I'll repost them later today if that's ok.

You don’t need my permission, friend. You do you,

What do you hope to accomplish here? Seriously. I’m trying to figure you out. Either you work for Breitbart and are throwing pasta at the wall to see what sticks to use in your editorials, or you work at the White House doing similar work, or you work for the Internet Research Agency, or you are Steve Bannon, or you are just trolling us because you’re in love with diapered creamsicles, or you’re bored?

It sure is funny to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel to try to reach Trump’s tiny penis to your mouth.

I love politics, and this aspect of politics is of particular interest to me. I enjoy the dialectic. I admit that I find it strange that an opposing opinion is met with such hostility, especially from those who claim to enjoy philosophy, but then again so much the better. Also, it helps get through an otherwise boring work day.

Thanks for the questions, Shillary. I hope you check in every day.

Not if I had no reason to believe that their opinion influenced their verdict.

If they were the lone hold-out in the face of what the other jurors (including other Trump supporters) claimed was overwhelming evidence - as was the case with Manafort - then I would.

Then you’re a more trustworthy man than me, that’s for sure.

Interestingly enough, the judge denied Stone’s demand for a new trial because of a biased juror just under 24 hours ago. apparently the juror was IRS. But now there is this immediately after that decision.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-12/roger-stone-s-request-for-new-trial-denied-by-judge

Yeah the problem occurred somewhere in the voir dire. Whether it was the fault of his own attorneys or someone else is unclear.

You wouldn’t object to the jury foreman being a former Republican congressional candidate, and MAGA-hat wearing activist who tweets out pro-Trump posts every day?

Some semblance of impartiality would be nice. Even the appearance of bias can be ruinous to the entire justice system. Of course that’s a lot to ask, especially in Washington.

I’m optimistic and think most of us would act morally save for a few opportunists. But then again it would be interesting to see some statistics on whether people abide by laws out of principle or because they fear being punished.

Lol

It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/13/trump-roger-stone-trial-jury

If I were above the law like Trump thinks he is, I would shoot him on Fifth Avenue.

Man, I’m so proud to be an American under Mein Fuhrer Trump.

I’m not surprised. It seems like your one fantasy away from doing something foolish,

I guess it was a “deepfake”.

No, the audio is clear as day. Saying you can do anything does not mean that I have done it. Simple English.

They should be prosecuted along with Trump, an admitted “pussy” grabber.

He admitted no such thing.

What about those that were actually accused by the victims, for instance Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, a Maine Democrat, or Bill Richardson, a former Democrat governor of New Mexico?

“ Epstein was once reportedly a regular at the resort, although he was never a member. Trump later banned Epstein from the property, allegedly due to a sexual assault on a girl there, according to previously disclosed court records.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/09/epstein-mar-a-lago-trump-1456221

I’m not talking about “political beliefs”. I’m talking about appeals to motives and your fundamental attribution error. It’s bad faith and it’s unjust. They explicitly stated why they blocked the bills. I’m not saying you have to believe them and I take no issue with speculating. But if you’re not going to consider their arguments and instead invent imaginary motives in their stead, while using those imaginary motives to accuse them of invented crimes, you are being unfair. That’s all I’m saying.

Punshhh

NOS4A2 is just trolling. He/she waits for posters to comment on the issues and then hits back with spin from the Republican propaganda playbook. There is no engagement on issues outside of this propaganda bubble in which the two sides are portrayed as locking horns. When outsiders point these things out, there is no response.

The whole playbook is based on Machiavellian divide and rule principles. The office of the president is treated with contempt, in plain sight.

The only standards Punshhh has are double standards. He sees opposing opinions as so foreign that he simply refuses to believe people will disagree with him He reserves this species of criticism for those who don’t read the Guardian, but will refuse to abide by his own standards and says nothing about those who serve to confirm his biases.

Dumpertrumper,

If you support POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes, would you also support POTUS influencing DOJ in stiffer sentencing for people who he hates?

That’s a loaded question, Shillery.

Prove? You set the bar impossibly high, and you aren't consistent with where you set it.

This is of course, a common affliction regardless of one's ideology. Sure, some Trump bashers make premature judgments, just like Trump minions did when shouting "lock her up". I try to avoid it. It's part of trying to be objective. Another part is to try and apply consistent principles. You should try to do these things, particularly if you're engaging in discussions with people with different political views.

Prove or otherwise admit that you have imagined it all. Admit you’re speculating. Admit you’ve invented it. Admit that you have no proof. It is a part of trying to be objective.

I was just continuing my point. My apologies.

But you’re right. It is difficult for anyone of lower means to compete with the political machinery now in place. But lobbying the government is still important. Our best hope is that grassroots efforts can compete.

I don’t understand those who decry “big business” and lobbying. The only reason people buy out politicians and bureaucrats is because politicians and bureaucrats can be bought. We should decry the politicians and bureaucrats for setting the conditions. If they didn’t accept bribes and certain lobbying that sort of business would become untenable within a few years.

To keep this on topic, that’s why I fear the big government types who are now vying for power.

Actually, corporations are considered people. But regardless, you're completely wrong: big business owns the politicians and the media, which is why people like you continue to defend them as they run the country into the ground.

Sorry, big big business and media don’t run the country. Government does. And if you think about it, if there is less government then there is less power for “big business” to own.

The problem is the government takes our money and does with it what it sees fit. It has the monopoly on violence and we have to depend on it for our very lives. This isn’t true of “big business. Remember that those who own businesses and corporations are like you and I: private citizens and voters. We’re on the same team.

Do you remember the conclusions of Hochschild in her “Strangers in her own land”?

Right, “patterns” as you keep saying. There is also a continuous pattern of a particularly insidious form of appealing to motives, especially when it comes to Trump.

For me, if the motive cannot be proven to exist, or that this unproven motive played any factor in any action, it becomes really hard to believe. This is because Anti-Trumpists in particular have fallen afoul of the fundamental attribution error time and time again. The idea that Trump is fuelled by some defect in his personality or inner state while neglecting to consider more situational factors leads them astray every time, including in the impeachment charade. That’s why I am suspicious of these claims because rarely are they used to discern truth more than they are used to attack the target.

The manufacturing industry is still in a recession, which hurts many of Trumps supporters. More broadly though, regulations and government assistance programs can stabilize an economy and lessen the effects of a downturn. That would be good for Trump supporters in the long term.

Those trade deals also cover manufacturing. What would be good according to you doesn’t necessarily mesh with the interests of Trump supporters. Increasing regulations and government hand-outs aren’t normally on the menu.

If you're referring to USMCA, Democrats worked for over a year to improve the deal.

I guess they knew a good deal when they saw it. Of course it was Trump’s idea to renegotiate NAFTA.

I see no evidence that Senators are blocking it “because it would look critical of Trump”, nor that “the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions”.

Free tuition and healthcare and student loan relief definitely sound better, but whether it is better or results in something better is a different story. In that respect, Bernie is the “something-that-sounds better” option. And history is replete with examples of those.

Speaking of meddling, Trumps trade war hasn't panned out well for American farmers.

The point of any trade policy isn’t just immediate results, but also long term ones as well. Given China’s recent pledge to purchase around 32 billion in agriculture products over two years, and also recent deals with Japan, Canada and Mexico which mostly Center around agriculture, things are looking up for farmers. I’d love to hear a Democrat’s policy towards agriculture but I’m not aware of any.

OK, then Blackburn's statements seem disingenuous.

They're blocking it because it would look critical of Trump, and the net result is that it DOES enable future interactions like the infamous Trump Tower meeting.

I see no evidence for that conclusion.

They see the government as more of a problem than a solution, and prefer it stay out of they private affairs rather than meddle in it. So it appears someone who cuts regulations, lessens government assistance, and limits government power is exactly in their best interests.

It's also pretty clear that Trump voters are voting against their interests, yes.

This is quite a common trope. What are their interests, and how are they voting against them?

What bill are you referring to? The SHIELD act doesn't affect how elections are run; it just requires candidates to report any contacts made by foreign governments, and extends rules that apply to radio and TV commercials to online ads. The ostensible reason for blocking it was that it infringes free speech, and I don't see how that makes any sense.

I’m only relaying Blackburn’s statements. I would just stress that the suggestion that they are blocking it to allow foreign interference is without merit.

I don’t want you to think you’ve wasted time typing all that out, so thx for the reasonable response. I read all of it. I appreciate you considering both sides and respect your opinion of what is “appropriate” and what is “ridiculous”. We’ll see if the judge agrees or disagrees.

But how we get from here to the DOJ being favorable to Trump’s buddy for corrupt reasons is beyond me.

The senator Blackburn’s claim is that it takes power from the states to govern their own elections and give it to the federal government. She further claims the Democrats knew this and knew the GOP would block it, thereby giving them campaign fodder.

In the revised recommendation, here, the DOJ states that “the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements in this case—while perhaps technically applicable— more than double the defendant’s total offense level and, as a result, disproportionately escalate the defendant’s sentencing exposure to an offense level of 29, which typically applies in cases involving violent offenses, such as armed robbery, not obstruction cases.”

The sentencing guidelines are but one of several factors when considering a sentence. This is a matter of law (18 U.S. Code § 3553 ). According to the Supreme Court:

In fact, the Supreme Court has stated that a sentencing court “may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable but must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).

They must also consider, among other things, the “nature and circumstances of the offense,” the “need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and “the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.”

They then go on to mention a few facts that should be considered, but which are absent in the original.

First, the most serious enhancement of threats has been disputed by the supposed victim, who never felt threatened.

Two, the obstruction enhancement “overlaps to a degree with the offense conduct in this case. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent the defendant’s obstructive conduct actually prejudiced the government at trial”.

Three, “ the Court must “avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).” They then go on to list several cases that constitute only a fraction of Stone’s penalty.

Four, the defendant’s age, health, and prior criminal history should be considered. Stones sentence has been typically reserved for criminal gangsters and drug dealers threatening witnesses with rape and murder.

So unless you have a problem with the law and the Supreme Court, maybe you should remind your prosecutors that precedent and law are binding and that guidelines are just that: guidelines.

You cannot be convinced because you're a party hack and you're not open to arguments. Trump is corrupt and so is the Republican party and people like you defending their behaviour. But please continue talking and exemplifying the moral bankruptcy of the alt right.

You have offered zero arguments and in lieu of them can only repeat, like a parrot, unproven accusations. All this from someone who in theory should believe in the presumption of innocence. I take it your morals are as fickle as your principles.

I'm not playing. You know but refuse to reason or are paid to disagree.

I remain unconvinced by your specious and spurious reasoning. It’s as simple as that. You know that but you fear being exposed as a dupe.

Potentially good news.

U.S. ready to sign peace deal if Taliban abide by promise to reduce violence

The United States and the Taliban are poised to clinch a deal that would see the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the start of peace talks between the insurgents and the Afghan government. But the agreement will go ahead only if the Taliban abide by a pledge to reduce violence over a seven-day period, according to a Western official, an Afghan official and two former U.S. officials briefed on the talks.

The two sides have revived the same draft agreement that came close to being signed in September, which calls for a timeline for a U.S. troop pullout in exchange for the Taliban agreeing to cut ties with terrorist groups and entering into peace talks with their foes in the Afghan government.

If the agreement goes ahead, it would potentially bring an end to America’s longest war by launching direct peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government for the first time.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-ready-sign-peace-deal-if-taliban-abides-promise-n1135406

It's proven Trump is corrupt. You don't need to trust me, you just need the ability to read and reason.

Read what exactly? I’ll read it.

Your only defence is that the populism and egotistical property tycoon antics employed by the President to play the crowd are not contravening the law. And yet you imply that he is squeaky clean and respects his office. Where is your criticism of his disrespect of office?

“Disrespect of office”? These types of glittering generalities have the effect of sounding meaningful but are empty on any closer examination. Is it because he served McDonalds in the State dining room? Is this what you mean?

Yet I didn't just now so why bring it up? Oh wait, lawyers can't be trusted so what I say can't be trusted. Whatever man.

I'm not wasting time with a bad faith actor like you. Trump is corrupt because he obstructed justice where it concerned the Russian meddling in the 2016 election multiple times as Mueller reported and he unlawfully and inappropriately pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. That the Republican majority considers power more important than doing their constitutional job means Trump is in similar company. That you're such a partisan hack that you don't see it is testimony to the pathetic state of political discourse in the USA.

I wouldn’t trust a lawyer who simply repeats unproven conspiracy theories, that’s for sure. “Inappropriate” and “unlawful”—your opinions are as lacking as the brain matter they’re founded on. It appears you swallow more American discourse than I do.