Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dunamisdeos]

Yeah as long as the investigation is following legal procedure they can investigate anyone they choose for any reason. Even local cops can legally start an investigation on whoever they want for any reason, there's just no reason or means to do so for every rando citizen.

Noone has a "right" to obstruct legally conducted investigations being carried about by recognized authorities.

[Trekkin]

Noone has a "right" to obstruct legally conducted investigations being carried about by recognized authorities.

That's definitionally true insofar as obstruction is a crime, but the authorities themselves need to have some ability to stop groundless investigations or else the whole system drowns in frivolity and remains vulnerable to malicious (including political) use. Barr's argument rests on a legally ludicrous extension of that principle, in light of the President's role as head of the executive branch and thus the DOJ, to assign him unrestricted power to make those decisions about any investigation. That doesn't mean the principle itself isn't sound, though.

[smjjames]

Noone has a "right" to obstruct legally conducted investigations being carried about by recognized authorities.

That's definitionally true insofar as obstruction is a crime, but the authorities themselves need to have some ability to stop groundless investigations or else the whole system drowns in frivolity and remains vulnerable to malicious (including political) use. Barr's argument rests on a legally ludicrous extension of that principle, in light of the President's role as head of the executive branch and thus the DOJ, to assign him unrestricted power to make those decisions about any investigation. That doesn't mean the principle itself isn't sound, though.

True, only problem is that Trump has repeatedly claimed that the investigation is unwarranted. In that context, Barr sounds a heck of a lot like he is saying that the President can arbitrarily claim an investigation is unwarranted and block it just because they say it’s unwarranted. That might not be legally true, but to a layperson, it does sound like he is declaring the President potentially above the law.

[Frumple]

It's more or less the angle barr is trying to roll with, yes. If you were expecting much respect for the law from someone with barr's history I'm not sure what to tell you.

[smjjames]

A Republican senator calls for hearing on military intervention in Venezuela, and its not Rand Paul. I’m a bit surprised that a Republican is asking about it, but finally there’s some actual oversight from the Republicans.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Never trust a Republican. You could turn a hearing around into a propaganda session easily. I'd expect even your average Dem to pull that, the level of pro-war rhetoric they've been pushing.

[LordBaal]

 What should I make of that? Assume the "incoming nuke" position you used to taught your kids back in the 60's and await the boom? Or should I shave my legs? or is just another snafu?

[SalmonGod]

What should I make of that? Assume the "incoming nuke" position you used to taught your kids back in the 60's and await the boom? Or should I shave my legs? or is just another snafu?

It would most likely go 1 of 2 ways

1.  If they go the route that they normally have for South America, they'll pick someone who would make a good fascist dictator, and provide material support and training for them to rise to power.  Said dictator will terrorize the populace with death squads and political disappearances.  The USA will likely ignore the situation completely, being satisfied that they punished the country for daring to ever question capitalism.
2.  If the USA engages in direct military intervention, they'll kill about 10x more innocent civilians than combatants and the skies will be filled with humming drones 24/7 that leave everyone wondering every minute of every day if they're about to be the next innocent victim.  Once the place has been wrecked enough and existing leadership eradicated, the new government will be filled with U.S. agents making sure that wealth gets efficiently funneled out of the country.

Either way, media around the world will blacklist reporting on you for fear of retaliation.  Visiting journalists will be regularly killed.  And information leaked out of the country won't be published by major outlets.  If you don't think it's realistic for journalists all around the world to be afraid of the USA, look at Assange.

[wierd]

And this is why I really do want the US to stop being a hegemon.  There are plenty of very wealthy, healthy, and productive first world nations out there. Not being "The BIG DAWG!" anymore wont really hurt us, and we could definitely stand to redirect all that military expenditure we do trying to maintain that position into other avenues. (Like infrastructure? You know, like all the bridges that are fucking falling down all over the country?)

[McTraveller]

Eh, that's a two-way street though.  Half the countries in the world want the US to leave them alone, but the other half always say "The US is so rich, why don't they do something to help us?"

Regarding infrastructure:  Yes, please!  I'm always amused that my locale is a strange mix of new construction (residential, commercial, and industrial are all booming) but literally being built on roads that you can visibly see crumbling.  By that I mean, you can actually see the holes get bigger with every car that drives over them.  I have seen cantaloupe-sized chunks of concrete and/or asphalt.  Oh, and that doesn't even consider the hundreds of miles of unpaved roads in the greater urban area.  Yes - in my urban area we have roads that have never been paved.  I even just read an article that says that some communities are actively converting paved roads to gravel.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They want the US to leave them alone because the US kills their people and takes their wealth, which it then hordes and doesn't use to help them or even common Americans.

[LordBaal]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What should I make of that? Assume the "incoming nuke" position you used to taught your kids back in the 60's and await the boom? Or should I shave my legs? or is just another snafu?

It would most likely go 1 of 2 ways

1.  If they go the route that they normally have for South America, they'll pick someone who would make a good fascist dictator, and provide material support and training for them to rise to power.  Said dictator will terrorize the populace with death squads and political disappearances.  The USA will likely ignore the situation completely, being satisfied that they punished the country for daring to ever question capitalism.
2.  If the USA engages in direct military intervention, they'll kill about 10x more innocent civilians than combatants and the skies will be filled with humming drones 24/7 that leave everyone wondering every minute of every day if they're about to be the next innocent victim.  Once the place has been wrecked enough and existing leadership eradicated, the new government will be filled with U.S. agents making sure that wealth gets efficiently funneled out of the country.

Either way, media around the world will blacklist reporting on you for fear of retaliation.  Visiting journalists will be regularly killed.  And information leaked out of the country won't be published by major outlets.  If you don't think it's realistic for journalists all around the world to be afraid of the USA, look at Assange.

Basically all that would change is well get drones in the sky. The rest of what you described is already going on.

[Teneb]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What should I make of that? Assume the "incoming nuke" position you used to taught your kids back in the 60's and await the boom? Or should I shave my legs? or is just another snafu?

It would most likely go 1 of 2 ways

1.  If they go the route that they normally have for South America, they'll pick someone who would make a good fascist dictator, and provide material support and training for them to rise to power.  Said dictator will terrorize the populace with death squads and political disappearances.  The USA will likely ignore the situation completely, being satisfied that they punished the country for daring to ever question capitalism.
2.  If the USA engages in direct military intervention, they'll kill about 10x more innocent civilians than combatants and the skies will be filled with humming drones 24/7 that leave everyone wondering every minute of every day if they're about to be the next innocent victim.  Once the place has been wrecked enough and existing leadership eradicated, the new government will be filled with U.S. agents making sure that wealth gets efficiently funneled out of the country.

Either way, media around the world will blacklist reporting on you for fear of retaliation.  Visiting journalists will be regularly killed.  And information leaked out of the country won't be published by major outlets.  If you don't think it's realistic for journalists all around the world to be afraid of the USA, look at Assange.

Basically all that would change is well get drones in the sky. The rest of what you described is already going on.

Maduro is a cretin Baal, but there's no Death Squads or torturing of random folks because "subversives!". As someone ruled by a fascist fuck who defend the act of torture, you don't want that.

Not saying you should accept Maduro staying but:
1) Never say yes to fascism
2) Just because Maruro calls himself a socialist doesn't mean he is one

[LordBaal]

There's collectivos shooting us in protests and theres irregular detentions and torture and whats going on here is a textbook example of real life socialism.

Not saying that a solution is yet another country here either.

[smjjames]

There's collectivos shooting us in protests and theres irregular detentions and torture and whats going on here is a textbook example of real life socialism.

Not saying that a solution is yet another country here either.

That’s not a product of socialism, that’s a product of authoritarianism/fascism/totalitarianism/dictatorship, these just happen to call themselves socialists. Nor are socialists the only ones who do what you described, there are other dictatorial regimes who do those things and clearly aren’t socialists.

You’re falling into the false equivalency fallacy trap here. I may be labelling the wrong fallacy, but you’re definitely making a logical fallacy here.