@Woodrow It is a protest, just self-defeating. About as influential as refusing to vote because you think "the system" is faulty or because you don't like the only candidates on the ballot.
mayjay
7180 posts
@Crimsonorblue22 Nice link, and a nice block at the rim of the (errant) mansplaining shot. The link within that one to the yahoo article about people lighting their Nike stuff on fire is hysterical!
@DoubleDD Carter was in his early 20's when China went Commie. WW2 created the conditions that made it possible. From Wikipedia:
In 1945, China emerged from the war nominally a great military power but economically weak and on the verge of all-out civil war. The economy was sapped by the military demands of a long costly war and internal strife, by spiraling inflation, and by corruption in the Nationalist government that included profiteering, speculation and hoarding.
Furthermore, as part of the Yalta Conference, which allowed a Soviet sphere of influence in Manchuria, the Soviets dismantled and removed more than half of the industrial equipment left there by the Japanese before handing over Manchuria to China. Large swathes of the prime farming areas had been ravaged by the fighting and there was starvation in the wake of the war. Many towns and cities were destroyed, and millions were rendered homeless by floods.
The problems of rehabilitation and reconstruction after the ravages of a protracted war were staggering, and the war left the Nationalists severely weakened, and their policies left them unpopular. Meanwhile, the war strengthened the Communists both in popularity and as a viable fighting force. At Yan'an and elsewhere in the communist controlled areas, Mao Zedong was able to adapt Marxism–Leninism to Chinese conditions. He taught party cadres to lead the masses by living and working with them, eating their food, and thinking their thoughts.
The Chinese Red Army fostered an image of conducting guerrilla warfare in defense of the people. Communist troops adapted to changing wartime conditions and became a seasoned fighting force. With skillful organization and propaganda, the Communists increased party membership from 100,000 in 1937 to 1.2 million by 1945.
Mao also began to execute his plan to establish a new China by rapidly moving his forces from Yan'an and elsewhere to Manchuria. This opportunity was available to the Communists because although Nationalist representatives were not invited to Yalta, they had been consulted and had agreed to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in the belief that the Soviet Union would cooperate only with the Nationalist government after the war.
However, the Soviet occupation of Manchuria was long enough to allow the Communist forces to move in en masse and arm themselves with the military hardware surrendered by the Imperial Japanese Army, quickly establish control in the countryside and move into position to encircle the Nationalist government army in major cities of northeast China. Following that, the Chinese Civil War broke out between the Nationalists and Communists, which concluded with the Communist victory in mainland China and the retreat of the Nationalists to Taiwan in 1949.
@Woodrow I assumed this was stimulated by the contribution. So it sounds like the Dems reacted to something that occurred in an election cycle. Kudos to the Dems!
@Woodrow I am flat astounded to think anyone, especially conservatives, could believe people are doing something illicit by choosing where they spend their own freakin' money. What should we do, then--make people certify that their money will be spent unaffected by political choices?
Capitalism is a great system provided that both businesses and consumers make choices as unfettered as possible. If a business pisses people off, their sales will suffer. As it is, and as it should be.
@DoubleDD Your three points sound exactly like a description of how Trump got elected. Very interesting that you see a boycott of a hamburger stand as a closer comparison.
@DoubleDD Well, now, the conservative position says not to make employees pay union fees when the union engages in lobbying they disagree with, or contribute to pol parties. If that is a valid stance (and I actually agree with that), then I think the only possible consistent view would be for people not wanting to support an opposing party to not fund donations that come from spending their money there.
I don't think I could imagine a more legitimate boycott. If a business decides to align itself with a particular party, why should people in the other party support it? It would be stupid.
@DoubleDD I don't remember seeing lots of your objections when Right Wingers calling for boycotts of Disney for its progressive LBGQT policies, or when nitwits got bent out of shape at Starbucks for its allegedly antiChristmas coffee cups (that actually were merely nonreligious holiday themes).
It really is just an example of why corporations should not be considered "people" for political participation purposes. The owners should keep the corporation out of politics.
@JayHawkFanToo I wish anyone posting a link would provide some context so a reader can decide if it is something they want to go see. Especially a video, because when browsing the Board in a public area, I don't know if it has sound to understand it (in which case I would need to come back later) or if it is a visual only.
Just a half sentence could be quite helpful.
@BShark Obviously, your absence was due to needing to devote all your energy to lobbying Jeff Long and KUAD to get this done. Than you for undertaking such a dangerous secret mission. Well done!
@BShark If Obama had a Cohen, the Donald would have been paid off to drop the birth certif thing long ago so it wouldn't interfere with Obama's campaign.
@BShark And, oddly enough, I never suspected he would be anywhere near this situation!
@JayHawkFanToo That has always been true. Nothing to do with the times! We just have more sources of info nowadays, so what people used to do in private now is more likely to get caught.
One aspect of the current times is certainly better: More abuse victims are more willing to come forward, and more people are willing to listen regardless of the stature of the alleged abuser, whether coach, doctor, politician, priest, or presid--
--ing judge.
@Crimsonorblue22 You certainly are an optimist! What makes you think we won't get Trae's minute-by-minute NBA career on the ESPN crawl?
@DanR Have fun with Mom! And say hello to the other fan for me!
The NCAA did not want to go on record as saying Harris played for Mizzou, not a real college, but you know that is what they are thinking.
Usually the immediate eligibility things are associated with tragedies (transferring to Evansville bb) or drastic punishments (fleeing Penn State fb), but for Mizzou it may just be a recognition that anyone wanting to escape has to be smart enough to go to a better school.
@approxinfinity “Hi my name is Mike, I like the shape of your head”
and they say silently, "...and now watch as I reshape it!"
@JayHawkFanToo Let me help--she was making a good natured joke. Think "typo" and read her post carefully. Way too much anger on the Board!
Crimsonorblue22 said:
I hate the word millenials
So, for you, this is definitely a Millennial Bug.
Remember when the world as we knew it was going to end because computers allegedly would fail to recognize the date? Whew, another catastrophe averted. Now, we DO have to watch out for Extinction-Level Events like comets, plague, and losing to KState....
@Crimsonorblue22 Why should they be any different?
Well, gee whiz, if it has "evaluation" in its name, it must be objective.
@justanotherfan Please correct me if I am wrong: I thought dbl jeopardy wouldn't apply in state court on anything that WAS charged in federal court, either, because doesn't it only apply to the same sovereign charging again for the same crime? And although an affirmative defense of res judicata could arguably be raised in state court if they were acquitted, I thought it would not be a bar to prosecution, but the state jury conceivably would have to decide whether a particular fact had been preclusively decided in the federal case (which is virtually impossible in an acquittal).
Manafort still has another federal trial, so the state stuff can wait.
@approxinfinity In addition, I read an analysis that pointed out that if Manafort and Cohen were pardoned by Trump, they would likely be called into state courts for tax evasion charges at least. Nothing Trump can do to affect those charges, and they likely would be brought in New York, Maryland, and Virginia (and possibly others where property is located or unreported income earned). The last one is contested, but NY and MD are heavily "Blue States" so no governor there would do state pardons to protect Trump. So, with those remaining over their heads they will continue to have every incentive to cooperate.
@approxinfinity Correction: The first accounts I read said that the Cohen statements were unsworn. But Cohen's lawyer said Cohen made his statements under oath. That would subject him to perjury charges if he were to testify differently.
@DoubleDD If you can't find someone else to explain it to you, let me: My post said that there are people at both ends of the political spectrum who have nasty thoughts about the other end, but that no one should think that all of the other group feels that way. In other words, no one should have labelled you a racist because of your vote.
From my caution against generalizing, which is, of course, what you were complaining about in the first place, you twice said "bite me". And now you are ranting and making generalizations about @Crimsonorblue22 because of how you think she voted.
Good luck exploring the maze into which your twisted hostile logic takes you. But you are going there on your own. I give up.
DoubleDD said:
mayjay said:
It would be safe to say, in view of the polls showing a large number of Republicans still believe that Obama is Kenyan and/or Muslim, that this belief has no evidentiary support and therefore might be motivated by racial animus. It would also be safe to say, based on other polls, that a large number of Democrats believe both Trump and many of his supporters to be racists.
Neither set of beliefs should be attributed to everyone in either group.
I'm sorry Obama voters didn't get called racists or get banned from public places or made fun of on every media outlet. You can bite me mayjay?
You need to reread my post and rethink your post. And then apologize if you can figure out how wrong you are.
@approxinfinity There is actually another Manafort trial coming up, in which the prosecutors are believed to have much more evidence. If there is a plea, he would only do it if it resolved that trial, these guilty verdicts, and the 10 charges that are unresolved in this trial.
Cohen will have made statements in support of the plea, but it is not testimony. Now that he has pled guilty, though, the prosecutors can compel his testimony under oath either in the grand jury or in a trial of someone else. What he says could surprise either side, but his plea wasn't dependent on cooperating. He can no longer plead the 5th.
A pardon for either could be done at any time. But a pardon actually has to be accepted, and accepting it legally is considered an admission of guilt. I would not be surprised if Cohen, despite the current breach with Trump, gets pardoned and then--surprise!--recants his claim that they worked together on the payoffs.
Trump has said he could pardon himself. The legal support for that proposition is, to be sure, uncertain at best. And, since it would be considered to be effectively an actual admission of guilt, he obviously wouldn't do it. Has he ever confessed to anything?
A commutation, incidentally, has no effect on a conviction. A druggie whose sentence was commuted by Obama, I think it was, turned it down because he felt the conditions (rehab, etc) would be more difficult and keep him under John Law's thumb longer than serving out his sentence.
@justanotherfan The smartest thing the Trump Republicans could do is lose control of both houses of Congress. Then, even if his vetoes are the reason no legislation gets enacted, the Donald can spend 2 full years excoriating a second "Do Nothing Congress" a la Truman, and the Dems thereupon waste their advantage through fratricide and their traditional strategic suicide. Trump wins in 2020. Putin, too, of course.
@KirkIsMyHinrich Damn! Good job. You a pro at this?
on how long it will be before Trump pardons Cohen and Manafort?
My guess is 3 weeks.
@dylans "Kansas will hand Iowa State it’s keister so bad it’s fans will stop whining and start singing praises of the Jayhawks. (Realizing it’s better to give it your all and lose to the best than to cry about losing to a team you “should’ve beat”)"
Yes, this type of adulation of dominant opponents always happens in sports!
wissox said:
Royals win innings 1-6, then the Sox win 7-9.
Obviously, official standings should reflect this. KC should be credited with 2/3 of a win.
@JayHawkFanToo So, back in the 90's even, Star Trek: The New Generation's collective The Borg anticipated the success this century of China's "one belt, one road" policy.....
Excellent article. I wonder what the author thinks of Turkey's currency collapse after buying into, he says, the Chinese offer to build their economy?
@JayHawkFanToo Tea Leoni should have been a pro golfer.
@JayHawkFanToo Incidentally, Nixon involved a subpoena for documents and tapes sought for use in a pending criminal proceeding against 7 indicted defendants. Nixon was a third-party, and was trying to quash on a claim of executive privilege (essentially, the need for confidentiality of presidential conversations and communications).
Was there any doubt in Nixon in 1974 who the ultimate target might have been? Nixon resigned 3 weeks after the decision after his support in Congress dissolved when the produced tapes proved he actively sought to illegally impede the Watergate investigation.
In addition, the Court in Nixon expressly approved a prior Court precedent applicable here:
Only recently the Court restated the ancient proposition of law, albeit in the context of a grand jury inquiry rather than a trial,
"that `the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence,' except for those persons protected by a constitutional, common-law, or statutory privilege, United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. [323, 331 (1950)]; Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 438 (1932) . . . ." Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 688 (1972).
That reference seems to indicate the principle applies more in a grand jury subpoena!
@JayHawkFanToo Being a target is a technical term. The Nixon case was talking about a "party". This shows you are not the lawyer you aspire to be. The grand jury ain't a party. And Nixon was forced to comply, incidentally.
It would be safe to say, in view of the polls showing a large number of Republicans still believe that Obama is Kenyan and/or Muslim, that this belief has no evidentiary support and therefore might be motivated by racial animus. It would also be safe to say, based on other polls, that a large number of Democrats believe both Trump and many of his supporters to be racists.
Neither set of beliefs should be attributed to everyone in either group.
@JayHawkFanToo If that were a bar exam question, I am afraid you would not have passed. There is nothing in the article that supports your argument. The rights of a party to subpoena a witness has to do with trial. As your article's commenters pointed out, a grand jury is different. And, incidentally, Mueller has previously said Trump is not the target, so that is out.
@dylans I thought your point was pretty clear. What he seems to have missed is that Mitch is a life-long KU avid fan, not the case with the other "99.9 %". But we know I will be corrected soon, just as you were about what you meant!
DoubleDD said:
Um no you're wrong on that one. If he tried without any real evidence? OBG. He would ruin everything he's ever done.
He has no evidence and has no leg to stand on. He can't subpoena the president with evidence why he is issuing the subpoena. He's screwed if he tries to do it. You know it and so do I. Muller has nothing he's just trying to find something.
He is charged by law to investigate. Questioning witnesses is part of that. So, yes, he can subpoena the president.
@approxinfinity The idea used by the English guy discussed in the last sentence would certainly work!
@DoubleDD Actually, Mueller could just subpoena Trump and make him testify at the grand jury where he would not have the right to an attorney. But Mueller is trying to get a meeting instead in order to avoid a confrontation and possible constitutional crisis.
Trump would have to appear and testify (or plead the 5th, but he could not then make any statements at all--can you imagine?), but only if the lapdog rightwing judges and justices follow the legal precedent sought by the rabid attackers of Bill Clinton. Now that their Darling Donald is in the crosshairs, I have no doubt they will decide Clinton should not have had to appear.
@DoubleDD The prohibition against emoluments indeed is the law. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. It is not, perhaps, separately spelled out in federal statutes. But do not say it is not the law!
@justanotherfan Of course, Trump promised to provide his tax returns, so that was a lie. It also took our current President a few years before he acknowledged that Obama's birth certificate was genuine--and then only after repeated pressure during the campaign. A few years during which he continued to claim that he had "people in Hawaii" who had investigated and had discovered amazing evidence about Obama's BCert that Trump promised he would reveal.
The man can't help lying, even when he has no reason to!
@wissox Baltimore is streaking in to make it a real race!
@wissox I just figured it was someone who lost his prave, whatever that is.
@jaybate-1.0 "Early Christianity associated left with evil and right with good, left with the devil’s work and right with god’s order. It’s in their art and some texts, if I recall correctly."
In Latin, sinister means left-handed. The following is from a stackexchange.com answer in a similar discussion. I don't vouch for its accuracy, but, JB, it has info right up your alley:
In the past, to be left-handed was considered touched by the Devil. As Wikipedia notes:
Historically, the left side, and subsequently left-handedness, was considered negative in many cultures. The Latin word sinistra originally meant "left" but took on meanings of "evil" or "unlucky" by the Classical Latin era, and this double meaning survives in European derivatives of Latin, and in the English word "sinister".
Meanings gradually developed from use of these terms in the ancient languages. In many modern European languages, including English, the word for the direction "right" also means "correct" or "proper", and also stands for authority and justice. In most Slavic languages the root prav is used in words carrying meanings of correctness or justice.
So, if you were left-handed or sinister, you were associated with evil. In time, sinister itself meant evil and threatening. EtymOnline said that sinister attained this meaning in the early 15th century. The OED supports this, writing that the first uses of sinister to mean malicious were:
1474 Rolls of Parl. VI. 110/1 Contynuyn in habundaunce of goodes and havour, to their sinister pleasure.
1477 Earl Rivers tr. Dictes or Sayengis Philosophhres (Caxton) (1877) lf. 7, Leste ye be let or withdrawen ther fro by eny sinistre or euil temptacion.
@JayHawkFanToo Yeah, I don't get that one either, but maybe I should get a cute butterfly on my ankle and see if I get addicted to my body as canvas.....
@HighEliteMajor "And I do believe in the right to “bare” arms. I believe in the right to hairy arms too."
Hairy arms are generally okay, but the trend toward perpetual 2-day scraggly beards violates every norm and moral code known to man.