Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "CNN"
channel.
-
318
-
106
-
100
-
54
-
39
-
36
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
26
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I’ve worked on plenty of low budget pictures that involved simulated gunfire. I’ve never been on location in New Mexico, so I don’t know what they do there.
I’ve never seen anyone involved in the recreational activity of plinking, either during the working day or after the day was wrapped. Even on the most modestly budgeted movie, the armorer kept weapons and the prop ammunition under lock and key until they were needed on set. When a set up was complete, the actors immediately turned the guns (whether real or non-firing) over to the armorer, even if they would be used in the next set up.
This is obviously for safety, but it’s even more basic than that. If we were talking about any other prop, you would never allow an actor or crew member to leave the set with it. Imagine a crew member wandering off with a prop book because he or she was bored between takes! It would never be permitted! The idea of crew (other than prop master or property assistants) taking ANY prop off the set is ridiculous, and I really have to wonder about the professionalism of that crew in New Mexico—and the producers who hired them.
The prop master, the armorer, and the ADs (not just Hall) were not doing their jobs if they allowed this behavior anywhere near the set. The boredom of downtime is not an excuse, nor is it a satisfying explanation.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@timcotterill3952 It didn’t used to be like this. It might sound like a fairy tale, but once upon a time, the GOP was the party of ideas. And the truth is, some of those ideas worked. Some only worked up to a point, and some didn’t work at all. The party was guided by principles, but could use those principles to adapt to constantly changing conditions. (And I’ll admit, sometimes conservative principles were misapplied.) There was also a foundation that conservative Republicans shared with liberal Democrats, the bedrock of American democracy and respect for its institutions.
If that sounds weird, it’s because the modern GOP is 180° from where it was. Contrary to what many believe, the cause wasn’t Trump. Trump is a cancer, but the GOP had become fertile ground for such a cancerous polyp long before Trump won the party nomination in 2016. The GOP began changing course (imho) when Newt Gingrich became ascendant. To be frank, Gingrich laid down a red carpet for fascism to enter the GOP.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@cdani9972 You make a good point. Cippollone took the oath to uphold the Constitution, and part of that duty is to protect the principle of Executive Privilege. Even if a court has ruled that there is probable cause to pierce that shield, a WhiteHouse Counsel’s duty is to maintain as much of that privilege as he can on any matters outside the investigation. The committee investigators will have to ask very specific questions with regard to matters directly involving Trump, counsel he gave Trump, and things that Trump asked or told him. They probably can’t ask, for example, for him to go through any particular day and what he did and who did he talk to on that day. They’ll have to ask specifically, “Did you have a meeting with so-and-so?”
So I don’t think this is a fishing expedition. I think the committee has a good idea of what questions to ask, and how to ask them. I don’t think he’s a hostile witness, just a witness that isn’t free to volunteer information or answer certain questions. He is constitutionally constrained. In fact, I think the committee has been trying to portray him sympathetically (so as not to alienate him?).
Here is what I think we will get: More on the day of January 6th and the part he played in keeping Trump from going to the Capitol. More on the pardons and his interactions with Kushner. Interactions with Mark Meadows. The attempt to replace Rosen with a new AG. (I’m not sure how much info he can divulge on Meadows and Kushner, given his constitutional constraints.)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Two separate thoughts come to mind. One is that there are billionaires who recognize the absurdity of the taxes they pay, and are favor of increasing taxes for their level of wealth. I recall Warren Buffet pointing out that he pays less in taxes than his Secretary.
The second is that ANYONE who has become rich from the tech sector did so because of early government support during the Cold War. All the early startups received funding, contracts, and research grants, and these strategic subsidies continued for several succeeding generations of startups. We’re talking about the development of integrated circuits, shrinking transistors, telecommunication networks (including the internet), all on the government dime in whole or in part.
Besides the pre-existing infrastructure Musk needs for his current businesses, his entire fortune (mostly from eBay) wouldn’t have been possible without government supporting the early tech startups during the Cold War (and indeed up to this day, although to a lesser extent).
Like many other leaders in business and politics, Musk demonstrates a selfish childishness that seems only interested in taking while denying any responsibility to give. People like him want to suck all the milk from society’s teat, leaving none for the rest of society. Any value he has as an engineer or innovative mind is diminished by his narcissistic impulses.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@netizen_m3919 I think this is on the nose. Even emails can be subpoenaed (and I seem to remember a bit of a brouhaha over a certain Secretary of State doing an end run by using a private email server). In certain cases, official phone calls (for example, between the President and another world leader) get officially recorded, but any phone call can be recorded on either end. (Which doesn’t even get into clandestine intercepts.)
Additionally, top officials memorialize conversations—they take notes during and just after conversations with the President and other top officials to keep a record of the conversations. Comey’s last conversation with Trump is an example.
Most of this stuff is protected by executive privilege, depending on the nature of the conversation. Under extraordinary circumstances, congressional subpoenas can pierce this privilege. Also, executive privilege doesn’t protect the information from succeeding presidents or their administrations. If communications provide documentation of presidential crimes, there’s a good chance they’ll come to light, sooner or later.
A President and his team can adapt to these conditions in two ways (or two and a half, as I’ll explain). One is to keep everything above board and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. One point five is “legal findings”, in which the White House Counsel formulates a legal justification for certain actions. And two is the President and his advisers can behave like the mob, like a criminal organization evading the keeping of records of their crimes or trying to hide such records. Both Bush and Obama engaged in 1.5 type dealings—we can debate the ethics and morals of this method another time. I think Trump has a type 2 mindset, and everyone inside knew it. Some would make recordings and keep their own records to cover their asses or even to document malfeasance.
3
-
3
-
2
-
I’m going to say one thing and then explain why Trump and his administration are the exception.
We have a proud tradition in the U.S. of peaceful transition of power when one party leaves the White House and the rival party assumes the presidency. This includes the tradition of the succeeding President not going after the previous president as a political enemy. The Obama administration didn’t persecute Bush. Bush didn’t go after Clinton, and Clinton didn’t go after Bush Sr.
Trump violated this tradition, making all sorts of false claims about the Obama administration and ordering the supposedly neutral Department of Justice to investigate. When those investigations revealed nothing, Trump persisted in claiming Obama engaged in criminal acts (without specifying or providing any evidence whatsoever).
On top of this, Trump and his henchmen have engaged in egregious corruption and violations of the law *that we know about*, with much more suspected, but not yet proven, because Trump has violated common practice of transparency.
So the question is, should we return to precedent or should the Trump administration be held accountable for its corruption, its criminal acts, and its breaking of legal and political norms? The answer is that Trump and his minions have acted so egregiously, with such malice, and have done so much damage that they MUST be held accountable. To not hold them accountable is to encourage criminality. We must prosecute the most powerful who abuse that power as warning to other crooks. Only then, after these criminals and grifters have been made to face consequences, can we return to the precedent of peaceful transition. It’s a delusion to think Trump will peacefully hand over the presidency anyway.
I suggest a concurrent investigation that would include criminal investigations and a public truth commission to root out both criminal actors and those that might be shielded from the law, but who directed unlawful acts. We generally can’t retroactively criminalize acts done legally, even if those acts were done with malice and intent to damage the country. But we can hold them up to the light of truth and the moral scorn of public opinion. Meanwhile, those that actually broke the law must feel the full weight of the Justice system.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Aboertmann This election gave me a better opinion of Bernie Sanders than 2016 did. He really went to battle for Biden. He did it enthusiastically.
I’ll be honest with you: I’m right-of-center, what used to be called conservative before that word got twisted. Normally, I would not support Sanders on progressive policy (which I assume, you do support). Take medical care, as an example. We’ve done things the conservative way for years and it didn’t work. ACA sort of worked, but was impeded by the GOP. I don’t know if adding a public option to ACA would be better than M4A or the other way around, but I’m willing to listen.
The point is, because we’ve joined together to battle the anti-democratic forces of Trumpism/GOP fascism, we owe it to each other to hear one another out and to keep an open mind. Even with Trump on his way out the door, the battle is far from over. Let’s keep fighting together in Georgia, in 2022, 2024, and beyond.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@suomynona4607 It’s still the best legal argument Trump has in his defense. The legality or constitutionality –is–arguable. One can make the argument that Congress is overstepping its bounds. But Trump would rather use this impeachment trial to promote his lie that the election was stolen from him. Because he knows he controls enough members of the jury and because he can use the impeachment to scam more money from his dopey followers.
There’s a couple of reasons why it was important that Trump’s legal team make the unconstitutionality argument the center of his strategy, one reason being that it provides senators political cover to acquit. However, the main reason is that if he’s convicted by the Senate (which isn’t impossible), he can later challenge the the conviction if he runs again.
Can you imagine how that goes? In 2023 or 2024, he decides to run. Who enforces the conviction penalties and prevents his name from going on state ballots? Do primary opponents have to take him to court? Does the Democratic Nominee do it? That’s when the constitutionality defense comes into play, and a counter to that defense is, Why didn’t you use that defense at the time of your trial?
Ultimately, the decision to allow or disallow Trump from running would be decided in the Supreme Court, because whatever lower courts decide, it will be appealed until it gets to the Supreme Court. And they will determine if it’s allowed by the Constitution. And Trump doesn’t automatically have the SCOTUS conservative votes on his side.
Anyway, that’s my non-lawyer analysis. Trump arguing the un-, non-, or extra-Constitutionality is his best long term bet, and it helps Republican Senators. But he would rather scam his followers of their money in the short term.
I’m not saying you’re wrong to argue with blake schramm, but that the thing you’re arguing apparently has been taken off the table in favor of the “stolen election” argument. But I could be wrong about this.
It’s an odd case. Trump could make both arguments. Unlike a trial in a court of law, he could have two different teams of lawyers to make both arguments. At the end of the day, I don’t understand Trump’s strategy here, other than he wants to fundraise off of the impeachment—which he could do anyway. Is this not about any of the above, but about rallying the troops for another coup attempt?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1) Going forward, getting a college education is going to require self discipline on the part of students. Sadly, the whole college party lifestyle will need to go away, be postponed, or needs to be heavily modified.
2) Colleges and universities that want to have physically attended classes should probably be operating as closed environments, cordoned off from the surrounding communities. If students live on campus, they should stay on campus. Faculty and admin will have to find a way to live on campus, or otherwise quarantine themselves from the surrounding community in some other way.
3) If a university or college doesn’t have the resources to isolate the school community from the surrounding community, they should stick to online learning.
This might sound extreme, but if education is important and not just 4 years of leisure prior to adulthood, it can be done and should be done. There are many students that would willingly sacrifice the “college lifestyle” to get a college education. It’s a matter of priorities. Those less serious about learning should find something else to do and somewhere else to go.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@castielysia Thank you. We are Americans that love our country and love democracy. We’ve put country over party. Unsurprisingly, we are hounded out of the GOP as “RINOs” or worse, traitors. This has been going on for a while, before Trump, but it’s gotten much worse under his leadership.
When you come down to it, both liberals and conservatives* love our Constitutional form of democracy, warts and all. Each side’s political principles rest on the foundation of democracy: equal treatment under the law and the vote. Conservatives have more in common with liberals than they do with the fascists, authoritarians, and white supremacists that have usurped the name “conservative”. In the end, we are friends and allies, and the false conservatives are the enemy, are the anti democracy fanatics that seek to destroy our country.
We are out there, even if we are few. Some of us left the GOP a decade or more ago, when the trend towards authoritarianism was gaining unstoppable momentum, when we realized that the weed of racism wasn’t so easy to pull out, but had taken over the garden.
*I define conservatives as people who hold conservative principles, and who do not sell those principles for temporary political power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That’s not actually true. The Ukrainians need to hold together, maintain cohesion, as they get battered, while they batter back. They can absorb more losses than the Russians can, if it’s necessary. Russia is already scraping the barrel for available troops and equipment. And it’s not getting much resupply help from its supposed allies, who have their own problems. Putin can still declare war, which would allow for greater mobilization, but also could hurt him domestically. The Kremlin sold this as a very limited operation, and they sold it hard. Doing an about face now is tantamount to admitting failure and to admitting they were lying. That’s would be harder to sell, even if the Russian public is brainwashed.
But either way, there is a limit to the pain Russia can take. The threshold for the Ukrainians is much higher, if it comes to that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brunxcardster I feel sorry for you. Not just because of your ignorance of geo-politics and economics, but both your current and future economic situation. Your pay is worthless. Your savings are worthless, if you can even access it. Your banks are shutting down, your food will run out (you will soon be paying 120 rubles for a potato on the black market). You’re under economic siege, and it’s self imposed. Russia only needs to leave Ukraine and the damage will stop. Oh, well, your gas prices remain low. Maybe you will learn to eat and drink petrochemicals.
Your “friends” will have difficulty propping you up. The support will slow to a trickle, and most of that trickle will go to the oligarchs, not the Russian people. Not to you. Truthfully, the Chinese are already pissed. This invasion is already messing with their plans to expand their own influence. Xi himself is angry with Russia and Putin, and help from him will be minimal. And what help he does give will not be free.
Venezuela is a joke. Maduro is only a threat to his own people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1