Are presidents above the law?

[babe]

@babe leave it for a private discussion. Pretty much nobody here is interested in discussion on campaign finances or its effectiveness. Maybe they care about results, but then they made the Trumpster fire.

So now I'm gonna have a bonfire and roast another pig. I named it Melinda because I'm an *******.

Look, this is my bonfire, too.

So here we are, a little eclectic bunch of knownuthin basketball wannabees, talking geopolitical trash, wearing our hearts on our sleeves and crying cuz nobody cares.

I prefer marshmallows on a stick, bro.

There's a perfect little old movie that demos my world view:

 

[Red]

Check out the cover of Time Magazine for June 18th. King Me...

http://time.com/5303844/donald-trump-king-cover/

 

[Red]

@red. War centered on Iran. Obama did everything he could to pump up Iran. Russia and China are helping Iran. War games run within our military departments have focused on a Mideast war for decades. This is very old news. Very, very old news. Hitler cultivated relations in the Mideast, the West.... Russia and the US intelligence agencies have had a lot of irons in the fire, stirring things up. Fake Muslim groups.... pretending.... really western ideologues, are in the mix everywhere.

Gotta modernize that region, put population controls in place, reduce the populations...... just gotta do it if we're really gonna have any kind of stable global governance with Lord Cecil Rhodes' plan for orchestration of world power to be permanent..... or, well, we could just say "No" to the war. Probably what Trump is saying.

Just ask Mika what her daddy says...... The genius with the unintelligible name has been foaming at the mouth over his plans for war in the Mideast for four decades....

McCain was a war-monger, Obama just wants to level the US and make us conform to world standards of business and payola for politicians. Mitt woulda been just stupid about it all. Trump has got the whole show on hold. Even with his generals around him, he is not predictable, and will not just be weak.

Iranians scattered all around the world just want the Ayatollah to flee to some little ISIS camp in Iraq, and all the world to just go home. About a million Trump votes in that cultural niche.

@babe, next time, rather then lecture me on this "very, very, old news", try reading the article, and bring yourself up to date. It's 2018, @babe...

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176422/tomgram:_michael_klare,_the_road_to_hell_in_the_middle_east/

"A Third Gulf War would distinguish itself from recent Middle Eastern conflicts by the geographic span of the fighting and the number of major actors that might become involved. In all likelihood, the field of battle would stretch from the shores of the Mediterranean, where Lebanon abuts Israel, to the Strait of Hormuz, where the Persian Gulf empties into the Indian Ocean. Participants could include, on one side, Iran, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and assorted Shia militias in Iraq and Yemen; and, on the other, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). If the fighting in Syria were to get out of hand, Russian forces could even become involved."

Sounds like a fairly new dynamic, @babe. Don't be so afraid to learn something new, instead of just assuming you knew what the article was about without even bothering to read it...

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Eh, @Red , these dialogues have been going on for millennia. "Nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests".

There was plenty of debate amongst military brass when Reagan ordered support for The Butcher of Baghdad during the Iraq-Iran war, turning a blind eye and ignoring the Geneva Convention by supplying him biological warfare and not inhibiting his access to chemical warfare precursors. They knew Hussein was a psychopath but decided to support him anyway.

Oil interests theory anyone? It's not a conspiracy theory since we know we allowed and helped Iraq use chemical and biological warfare for world oil safety concerns.

And then we hung Hussein over Geneva Convention stuff.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Or should I simply say "let me tell you about the neo-cons"?

 

[Red]

Eh, @Red , these dialogues have been going on for millennia. "Nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests".

There was plenty of debate amongst military brass when Reagan ordered support for The Butcher of Baghdad during the Iraq-Iran war, turning a blind eye and ignoring the Geneva Convention by supplying him biological warfare and not inhibiting his access to chemical warfare precursors. They knew Hussein was a psychopath but decided to support him anyway.

Oil interests theory anyone? It's not a conspiracy theory since we know we allowed and helped Iraq use chemical and biological warfare for world oil safety concerns.

And then we hung Hussein over Geneva Convention stuff.

Didn't you sort of admit in the "JFC Cult DeProgramming Thread" that you were actually @babe? As I read that thread, it began to dawn on me, hey are @babe and this guy one and the same, sure sounds like it, and then, boom, you stated it right out....

 

[babe]

Didn't you sort of admit in the "JFC Cult DeProgramming Thread" that you were actually @babe? As I read that thread, it began to dawn on me, hey are @babe and this guy one and the same, sure sounds like it, and then, boom, you stated it right out....

funny. conspiracy theory, anyone?

 

[Red]

Eh, @Red , these dialogues have been going on for millennia. "Nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests".

There was plenty of debate amongst military brass when Reagan ordered support for The Butcher of Baghdad during the Iraq-Iran war, turning a blind eye and ignoring the Geneva Convention by supplying him biological warfare and not inhibiting his access to chemical warfare precursors. They knew Hussein was a psychopath but decided to support him anyway.

Oil interests theory anyone? It's not a conspiracy theory since we know we allowed and helped Iraq use chemical and biological warfare for world oil safety concerns.

And then we hung Hussein over Geneva Convention stuff.

I see you never read the article I linked to. Which, of course, is entirely your right. But, if you are going to debate what I said, you might try reading the article first. You'll get your history lesson there, re oil, no need to repeat parts of it to me, and you'll also get what's unique about recent developments.

 

[Red]

funny. conspiracy theory, anyone?

Should I leave a link to the specific page? That "DeProgramimg" thread quickly became comments exchanged by the two of you. I would judge it to be difficult to write in @babe's style, what with the scores of tangents, and different sort of sentence structure and syntax. But @idestroyedthetoilet pulled it off. Enough to get me, at least, to the point of wondering "is this whole thread just @babe talking to himself?". Then there came the comment where @Idesteoyedthetoilet stated part of his strategy was to convince the readers that the thread was just @babe talking to himself. At which point I thought "aha, I guessed right". I laughed and went back later to leave a like for that comment, because it had made me laugh and because I thought the entire effort strange enough to earn my admiration, even though I did indeed think it strange. Conspiracy or not, you guys, or guy, pulled it off. Not easy to do, you have a pretty unique style in your longer comments...

Just taking note of the exchange I read there, bud. Love ya, and I mean that....

 

[babe]

So here's something I just found on the 'net. Not so well-written. Gosh, written almost like the author is looking over his shoulder, expecting to be done in or something.....

https://www.gabyweber.com/dwnld/artikel/eichmann/ingles/secret_pact_standard_oil.pdf

Of some more substantial bona fides is the movie, "Remains Of The Day":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Remains_of_the_Day_(film)

funny thing there.... the wiki bit skates right past the whole theme of the movie.... the secret meeting between the German Nazis and the British and American aristocrats that paved the way for the Nazi industrial buildup prior to WWII, which later resulted in some weak attempts by newsmen who were indeed journalists, to explore the relationships....

eh.... Red is right to a point. I didn't read his article because I don't respect the source and totally believe it to be a wild take on the subject.

I have Iranian friends who tell me stuff. They would hope we had never backed either the former Shah nor the fascist/fundamentalist dictatorship. But hey. We need corner the oil market, don't we? That collective "we" represents BP and Shell and Standard Oil, of course. We must identify ourselves according to our most influential political interests....

On the positive side, I can't fault the Rockefeller genius. While one of their compliant local experts could walk me past the mural on his huge office wall, showing the exact location of every oil claim west of the Rockies, and justify Clinton's Grand Staircase landgrab/coal sequestration for the Rockefellers with the terse explanation "We can't let them (the Dutch) have that coal", the myth of limited oil reserves has been stoically maintained by academia and the Press, the fundamental reason we have these "realities" in view is the wisdom that we should "Use Theirs First".

Yes indeed. All these shaky oil fields are indeed politically uncertain, but if we do assert our interests there, and use up their oil first, we (that collective "American" Rockefeller "we"), will still have oil when all the rest is gone.

The foolishness of this plan can be seen on any map of Russia, which undoubtably has many times the oil we have.

Hence, the geopolitical necessity of drawing Russia into the Mideast war presently being planned by our generals.

 

[babe]

@red. OK, I caved. I read a large part of the linked article, skimmed the rest.

except for the Trump remarks, it's fairly good. Even Kicky might say so. But here's the thing I see about Trump....he is going to do deals not start wars. Anyone who wants a better shake anywhere in the world will see that, and there will be no Trump war. After eight years of Trump, there will be no Pres. Kushner or anyone else standing for the Trump Party. Trump just doesn't care for that kind of legacy. So the R slate will still be contested moderates/tea party, imo.

McCain woulda started the war. Hillary woulda been played into the war. Obama was played into setting up the war. Mitt woulda been played as well.

Utah's Huntsman honcho mighta figured out an angle to play, but basically they resent being booted outta Russia by Putin, and they might have a grudge there that should make us just sick of them. That's the Salt Lake Tribune and the local CFR club including the Jazz grande madam presently. Might be the kernel of JFC politicos locally.

The Soros move in taking Ukraine outta Russia's paws I see as part of the setup for the Mideast war. Trying to edge Russia outta the theatre.

The big reason I don't see a war with Trump's thumb on the Big Button is just this. Nobody knows what he'll do, really. Better be careful.

 

[cowhide]

I doubt he would ever pardon himself. I think he just enjoys messing with the wingnuts on the left who always repay him by imagining the worst possible motive and outcome to everything he says, and then getting into a contest with one another to see who can overreact by the largest amount. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing. I hope he signs a no nuke treaty with NK, not only because it would be a huge positive for the world, but also because it will be fun watching the heads of the wingnuts implode.

Yes because right wing nuts never over reacted when Obama said or did something. The irony is that righties falsely accused Obama of his over reach and "abuse" of executive power and now they are defending Trump's right to pardon himself. If the president can pardon himself then we truly have lost our way in this country. I can only imagine what would happen if Obama was saying and acting the same way Trump has, the GOP heads exploding would generate the same energy of a 1000 nuclear bombs.

 

[cowhide]

Did he actually say he has the power of a dictator, or are you just trying to win the overreaction contest?

After praising other dictatorial leaders, he stated maybe we (US) should try lifetime appointments for the president. He certainly thinks about having absolute power. The leaders he admires are the leaders who hold or have changed their system to allow them to stay in power.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Yes because right wing nuts never over reacted when Obama said or did something. The irony is that righties falsely accused Obama of his over reach and "abuse" of executive power and now they are defending Trump's right to pardon himself. If the president can pardon himself then we truly have lost our way in this country. I can only imagine what would happen if Obama was saying and acting the same way Trump has, the GOP heads exploding would generate the same energy of a 1000 nuclear bombs.

I agree with everything you say, except that I haven't seen anyone defending Trump's statement. The left went nuts over it. The right thought he was kidding. And I disagree that the right falsely accused Obama of overreach. He invented all sorts of new powers for POTUS. The left didn't care at the time. Now they are hating it that his overreach paved the way for Trump.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

After praising other dictatorial leaders, he stated maybe we (US) should try lifetime appointments for the president. He certainly thinks about having absolute power. The leaders he admires are the leaders who hold or have changed their system to allow them to stay in power.

I'm not certain what quote you are referring to, but when I've heard him say things along those lines I've always thought he was being facetious. People who can't stand him take everything he says seriously and get ridiculously freaked out by it. Even if he has some deep seated hope to change our form of government to a dictatorship (sounds so laughable but the left seems certain that's where we're headed), I don't believe he ever could.

 

[fishonjazz]

I can only imagine what would happen if Obama was saying and acting the same way Trump has, the GOP heads exploding would generate the same energy of a 1000 nuclear bombs.

Holy **** this.

 

[Red]

@red. OK, I caved. I read a large part of the linked article, skimmed the rest.

except for the Trump remarks, it's fairly good. Even Kicky might say so. But here's the thing I see about Trump....he is going to do deals not start wars. Anyone who wants a better shake anywhere in the world will see that, and there will be no Trump war. After eight years of Trump, there will be no Pres. Kushner or anyone else standing for the Trump Party. Trump just doesn't care for that kind of legacy. So the R slate will still be contested moderates/tea party, imo.

McCain woulda started the war. Hillary woulda been played into the war. Obama was played into setting up the war. Mitt woulda been played as well.

Utah's Huntsman honcho mighta figured out an angle to play, but basically they resent being booted outta Russia by Putin, and they might have a grudge there that should make us just sick of them. That's the Salt Lake Tribune and the local CFR club including the Jazz grande madam presently. Might be the kernel of JFC politicos locally.

The Soros move in taking Ukraine outta Russia's paws I see as part of the setup for the Mideast war. Trying to edge Russia outta the theatre.

The big reason I don't see a war with Trump's thumb on the Big Button is just this. Nobody knows what he'll do, really. Better be careful.

OK, @babe, hopefully they'll be no Greater Mideast War in our lifetime. We can always discuss this in another thread. I don't really want to highjack this thread, since this is pretty off topic anyway....

 

[babe]

I'll go with

Yes, can definitely be forced to testify.

Must be impeached first

No, absolutely not

From what I've read, all three questions would likely go to the Supreme Court if it comes to it, but that's the way I think they would rule, and that's the way I think they SHOULD rule.

In the context of fretting over the little thumb on the Big Button and militarist influences (generals and some others) in his administration, the question is relevant. There are enough conservative and RINO Republicans to join with the Dems in requiring a declaration of war for significant use of arms. China, Russia, everybody knows that. But everyone knows they can get more from a good deal than a bad war.

Trump cannot be indicted or forced to testify. Congress could impeach him for whatever reason, and the Senate would render the verdict. Americans way more than the Trump voters would see it as pure electoral neutering of the voters. 75%, Nobody who votes for impeachment or removal from office would be re-elected except in LA, SF, and NY.

Since no criminal charges can be brought against a sitting Pres, he would not have any chance to pardon himself. If tried for crimes in office after leaving office.... like Obama should be.... he could be forced to testify and could be imprisoned if convicted by any regular court of law having jurisdiction. Congress and the Senate would have nothing to do with it.

His successor might pardon him, but the public would be interested and it might not be a good political move.

We're sick of Hillary and Obama and the Bushes and every Establishment politician who has trivialized provisions of law and treated us with contempt. Just show us Trump belongs in that set, and we'll insist he be jailed and the key thrown away.

One faction of privileged elites fussing about some outsider being elected is just what it takes to make us all mad at those "privileged elites". That's why the Trumpdumpsters are stupid as hell.

 

[Gameface]

In the context of fretting over the little thumb on the Big Button and militarist influences (generals and some others) in his administration, the question is relevant. There are enough conservative and RINO Republicans to join with the Dems in requiring a declaration of war for significant use of arms. China, Russia, everybody knows that. But everyone knows they can get more from a good deal than a bad war.

Trump cannot be indicted or forced to testify. Congress could impeach him for whatever reason, and the Senate would render the verdict. Americans way more than the Trump voters would see it as pure electoral neutering of the voters. 75%, Nobody who votes for impeachment or removal from office would be re-elected except in LA, SF, and NY.

Since no criminal charges can be brought against a sitting Pres, he would not have any chance to pardon himself. If tried for crimes in office after leaving office.... like Obama should be.... he could be forced to testify and could be imprisoned if convicted by any regular court of law having jurisdiction. Congress and the Senate would have nothing to do with it.

His successor might pardon him, but the public would be interested and it might not be a good political move.

We're sick of Hillary and Obama and the Bushes and every Establishment politician who has trivialized provisions of law and treated us with contempt. Just show us Trump belongs in that set, and we'll insist he be jailed and the key thrown away.

One faction of privileged elites fussing about some outsider being elected is just what it takes to make us all mad at those "privileged elites". That's why the Trumpdumpsters are stupid as hell.

You ever feel like saying something that isn't exactly what they are saying on right-wing talk radio today?

Like do you feel it's your job to relay what you hear on your favorite conservative talk show? As if us dumb *** Trumpdumpsters, have no access to those facts unless you post them here on Jazzfanz. I've got a huge clue for you, everything you posted here, I've heard it a few times already, I've read it as I scan through various news sources from different points of view. You're not enlightening anyone. The people here you frequently like to call out as liberal shills (myself among them), we all hear the stupid **** you say many times before you get around to posting it here from half a dozen other half-wits thinking they're blowing people's minds with truth.

Give us something original, babe. Think for yourself. Use your own words.

 

[babe]

You ever feel like saying something that isn't exactly what they are saying on right-wing talk radio today?

Like do you feel it's your job to relay what you hear on your favorite conservative talk show? As if us dumb *** Trumpdumpsters, have no access to those facts unless you post them here on Jazzfanz. I've got a huge clue for you, everything you posted here, I've heard it a few times already, I've read it as I scan through various news sources from different points of view. You're not enlightening anyone. The people here you frequently like to call out as liberal shills (myself among them), we all hear the stupid **** you say many times before you get around to posting it here from half a dozen other half-wits thinking they're blowing people's minds with truth.

Give us something original, babe. Think for yourself. Use your own words.

back at ya. You think I haven't spent years listening to NPR, CNN, or even reading Marx?

obviously, you and perhaps a few others are here wanting to paint the world your way. Grow up. This isn't your ball of goop, it's a public forum.

if it were just you, I'd probably not bother. except for being something of a knowledgeable marksman with a few tatters of libertarianism, you read like a daily talking points catalogue for the left.

It's definitely a thing today for statist/progressive types to wanna silence people with opinions coherent with traditional American values. Brave new world, all kinds of pointy-nosed experts, socialized reconstructionist with some notion of a better world to be had if only people would listen, if only people could be compelled to be compliant.

If no one comes in here to voice a contrary notion, you'd call it a victory. You worry too much about what I say. You should worry about being outta touch, bro. And the hate doesn't make you look good either.

you're in a 10% brainwashed minority. JFC is not a representative slice of Jazz fans, is not even something most Jazz fans want out on the 'net callin' for the team.