Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

17677788082

Comments

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Re "bat shit", you can't make this stuff up. Guy is stealing painting from wall of USA Capitol building. The Taser he was carrying goes off, zapping him in the testicles. He dies.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Fuck45/comments/kt741e/meet_kevin_greeson_55_of_alabama_he_posted_on/

    Well, that's what he gets for trying to sack the capital.
  • Yes. My apologies for being a stupid asshat myself - and I have already been taken to task...

    The vision of Trump being hauled off to jail in chains is appealing, though. Might it be the FBI who would do the deed, after due process of law?
  • /tangent/

    "Boring as batshit"? In North America it's "batshit crazy", which is anything but boring. Is "boring as batshit" a thing in Oz?

    /end tangent/

    I use both :smile: However, yesterday I referred to my legs as a nice set of pegs, when I meant pins. There is no guarantee that my idioms are in wider use than in this very room.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Re "bat shit", you can't make this stuff up. Guy is stealing painting from wall of USA Capitol building. The Taser he was carrying goes off, zapping him in the testicles. He dies.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Fuck45/comments/kt741e/meet_kevin_greeson_55_of_alabama_he_posted_on/

    Well, that's what he gets for trying to sack the capital.

    That's nuts.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Re "bat shit", you can't make this stuff up. Guy is stealing painting from wall of USA Capitol building. The Taser he was carrying goes off, zapping him in the testicles. He dies.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Fuck45/comments/kt741e/meet_kevin_greeson_55_of_alabama_he_posted_on/

    Well, that's what he gets for trying to sack the capital.

    That's nuts.

    Someone should hang for this.
  • stetson wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Re "bat shit", you can't make this stuff up. Guy is stealing painting from wall of USA Capitol building. The Taser he was carrying goes off, zapping him in the testicles. He dies.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Fuck45/comments/kt741e/meet_kevin_greeson_55_of_alabama_he_posted_on/

    Well, that's what he gets for trying to sack the capital.

    That's nuts.

    Someone should hang for this.

    Only if the executioners do it well.
  • Could we stop beating around the bush and get to the meat of the matter?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Could we stop beating around the bush and get to the meat of the matter?

    Yeah, it's sad how far we've descended.
  • Balls to all that.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Could we stop beating around the bush and get to the meat of the matter?

    Yeah, it's sad how far we've descended.

    I thought things were looking up.
  • edited January 9
    stetson wrote: »
    Re "bat shit", you can't make this stuff up. Guy is stealing painting from wall of USA Capitol building. The Taser he was carrying goes off, zapping him in the testicles. He dies.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Fuck45/comments/kt741e/meet_kevin_greeson_55_of_alabama_he_posted_on/

    Well, that's what he gets for trying to sack the capital.
    Balls to all that.
    Could we stop beating around the bush and get to the meat of the matter?
    mousetheif wrote:
    That's nuts
    Okay you all win today's giggle prize. :lol:

  • I'm curious: how did they know he'd shocked his own balls?
  • Smoking crotch? I mean, ya gotta look...
  • At least now I understand why they kept referring oh-so-vaguely to "medical emergencies." It didn't make sense, when I thought it was heart attacks.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    I'm not sure one should consider a posting on the "Fuck45" reddit by "zubaz69" to be entirely authoritative.
  • Ah yes.

    It would be unethical of me to say "Pity," wouldn't it?

    Sigh.
  • I pity the fool
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Re "bat shit", you can't make this stuff up. Guy is stealing painting from wall of USA Capitol building. The Taser he was carrying goes off, zapping him in the testicles. He dies.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Fuck45/comments/kt741e/meet_kevin_greeson_55_of_alabama_he_posted_on/

    Well, that's what he gets for trying to sack the capital.

    Oh dear. Oh dear. I can't stop laughing. Which is terrible. Which makes it worse. The laughter. Oh God.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I went in to the shower laughing harder and only hoped that nobody beat me to it: 'Capitol punishment'.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Try to think about the specific agendas of any president of the late nineteenth century. Essentially any president between Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.
    There was a little thing called the Monroe Doctrine.
    But most Americans who aren't in the process of studying for a history exam probably couldn't tell you anything about Monroe beyond that there is a doctrine named after him.

    Yeah, they might even claim that the Monroe administration (1817-1825) fell somewhere between the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) and Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909).

    I thought that at first but then decided that Ruth probably meant that the presidents between Lincoln and T. Roosevelt consistently tried to implement the Monroe Doctrine. According to Wikipedia it wasn't even called the Monroe Doctrine until the second half of the 19th century.

    Nope, but thanks for the credit. I have repeatedly made this mistake, because while the doctrine is named after Monroe, the guy who really implemented it was McKinley. McKinley's presidency is the start of American imperialism.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The TAZER incident has been reported on a number of outlets by now.

    And his family reports he was such a peaceful man.

    Well, we can say he is peaceful now.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Ouch.

    I read in a Guardian report that Trump, if successfully impeached, thereby loses all the usual post-Presidency perks, like Secret Service protection etc. etc.

    Time for him to start building that Big, Beautiful Wall? Around Mar-a-Lago, that is...

    Meanwhile, Mr Biden seems (quite rightly) focused, not so much on Trump and his fate, but on getting to the Inauguration of himself and Ms Harris, and then *hitting the ground running* to sort out Covid and the economy. Sounds like a good plan IMHO.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    McKinley's presidency is the start of American imperialism.

    You wouldn't regard the push west throughout the nineteenth century as imperialism?

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    If Trump is convicted in the impeachment process, he will lose:

    His $200,000 a year federal pension.
    His Secret Service protection
    His $1,000,000 a year travel allowance
    And his ability to run for any federal office again.*

    *This part may have to be voted on separately.

    As I understand the constitution, the president may also lose the ability to pardon himself if he is being impeached. So, let's say the House does pass the article of impeachment and McConnell is able to gum up the trial until after the inauguration, too bad. (Not sure about this, beyond my paygrade actually.)
  • A $1 million a year travel allowance?

    Is Outrage!

    Seems a bit steep, but the other stuff sounds OK...
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    the other stuff sounds OK...

    The $200K pension? Let him live on Social Security like the rest of us.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    As I understand the constitution, the president may also lose the ability to pardon himself if he is being impeached.

    Not quite. Art. II, § 2, cl. 1 of the Constitution states:
    The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

    In other words, pardoning does not apply to the process of impeachment, but it does cover any other federal crimes as long as the president is in office, impeached or not.

    As for self-pardoning, it's never been tried but this Justice Department memo [PDF] from 5 August 1974 (for some reason the question came up at that time) states that the president cannot pardon himself.
    Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.

    No one has really investigated the question since then.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The $200K pension? Let him live on Social Security like the rest of us.

    $219,200 per year at the current rate. The annual pension for a president is set as equal to a Level I executive official salary (i.e the same salary as a cabinet secretary).

    The Former Presidents Act was passed in to law in 1958, largely because Harry Truman was broke and it didn't look good for the wealthiest country in the world to have its former leader begging for loose change. (There's also the security problem of a former president being hard up for money with a head full of very saleable state secrets.) At the time the only living ex-presidents were Truman and Herbert Hoover. Hoover said later that he considered rejecting the pension (he was quite wealthy), but knew that if he did Truman would feel obligated to turn it down as well.
  • the other stuff sounds OK...

    The $200K pension? Let him live on Social Security like the rest of us.

    I think the reason for stuffing former presidential mouths with gold is as much to reduce the temptation to sell influence after they leave office as it is to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Of course the sums available to former presidents from other sources dwarf the pension to its value in that respect is questionable.
  • Ah - sorry. I meant by all means let Trump lose the pension, which seems a reasonable sum, as far as other (normal) ex-Presidents are concerned.

    It was the $1million per annum travel allowance that seemed a bit steep.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Ah - sorry. I meant by all means let Trump lose the pension, which seems a reasonable sum, as far as other (normal) ex-Presidents are concerned.

    It was the $1million per annum travel allowance that seemed a bit steep.

    Under a law enacted in 1968, the GSA makes funds available to former presidents and no more than two of their staff members for travel and related expenses. To be compensated, the travel must be related to the former president's status as an official representative of the United States government. Travel for pleasure is not compensated. The GSA determines all appropriate costs for travel.

  • Of course we have no real idea what level of debt Trump finds himself in. $200k per annum probably won't even touch the interest payments. He would sell his soul, let alone state secrets, if it was to his own perceived benefit.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Of course we have no real idea what level of debt Trump finds himself in. $200k per annum probably won't even touch the interest payments. He would sell his soul, let alone state secrets, if it was to his own perceived benefit.

    Thanks to the New York Times [paywall] we have some idea, even if it's an incomplete picture. He needs to come up with (at least) $900 million in the next four years and it doesn't look like his income stream can handle that.
  • :open_mouth:

    No wonder he won't go gently into that good night...
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Try to think about the specific agendas of any president of the late nineteenth century. Essentially any president between Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.
    There was a little thing called the Monroe Doctrine.
    But most Americans who aren't in the process of studying for a history exam probably couldn't tell you anything about Monroe beyond that there is a doctrine named after him.

    Yeah, they might even claim that the Monroe administration (1817-1825) fell somewhere between the presidencies of Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) and Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909).

    I thought that at first but then decided that Ruth probably meant that the presidents between Lincoln and T. Roosevelt consistently tried to implement the Monroe Doctrine. According to Wikipedia it wasn't even called the Monroe Doctrine until the second half of the 19th century.

    Nope, but thanks for the credit. I have repeatedly made this mistake, because while the doctrine is named after Monroe, the guy who really implemented it was McKinley. McKinley's presidency is the start of American imperialism.

    I think that the American Indians (we call them First Nations) would date the start of American imperialism a good deal earlier than McKinley. Ask a Seminole or Cherokee. (Not that the Seminole Wars are the result of the Monroe Doctrine, just a variation on the theme of terra nullius.)

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Of course we have no real idea what level of debt Trump finds himself in. $200k per annum probably won't even touch the interest payments. He would sell his soul, let alone state secrets, if it was to his own perceived benefit.

    Thanks to the New York Times [paywall] we have some idea, even if it's an incomplete picture. He needs to come up with (at least) $900 million in the next four years and it doesn't look like his income stream can handle that.
    I don't know that it's really going to be that much of a problem:
    Trump Reaps $207.5 Million After Loss as Donors Answer His Fury
    This took less than three weeks. Sure, it's probably not supposed to be spent on covering his debts, but he seems to have creative accountants.
  • Just had an awful thought, based on his past business behavior--particularly on working out ways to get money by having his hotel, the one down the street from the White House, used for gov't-related matters:

    There are privately-run prisons in the US. (Controversial, and not necessarily good places to be.) What if he worked out a way to legally make Mar-a-Lago a private prison for himself, owned by him, and the gov't budget that would've been spent on him, imprisoned elsewhere, went to him?

    He'd essentially get paid for being in prison.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    That might work if the new Attorney General signs off on it - but something tells me he wouldn't.
  • Heh. That's hilarious.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    McKinley's presidency is the start of American imperialism.

    You wouldn't regard the push west throughout the nineteenth century as imperialism?

    It is, but it's a continuation of the European imperialism that began much earlier. American imperialism as a brand is different:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism
  • This is a nice summary video from a news channel. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L5hksM_R59M

    Certainly makes it look like an attempted coup given the stated motivations of participants.
  • This is a nice summary video from a news channel. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L5hksM_R59M

    Certainly makes it look like an attempted coup given the stated motivations of participants.

    Reminding one of the saying, "Always believe someone when they show you who they are."
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    McKinley's presidency is the start of American imperialism.

    You wouldn't regard the push west throughout the nineteenth century as imperialism?

    It is, but it's a continuation of the European imperialism that began much earlier. American imperialism as a brand is different:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

    Well, in a sense it's a continuation, in that they were heading in the same direction, and on the same land, that the Europeans had been heading. But, post-independence, the decision to continue westward was America's alone.

    And yes, most of the land they took had already been colonized by European powers, but you could say the same thing about the territory McKinĺey grabbed from Spain.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    And yes, most of the land they took had already been colonized by European powers, but you could say the same thing about the territory McKinĺey grabbed from Spain.

    "Colonized" is a very elastic term in this context. It's probably more accurate to say various European powers had claimed large tracts of land in North America without a lot of what we would think of as colonization. To take one example, at the time of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 how many of the people living in the northern Great Plains thought of themselves as subjects of Napoleon Bonaparte who were now under the authority of Thomas Jefferson? For that matter, how many of them knew that Napoleon or Jefferson even existed?
  • stetson wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    McKinley's presidency is the start of American imperialism.

    You wouldn't regard the push west throughout the nineteenth century as imperialism?

    It is, but it's a continuation of the European imperialism that began much earlier. American imperialism as a brand is different:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

    Well, in a sense it's a continuation, in that they were heading in the same direction, and on the same land, that the Europeans had been heading. But, post-independence, the decision to continue westward was America's alone.

    And yes, most of the land they took had already been colonized by European powers, but you could say the same thing about the territory McKinĺey grabbed from Spain.

    That's not true. Europeans had claimed land. They hadn't colonized much. The American settlers exterminated the indigenous people or had the American army do it for them.

    Those who hadn't died of diseases and because of extermination of animals particularly buffalo and beaver. Beaver being far more important in regulating an arid plains climate than generally discussed.

    Genocide in the cultural, language, social senses is generally the term being used in Canada to describe this presently. Continues today.
  • I can't remember where I came across this, but I believe that Trump can't go to Mar el Largo permanently without breaking the planning conditions, and his neighbours there are wealthy enough to take him on in the courts.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 10
    Yes, I'd read that somewhere - he can't use the place as his primary residence, or words to that effect.

    The neighbours may well be rich enough to take him to court, but is he rich enough to contest them? Bearing in mind all the other lawsuits waiting to fall on him like a ton of bricks...
  • But Trump´s go-to play will be to settle there and defy people to get him out, knowing that it will take months if not years to take the matter through the courts - with a good chance that he might actually win.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited January 10
    stetson wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    McKinley's presidency is the start of American imperialism.

    You wouldn't regard the push west throughout the nineteenth century as imperialism?

    It is, but it's a continuation of the European imperialism that began much earlier. American imperialism as a brand is different:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

    Well, in a sense it's a continuation, in that they were heading in the same direction, and on the same land, that the Europeans had been heading. But, post-independence, the decision to continue westward was America's alone.

    And yes, most of the land they took had already been colonized by European powers, but you could say the same thing about the territory McKinĺey grabbed from Spain.

    That's not true. Europeans had claimed land. They hadn't colonized much. The American settlers exterminated the indigenous people or had the American army do it for them.

    Those who hadn't died of diseases and because of extermination of animals particularly buffalo and beaver. Beaver being far more important in regulating an arid plains climate than generally discussed.

    Genocide in the cultural, language, social senses is generally the term being used in Canada to describe this presently. Continues today.

    I'm quite happy to replace the word "colonized" with "claimed" in my sentence. I was simply mentioning prior European involvement in order to construct a prebuttal to someone saying that it proves the US expansion was a successor to Europe's.

    But let me ask this...

    Suppose Nation X claims an island, sends a few soldiers in, but generally runs it the same way the French ran the Louisiana Territory during their ownership.

    Then, at some point, Nation X sends in more soldiers and more settlers, and starts running the island the way the Americans ran the erstwhile Louisiana Territory during their push westward.

    Would historians say that Nation X's colonization of the island only started when they reached the second phase?
This discussion has been closed.