that was puzzling many of us.

Well, I'm always happy to help, but, in all honesty you do have some VERY valid points. And thought that you could do with some backup! Like I said before, I DO honesty understand why people are looking for alternatives. But I know, if I was making up story's as I go along, NOBODY would EVER believe anything I had to say! True story. :)

H.A. Goodman - CLINTON BREAKS LOGAN ACT WITH CHINESE AMBASSADOR IN WIKILEAKS PODESTA: Clinton Off Record Meeting

https://counterpropa.com/yes-cash-fl...-uranium-deal/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/44291

-edit

H.A. Goodman - PODESTA, CLINTON CAMPAIGN PUSH FOR FBI TRUMP RUSSIA PROBE: Clinton Staff Forget HRC FBI Email Probe
https://counterpropa.com/yes-cash-fl...-uranium-deal/

It's very interesting to me how many people in Washington are openly jealous of the fact that this man has made thousands more million-dollar bills than any of them did in their careers as Federal employees. :rolleyes:

As I said, this is a very old debate – it pretty much coincides with the adoption of the Constitution – and it goes like this:

1. The Congress deliberated and, exercising its Constitutional powers to control immigration, chose to grant the President broad prerogatives and powers.
2. The President chose to exercise those powers.
3. The Swamp began to boil. Lawsuits were filed, praying The Court for an Edict.
4. A Federal Court in Boston read the law and agreed with the President.
5. "Oops! Wrong coast!"
6. A Federal Court in Washington decided that "those nice people from Yemen are Muslims, and Muslim is a religion, therefore the President shall have no authority to exercise a decision that Congress authorized ... and that Congress could not even authorize such a thing because it might interfere with "the exercise of religion."
7. And the Constitution neither authorizes the Court to do this, nor in any way contemplates that it might. Indeed, both the word and the legal concept, "unconstitutional," does not exist anywhere.

The very-old Constitutional problem, of course, is that the Court is acting in the role of both Legislature and Executive. It is not "interpreting" the law that Congress made: it is setting the whole thing aside and imposing its own will.

There is a lot of material – in The Federalist, in comments made by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James K. Polk and many, many others – which specifically identifies this risk and speaks very openly against it.

It is entirely true that "the Constitution is inadequate." Granted, it was enacted in Philadelphia in a closed room when air-conditioning had not yet been invented. But no one has seriously "labored on it since." We seem to live in its prenumbra . . . whatever that means.

"Absurdity? Now, consider this!"

Herewith I present to you the case of an Alabama man, having been duly convicted of killing his girlfriend's husband more than 35 years ago, who is ... amazingly ... debating the issue of whether it is "constitutional" to execute him by means of a sedative, versus a firing squad.

And, believe it or not, thirty-five years later, the Circuit Court is not only "still debating it," but they have not yet come to a decision! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/21/u...ow-appeal.html

Okay ... okay ... I get it. "You actually can get away with murder," and avail yourself free-of-charge of the hospitality of the State of Alabama, so long as you your lawyers can still manage to come up with ... thirty-five years later(?!?!?) ... nonsense such as the following drivel:
I'm sorry, but ... I must ask ... "why is this judge still on the bench?!"

And ... "by exactly-what legal theory are such fogies able(!) to," not only "tie the hands of the State of Alabama," but, by extension, "tie the hands of both the US Congress and the US President?" :eek:

I assure you: The Russians :eek: (our Cold War Enemy™) the Communist™ Chinese (our Most-Favored Nation™) would not have such "difficulties" in administering the Verdict of Law.

Yes. they surely would have simply, somehow, thirty-five years ago, got it done.

Ironically lethal injection is seen as more humane, just as how the electric chair was seen as more 'humane' when first introduced. Never mind the failures of executions resulting in having to 'ride the lightning'(Metallica reference) multiple times due to improper procedure, or faulty equipment. Same with lethal injection, either due to poorly followed procedure, or most likely the use of expired drugs (there have been cases, google it) resulting in a not so quick death - although that would be seen as a positive to the victim or victim's family witnessing attempt at execution.

Well that is the Supreme Court - which maybe should be different, it is lower courts i.e. the now talked about 9th Circuit that often weighs on decisions for even a decade.

The only problem is that is too extreme - you essentially have a deathsquad of your own - something that Communists would do as well - so in that case you are no different than the monster you claim to be fighting against - but I also realise that is a pure black and white outlook ignoring the very subtleties of grey areas, but I agree the system is being played by the convicted - it might have to be done on either a case-by-case basis to decide unfortunately or the courts have to come up with new rules to safeguard against such actions by death row inmates.

H.A. Goodman - FBI SHADOW GOVERNMENT BLAMED FOR CLINTON LOSING: Podesta Blames Clinton's Loss on Deep State

Yea, so it is the FBI's fault for doing their job and investigating any potential illegal shenanigans by Clinton?

Actually I think the judge made a very good point. The reason why the death penalty, if it exists at all, should be administered in the most humane way possible is not that murderers deserve a good end but that society deserves a clear conscience. After the Nuremberg trials, a professional English hangman was sent for, so that the convicted war criminals could be hanged in the English way (which breaks a man's neck causing instantaneous death). They certainly didn't deserve such mercy. If they had got their deserts, they would have been hanged the same way they had hanged others, in nooses of piano wire that slowly strangled them while at the same time sawing off their heads. But the allies wanted to show the German people how civilised people handle this kind of problem.

The current problems with administering the death penalty in America are due to chemical companies refusing to sell to the states the chemicals which were formerly used for executions. So they are using improvised mixtures which often produce horrendously slow and agonising results. The judge is quite right when she says that this is more than society can or should tolerate. If you're going to have a death penalty at all, some more merciful and civilised way has to be found.

Well Sundial,

The only relation to $$$ what I was saying had to it was, not having the "travel ban" on country's that Trump has done business in before. I'm NOT talking about how jealous people are of his $$$. Personally I would MUCH rather be happy, than have all the $$$ in the world! ;)

As for the court, WHY and HOW would they make a judgement that is not lawful? And more to the point HOW would they get away with it??

There is a reason why Trump did NOT challenge (like he said he would) the court's ruling, regarding his "travel ban". Why? Because he KNEW that he would LOSE!

Let's look at something called reality, your president (Trump) says that the mainstream media, the courts, at least some of the people in Hollywood are ALL against him and/or trying to bring down his administration.

I'm sorry Sundial, but if I'm reasonable for what I DO and SAY well guess what? SO is Trump, full stop, period!

If you would like to believe different, I'm not losing any sleep over it! ;)

BTW. Here's a link for ya to read; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

Welcome to the real world! :)

I know this thread is [US_Politics], but in other countries that don't have the death penalty this would be known as serving a life sentence...

Although 35 years of legal challenges seems pretty ridiculous.

Let me propose that this is not a model that the US should emulate...