Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

williatw
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:59 am

hanelyp wrote:Under a federal government shutdown, it would nominally be on State and local governments, and prepared citizens, to keep order. Hopefully local police will give rabid democrat mayors the big middle finger if ordered to stand down in the face of rioters. If not, being on favorable terms with some well armed Korean shopkeepers would not hurt.



There are roughly 42 million people on food stamps and less than a million or so law enforcement officers:

In 2008, state and local law enforcement agencies employed more than 1.1 million people on a full-time basis, including about 765,000 sworn personnel (defined as those with general arrest powers).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enfor ... ted_States

The police would then be badly outnumbered nationwide if any significant fraction of the cut-off food stamp recipients went rogue. So with the National Guard/Army effectively sidelined by the hypothetical government shutdown, yes hanleyp it would likely fall to "prepared citizens" such as they are to attempt to back up badly outnumbered overworked LEO to try and maintain some semblance of peace in such a situation. Can't say I am optimistic how that would favorably play out at least not until allot of pain & suffering happened. Which takes me to my second point are you a "prepper"?

paperburn1
Posts: 2361
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby paperburn1 » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:44 pm

Define prepper

Do you mean do I have an underground bunker, years of food, hundred thousand rounds of ammo, a rogue radio station.?The ability to survive an asteroid strike, and extinction level event, a nuclear war, The fast answer that is no.

Do I keep an extra supply of food in the house ? Have a generator for power failures? Let the means to defend myself and my family? Yes and emphatically yes. I follow the mindset of Robert Heinlein and believe specialization is for insects. On a personal level my wake-up call was the Katrina catastrophe in New Orleans. I have a friend that works for FEMA and he explained to me what a furball that whole situation was at the time. Apparently government aid support and rescue was hindered for three days while the mayor, the Parish Sheriff, and the federal government bickered about who was in charge. As I watch the whole situation unfold I realized that the federal government and the state government could basically be rendered powerless in a disaster for reasons ranging from redtape to civil disobedience. That is when I decided I needed to investigate what it would take to be self-sufficient for a period of 30 days or more. Surprising the cost was quite cheap what we considered what you had to prepare for that was most probable to happen.

I fully and wholeheartedly recommend that every American be prepared to the same way. Unfortunately I doubt very much that they are. My friends own a pawn shop and when I help them out on occasions I see that most people are unprepared for an unexpected bill of one or $200 let alone any type of major disruption of support services. I have a garden which I grow much of my green vegetables and root crops, because I live in the city livestock is not an option but is where I live is surrounded by natural national forest I don't perceive that to be a large problem. I sunk a shallow well have a very small generator to keep the refrigerator running.

Of course each person's needs and requirements are different and I think your situation must be tailored to your surroundings and just following someone off YouTube is quite ludicrous. But just equally speaking I would hate to try to do something proper wise in a large city because the barriers to be overcome our enormous



So am I a prepper I guess you could say yes or perhaps you could say I'm a normal human being just aware of his surroundings and ready to make sure my family and friends can look out for each other during hard times.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

paperburn1
Posts: 2361
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby paperburn1 » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:52 pm

hanelyp wrote:Under a federal government shutdown, it would nominally be on State and local governments, and prepared citizens, to keep order. Hopefully local police will give rabid democrat mayors the big middle finger if ordered to stand down in the face of rioters. If not, being on favorable terms with some well armed Korean shopkeepers would not hurt.

During the last LA riots the korean business men teamed together to protect thier properties and only one store got burned(in the area I am thinking about ither areas that did not protect themselves got burned out) I is amazing how a few well placed shotguns and handguns turned the tide without any deaths. I will look for that video and post it if I find it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py4AMYebHGI
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

williatw
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:26 pm

FBI 'very deceptive' in rebutting story on Chinese firm hacking Clinton emails, GOP lawmaker says


Image
Congressman Louie Gohmert, R-TX, speaks with the Washington Examiner

“It’s not surprising that the FBI ‘has not found any evidence’ regarding Clinton’s servers being breached," Gohmert said. "Like I stated to Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok in the House Judiciary Hearing, it was the Obama-appointed Intelligence Community Inspector General that discovered the breach. It was not the FBI that found it, so their statement was technically correct, but very deceptive in its omission."


In a report published earlier this week, the Daily Caller News Foundation cited sources that said a Chinese-state owned firm located in the Washington, D.C., area had access to Clinton's emails in real time courtesy of a code embedded in the New York-based server which then made copies of the emails, some of which contained classified information.

In response, an agency spokesman said: “The FBI has not found any evidence the servers were compromised."

But Gohmert, who told Fox News on Tuesday that a foreign entity had obtained Clinton's emails but did not identify from which country, put out a statement that emphasized it was not the FBI but rather the intelligence community inspector general that discovered the hack.

“It’s not surprising that the FBI ‘has not found any evidence’ regarding Clinton’s servers being breached," Gohmert said. "Like I stated to Former FBI Agent Peter Strzok in the House Judiciary Hearing, it was the Obama-appointed Intelligence Community Inspector General that discovered the breach. It was not the FBI that found it, so their statement was technically correct, but very deceptive in its omission. "In that hearing last month, where former FBI agent Peter Strzok had been testifying, Gohmert said intelligence community inspector general officials had informed Strok and other top bureau officials of an "anomaly" in found in Clinton's server. But Strzok, who led the FBI investigation into Clinton's emails, did not act on that information, Gohmert asserted. Strzok acknowledged the meeting took place, but did not recall what was said. He was fired from the FBI earlier this month for anti-Trump text messages he exchanged with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, with whom he as having an affair.

In his statement Wednesday evening, Gohmert suggested that Strzok and his colleagues decided not to pursue the hacked emails tip because "they knew this would devastate Hillary Clinton’s chances of being elected and they were not about to let that happen."

"Fortunately, progress is currently being made at the FBI and there are good people there who are making a difference," he continued. "Unfortunately, the FBI’s deceptive omission in its statement reveals that the FBI has not been completely cleansed of the partisanship that so pervasively corrupted it in Washington, DC.”

The Daily Caller's ex-intelligence officer source said the inspector general of the intelligence community “discovered the anomaly pretty early in 2015.” The report has elicited a response from President Trump.

“Report just out: 'China hacked Hillary Clinton’s private Email Server.' Are they sure it wasn’t Russia (just kidding!)? What are the odds that the FBI and DOJ are right on top of this? Actually, a very big story. Much classified information!” Trump posted to Twitter Tuesday night.




https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... maker-says

williatw
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:50 am

Washington Secrets

Census: There are no jobs Americans won’t do, poor citizens hurt by illegal immigration

Illegal immigrants tend to be even more associated with the "jobs Americans won't do" mantra. And yet there are just 24 occupations out of 474 in which illegal immigrants comprise at least 15 percent of workers. There are 5.7 million natives in these high-illegal-immigrant occupations, 67 percent of whom have no education beyond high school. But in occupations that are made up of 5 percent or less illegal immigrants, 75.5 percent of natives have education beyond high school. This suggests that the impact of illegal immigration on wages and employment opportunities will be felt most by less-educated natives. More-educated natives will tend to avoid competition with illegal immigrants.

It gave some numbers to show that occupations thought to be majority immigrant aren’t. Among them:

•Maids and housekeepers -- 51 percent native-born.
•Taxi drivers and chauffeurs -- 54 percent native-born.
•Butchers and meat processors 64 percent native-born.
•Grounds maintenance workers -- 66 percent native-born.
•Construction laborers -- 65 percent native-born.
•Janitors -- 73 percent native-born.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash ... mmigration

Diogenes
Posts: 6949
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm
Location: Ft. Sill Oklahoma

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby Diogenes » Tue Sep 18, 2018 11:36 pm

Polish president proposes permanent US base called 'Fort Trump,' despite NATO restriction


Image

President Trump's name appears on dozens of buildings worldwide, but if the leader of Poland has his way, properties like Trump Tower and Trump International Hotel may soon be joined by a conspicuously named military installation: Fort Trump.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09 ... ction.html
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Wed Oct 10, 2018 8:18 pm

Democrats still control eight of the circuit courts, Republicans four, one tied



Image


The Supreme Court grants oral arguments to about 80 cases a year. They decide another 50 without hearing oral arguments. By contrast, the Circuit Courts in the United States handled 51,832 in the year that ended on March 31, 2018 (that is down from 59,040 the previous year). The Circuit Courts, not the Supreme Court, have the final word on 99.75% of all cases.

Republicans may have confirmed 26 Circuit Court judges under Trump, but they still have a ways to go to get parity in control of Circuit Courts. As of today, the picture above shows the breakdown by Circuit. Three other nominees have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee, but even when those nominees are confirmed, the Democrats will still control the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits. So far 62% of Trump's appointees have been confirmed are merely replacing Republicans who are retiring. Five of the Democrats on the Ninth Circuit are over 70 years of age, but Trump would have to replace all the current vacancies and have four of these five judges over 70 retire for the Republicans to take a one-seat majority on that Circuit.

If Trump were to fill all existing vacancies, the only circuit that he could move from Democrat control to a tie would be the Third Circuit. There is no Circuit that he could flip from Democrat to Republican control during Trump's first term.

Nine Circuit Court judges nominated by Democrats are over 75 years of age. These likely retirements over the next 6 years could flip the Fourth Circuit.


Image

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

williatw
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:23 am

williatw wrote: If Trump were to fill all existing vacancies, the only circuit that he could move from Democrat control to a tie would be the Third Circuit. There is no Circuit that he could flip from Democrat to Republican control during Trump's first term.


If this is correct then with Trump having some 120 or so judges to fill, and even if successful would only flip one court. This suggest strongly IMHO that the Dems have been quietly taking over the circuit Courts (effectively the Federal courts) for probably decades while maintaining the façade of a balanced (relatively speaking) SCOTUS. The end game would have been if Hillary had won; at that point with her likely liberal SCOTUS (and other judicial picks) the Federal courts from top to bottom would have been firmly in Liberal/leftist hands for decades.

williatw
Posts: 1698
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Sell The Whitehouse to Trump

Postby williatw » Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:24 am

To anyone who cares more on above:

Supreme Court fight over Kavanaugh got lots of attention, but most federal court action is elsewhere

Image

It is understandable for people to focus on individual judicial nominees or particular courts, but the vast majority of decisions are made by judges who rarely make the news.

Even if Republicans keep control of the presidency and the Senate for the next six years, Democratic appointees will mostly likely still be firmly in control of most of the circuit courts of appeals in the country.


Republicans are ecstatic and Democrats are livid about Brett Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. But while the Supreme Court is important, many Americans tend to exaggerate its powers.

Democrats still firmly control the nation’s district courts and circuit courts of appeals, where virtually all federal judicial decisions are made.


Even if Republicans keep control of the Senate in the Nov. 6 midterm elections, the balance of power on these courts isn't going to change in the next two years.

The Supreme Court grants oral arguments to about 80 cases a year. The nation’s highest court decides another 50 cases without hearing oral arguments.

By contrast, the circuit courts of appeals handled 51,832 cases in the 12-month period ending March 31.

Consequently, the circuit courts – not the Supreme Court – have the final word on 99.75 percent of all cases. The lower-level district courts handled 363,000 cases.


Whether you care about immigration, gun control, abortion or other hot-button issues, the circuit courts and district courts are where most of the work occurs.

The Supreme Court generally limits itself to only those cases where there are conflicts between the different circuits. And neither Kavanaugh, Justice Neil Gorsuch, nor Chief Justice John Roberts are likely to overturn long-established precedents.

Indeed, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch – President Trump’s earlier appointee to the high court – were even co-authors on a book about honoring judicial precedent.

Republicans may be happy about confirming 26 circuit court judges so far under President Trump – but they still have a long way to go.

Of the 13 circuit courts of appeals, Democratic appointees control eight and Republican appointees control four. One is evenly split. So far, most of President Trump's appointees (62 percent) have been replacements for retiring conservative judges.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is often referred to as the nation’s second-highest court. Because all federal agencies are headquartered in and around the nation’s capital, this court oversees their decisions. Democratic appointees have a 7-3 majority on the D.C. Circuit Court, with one vacancy due to Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over California and eight other Western states that together represent over 20 percent of the U.S. population – more than any other circuit court. Again, Democratic appointees are firmly in control, with 16 judges, compared to seven appointed by Republicans.


Even when conservatives have won cases decided by a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals – such as the Peruta decision that said that people have a constitutional right to protect themselves with firearms outside their homes – California appealed the decision to a larger panel of 11 judges in the circuit. This is called an en banc decision.

Not surprisingly, liberals had a solid majority on the panel and overturned the earlier decision of the judges who were assigned to the case.

If President Trump were to fill all existing vacancies on the circuit courts of appeals, the only circuit that he could move from the control of Democratic appointees to even a tie would be the 3rdCircuit Court of Appeals.

If Democrats take control of the Senate following the midterm elections next month, they are promising to bring judicial confirmations to a halt.

Five of the Democratic appointees on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are over 70 years old, but to flip the court Trump would have to fill all of the current vacancies and four of these older judges would have to retire.

Nine circuit court judges who were nominated by Democrats are over 75 years old. In a second Trump term, Republicans might be able to flip one of the circuit courts – the 4th Circuit.

It is understandable for people to focus on individual judicial nominees or particular courts, but the vast majority of decisions are made by judges who rarely make the news.

Even if Republicans keep control of the presidency and the Senate for the next six years, Democratic appointees will mostly likely still be firmly in control of most of the circuit courts of appeals in the country.









https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/supreme ... -elsewhere


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests