U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Nookie Bear]

17 hours ago, jake said:

Not trolling.

Not a trump apologist.

You posted about a man having zero respect for women.

Then posted a picture which showed a woman performing oral on a man to mock her.

 

That's ironic don't you think?

 

When May first visited Trump in the US, the guardian had a cartoon that appeared to show Trump anally raping May. It seems to me that anything goes, as long as it fits the narrative that dominates social media. 

 

But if "anything goes", then people need to be aware it may one day choose an angle they do not agree with - will they be so understanding?

[Victorian]

May was asked on Andrew Marr what the big Trump 'suggestion not advice' was.     Surprisingly she answered and it was to sue the EU.

 

Just the type of deluded,  asinine,  naive notion that would fit right in to the governments own Brexit strategy.     

[maroonlegions]

21 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

Just watching Sky news and an interview with a woman protesting in Edinburgh. She gives her reason for protesting but includes swearing in it. The hypocrisy and irony reeks from the likes of her. 

 

 

Swearing, never.

 

 

 

 

He is a fecking utter joke of a president and no swear word comes close to describing his total lack of  empathy and respect shown here.

 

He is a fecking $***%^&&  and a total %$$£$** towards women and non whites .

[...a bit disco]

My Twitter feed the other day was interesting.

 

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Swearing, never.

 

 

 

 

He is a fecking utter joke of a president and no swear word comes close to describing his total lack of  empathy and respect shown here.

 

He is a fecking $***%^&&  and a total %$$£$** towards women and non whites .

Sums up that *******

Nothing more can be added.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Swearing, never.

 

 

 

 

He is a fecking utter joke of a president and no swear word comes close to describing his total lack of  empathy and respect shown here.

 

He is a fecking $***%^&&  and a total %$$£$** towards women and non whites .

As part of a complicated security operation the timing of his arrival was not entirely (or really much at all) in Trump's control.

I don't know if American Presidents habitually bow to the British monarch but Americans earned the right not to nearly 250 years ago.

And this was an occasion when Trump was inspecting a guard of honour. I think he probably assumed it was his job to do the inspection not follow Ma'am while she did.

I doubt many Americans other perhaps those seeking desperately to be offended by everything Trump will think he has embarrassed his country in this case.

If people got less excited about trivia like this maybe his real offences would be seen more clearly by more people,.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Francis Albert

[vladimator]

Doesn’t anyone find it strange that radical Islamists and feminists were marching side by side? What common theme were they united against

[Nookie Bear]

1 hour ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Swearing, never.

 

 

 

 

He is a fecking utter joke of a president and no swear word comes close to describing his total lack of  empathy and respect shown here.

 

He is a fecking $***%^&&  and a total %$$£$** towards women and non whites .

 

So...basically behaves like every anti-monarchists would love to 

 

Good to see you standing up for our beloved monarch though. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Nookie Bear

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Swearing, never.

 

 

 

 

He is a fecking utter joke of a president and no swear word comes close to describing his total lack of  empathy and respect shown here.

 

He is a fecking $***%^&&  and a total %$$£$** towards women and non whites .

There's plenty to hate Trumpet  for, but the above isn't any. Time that mob was shown the door. 

[Cruyff Turn]

38 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

So...basically behaves like every anti-monarchists would love to 

 

Good to see you standing up for our beloved monarch though. 

This. I wouldn't bow to the Queen either, although I'd probably be a bit more polite to a 90 yr old woman and not walk away in front of her. 

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

 

Swearing, never.

 

 

 

 

He is a fecking utter joke of a president and no swear word comes close to describing his total lack of  empathy and respect shown here.

 

He is a fecking $***%^&&  and a total %$$£$** towards women and non whites .

 

Of all the things Donald Trump does, this is nothing. Who gives a shit about respecting the shite institution that is the British Monarchy. 

[Sidelight]

13 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

The FBI investigation into Russian interference in the US election started before the Steele Dossier was even written. The Steele Dossier is irrelevant to the ongoing investigation, which has now indicted 32 people. And there's plenty, plenty, plenty more to come.

 

Rather embarrassing to see others, however well-intentioned, swallow your never-ending lies and nonsense. 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/21/us/politics/fact-check-trump-russia-investigation-steele-dossier.html

From what I have read, four ex Trump campaign associates – Flynn, Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

A further 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were also indicted in February for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election.

However, the DOJ said the indictment does not allege that the interference changed the outcome of the election. Rosenstein writes:

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity."

As for the 12 are members of GRU, the Russian intelligence agency, who knows.

2 years and nothing. The political witch-hunt continues.

Perhaps you need to check your dates WRT investigation/dossier etc.

And in closing it seems, somewhat ignorant and bad form to call a person whom you have never met or known a liar.

 

 

[...a bit disco]

Here's what he says about the UK.

 

 

Sorted.

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, Cruyff Turn said:

This. I wouldn't bow to the Queen either, although I'd probably be a bit more polite to a 90 yr old woman and not walk away in front of her. 

Exactly.

[Sharpie]

11 minutes ago, alfajambo said:

From what I have read, four ex Trump campaign associates – Flynn, Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos – have been charged, though none of the charges are directly related to any misconduct by the president's campaign.

A further 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were also indicted in February for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election.

However, the DOJ said the indictment does not allege that the interference changed the outcome of the election. Rosenstein writes:

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity."

As for the 12 are members of GRU, the Russian intelligence agency, who knows.

2 years and nothing. The political witch-hunt continues.

Perhaps you need to check your dates WRT investigation/dossier etc.

And in closing it seems, somewhat ignorant and bad form to call a person whom you have never met or known a liar.

 

 

 

Your quotes are quite correct, but I personally don't take them quite so definite. The four that you mention as you say not directly, but their conduct and deals made whilst involved with the  campaign had Russian connections or close to. Same witht the statement that there are no allegations in this indictment, true, but, that does not say that there may be some in future indictments.  There is a reason why Trump and the Republicans are in such a hurry to have this investigation closed, they know there is something there.Gowdy for example headed an investigation by a congerssional commitee that took two and a half years with no indictments, he is one of the biggest commentors on how long Mueller is taking and Mueller has produced multiple indictments.  Trump is not a good man, he is a spoiled little rich boy in an overgrown body, he pouts and gets angry when criticised, he bullys, he definitely lies, he is crude, he is an abuser of women, he is a racist, and he has ambitions of being like his heroes Putin, Kim, and the Chinese dictator. The only semi good thing I can say about Trump is he was put in a position he should never have been put in by the Americn people who elected him, solely in the absence of a reasonable Democratic opponent. He is not, never will be a President in the true meaning of the word and position, he is what he is, a loud mouth who had the personality to be cast in the lead role in a reality tv show.

[Nookie Bear]

3 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Of all the things Donald Trump does, this is nothing. Who gives a shit about respecting the shite institution that is the British Monarchy. 

 

Absolutely no time for Trump - we all know what he is - but the feigned disgust on behalf of the Queen is embarrassing. Especially as the same people will be equally “disgusted” when the Queen supposedly disrespects someone they approve of. 

 

Stuff like this this just adds to the noise and serves no purpose. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I can’t believe the extent to which we’re indulging this idiot. A stain on the planet

[J.T.F.Robertson]

8 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

As part of a complicated security operation the timing of his arrival was not entirely (or really much at all) in Trump's control.

I don't know if American Presidents habitually bow to the British monarch but Americans earned the right not to nearly 250 years ago.

And this was an occasion when Trump was inspecting a guard of honour. I think he probably assumed it was his job to do the inspection not follow Ma'am while she did.

I doubt many Americans other perhaps those seeking desperately to be offended by everything Trump will think he has embarrassed his country in this case.

If people got less excited about trivia like this maybe his real offences would be seen more clearly by more people,.

 

Give us a feckin break, man. You don't have to be "desperate to find offence" to know the guy is a moron. I'm no royalist but he is so full of himself "protocol" wouldn't  even occur to him.

And as for them having earned the right 250 years ago, that was 250 feckin years ago. Most have gotten over all that by now and that includes the ones who earned the right.

 

You "see" nothing most of the rest of us don't, but your constant "aye but" defence of him is tedious in the extreme. (not the only topic you employ the tactic)

And I'm not "excited", I'm actually sickened by his "real offences", as you put it. He is an aberration of a President and no amount of your comparing is ever going to change that.

 

Again, give us a break.

 

[peter_hmfc]

14 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

Give us a feckin break, man. You don't have to be "desperate to find offence" to know the guy is a moron. I'm no royalist but he is so full of himself "protocol" wouldn't  even occur to him.

And as for them having earned the right 250 years ago, that was 250 feckin years ago. Most have gotten over all that by now and that includes the ones who earned the right.

 

You "see" nothing most of the rest of us don't, but your constant "aye but" defence of him is tedious in the extreme. (not the only topic you employ the tactic)

And I'm not "excited", I'm actually sickened by his "real offences", as you put it. He is an aberration of a President and no amount of your comparing is ever going to change that.

 

Again, give us a break.

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

51 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

Give us a feckin break, man. You don't have to be "desperate to find offence" to know the guy is a moron. I'm no royalist but he is so full of himself "protocol" wouldn't  even occur to him.

And as for them having earned the right 250 years ago, that was 250 feckin years ago. Most have gotten over all that by now and that includes the ones who earned the right.

 

You "see" nothing most of the rest of us don't, but your constant "aye but" defence of him is tedious in the extreme. (not the only topic you employ the tactic)

And I'm not "excited", I'm actually sickened by his "real offences", as you put it. He is an aberration of a President and no amount of your comparing is ever going to change that.

 

Again, give us a break.

 

Fair comment.

[Nookie Bear]

48 minutes ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

Give us a feckin break, man. You don't have to be "desperate to find offence" to know the guy is a moron. I'm no royalist but he is so full of himself "protocol" wouldn't  even occur to him.

And as for them having earned the right 250 years ago, that was 250 feckin years ago. Most have gotten over all that by now and that includes the ones who earned the right.

 

You "see" nothing most of the rest of us don't, but your constant "aye but" defence of him is tedious in the extreme. (not the only topic you employ the tactic)

And I'm not "excited", I'm actually sickened by his "real offences", as you put it. He is an aberration of a President and no amount of your comparing is ever going to change that.

 

Again, give us a break.

 

 

But, if this was Trump carrying out an inspection, then it is feasible he would be ahead of the Queen - if something  is causing such great offence then surely we need the full picture of what is actually happening.

 

Incidentally, Was there a similar defence of the Queen and protocol when the SNP's Hannah Bardell "mistakenly" omitted the word "Queen" from the Oath when entering parliament? 

[PnG]

9 hours ago, vladimator said:

Doesn’t anyone find it strange that radical Islamists and feminists were marching side by side? What common theme were they united against

 

The straight white male?

[jake]

24 minutes ago, PnG said:

 

The straight white male?

Close but no cigar.

Their alliance is the closing down of free thought.

That expression on any level is wrong.

 

To balance this.

So is the polar opposite of what they espouse.

 

Both should be met with opposition.

 

This is my gripe.

And why I rally against those who think they are opposition.

 

 

 

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, J.T.F.Robertson said:

 

Give us a feckin break, man. You don't have to be "desperate to find offence" to know the guy is a moron. I'm no royalist but he is so full of himself "protocol" wouldn't  even occur to him.

And as for them having earned the right 250 years ago, that was 250 feckin years ago. Most have gotten over all that by now and that includes the ones who earned the right.

 

You "see" nothing most of the rest of us don't, but your constant "aye but" defence of him is tedious in the extreme. (not the only topic you employ the tactic)

And I'm not "excited", I'm actually sickened by his "real offences", as you put it. He is an aberration of a President and no amount of your comparing is ever going to change that.

 

Again, give us a break.

 

Nice rant. I am not sure those who earned the right nearly  250 years ago have gotten over it. Well I suppose they have  in the sense they got over everything a long time ago.

 

As with so many of the obsessive Trump haters you confuse criticism of some of his opponents (speaking loosely -they are usually so ineffective as opponents that they reinforce him) as defence of him.

[Francis Albert]

And to add to that. The only people that really matter in this sad interlude in American history are American voters. If anyone thinks that shots of the Trump baby blimp (small balloon) or criticism of his failure to bow to the Queen are going to have anything other than a positive  impact on Trump's chances of re-election  they are sadly deluded.

 

But hey it  probably  makes them feel good.

Edited July 15, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Governor Tarkin]

Excellent work, FA

[Sharpie]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And to add to that. The only people that really matter in this sad interlude in American history are American voters. If anyone thinks that shots of the Trump baby blimp (small balloon) or criticism of his failure to bow to the Queen are going to have anything other than a positive  impact on Trump's chances of re-election  they are sadly deluded.

 

But hey it  probably  makes them feel good.

 

What you say in most respects has an element of truth, however here in Canada in the media, in social media there are strong comments, and yes mainly criticisms of Trump, there are certainly many not happy with him in the States.  It seems to me that there are more of the celebrity group who are speaking out against him,  I remember such as John Stewart very critical of Bush who if I recall did not get into the verbal jousting that Trump tends to do. My belief and hope is that the American people all get out and vote, especially those who talk and complain but as the human is inclined to do, do nothing don't get out to vote and leave it all to others, well in 2020 it will be important to vote.  Of course I stick with my prediction that he will not finish this first term.  Mueller has achieved something I have never seen before, no leaks. No one outside his team knows what he has, he sees no need to titilate, he when its time will lower the boom.  Of course I still think two lawyers on different sides will both be an integral part of his demise, Avanatti, and the blithering senile old idiot Giulliani.

 

As far as the Queen is concerned yes Royalty is a system of the past, but being of passing years and having served and lived under the Queen I have a level of respect for her. If not for her philandering Uncle she would not have had the job, but she was stuck with it and has done it to the best of her ability.  Certainly there are riches involved, but for me I would rather win the lottery than get it the way she did, the price is way too high. The main thing I see with Trump was his not deliberate, but buffoonish lack of knowledge how to show a modicum of respect for a ninety three year old lady who has been in her job for a very long time.

[Maple Leaf]

Trump's buffoonery is well-known, so I'm sure the Queen would not have been surprised if there was a breach of protocol.  As long as he didn't slurp his tea out of the royal saucer, HRH would have been cool with the distasteful ordeal of spending an hour in his company.  I wonder what they talked about?  

 

What's much more worrisome to me is how the eejit seems hellbent on starting a trade war with nations that consider themselves to be American allies.  Formerly, it was Congress who passed Bills regarding tariffs, but Trump has invented the ruse of "National Security" to bypass Congress and impose tariffs based on his personal whims.  And the spineless Republicans in Congress are too frightened to try and stop him.

 

Remember 'way back when, we were reassuring ourselves that the so-called checks and balances in the American system would keep him from doing anything too daft?  We didn't expect that he would figure out a way around those checks and balances.

[Sharpie]

46 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

Trump's buffoonery is well-known, so I'm sure the Queen would not have been surprised if there was a breach of protocol.  As long as he didn't slurp his tea out of the royal saucer, HRH would have been cool with the distasteful ordeal of spending an hour in his company.  I wonder what they talked about?  

 

What's much more worrisome to me is how the eejit seems hellbent on starting a trade war with nations that consider themselves to be American allies.  Formerly, it was Congress who passed Bills regarding tariffs, but Trump has invented the ruse of "National Security" to bypass Congress and impose tariffs based on his personal whims.  And the spineless Republicans in Congress are too frightened to try and stop him.

 

Remember 'way back when, we were reassuring ourselves that the so-called checks and balances in the American system would keep him from doing anything too daft?  We didn't expect that he would figure out a way around those checks and balances.

 

The stupid man interviewed today referred to nations with which he has differences such as trade foes.  If he was a genius as he claims he would have learned how to keep his big mouth shut, its no difficult Donald, just put your lips together and get someone to staple them.

[Justin Z]

5 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

Trump's buffoonery is well-known, so I'm sure the Queen would not have been surprised if there was a breach of protocol.  As long as he didn't slurp his tea out of the royal saucer, HRH would have been cool with the distasteful ordeal of spending an hour in his company.  I wonder what they talked about?  

 

What's much more worrisome to me is how the eejit seems hellbent on starting a trade war with nations that consider themselves to be American allies.  Formerly, it was Congress who passed Bills regarding tariffs, but Trump has invented the ruse of "National Security" to bypass Congress and impose tariffs based on his personal whims.  And the spineless Republicans in Congress are too frightened to try and stop him.

 

Remember 'way back when, we were reassuring ourselves that the so-called checks and balances in the American system would keep him from doing anything too daft?  We didn't expect that he would figure out a way around those checks and balances.

 

While this is generally correct, ML, it's given him far too much credit to say he invented it. Unfortunately, Congress and the President alike have been circumventing the intent of the Constitution in the name of "national security" for a long time, across a broad variety of issues.

 

What's new, I suppose, is the US' invocation of the national security exception in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, something it used to actively avoid (see, for example, Nicaragua in the mid-1980s). Well, that and its backing Russia's similar use of it--surprise surprise.

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

While this is generally correct, ML, it's given him far too much credit to say he invented it. Unfortunately, Congress and the President alike have been circumventing the intent of the Constitution in the name of "national security" for a long time, across a broad variety of issues.

 

What's new, I suppose, is the US' invocation of the national security exception in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, something it used to actively avoid (see, for example, Nicaragua in the mid-1980s). Well, that and its backing Russia's similar use of it--surprise surprise.

Justin!, the very man. Is it true the police can pull you at a sobriety area and take your blood without consent. 

Is that not against the constitution bud. 

[Justin Z]

Just now, ri Alban said:

Justin!, the very man. Is it true the police can pull you at a sobriety area and take your blood without consent. 

Is that not against the constitution bud. 

 

Sobriety checkpoints and random stops are one of the most insidious civil liberties violations going in the United States, in my view. And yes, my opinion is it's absolutely unequivocal that they are all in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as categorically unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

Regarding the drawing of blood specifically, the Constitution is skirted by imposing a penalty of revocation of your driving license (ce) if you refuse a blood test (or a "breathalyzer"). Since driving is a granted privilege, it's a clever way to avoid the Constitutional issue. You can still be charged with drunk (i) driving, then convicted on the testimony of police officers, whose word is basically gold in courtrooms, even though it absolutely shouldn't be, especially in the US.

[ri Alban]

47 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Sobriety checkpoints and random stops are one of the most insidious civil liberties violations going in the United States, in my view. And yes, my opinion is it's absolutely unequivocal that they are all in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as categorically unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

Regarding the drawing of blood specifically, the Constitution is skirted by imposing a penalty of revocation of your driving license (ce) if you refuse a blood test (or a "breathalyzer"). Since driving is a granted privilege, it's a clever way to avoid the Constitutional issue. You can still be charged with drunk (i) driving, then convicted on the testimony of police officers, whose word is basically gold in courtrooms, even though it absolutely shouldn't be, especially in the US.

Thanks bud. 

 

I've been having a wee look at some videos of illegal stop and search, detaining and trying to force folk to show ID. Some Polis are tyrants. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by ri Alban

[Seymour M Hersh]

5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Sobriety checkpoints and random stops are one of the most insidious civil liberties violations going in the United States, in my view. And yes, my opinion is it's absolutely unequivocal that they are all in violation of the Fourth Amendment, as categorically unreasonable searches and seizures.

 

 

Seems to me getting drunk drivers (whether alcohol or drugs) off the road is a good thing. They are not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if law enforcement posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location. 

[Sharpie]

I seem to recall in a class at Quantico the subject of checking for impaired driving was raised. If I remember correctly the subject of checkpoints was raised, it was said then that as a result of one driver complaining that he had been checked while other drivers were not he had been deprived of freedom of movement, consequently police were instructed to conduct check points where all were checked and no one was singled out for such.

[Maple Leaf]

Apparently there will be some one-on-one time at today's meeting between Trump and his boss, where only interpreters will be present.  

 

No doubt there will be lots of this: 

 

[Justin Z]

14 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Seems to me getting drunk drivers (whether alcohol or drugs) off the road is a good thing. They are not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if law enforcement posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location. 

 

There is a principle in American law called Strict Scrutiny. It is a standard where when the government seeks to enforce a law that infringes upon any fundamental right or is discriminatory towards a protected class, one of the prongs of the test it must pass in order to be deemed constitutional is that it is "narrowly tailored". This means that if anyone arguing against such a law may demonstrate less invasive ways in which the government might also have accomplished what the law is set out to do, then the law is de facto unconstitutional.

 

Getting impaired drivers off the road is a compelling government interest (the other prong of this test). Doing so by way of checkpoints in violation of everyone's--impaired or not--Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures is not a narrowly tailored way of achieving this interest. It is therefore unconstitutional.

 

Keep in mind, the above are legal arguments, and not everyone may agree, but that's the general rundown.

 

Also, we've veered off-topic. I like talking about the law as philosophy, so if there are more questions about this or other Constitution-related stuff, maybe another thread should be started.

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

There is a principle in American law called Strict Scrutiny. It is a standard where when the government seeks to enforce a law that infringes upon any fundamental right or is discriminatory towards a protected class, one of the prongs of the test it must pass in order to be deemed constitutional is that it is "narrowly tailored". This means that if anyone arguing against such a law may demonstrate less invasive ways in which the government might also have accomplished what the law is set out to do, then the law is de facto unconstitutional.

 

Getting impaired drivers off the road is a compelling government interest (the other prong of this test). Doing so by way of checkpoints in violation of everyone's--impaired or not--Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures is not a narrowly tailored way of achieving this interest. It is therefore unconstitutional.

 

Keep in mind, the above are legal arguments, and not everyone may agree, but that's the general rundown.

 

Also, we've veered off-topic. I like talking about the law as philosophy, so if there are more questions about this or other Constitution-related stuff, maybe another thread should be started.

 

All well and good but the fact appears to be that they are not breaking the constitution by having them as long as they are pre advertised location, time etc. You are falling into the trap all lawyers love to do and that, imo, is looking to twist the law to suit. If they were going into people's houses to conduct sobriety tests then you would have an argument but they're doing where you would want them to and that's on the highways and byways. Any-hoo it's only used in 37 States. I take it you weren't trying to caste it up at Trump?

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

All well and good but the fact appears to be that they are not breaking the constitution by having them as long as they are pre advertised location, time etc. You are falling into the trap all lawyers love to do and that, imo, is looking to twist the law to suit. If they were going into people's houses to conduct sobriety tests then you would have an argument but they're doing where you would want them to and that's on the highways and byways. Any-hoo it's only used in 37 States. I take it you weren't trying to caste it up at Trump?

 

I didn't realise you were such an expert on lawyers and what we all love to do, nor did I realise that you had spent years in American law school and law practice and therefore had a well researched and extensive understanding of American jurisprudence.

 

Until around the late 80s, if I remember right, checkpoints weren't even announced. I can't recall the case that changed that off the top of my head, but the point is, up until then, it was perfectly legal to surprise people with them. I'm sure many individuals existed then who would say things like "well, it's a good thing, because we're getting drunk drivers off the road". Thankfully, arguments like the one I made above won the day and a step forward for civil liberties was made. Sitz, the case that controls now, uses a balancing test to determine whether a checkpoint is legal. I would argue that singling out checkpoints and giving them their own standard runs counter to the entire spirit and idea of the Fourth Amendment. To this point, five justices of the Supreme Court haven't agreed with this view. Maybe someday, much like they did with the prior ruling, they will strike a blow for the Constitution, and American civil liberties will benefit again.

 

I didn't realise 13 states specifically outlawed checkpoints. I'd imagine a majority of those have done so on the basis of the argumentation I laid out in the previous post.

 

And no, like I said, this was off-topic. It has nothing to do with Trump, and he'd be intellectually incapable of a multifaceted legal analysis anyway. So it'd really be best if we want to carry this on, to do it in another thread.

[Seymour M Hersh]

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I didn't realise you were such an expert on lawyers and what we all love to do, nor did I realise that you had spent years in American law school and law practice and therefore had a well researched and extensive understanding of American jurisprudence.

 

Until around the late 80s, if I remember right, checkpoints weren't even announced. I can't recall the case that changed that off the top of my head, but the point is, up until then, it was perfectly legal to surprise people with them. I'm sure many individuals existed then who would say things like "well, it's a good thing, because we're getting drunk drivers off the road". Thankfully, arguments like the one I made above won the day and a step forward for civil liberties was made. Sitz, the case that controls now, uses a balancing test to determine whether a checkpoint is legal. I would argue that singling out checkpoints and giving them their own standard runs counter to the entire spirit and idea of the Fourth Amendment. To this point, five justices of the Supreme Court haven't agreed with this view. Maybe someday, much like they did with the prior ruling, they will strike a blow for the Constitution, and American civil liberties will benefit again.

 

I didn't realise 13 states specifically outlawed checkpoints. I'd imagine a majority of those have done so on the basis of the argumentation I laid out in the previous post.

 

And no, like I said, this was off-topic. It has nothing to do with Trump, and he'd be intellectually incapable of a multifaceted legal analysis anyway. So it'd really be best if we want to carry this on, to do it in another thread.

 

A bit patronising there but having spent over 20 years head hunting and recruiting lawyers in both the US and UK I know a little bit about the profession. But, not I didn't attend Harvard Law as you clearly did! 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

22 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

Apparently there will be some one-on-one time at today's meeting between Trump and his boss, where only interpreters will be present.  

 

No doubt there will be lots of this: 

 

 

Did you not know that they were having what is effectively a private one on one meeting, with only interpreters present and no notes being taken either?

That's been reported in the UK media for days now, what is new however, is that it's emerged that it was the Donald who had insisted upon the one on one meeting, much to the consternation of state department officials, so it's being reported.

 

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

A bit patronising there but having spent over 20 years head hunting and recruiting lawyers in both the US and UK I know a little bit about the profession. But, not I didn't attend Harvard Law as you clearly did! 

 

Haha. Hardly. But if you don't think telling me what we lawyers all love to do was patronising in the first instance, I don't know what to tell you.

[Maple Leaf]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Did you not know that they were having what is effectively a private one on one meeting, with only interpreters present and no notes being taken either?

That's been reported in the UK media for days now, what is new however, is that it's emerged that it was the Donald who had insisted upon the one on one meeting, much to the consternation of state department officials, so it's being reported.

 

 

What goes on behind closed doors between consenting adults, is no-one's business but their own.   

 

But seriously, has Trump had such a private meeting with any other head of state since he became President?  And is this any more bizarre than the time he invited a couple of top Russians to the Oval Office, and all aides were excluded then too?  Trump's obsequiousness towards Russia is embarrassing. 

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Seems to me getting drunk drivers (whether alcohol or drugs) off the road is a good thing. They are not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment if law enforcement posts or announces in advance that these checkpoints will occur and at what location. 

That's all very well, but we're talking most drivers.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

That's all very well, but we're talking most drivers.

 

If you are sober you have nothing to hide. I see it as a minor inconvenience tbh, if it get's more drunk drivers off the roads. Do Police Scotland not do something similar at New Year? I've no problem with that either.

[ri Alban]

1 minute ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

If you are sober you have nothing to hide. I see it as a minor inconvenience tbh, if it get's more drunk drivers off the roads. Do Police Scotland not do something similar at New Year? I've no problem with that either.

You can take a breathalyser test. Blood tests sound like database collecting. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

You can take a breathalyser test. Blood tests sound like database collecting. 

 

I thought the issue was the stop and search itself. And you had a choice blood test or breath test.

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I thought the issue was the stop and search itself. And you had a choice blood test or breath test.

Nope, they have an on site blood Bank. And if they say you've been drinking in you go. Their word is gospel. 

Thank god for camera phones. 

Edited July 16, 2018 by ri Alban

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I thought the issue was the stop and search itself. And you had a choice blood test or breath test.

You can refuse, but you lose your licence on the spot. 

[Governor Tarkin]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

I like talking.