• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Feedback


GeorgiaDon last won the day on October 28 2020

GeorgiaDon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

43 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • AAD

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Skydive Monroe
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • First Choice Discipline
    Formation Skydiving
  • Second Choice Discipline

Ratings and Rigging

  • Pro Rating

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The "no jurisdiction excuse" is free license for a losing president to do absolutely anything in the lame duck session to hold on to power. Even worse, if the Senate is controlled by the same party as the outgoing president belongs to they can simply refuse to schedule the trial and allow an impeachment to "expire" without being addressed. This is of course what Moscow Mitch did. No doubt if the outgoing President was a Democrat they would have managed to get the trial done, just as they got Barrett confirmed to the supreme court after arguing a year was too rushed for Garland (among other excuses). The Republican Party has truly shown themselves to be the American Fascist Party, determined to hang on to power at the cost of American democracy. The next time we elect a Republican Senate and a Republican to the White House there will never need to be another legitimate election, as this batch of fascist hypocrites had laid out a road map to establishing a dictatorship.
  2. Barry Manilow. Maybe put "Mandy" on a loop, over and over and over...
  3. I agree with you that what he did to incite the mob and send them to attack Congress to stop the count of the electoral votes and to go after Pence, Pelosi, and other so-called "traitors" was obviously criminal. However Alan Dershowitz is already arguing that what Trump did was "protected political speech", perfectly legal under the first amendment. I expect that to be the main line of defense at the Senate trial, perhaps alongside the argument that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to try an ex-president. Dershowitz, you may recall, argued at the first impeachment trial that a president could violate any law so long as he believed that it would be in the interests of the country for him to do so, even if the President would also benefit. That was the ultimate get out of jail free card of course. In Dershowitz's world it seems the President can do anything, perhaps including leading an insurrection, as long as the President believes that the country will be better off if he stays in power (even as a dictator) rather than let Biden take over. The President, congresscritters, and many government officials enjoy broad immunity from prosecution or being sued for things they do while exercising their lawful duties. If it were not so, everyone in government would be buried alive under lawsuits brought by any and everyone who disagreed with their decisions and government could not function. The question re Trump is, will his lawyers (Dershowitz et al) be able to convince a court that he was acting in his legal capacity as President to summon a mob, get them enraged, and sic them on Congress to block an essential government function (the peaceful transition of power). This might be where we get to see if there really are "Trump judges" on the Supreme Court.
  4. While I would be happy to see him rendered destitute I don't see that happening. His whole life has been spent around lawsuits, even when he loses he just appeals until the other side runs out of money. At his age he can easily use legal games to run out the clock. I would hope that felony criminal charges including incitement of insurrection and felony murder would be a different matter.
  5. I wonder if Trump will have actual legal liability from the insurrection. Will he be able to claim immunity as he was performing an "official act" as President? I would like to see him charged and tried in court. The impeachment and Senate trial is purely political of course, with no criminal penalties. If I, as a private citizen, was to organize or participate in a crime and as a result people were killed, I would be charged with felony murder. It's not necessary to be the "trigger man" to be charged or convicted.
  6. Well I suppose when they're covered in shit that might make them sticky.
  7. These photos are emblematic of the damage Trump and his enablers have done to this country. There is no way such a military presence should be necessary at an inauguration, which should be a celebration of democracy. I hate it that they have created such an environment of alarm and fear. It also sickens me that after all this they are playing the "can't we all get along", "let's let bygones be bygones" tune. Republicans need to be treated as if they are the viper in the story about the "farmer and the viper" (or it's many variants, such as "girl and serpent" etc).
  8. Bad cut and paste from the article. First they quote her sister, then her sister's husband. It's clear in the article that Cave is the husband of the dead lady's sister. Of course, in parts of Georgia anything is possible, he could be her husband, brother-in-law, and biological brother all at the same time I suppose.
  9. Most of the fast turnover countries are parliamentary democracies as I am sure you know. The structure of government is very different and leadership can change unexpectedly, as for example with a vote of non-confidence or if someone calls a snap election and miscalculates/loses. Bureaucrats do all the day-to-day work and can carry on irregardless (there's a deep state for you!) so it's easier for politicians to play musical offices without gumming up the works too badly. Having lived under a parliamentary democracy (Canada) for half my life and the US system for the other half, I think the parliamentary system works better. If a leader is a total screw up it's a lot easier to get rid of them. Plus, I would have loved to see Bush or Trump be forced to appear in Congress to take questions from the "loyal opposition" at frequent intervals. Also minority governments force the ruling party to compromise and adopt at least some policy priorities of smaller parties in order to form alliances.
  10. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't see anything in the article about not prosecuting specific offenses. I do think we over-criminalize a lot of things, but the appropriate response is to revise the law, not ignore it. As far as sentencing is concerned, once upon a time judges were allowed to judge, taking the totality of circumstances into account. That has been replaced to a large extent by mandatory sentences, legislated by politicians for political purposes ("tough on crime" campaigning advantages for example). For an example of "over-criminalizing" I think we can look to the "war on drugs". We could have opted to treat the problem as a medical issue (addiction) and as a poverty issue (few accessible alternatives for making a decent income). I know it is more complicated than that, but those are major factors. By dealing with drug problems only through the criminal justice system we built a prisonocracy that is horrendously expensive, so entrenched it is difficult to reduce in scope, have a larger share (by far) of our population in prison or parole than any other developed country, exacerbated racial problems (as these are highly correlated with issues of poverty), and contributed to generations of kids growing up without fathers (which makes everything worse). Unfortunately many of the needed reforms have been captured under the slogan "Defund the Police" which makes discussion of the issues highly political and a target for political attacks by the Republican party. I live in Georgia and still have cable TV (in the process of getting rid of that) so I see all the commercials related to the runoff elections, and I can attest to the fact that any wiff of a suggestion that one penny be diverted from the police to any alternatives is used as a club to bludgeon Democrats. I live in a rural county (not a neighbor of Ron though) and I assure you those commercials have a big effect on my white "working class" neighbors.
  11. This is tragic, I'm so sorry to hear of your loss. Sorry and angry that so many people are going through this when a rational response from the "people in charge" could have done much to reduce the carnage.
  12. Just to be clear, are you saying that it is a mistake to no longer ask for cash bail in "misdemeanor, nonserious or non-violent felony cases"? An astonishing number of people are held in jail because they cannot make bail. As a result, they lose their job, housing, often their vehicle, custody of their kids, etc. All over a misdemeanor or non-violent offense they have not (not yet, at least) been convicted of, offenses that often merit a fine rather than jail time. This is a great way to trap people in a cycle of poverty. Don
  13. I wonder if there is still enough time for the House to impeach Trump a second time? Don
  14. I didn't mean to suggest that you were being disingenuous and I apologise that I worded things so it could be read that way. I think the source you quoted did deliberately phrase things to leave the wrong impression.
  15. The article in question was written by a journalism student, about a lecture given by an economist with no medical or public health training, and published in the student newspaper. It is disingenuous at best to pretend that a newspaper article about a lecture like this one is in any way an official statement by the Hopkins medical/public health school. The economist in question apparently.had an agenda, as they misstated key facts about the disease and completely ignored several published studies that show a large number of excess deaths since February, compared to all previous years for which such records have been kept. It's not surprising, I suppose, that an economist would seek to downplay the pandemic if they valued money more than lives. I'm sure everyone can appreciate that an the student newspaper is in no way an official statement by a University about anything. I assume the student journalist accurately reported.what the economics professor said. I think in that case the appropriate response would not have been to remove the article from the on line version of the paper. Rather, there should have been a vigorous debate in subsequent issues of the paper, and the economics prof should have been criticized for using their lecture to spread easily debunked misinformation.