Recent Comments by newtboy subscribe to this feed

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

EPIC Canyon Mini Jet Boating - New Zealand

EPIC Canyon Mini Jet Boating - New Zealand

newtboy says...

There was a lot of discussion about that in the YouTube comments. What made sense was one commenter who said when he had run into similar situations out kayaking he had plenty of warning because of the motor noise and it was simple to pull over until the jet boat passed. He wasn’t so sure about how electric boats would announce themselves.

00Scud00 said:

That could have turned out badly if there had been any paddlers in the canyon.

EPIC Canyon Mini Jet Boating - New Zealand

ENZED UIM 2016 Jetsprint WORLDS ACTION

newtboy says...

Good question. I can’t find it in the posted rules, but if it’s like rally racing only the navigator would get to see it beforehand.
I’m fairly certain there’s not a practice round, so round 1 would be the drivers first look at the day’s course.

eric3579 said:

Do the drivers get to review the current race map beforehand or is it a complete unknown? How much and what kind of prep does each team get regarding the current course?

ENZED UIM 2016 Jetsprint WORLDS ACTION

newtboy says...

Actually it varies every event. The co-driver has a map of the route through the channels and waives his hand in front of the driver, pointing the way as they go....it’s a bit like rally racing but too loud to speak the directions so they point.

SFOGuy said:

So, at 3:40---what precisely is the course? It's not an oval, it's not a figure 8--what is it?

Zawash (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson (Member Profile)

newtboy jokingly says...

I would say it's more akin to the homeopathic "alternate" asbestos method of treating cancer. Not just dumb, also dangerous.

JiggaJonson said:

Dude... is that where u get your news from? That's like the homeopathic "alternate" crystal method of treating cancer. It's fucking dumb.

surfingyt (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

I've started thinking of them as the ouroboros party, and I too am enjoying watching them eat themselves alive.

surfingyt said:

With every new conspiracy they make up they lose more and more Republicans. Democrats will remain in power for years because of people like Bob and Republican delusions. It's comical to see and I am loving every tear they shed!

😥 👈 😆 😂

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

And there we are. The most bipartisan vote to convict a president by a factor of 7 proves insufficient.
I think this guarantees there will be a next time in the near future.
At least there’s a congressional record now of what happened.

Mordhaus said:

Let's say they actually get the votes, I still think it's a waste of time. They bar him from being elected again, but nothing can stop him from naming an 'heir'.

If you think about it, that is even worse than him running again. If he runs, he will still unite every liberal leaning person and most fence sitters against him. If he designates a person for his supporters to align behind, they will get the almost half of voters that voted for him AND a lot of the middle who might be sick of Biden/Dems by 2024.

A victory here is, at best, a moral one. It won't stop a future President of Trump's nature from trying the same thing because that is the way a person like him acts. It does nothing but provide a feel good moment while wasting more of my tax money.

CaptainObvious (Member Profile)

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

From today's hearings....
“You know, I’m not afraid of Donald Trump running again in four years,” Representative Ted Lieu said. “I’m afraid he’s going to run again and lose, because he can do this again.”

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), also got at this idea.

“All of these people who have been arrested and charged, they’re being accountable, held accountable for their actions,” she said. “Their leader, the man who incited them, must be held accountable as well.”

DeGette added later: “Impeachment is not to punish, but to prevent. We are not here to punish Donald Trump. We are here to prevent the seeds of hatred that he planted from bearing any more fruit.”

Mordhaus said:

Let's say they actually get the votes, I still think it's a waste of time. They bar him from being elected again, but nothing can stop him from naming an 'heir'.

If you think about it, that is even worse than him running again. If he runs, he will still unite every liberal leaning person and most fence sitters against him. If he designates a person for his supporters to align behind, they will get the almost half of voters that voted for him AND a lot of the middle who might be sick of Biden/Dems by 2024.

A victory here is, at best, a moral one. It won't stop a future President of Trump's nature from trying the same thing because that is the way a person like him acts. It does nothing but provide a feel good moment while wasting more of my tax money.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

There is that possibility, but as a cult of personality, no one could get his base as excited to vote as if he were running.

I think, if his named successor looks like they could possibly win, it will drive independents and liberals to the polls in droves....but who knows by then.

Then we disagree. I say prosecuting a criminal is never the wrong move, especially when so many insist it’s not over yet, and that there was election fraud so no democracy, and that the treasonous insurrection was a patriotic act by law abiding patriots. Showing the unedited video evidence might snap some back to reality, stopping another domestic terrorist.
As for wasting money, estimates are we’ve spent well over 1/2 BILLION because of the coup attempt. Trying for some accountability to give the next attempted dictator pause, and force the right to distance themselves from their cancer or publicly embrace treason, is well worth the price, if it avoids a repeat it’s a 100/1 savings.
Then there’s the ‘sending a message to Biden that this isn’t ok’ angle. If he loses, do you want a repeated attempted coup? Consider Biden’s approval rating is insanely higher than Trump’s ever was....and if a January coup has no consequences, he’s obligated to try.

I must point out that, if, as he now claims but lost the vote, you can’t hold trial on an ex president....didn’t McConnel intentionally subvert justice by delaying a trial until he said it was too late and now unconstitutional? Shouldn’t he have a consequence?

Mordhaus said:

Let's say they actually get the votes, I still think it's a waste of time. They bar him from being elected again, but nothing can stop him from naming an 'heir'.

If you think about it, that is even worse than him running again. If he runs, he will still unite every liberal leaning person and most fence sitters against him. If he designates a person for his supporters to align behind, they will get the almost half of voters that voted for him AND a lot of the middle who might be sick of Biden/Dems by 2024.

A victory here is, at best, a moral one. It won't stop a future President of Trump's nature from trying the same thing because that is the way a person like him acts. It does nothing but provide a feel good moment while wasting more of my tax money.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

But that’s the thing....they don’t have to prove his thoughts, nor his intent, only the results....because this isn’t a criminal trial and there are very different standards, they only have to show he didn’t preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, violating his oath and duty, because the only possible sentence is for him to be bared from office. His lack of action during the attack alone far exceeded that bar.

It’s becoming more likely (but still unlikely) they could get the votes because he’s barely putting up a defense. To me it seemed like a mockery of the senate, like they were just proving the point that his defense could be someone standing at the podium shouting “Bababoui, Bababoui, Howard Stern’s penis!” and still he would not be convicted...and I think that’s pissing off some Republican senators....but there are also many who are reading books and unrelated documents among other distractions and clearly not paying attention at all, proving the defense correct, they could say anything and still get him off without presenting any defense. A sad state.
On the contrary, the prosecution’s case is straight forward with video evidence and records of what Trump tweeted and did (or didn’t do like not calling in the national guard) during the attack on top of the horrific personal experiences of the same senators hearing the case....hard to forget a lynch mob looking for you and your family to hang less than a month ago.

Remember, there is no possible prison term here, no fine, nothing but baring him from office, that’s it. There should be a criminal trial for treason IMO, but it wouldn’t be a slam dunk. I think the standard isn’t what he meant, it’s what a reasonable person would think he meant. That’s not prosecuting thought crime, it’s prosecuting speech and actions that it’s plainly foreseeable will incite real crimes.

I barely remember the inauguration riots, the million pussy hat march made more news....Trump’s “biggest crowd ever” nonsense got more airtime, and damages and injuries were fairly minimal so, especially when faced with the fresh scars from 2020, they’re easy to forget. That said, I don’t disagree....by 2022 new scandals and a desire to forget will erase this from many people’s memories.

Mordhaus said:

I haven't watched the hearings. To me it's still a case of bread and circuses. They can't convict, so all of this is just an attempt to burn these images into a voting publics mind that forgets events longer than 6 months ago. This won't even be remembered by the average person by the next votes in 2022. Just like most people don't recall the riots that were sort of incited by liberals in 2017 prior to and during the inauguration. Admittedly, they didn't storm congress, but they did break into buildings, burn cars, and injure people.

Did Trump probably intend for violence? Probably, but proving his thoughts are going to take a lot more than words he used. Thankfully we haven't started putting people away for thoughtcrimes yet or I would be fucked.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Watching the opening statements today, it seems there are far more than one example of former officials being tried for impeachment after leaving office, including one tried by the founding fathers themselves with unanimous consent, solidifying the notion that their intent was to allow trying former officials constitutionally even though they could not remove them since they were already out of office, but they could bar them from holding any office in the future.
When the people who wrote the constitution interpret it that way, I think that’s game over. No one knows their intent better than they did, and their actions of trying a senator, one who had already been removed from office, in an impeachment trial is unambiguous, more so when you read what they wrote about it.

We shall see if today’s senate cares more about constitutional obligations or blind loyalty to an individual. It’s a forgone conclusion that they won’t convict out of blind loyalty, but exposing the criminality they’re going to excuse still serves a purpose.

Edit: one purpose it serves is setting precedent....if this president can attempt to stop the peaceful (or not peaceful) transfer of power to the president elect by instructing a rabid armed violence prone crowd to “stop the steal” “you can’t let them certify Biden or your country is lost” “fight hard” “I’ll be there with you” without a single repercussion, so can the next one....and now the perpetrators know many of the weak points thanks to this disorganized coup attempt. Republicans should be terrified of that, enough to send a message by convicting. If they don’t, they invite every president that loses an election to attempt a January coup, precedent will protect them, so they would be obligated to try.

newtboy said:

There we absolutely agree.
Precedent usually decides how law is interpreted, but not always. One similar case is not exactly overwhelming.
And no, even with a few Republicans they don't have the votes. I think that's a travesty for America and Republicans but that's just, like, my opinion, man. There's always the slim hope that some are so sick of him they break party lines, but I'm not holding my breath.
I wish they could just use a simple majority vote to bar him from politics including fund raising and move along, along with many of his family members that were just as culpable if not more, but that's not the reality I live in.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon