Liz Cheney removed from her position

[MrPotatoTed]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I would call the police. But lawyers would inevitably become involved, and if the police acted inappropriately in arresting the robber, he might get off on a technicality, and the police might be disciplined. In the analog here, the police, if you will, acted with utter impunity, and decided the sentences of the suspects without a court, and ignored allegations of their own misconduct by fiat. This is what I am trying to point out, that you WILL NOT see!

Ok.  I think we've lost the analogy here, but that's fine.  I'll give you a more direct opportunity to point it out.  What crime was committed, and who committed it?

I think somewhere along the way people somehow landed on the idea that I don't believe in rules or laws, especially during a time of war.  That, of course, is not true.  The perpetrators of the abuse at Abu Ghraib, for example, were brought to justice -- and rightfully so.  

But the idea that we're going to ask lawyers for the right to defend ourselves after we are clearly and literally under attack, or that we're going to arrest and convict Presidents for declaring wars that we don't enjoy (especially 20 years after the fact) is so ridiculous that it will thankfully never be taken seriously by those in leadership roles.

Edited May 14, 2021 by MrPotatoTed

[MrPotatoTed]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

The Patriot Act was a violation of U.S. Constitutionals law that was NOT necessarily, as written, ONLY applicable to know "terrorist groups," (the "official" list of which is highly politicized and unreliable, anyways, because the CIA, MI6, GRU, Mossad, etc., are NOT on it, despite their activities and modus operandi matching the description to a T, and neither are Reagan and Kissinger's pet terrorist group, like UNITA, RENAMO, and the Contras, the latter of which Reagan even committed high treason to fund when Congress refused), but could be used to violate anyone's due process rights by just saying, "suspected act of terrorism," at the time the crime is committed, with few limits on burden of proof. This tool of tyranny waiting to be picked up again has NOT yet been repealed. Also, the Abu Ghraib incident was brought to justice, but Guantanamo Bay and the "Black Sites," and the sick animals conducting torture there, were not, and, in fact, seem to have enabled, authorized, and even ordered, by Dick Cheney.

And, as I've said several times, upending due process, and even vital parts of Constitutional law, because of wars and national emergencies, have been the meat and drink of the rise of tyrants and despots in many other countries. And do not delude yourself to think that some intrinsic or magical quality of the United States, as a nation, makes it inherent immune to that happening.

This also brings out a major point I've brought up a lot - the singular powers in the office of the U.S. President are far too great, and should be trimmed and many delegated to other offices and bureaus. The ability of a U.S. President to have the singular power to abuse the Constitution and laws of the U.S., be undisputed and uncountered commander of the Armed Forces, able to override Congress and ignore generals in wartime situations, conduct decisions and meetings of IMMENSE import to the nation in utter secrecy, to have a terrorist group and four secret police agencies answering only to them, to be the senior diplomat for all foreign issues, and the sick social and cultural cult and fetishism built around the office are a clear and present danger to the future of the Republic and the Constitution, and all that the United States, as a nation, was built upon. The office is far too powerful, and relies too much on the competence and leadership of one person, which, by nature, is always tragically lacking. It needs to be trimmed and many of it's duties delegated.

The Patriot Act was written and voted on by, mostly, lawyers.  This is terrible support for the idea that checking in with lawyers is our pathway to prosperity and peace.  

Most of the rest of what you propose here would involve actually CHANGING the Constitution, which is also terrible support for the idea that the constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land".  

[pilight]

57 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

If somebody broke into your home, with the intent to harm you, would you call the police?

Or would you call your lawyer?

Judging by his response to 9/11, George W Bush would break in to the intruder's neighbor's houses.

[MrPotatoTed]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

@MrPotatoTedHere's a good quote for you about the judgement of the Bush legacy (though this one was specifically made about the 1980's Argentinian Military Junta, the wording is still appropriate):

"Not to judge and condemn the crimes would be to encourage impunity and to become, somehow, its accomplice."

-Jorge Luis Borges (big-time author in Argentina)

Cool! Thanks!

[Hestia]

Just shows how deep the GOP has sunk. Easy to see Never-Trumpers have lost in the GOP for the next 4 years at least. But, who knows really for how long? Maybe twenty, thirty years? Sad to see.

[Hestia]

Just now, Patine said:

Again, if American voters had more than two, "viable," choices of party...

Well, we don't. 😘

[Cenzonico]

And we never will...

[Pringles]

I'm Uncle Sam and I WANT YOU to FIGHT AGAINST THE DUOPOLY.