Orange Duce

[cradleandshoot]

You really took that and ran a marathon with it.

cradle gets pretty wrought on this topic and I think he's honest about it bothering him deeply. Some of the other folks on here I take less seriously.

No cradle, like you, I don't like ANY abortions to happen, I just don't see this as my call nor the government's call. I do think we can and should come to some sort of accommodation between a woman's right...and responsibility...to make these hard choices and the morality of a loss of a life that could thrive outside the womb if allowed to do so.

It's a brutally difficult problem, and I do err to the side of there being at least some limitation on when an abortion can be performed, despite the principle that it should be the woman's decision. Balancing these two issues ain't easy, at least not when you get government involved as the decision maker against the woman.

On an individual level, this is far easier and I have no issue with someone taking the position that they'd never have an abortion, only in extreme circumstances have an abortion, not in the third trimester, whatever feels right for them personally morally. I also don't have an issue with someone considering their view to be morally superior to someone else's. I just don't want them involving governmental criminalization as their cudgel in such a case.

On cradle's argument about a man having a 'say' if he's going to be held responsible for the baby if born, I used to think that way 40 plus years ago...but I've been around enough women who have patiently (and some less patiently) explained to me that the man need only keep it in his pants if he doesn't want the responsibility, or to use protection if he wants to reduce risk, whereas in many, many situations the woman has not had that option. Nor does the man typically bear the full weight of the responsibility, just a financial one, for the care of the baby, both for the nine months of stress on her body and her potential loss of employment, and thereafter.

There's no analogue for a man. Which is what RBG's argument was on this topic, rather than reliance on 'privacy'. Equal protection.

Bottomline, if we want to see less abortions, support fewer unwanted pregnancies, support contraception and education. Support adoption. Support women who are pregnant, support single mothers, support parental leave. Put abusive men in jail.

Make it easier and more affordable to bring a baby to term and to not have it damage the mothers' life prospects.

But hey, that's not what most "Life" advocates are willing to sign up for, though they may adopt a kid or two themselves, certainly a positive step. But not contraception and education.

The analogy you speak of if the man desperately wants his child to be born and is even willing to raise the child on his own... he has no legal say in the birth of the child he conceived. I bet RBG never considered that in any of her deep thoughts about "equality" or was it a one way street involving only a womens equality when it comes to giving birth to a child that took two people to conceive.

[MDlaxfan76]

again, taking that seriously.

I once thought the same, but the man doesn't carry the baby to term, he may want to do so, but he can't. And he can walk away at any point, with just a bit of a financial obligation trailing him. And how often are those financial obligations not met?

But hey, if you figure out how men can become pregnant and have the babies, you'll be onto something.

[njbill]

The White House is getting very excited for this Friday’s Nobel Peace Prize announcement. Seems to be little question in their minds that Trump is going to win. A big Rose Garden ceremony is planned.

Oh, wait. That last RG ceremony didn’t go so well. Maybe the ceremony should be at Walter Reed since Trump will probably be back there by Friday.

[jhu72]

The White House is getting very excited for this Friday’s Nobel Peace Prize announcement. Seems to be little question in their minds that Trump is going to win. A big Rose Garden ceremony is planned.

Oh, wait. That last RG ceremony didn’t go so well. Maybe the ceremony should be at Walter Reed since Trump will probably be back there by Friday.

As they should be excited, I know I am. Got my clock set for Friday AM Scandinavia time.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Lincoln Project killing it today for OD

On Covid...



Bet DOPUS knows the words to this anthem as well.....

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/stat ... 1782118402

Biden up in latest polls in AZ, FL, MI, NC, PA, WI. Tied in GA and OH.

Dems up 9 in the Congressional ballot.

So simple.

It is what it is.

[Catbird]

They're rolling.

[dislaxxic]

The Moment That Should Have Changed Everything

...it was an inflection point that didn’t come to pass, a moment when everything should have changed and didn’t. The Access Hollywood tape proved that either Republicans no longer reacted to scandal, one of their biggest political tools, or they had never been serious about the “family values” version of decency they’d spent decades professing—and saw a woman’s right to not be sexually assaulted as negotiable. (A year later, Steve Bannon would describe the moment as a “litmus test” for who Trump’s true supporters were.) Just a few days after the tape broke, and after Trump denied the veracity of its contents at a presidential debate, several women came forward to describe Trump doing variations of what Trump said he’d done to them—confirming that this wasn’t idle “locker talk” but an accurate description of his conduct. The Trump campaign called them opportunists and liars, and many Republicans followed suit. For all that the GOP claims to admire Melania Trump, by the time news broke in January 2018 that Trump had cheated on her with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, Republicans were committed to a moral program that implicitly condoned the president groping women, sexually assaulting them, cheating on his wife, and paying hush money to cover it up. They’d already ignored more than a dozen specific allegations of sexual assault; by continuing to support Trump, the Republican position became not just politically expedient—it became the party platform. Anything Trump had done to women would not be enough for them to abandon him.

The man has had several weeks over the last four years that where nearly as disastrous as this last week...why would any of that change going forward? Is THIS really what we want "leading" our nation??

..

[cradleandshoot]

The Moment That Should Have Changed Everything

...it was an inflection point that didn’t come to pass, a moment when everything should have changed and didn’t. The Access Hollywood tape proved that either Republicans no longer reacted to scandal, one of their biggest political tools, or they had never been serious about the “family values” version of decency they’d spent decades professing—and saw a woman’s right to not be sexually assaulted as negotiable. (A year later, Steve Bannon would describe the moment as a “litmus test” for who Trump’s true supporters were.) Just a few days after the tape broke, and after Trump denied the veracity of its contents at a presidential debate, several women came forward to describe Trump doing variations of what Trump said he’d done to them—confirming that this wasn’t idle “locker talk” but an accurate description of his conduct. The Trump campaign called them opportunists and liars, and many Republicans followed suit. For all that the GOP claims to admire Melania Trump, by the time news broke in January 2018 that Trump had cheated on her with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, Republicans were committed to a moral program that implicitly condoned the president groping women, sexually assaulting them, cheating on his wife, and paying hush money to cover it up. They’d already ignored more than a dozen specific allegations of sexual assault; by continuing to support Trump, the Republican position became not just politically expedient—it became the party platform. Anything Trump had done to women would not be enough for them to abandon him.

The man has had several weeks over the last four years that where nearly as disastrous as this last week...why would any of that change going forward? Is THIS really what we want "leading" our nation??

..

We had a serial rapist and abuser of women with Bill Clinton. Yes I know he is no longer POTUS. For some odd reason our FLP Clinton groupies here on this forum had no problem with his leadership. If Bill had to grab him some p***y he still got the job done. All is forgiven for him. If it was not for your double standard of thinking here you would have no standards at all. I wonder if Joey grabbed him some p***y that day in the hallway? Maybe he really just had a sudden urge to smell her pretty hair?

[Peter Brown]

The Moment That Should Have Changed Everything

...it was an inflection point that didn’t come to pass, a moment when everything should have changed and didn’t. The Access Hollywood tape proved that either Republicans no longer reacted to scandal, one of their biggest political tools, or they had never been serious about the “family values” version of decency they’d spent decades professing—and saw a woman’s right to not be sexually assaulted as negotiable. (A year later, Steve Bannon would describe the moment as a “litmus test” for who Trump’s true supporters were.) Just a few days after the tape broke, and after Trump denied the veracity of its contents at a presidential debate, several women came forward to describe Trump doing variations of what Trump said he’d done to them—confirming that this wasn’t idle “locker talk” but an accurate description of his conduct. The Trump campaign called them opportunists and liars, and many Republicans followed suit. For all that the GOP claims to admire Melania Trump, by the time news broke in January 2018 that Trump had cheated on her with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, Republicans were committed to a moral program that implicitly condoned the president groping women, sexually assaulting them, cheating on his wife, and paying hush money to cover it up. They’d already ignored more than a dozen specific allegations of sexual assault; by continuing to support Trump, the Republican position became not just politically expedient—it became the party platform. Anything Trump had done to women would not be enough for them to abandon him.

The man has had several weeks over the last four years that where nearly as disastrous as this last week...why would any of that change going forward? Is THIS really what we want "leading" our nation??

..

We had a serial rapist and abuser of women with Bill Clinton. Yes I know he is no longer POTUS. For some odd reason our FLP Clinton groupies here on this forum had no problem with his leadership. If Bill had to grab him some p***y he still got the job done. All is forgiven for him. If it was not for your double standard of thinking here you would have no standards at all. I wonder if Joey grabbed him some p***y that day in the hallway? Maybe he really just had a sudden urge to smell her pretty hair?

Yup

[Brooklyn]

speaking of p***y, Stormy Daniels had something to say about Melania:


Mark Blacklock
@MarxMedia
·
14h
Melania Trump accused Stormy Daniels of being a "porn hooker", and was firmly put in her place:
Quote Tweet

Stormy Daniels
@StormyDaniels
· 20h
Hahaha! Although I wasn't paid for sex and therefore technically not a "hooker" I'll take being that over what you are any day. You sold your p****y AND your soul...and I'm legal. Keep talking about me. I like your new t!ts btw. Post (more) nudes? #bebest lol





https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1313611447075844096

[Kismet]

The Second Circuit grants Trump a stay.

The court set oral argument on the merits for September 25.

I’m surprised he got a stay. The vagaries of litigation as they say.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/fe ... x-returns/

Seems to me that it makes some sense for them to allow the temporary stay, given that they'll hear and presumably decide the issue on the merits soon (Might have been better if they set the date for next week though). I'd think they already know what they're likely to rule on the merits as the issues have been so fully litigated already, so the stay, while perhaps frustrating, may be a fair procedural ruling to preserve at least the possibility that they could rule with Trump and, thus, release would not have been appropriate.

Or do I misunderstand?

No. I agree.

I haven’t studied the DA’s case(s) against Trump in depth, but as I understand it, one of the key statutes of limitations is five years. If they are focusing on the Stormy Daniels payment, I don’t think that was made until the fall of 2016. Any information relating to that payment would have been included on tax returns filed the following October (Trump always gets extensions). So, at least for this issue, I don’t think the prosecutor is running into any statute issues at the moment.

While the DA has a pretty good argument that he could simply destroy or return any documents produced if Trump ultimately wins, it certainly is the safer approach in ensuring that nothing gets out to stay matters for three weeks.

The stay ruling today was decided by a three judge panel made up of one judge appointed by HW, one by Clinton, and one by Obama.

Let’s assume this panel rules against Trump on the merits following the September 25 oral argument. Let’s assume the decision comes out within a week (although it could certainly take much longer).

Trump could then seek en banc review and a stay from the full Second Circuit. Or he could go straight to the Supreme Court.

The fact that two judges appointed by Democratic presidents were willing to grant a stay today suggests to me that Trump might have some success down the road (or up the judicial ladder) in getting additional stays as long as the statute of limitations is truly not implicated.

Now, the DA could be looking into other charges for which the statute is close to running. I think that could perhaps change the complexion of things.

Then you have Vance’s agreement not to indict Trump while he is president. So what does Vance do if Trump wins reelection and the statute is starting to come up on some of the crimes for which Vance decides to indict him? Sealed indictments? I think they would toll the statute, but I am not sure.

Second Circuit Federal Appeals court rules that New York prosecutor can get access to President Trump’s tax returns.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/nyre ... vance.html

"The Manhattan district attorney can enforce a subpoena seeking President Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns, a federal appeals panel ruled on Wednesday, dealing another blow to the president’s yearlong battle to keep his financial records out of the hands of state prosecutors.

The ruling by a three-judge panel in New York rejected the president’s argument that the subpoena should be blocked because it was too broad and amounted to political harassment from the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat.

Mr. Trump is expected to try to appeal the decision in the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Vance has said that his office will not enforce the subpoena for 12 days in exchange for the president’s lawyers agreeing to move quickly."

[MDlaxfan76]

Mr. Vance is being rather gentle and non-political in his repeated agreements to not enforce his subpoenas while Trump's lawyers respond, allowing Trump to delay beyond the election, but he's dogged in his pursuit of justice in this case.

2021 is going to rough for the Trump family and business.

[jhu72]

Mr. Vance is being rather gentle and non-political in his repeated agreements to not enforce his subpoenas while Trump's lawyers respond, allowing Trump to delay beyond the election, but he's dogged in his pursuit of justice in this case.

2021 is going to rough for the Trump family and business.

Yup. I suspect the Supremes may decide not to take this case. This farce has gone on long enough.

[Peter Brown]

Mr. Vance is being rather gentle and non-political in his repeated agreements to not enforce his subpoenas while Trump's lawyers respond, allowing Trump to delay beyond the election, but he's dogged in his pursuit of justice in this case.

2021 is going to rough for the Trump family and business.

Yup. I suspect the Supremes may decide not to take this case. This farce has gone on long enough.

Did you guys miss that the NY Times already posted Trump's tax returns? If Cyrus is interested, I think The Times costs $1.50 at a newsstand.

[cradleandshoot]

again, taking that seriously.

I once thought the same, but the man doesn't carry the baby to term, he may want to do so, but he can't. And he can walk away at any point, with just a bit of a financial obligation trailing him. And how often are those financial obligations not met?

But hey, if you figure out how men can become pregnant and have the babies, you'll be onto something.

Not a matter of who can get pregnant. It is as RBG may have put it, is it not now an issue of equality? It took 2 people people to create that life. It only takes one to determine if that life is allowed to breath fresh air. How is that equality in your book? I think your logic was more correct 40 years ago. We all change our minds about things. I have never changed my opinion on abortion. I never will, it is murder. I believe you to be a Christian man who has faith in what God says. If you think you can justify your logic to your creator, you better start practicing your speech now. He does not grade your faith on a curve. Abortion is murder. It can be legalized by government, it will never be acceptable to your creator. Not even you can smooth talk your way out of that. I bet you have not thought that far ahead?

[njbill]

Mr. Vance is being rather gentle and non-political in his repeated agreements to not enforce his subpoenas while Trump's lawyers respond, allowing Trump to delay beyond the election, but he's dogged in his pursuit of justice in this case.

2021 is going to rough for the Trump family and business.

Agreed.

The entire decade of the 20s will be very rough on the family, especially Donald.

He has dodged bullets for decades, but that is about to come to a crashing end. As I have said before, none of this would have happened if he hadn’t run for president which will turn out to be the most disastrous decision he ever made in his life.

[seacoaster]

Cheap, juvenile Federal Appellate Court:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/07/nyre ... e=Homepage

The Manhattan district attorney can enforce a subpoena seeking President Trump’s personal and corporate tax returns, a federal appeals panel ruled on Wednesday, dealing another blow to the president’s yearlong battle to keep his financial records out of the hands of state prosecutors.

The ruling by a three-judge panel in New York rejected the president’s argument that the subpoena should be blocked because it was too broad and amounted to political harassment from the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat.

Mr. Trump is expected to try to appeal the decision in the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Vance has said that his office will not enforce the subpoena for 12 days in exchange for the president’s lawyers agreeing to move quickly.

The president and Mr. Vance have been locked in a bitterly contested legal dispute since August 2019, when Mr. Vance’s office first subpoenaed eight years of Mr. Trump’s tax returns and other financial records from his accounting firm, Mazars USA. The subpoena is part of an investigation into Mr. Trump and his business practices.

Mr. Vance has not revealed the scope of his office’s criminal inquiry, citing grand jury secrecy. But prosecutors have suggested in court papers that they are looking at a range of potential crimes, including tax and insurance fraud and falsification of business records. They have said that the tax records are central to the investigation.

The decision marks the fifth time courts have rebuffed the president’s attempts to block the subpoena.

Mr. Trump has tried several arguments, first asserting last year that as a sitting president, he was immune from criminal investigation.

That question, which had never been tested in the courts, eventually ended up in the Supreme Court. In July, the justices issued a landmark decision rejecting the president’s immunity claim but saying he could challenge the subpoena on other grounds, such as its scope and relevance.

Mr. Trump did just that. But after losing again in the lower court in August, the president appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which typically hears cases before three-judge panels.

Sitting on the panel were Judges Pierre N. Leval and Robert A. Katzmann, who were appointed by President Bill Clinton, and Judge Raymond J. Lohier Jr., who was appointed by President Barack Obama.

Mr. Trump has declined to release his tax returns to the public, breaking with 40 years of White House tradition, and has vigorously fought attempts by Congress and state lawmakers to obtain his returns.

A recent New York Times investigation, based on more than two decades of confidential tax-return data for Mr. Trump and hundreds of his companies, showed that he paid no U.S. income taxes in 11 of the 18 years that The Times examined. He paid only $750 in both 2016 and 2017.

[njbill]

Mr. Vance is being rather gentle and non-political in his repeated agreements to not enforce his subpoenas while Trump's lawyers respond, allowing Trump to delay beyond the election, but he's dogged in his pursuit of justice in this case.

2021 is going to rough for the Trump family and business.

Yup. I suspect the Supremes may decide not to take this case. This farce has gone on long enough.

Did you guys miss that the NY Times already posted Trump's tax returns? If Cyrus is interested, I think The Times costs $1.50 at a newsstand.

Vance can’t introduce the NYT into evidence at Trump’s criminal trial. That’s why he needs the actual tax returns.

The press has given much attention to the tax returns, themselves, but the real meat is going to be in the communications between Trump and his accountants which are also covered by the subpoena. Thar’s gold in them thar hills.

[Peter Brown]

Mr. Vance is being rather gentle and non-political in his repeated agreements to not enforce his subpoenas while Trump's lawyers respond, allowing Trump to delay beyond the election, but he's dogged in his pursuit of justice in this case.

2021 is going to rough for the Trump family and business.

Yup. I suspect the Supremes may decide not to take this case. This farce has gone on long enough.

Did you guys miss that the NY Times already posted Trump's tax returns? If Cyrus is interested, I think The Times costs $1.50 at a newsstand.

Vance can’t introduce the NYT into evidence at Trump’s criminal trial. That’s why he needs the actual tax returns.

The press has given much attention to the tax returns, themselves, but the real meat is going to be in the communications between Trump and his accountants which are also covered by the subpoena. Thar’s gold in them thar hills.

You do know that Trump has been a resident of NY State for his entire life, agitating some serious powers there, all of whom called in favors to the NY AG to 'get him'? And that he has a battalion of lawyers and accountants sign off on his returns? And that he has in all likelihood been under permanent audit by tax bureaucrats who would have loved nothing more than to catch him in a criminal act of tax non-compliance?

Are you guys even aware of how insane you sound?

[njbill]

Mr. Vance is being rather gentle and non-political in his repeated agreements to not enforce his subpoenas while Trump's lawyers respond, allowing Trump to delay beyond the election, but he's dogged in his pursuit of justice in this case.

2021 is going to rough for the Trump family and business.

Yup. I suspect the Supremes may decide not to take this case. This farce has gone on long enough.

That will be interesting. Even if confirmed, I don’t think Barrett will participate because she won’t be on the court when the petition is filed.

So, are there four votes to take the case? Based on the voting the last time the case was before the court, I would guess no, but the two Trump appointees might think the court should issue a final ruling to button this all up.

Trump has about a 5% chance of winning this case before the Supreme Court.