Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

You know what, you don't fucking count Bel, you don't live here, and you do not see the U.S. mainstream media, all but Fox blatantly left. This shit was all over the news when Hillary's scandals were coming up again, and they thought she was going to win, but not get the house and or Senate. 

 

Those links took like 5 minutes, of not hard searching to find, but yeah, I'm the one spewing dreck. 

 

But whatever, you lefties going to great lengths to not see the fucking truth is nothing new. 

 

And who the fuck else would be talking about Hillary pardoning herself?   

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

Every single one of these is dated Nov 7, 2016.  Apparently it was a hot topic for all of one day.  No wonder I don't remember it.  Looking at these sources, they are not particularly liberal.   Lets go through them.

 

1.  The ABA Journal.  This is the official journal of the American Bar Association.  I'm guessing it does not have a strong political bent other than being pro-lawyer

 

2.  The Telegraph.  Pretty much the paper of record in the UK, generally considered conservative.

 

3. The Wall Street Journal.  Generally pro-business and conservative, very conservative editorial page.

 

4. Quora.com -  this does not even count as a news source.

 

5. Canada Free Press -  I was not familiar with this one, but according to their own description they are "Espousing Conservative viewpoints, cornerstone of which focuses on love of God, love of family, love of country."  

 

6. Valuewalk.com - I don't know much about this site but it looks like its mostly business news.  

 

 

I would not call any of these sources "liberal".  To me, it looks like this was a news story that ran for about a day in centrist and conservative media sources and was mostly speculative.  These are not news articles, they are mostly op-ed pieces or legalistic theory-making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

You know what, you don't fucking count Bel, you don't live here, and you do not see the U.S. mainstream media, all but Fox blatantly left. This shit was all over the news when Hillary's scandals were coming up again, and they thought she was going to win, but not get the house and or Senate. 

 

Those links took like 5 minutes, of not hard searching to find, but yeah, I'm the one spewing dreck. 

 

But whatever, you lefties going to great lengths to not see the fucking truth is nothing new. 

 

And who the fuck else would be talking about Hillary pardoning herself?   

 

 

 

Yeah... ok. Don't feel the need to engage with you if you are going to take that tone Jeeps. Dial it back a bit... or not. Whatever.

I watch enough media, and follow enough people on both sides of the spectrum to get a decent read on things. I try pretty hard not to echo chamber myself.  My experience was that I didn't see it as a matter of serious conversation amongst any of the politically active liberal folks that I know from the states.  And I know and follow a bunch, and I consume a pretty wide variety of media. 

YMMV.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether this takes Trump down, I don't think a truly objective perspective can yet tell. However, what I think folks need to be more concerned about is does this take down the entire leadership of the FBI? Because right now things are not looking so hot for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Whether this takes Trump down, I don't think a truly objective perspective can yet tell. However, what I think folks need to be more concerned about is does this take down the entire leadership of the FBI? Because right now things are not looking so hot for them.

Every once in a while you need to fire the entire leadership to effect a culture change. I'm not going to lie... if Trump cleans out the entire senior leadership of the FBI?  I don't know if that would make me all that unhappy.

 

 

Not-quite-random aside thought: This is something that I think most of the leadership here would agree with, but you never know.

Race relations aside, and differing positions on how exactly to handle immigration and legit refugees aside, I think that most people on SH would agree that civil forfeiture is about one of the most single bullshit things ever.  Yet this shit apparently is a significant source of funds for law enforcement? That's not fucking sketchy at all...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyhow, it all comes down to this.  We have a president who is claiming he has the power to pardon himself.  Basically, he is saying that he cannot be held accountable for any crime, that he is above the law.  If you don't see this as fundamentally opposed to the most basic ideals on which the USA is supposed to be based on, I really don't know what to say to you.  We elect presidents, not kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Belesarius said:

. if Trump cleans out the entire senior leadership of the FBI?  I don't know if that would make me all that unhappy.

 

I'd consider it a good start, lacking only in ceremonial tarring-and-featherings .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Anyhow, it all comes down to this.  We have a president who is claiming he has the power to pardon himself.  Basically, he is saying that he cannot be held accountable for any crime, that he is above the law.  If you don't see this as fundamentally opposed to the most basic ideals on which the USA is supposed to be based on, I really don't know what to say to you.  We elect presidents, not kings.

 

Yeah, the optics are pretty bad. At the same time, I don't see how he can pardon himself after impeachment. You can't pardon someone for a crime they have not been convicted of (meaning he can't pre-pardon himself), and removal from office happens automatically with conviction by the Senate (meaning he no longer has the power of presidential pardon). So bluster and hot air aside, I don't see what Trump could really do, legally speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yeah, the optics are pretty bad. At the same time, I don't see how he can pardon himself after impeachment. You can't pardon someone for a crime they have not been convicted of (meaning he can't pre-pardon himself), and removal from office happens automatically with conviction by the Senate (meaning he no longer has the power of presidential pardon). So bluster and hot air aside, I don't see what Trump could really do, legally speaking.

 

Very true.  More likely he would just fire most of the Justice Department and shut down the investigations and then see if the Congress actually has the balls to impeach him.  I would not be surprised if they didn't.

 

It might even make sense for him to do it right before the midterms, forcing his Republican followers in the House to either protect him or risk pissing off their Trump supporting voters.  Trump is far more popular with the base than your average congress critter right now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Very true.  More likely he would just fire most of the Justice Department and shut down the investigations and then see if the Congress actually has the balls to impeach him.  I would not be surprised if they didn't.

 

It might even make sense for him to do it right before the midterms, forcing his Republican followers in the House to either protect him or risk pissing off their Trump supporting voters.  Trump is far more popular with the base than your average congress critter right now.

 

 

Sure, although that seems one step ahead of where we are not. Currently, there doesn't seem to be anything to try Trump on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasingly, that does not seem to be true of the Obama administration, however.

 

I love how NBC tries to slant it:

 

Quote

An investigation by Senate Republicans released Wednesday sheds light on the delicate balance the Obama administration sought to strike after the deal, as it worked to ensure Iran received its promised benefits without playing into the hands of the deal's opponents. Amid a tense political climate, Iran hawks in the U.S., Israel and elsewhere argued that the United States was giving far too much to Tehran and that the windfall would be used to fund extremism and other troubling Iranian activity.

The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department issued a license in February 2016, never previously disclosed, that would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at a bank in Oman from Omani rials into euros by exchanging them first into U.S. dollars. If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S. financial system.

The effort was unsuccessful because American banks — themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions — declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion, the report said, but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.

 

So the Obama admin was doing something shady enough that the fucking banks thought it was radioactive, but that doesn't stop NBC from trying to lionize the guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Increasingly, that does not seem to be true of the Obama administration, however.

 

I love how NBC tries to slant it:

 

 

So the Obama admin was doing something shady enough that the fucking banks thought it was radioactive, but that doesn't stop NBC from trying to lionize the guy.

 

Presidents working out shady deals with Iran is a long standing US tradition!  Remember when Eisenhower had the CIA hire organized crime in Iran to start protests in 1953 to help get the Shah back in power?  Or when Reagan sold them weapons to support the Contras?  Sounds like Obama didn't have good enough operators to get his shady ass deals done right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst. President. Ever. Can't even do shady deals properly.

 

When you fail where your predecessors have succeeded, you need to reevaluate your life. He also lost the range war in Utah. Sad! Black Jesus lost to a bunch of cattle herding Mormons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ramlaen said:

Trump commuted another sentence, this time for Alice Johnson.

First boxer Jack Johnson. Now Alice Johnson.

 

I want the President just to continue pardoning and commuting people named Johnson until the media catches on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Donward said:

First boxer Jack Johnson. Now Alice Johnson.

 

I want the President just to continue pardoning and commuting people named Johnson until the media catches on.

 

I hope he doesn't pardon Rian Johnson for the crime of ruining Star Wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my attempt to find other people named Johnson who are in need of a pardon for criminal behavior, the best I could come up with was this criminally bad piece of "comedy" by Arte Johnson.  As far as I know, he went unpunished for his crimes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Canadians @Belesarius etc.

 

Why are you letting CNN get away with #FAKENEWS by robbing you of one of your cultural identity, specifically the Canadian involvement in helping to burn down Washington DC in the War of 1812? 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html

 

According to the sources, Trudeau pressed Trump on how he could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue. In response, Trump quipped to Trudeau, "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" referring to the War of 1812.

The problem with Trump's comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812. Historians note the British attack on Washington was in retaliation for the American attack on York, Ontario, in territory that eventually became Canada, which was then a British colony.

When asked if the comment was received as a joke, one source on the call said: "To the degree one can ever take what is said as a joke. The impact on Canada and ultimately on workers in the US won't be a laughing matter."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Donward said:

Dear Canadians @Belesarius etc.

 

Why are you letting CNN get away with #FAKENEWS by robbing you of one of your cultural identity, specifically the Canadian involvement in helping to burn down Washington DC in the War of 1812? 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html

 

According to the sources, Trudeau pressed Trump on how he could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue. In response, Trump quipped to Trudeau, "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" referring to the War of 1812.

The problem with Trump's comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812. Historians note the British attack on Washington was in retaliation for the American attack on York, Ontario, in territory that eventually became Canada, which was then a British colony.

When asked if the comment was received as a joke, one source on the call said: "To the degree one can ever take what is said as a joke. The impact on Canada and ultimately on workers in the US won't be a laughing matter."

 

 

 

It's CNN. No one actually takes them even remotely seriously anymore.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe that I forgot that HRC was not the first person to force their nomination on the Democratic Party thereby causing their defeat to a Republican candidate:

AFDC6sD.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Similar Content

    • By T___A
      Reposting for those that didn't see it the first time around:

       
      https://www.theepochtimes.com/spygate-the-true-story-of-collusion_2684629.html
    • By Tied
      Yes
       
      i personally support it, by finding the KGB Felix Dzerzhinsky greatly improved state scurrility both inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and abroad (their jurisdiction was only domestic, but they kept the internationally influential people safe at night)   a dedicated defender of both the Revolution and all the Soviet peoples     what do you think of this news?
    • By Xoon
      Colonization Of The Solar System

       
      This thread is for discussing the colonization of the solar system, mainly focusing on Mars and the Moon since they are the most relevant. 
      Main topics include transportation, industry, agriculture, economics, civil engineering,  energy production and distribution, habitation, ethics and politics. 
       
       
       
       
      First order of business, our glories tech messiah Elon Musk has set his eyes on Mars:
      Reason stated? Because being a interplanetary species beats being a single planetary species. 
       
      How does he plan to do this?
      By sending two cargo ships by 2022 to Mars for surveying and building  basic infrastructure, then two years later in 2024 sending 4 ships, two cargo ships and two crewed ships to start the colonization. First thing would be to build fuel refineries and expanding infrastructure to support more ships, then starting to mine and build industry. 
       
      This could mark a new era in human history, a second colonization era, this time without the genocides. The economic potentials are incredible, a single asteroid could easily support the entire earths gold, silver and platinum production for a decade. The moon holds a lot of valuable Helium 3, which right now is worth 12 000 dollars per kilogram! Helium is a excellent material for nuclear reactors. 
       
       
       

       
       
      Speaking about the moon, several companies have set their eyes on the moon, and for good reason.
      In my opinion,  the moon has the possibility of becoming a mayor trade hub for the solar system.  Why is this? Simply put, the earth has a few pesky things called gravity, atmosphere and environmentalists. This makes launching rockets off the moon much cheaper. The moon could even have a space elevator with current technology!  If we consider Elon Musk's plan to travel to Mars, then the Moon should be able to supply cheaper fuel and spaceship parts to space, to then be sent to Mars. The Moon is also rich in minerals that have not sunk to the core yet, and also has a huge amount of rare earth metals, which demands are rapidly increasing. Simply put, the Moon would end up as a large exporter to both the earth and potentially Mars. Importing from earth would almost always be more expensive compared to a industrialized Moon. 
       
      Now how would we go about colonizing the moon? Honestly, in concept it is quite simple.When considering locations, the South pole seems like the best candidate. This is because of it's constant sun spots, which could give 24 hour solar power to the colony and give constant sunlight to plants without huge power usage. The south pole also contain dark spots which contains large amount of frozen water, which would be used to sustain the agriculture and to make rocket fuel. It is true that the equator has the largest amounts of Helium 3 and the best location for rocket launches. However, with the lack of constant sunlight and frequent solar winds and meteor impacts, makes to unsuited for initial colonization. If the SpaceX's BFR successes, then it would be the main means of transporting materials to the moon until infrastructure is properly developed. Later a heavy lifter would replace it when transporting goods to and from the lunar surface, and specialized cargo ship for trans portion between the Moon, Earth and Mars. A space elevator would reduce prices further in the future.  Most likely, a trade station would be set up in CIS lunar space and Earth orbit which would house large fuel tanks and be able to hold the cargo from  cargo ships and heavy lifters. Sun ports would be designated depending on their amount of sunlight. Year around sunlight spots would be dedicated to solar panels and agriculture. Varying sun spots would be used for storage, landing pads and in general everything. Dark spots would be designated to mining to extract its valuable water. Power production would be inistially almost purely solar, with some back up and smoothing out generators. Later nuclear reactors would take over, but serve as a secondary backup energy source. 
       
       
      The plan:
      If we can assume the BFR is a success, then we have roughly 150 ton of payload to work with per spaceship. The first spaceship would contain a satellite to survey colonization spot. Everything would be robotic at first. Several robots capable of building a LZ for future ships,  mining of the lunar surface for making solar panels for energy production, then mining and refinement for fuel for future expeditions. The lunar colony would be based underground, room and pillar mining would be used to cheaply create room that is also shielded from radiation and surface hazards. Copying the mighty tech priest, a second ship would come with people and more equipment. With this more large scale mining and ore refinement would be started. Eventually beginning to manufacturing their own goods. Routinely BFRs would supply the colony with special equipment like electronics, special minerals and advanced equipment and food until the agricultural sector can support the colony.  The colony would start to export Helium 3 and rocket fuel, as well as spacecraft parts and scientific materials. Eventually becoming self sustaining, it would stop importing food and equipment, manufacturing it all themselves to save costs. 
       
      I am not the best in agriculture, so if some knowledge people could teach us here about closed loop farming, or some way of cultivating the lunar soil. Feel free to do so.
       
       
      Mining:
      I found a article here about the composition of the lunar soil and the use for it's main components:

      In short, the moon has large amounts of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium and titanium in it's soil.
      How do we refine them? By doing this.
       
      Aluminum could be used for most kinds of wiring to requiring high conductivity to density ratio. Meaning power lines, building cables and such. Aluminum is not very suited for building structures on the surface because of the varying temperatures causing it to expand and contract. Iron or steel is better suited here. Aluminum could however be used in underground structures where temperatures are more stable.  Aluminum would also most likely end up as the main lunar rocket fuel. Yes, aluminum as rocket fuel. Just look at things like ALICE, or Aluminum-oxygen. Aluminum-oxygen would probably win out since ALICE uses water, which would be prioritized for the BFRs, since I am pretty sure they are not multi-fuel. 
       More on aluminum rocket fuel here:
      https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/88130-aluminum-as-rocket-fuel/&
      http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesigns2.php#umlunar
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/15/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-1/
      https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/2016/04/21/weve-got-rocket-chemistry-part-2/
       
      Believe it or not, but calcium is actually a excellent conductor, about 12% better than copper. So why do we not use it on earth? Because it has a tendency to spontaneously combust in the atmosphere. In a vacuum however, this does not pose a problem. I does however need to be coated in a material so it does not deteriorate. This makes it suited for "outdoor" products and compact electrical systems like electric motors. Yes, a calcium electric motor.  
       
       
      Lastly, a few articles about colonizing the moon:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon
      https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-scientists-say-we-could-colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion
      https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/HEP_Lunar.html
       
      NASA article about production of solar panels on the moon:
      https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050110155.pdf
       
      Map over the south pole:
      http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/images/gigapan
       
       
      Feel free to spam the thread with news regarding colonization. 
       
       
×