monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

There's a lot to unpack in the link below, but this quote won as the most honest view in politics for me yesterday..

"This is Republican town, man. (Moore) could have killed Obama, and we wouldn't care."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/alabama-republican-voters-stand-roy-moore-n819906

FM and I were talking about things that have nothing to do with the second amendment or hunting. You introducing military use is just a diversion.

That is incorrect. You both were making untrue statements that were directly about the Second Amendment.



That is incorrect. When you guys addressed both "the second amendment" and "weapons of the sort that are used by the military", you guys were the ones to introduce military use.



That is incorrect. My directly addressing the untrue claims that you guys made was in no way a diversion.

the second amendment says ARMS. It is silent on things like bump stocks or silencers. Oral is just a fanatic. Hes not even logical on this. His claim is groundless and hes become the arguer for something at which he has no experience.

When Im small game hunting I wanna know where other HUNTERS are , game will be there or not, to not frighten a rabbit is beyond laughable.
Also When we use dogs, they are hunting "to the gun" (maybe oral doesnt know about sporting dogs).
Many setters and pointers will run close to the gun and , if not careful, would cross a line of fire if thered be no rport (where a hunter lets off more than one shot). The only dogs that wait till all shots are fired are waterfowl retrievers.

NO guy, YOU were the one that said that the 2nd Amendment didnt have anything to do with hunting, and we agreed, but also stated that neither did bump stocks nor silencers for hunting have anything to do with 2nd amendment and are therefore not explicit as a "Right".

Nonsense. Arms includes the components of arms.



Feel free to try to point out a single flaw in any of my logic.



Facts and law may well be a great inconvenience to liberals, but that does not make them groundless.



You're going to have to get used to listening for silenced gunshots I guess. I expect you'll be able to recognize the supersonic crack.



No one is going to force hunters to use silencers against their will if they have a reason not to.

Besides, I think you're talking about shotgun hunting there. Most people who want silencers are rifle hunters.

Are silencers even possible with shotguns?

Why because five women have recently come out and charged Trump with sexual predation?

I agree with you though that McConnell's call for Moore to step aside is primarily politically based. He's worried that the GOP will lose the Alabama Senate seat and Moore is not an accepted member of the GOP Establishment. Not only does Mitch want to keep his Majority Leader position, he wants to discourage anti-Establishment from attempting any more insurrections.

Unfortunately, Moore is no more a true anti-Establishment politician than Trump, and an even worse standard bearer for the movement.

For years now, I've rejected attempts by A2K liberals to defend corrupt Democrat politicians or members of a minority group accused of a heinous crime with the old "In this country a person is innocent until proven guilty!" argument and I'm not about to use it for Moore.

Presumption of innocence is a legal construct designed to protect citizens from prosecutorial abuse by the State. It is essential to our liberty and I couldn't be more in favor of its application, however, regardless of the person or the crime, private citizens are not constrained by law or ethics from, at any given time, judging the accused based on the facts as they know them. How they act upon such a judgment is subject to legal and ethical constraints, but only on a limited basis.

You are, clearly, convinced that Moore is guilty as accused. This isn't a far-fetched conclusion, and if it leads you to take an oath that you will never again mention his name in public, you are well within your rights, and general ethical standards to do so. You are not, however, entitled to seek him out and punish him for the crimes you are certain he committed, and you might run up against legal restrictions of libel and slander if you were to engage in a widespread effort to brand him in the public square as a pedophile (however his public status would provide you with a lot of leeway which is another great thing about our system).

Although I suspect you would, rightly, argue that you each have different motivations, you, your Republican hero McCain, and even Mitch McConnell are all perfectly entitled to call on Moore to withdraw from his race. None of you would be crossing a legal barrier in demanding what is essentially punishment without due process, but McCain, McConnell and whatever other politicians join them are not in the same sphere of ethics as you.

Your calling for him to withdraw is an impotent gesture, and even if you got every liberal on A2K to join you in signing a petition demanding he withdraw, or writing an open letter to Moore sent to the NY Times, the effect of your demand would remain utterly insignificant. McCain and McConnell, on the other hand, actually have some power to influence the outcome of Moore's political aspirations, and therefore are required to consider the ethics of their actions (If, of course, they care about living professionally ethical lives.) In that, they are important and powerful members of the State and lawmakers who have sworn oaths to abide by the Constitution, do they have an extraordinary duty (as compared to the average citizen) to promote the concepts of presumption of innocence and due process? Perhaps, but perhaps not.

No criminal charges have been filed against Moore, and I'm unaware of whether or not civil suits have been (Although I can't imagine why Victim #5 would have Gloria Alred at her side if litigation wasn't being considered), but even if they were, there is no way this matter could be legally adjudicated before the Special Election is held. This is a bonus for Moore if he's guilty and an unfortunate fact if he is innocent, but voters will not have the benefit of due process, and so, to the extent that this matter is something they wish to consider in their vote, they will need to pass judgment on Moore based on the facts as they know them.

Some voters will make a real effort to review what facts are public. Many more will have already reached a conclusion that is consistent with their partisan leanings, but, regardless, they are not in anyway compelled to ignore the charges because they have not been adjudicated, and they are certainly not compelled to presume Moore's innocence. To the extent any of them actually examines their thinking and decisions, the questions of principles and priorities will be left to them, and not pontificating, internet moralists.

Just as no one is compelled, by law or ethics, to presume Moore is innocent until all the evidence has been presented in a forum where Moore and his legal representatives are allowed to confront his accusers, no one is compelled to accept the charges of these women.

Personally, I believe the charges and I would not vote for him, but I won't criticize anyone who thinks otherwise.

I think it is really quite distressing though that people who actually believe he is guilty will still vote for him, but this is as much or more a criticism of our times than of Republican voters in particular. It doesn't excuse Moore's transgressions, but I can empathize with the person who is thinking "Sure, when a Democrat or liberal does this **** there's no end to the excuses and dismissals, but if it's a Republican or conservative, we're somehow required to throw the book at them." and while I'm inclined to accept the legitimacy of, at least, the original accusations, it's not as if setting up a political opponent (especially one as hated as Moore) with last minute phony charges is a tactic we've never seen before.

I also agree with David Brooks (unusual of late) who, during an interview with Charlie Rose, laid what now appears to have been an explosion of sexual predation over the last 20 years, at least in part, at the feet of Bill Clinton and the rallying of the American Left (including leading feminists) to protect him. As Brooks said, if we can't even draw a line at this sort of stuff happening in the White House, how can there be any lines?

If anyone thinks that the constant refrain of "It's just a blowjob!" didn't send a signal to lesser but still powerful figures of what a sleaze can get away with, they are this guy:



And anyone who thinks this is a uniquely GOP state of affairs probably has one of these on their front lawn or hanging on a living room wall:

If this is a suggestion that I introduced the Second Amendment into the thread, my comment about the Second Amendment and hunting was a response to a comment from you that raised the Second Amendment first.

Not that it matters. Even if I had actually been the one to raise the Second Amendment in the thread, you guys' statements about the Second Amendment in relation to military weapons would still be untrue.



Your statement about bump stocks and silencers (and Snood's statement about large magazines) did not specify "for hunting" but rather were just general statements about such devices.

He's exaggerating but he gets the extremist and unprincipled tribalism right.

From what I'm seeing in our somewhat biased news coverage here, the prez seems to be receiving a very warm welcome in SE Asian nations.



source

Special Prosecutor under consideration for investigating the crimes of the former Obama Administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sessions-considering-second-special-counsel-to-investigate-republican-concerns-letter-shows/2017/11/13/bc92ef3c-c8d2-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html

Let's hope their purview includes the IRS' persecution of conservative political groups.

Trump did promise HRC a special prosecutor before the election.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-on-appointing-clinton-special-prosecutor-im-going-to-think-about-it/

Well, that and his inadvertent admission that he has sexually assaulted women (and the disgusting pridefulness of bragging about it).
Loss of a Senate seat in Alabama is not his only fear. He's also thinking of Todd Akin and O'Donnell ("I am not a witch). On top of Trump's in-the-toilet ratings and the lousy GOP electoral showing last week, McConnell is worried about losing the House and Senate control next year.
No. I think it is highly probable that he's lying and the women are telling the truth. The WP reporting here is very solid.

I didn't. There's no reason for me to do that (even if I think he's a ******* lunatic and unprincipled). My indictment is against any Republican who stands by him out of tribal allegiance.
Yes, as regards how the police and courts go about their justice duties. That's where a robust defense of presumption of innocence is vital. But going to jail is a much more serious consequence than not being allowed (by your own part, particularly) to hold public office.

I actually don't know what you are talking about here. Not Elliot Spitzer. Not Anthony Weiner. Not John Edwards. Not Gary Hart. The only example I can think of is Clinton but it's also the case that his popularity remained high with Americans generally (no doubt in part because of the viciousness of the campaign against him).
I don't know what Brooks is talking about either. 20 years? That puts him towards the end of Clinton's second term, which is all I can imagine he's thinking of. I certainly doubt he has any good statistics to back up the theory. We have good notions of what Kennedy was up to with sexual dalliances (and Ike and Bush Sr and FDR). As to some explosion, generally, of sexual predation, Brooks would have to make a very good case that ruled out the arrival of the internet and the slow, steady expansion of women's rights and the too slow appreciation by men that women have been (and often still are) second-class citizens.

But aside from all that, you've written a thoughtful post. I appreciate it.

The 2nd Amendment also says, "shall not be infringed." To infringe means to limit or undermine. Presumably, if people have the right to guns, then they have the right to guns which would be likely to be effective in the situations that realistically might be a danger to them.

It is certainly a rather gray area of contention, and with almost 340 million people party to the "debate", it won't be over until the porcine person of a particular gender vocalises sopranically.

Still not sure why this thread is now meandering so far from the OP. It's not a week since the usual suspects were chastising all and sundry for not staying on topic.

I wonder how many on these threads know the crack/thump of a bullet passing close by or the whistling that tells you it was close. Or worse, the heavy thump concussion that that tells you mortars are incoming cause we don't have any out there. Yeah, I'm ready to turn America into the battlefield the dumbass right extremist desire - not! Silencers don't prevent the crack, but you don't get the thump, so you don't know what direction it came from.

As opposed to using your position of power to intimidate your victims?

Trump is a cad, no doubt, and a womaniser, and a horse's arse, but he clearly doesn't care what people think about that, and he hasn't hidden that for any part of his career.

What HRC did to cover up for the same kind of things her own husband did, should be part of your accusations here.

But you have no problem raining hell down on other nations, right?

You do realise what was in store for the US of A, had the neoliberal agenda come to pass, vis-a-vis HRC's ascendancy to the throne?

I take it that your agenda has nothing to do with rational conversation, William.

I urge those here who are stuck in the past and obsessed with the Clintons and Mr. Obama to start a thread of their own. This thread is about President Plump, and relevant contemporary events.