Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

why did you make me look that up

[PTTG??]

How do you convince an evangelical to approve of an abortion? Tell them Trump paid for it.

[wierd]

why did you make me look that up

The combination of "would make diehard GOP members enter the fetal position", " punishment", GOP members losing under oath, and "ice lollies", derailed in my mind with the painful memory of learning of that title.

As I said, the US has laws against unusual punishment.

As for why I felt you needed to look it up... My response would not have made sense without you also knowing of that game's existence.

[smjjames]

Re the whole impeachment discussion: I'd rather have Trump be impeached for proveable crimes and while he is plenty corrupt, we have to be careful about impeaching just because we don't like him because precedent.

[Trekkin]

Re the whole impeachment discussion: I'd rather have Trump be impeached for proveable crimes and while he is plenty corrupt, we have to be careful about impeaching just because we don't like him because precedent.

That is exactly why we should (try to) impeach him, in my view. Impeachment is usually brought up as regards crimes, but it's a political rather than criminal process; Congress can impeach a President for any reason it likes, as "misdemeanors" doesn't refer to misdemeanor crimes in this context. This makes it a useful safety valve in case someone utterly unfit for office manages to attain the Presidency, and a deterrent from things like second-term Presidents deciding they're no longer accountable to the people since they can't do anything to remove them anymore. Any absolute restrictions we place on that, including that impeachable conduct must be criminal, run the risk of instilling the wrong kind of job security.

[Bumber]

There's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance in suggesting that wrongdoing can be investigated without investigating people for possible wrongdoing; the whole point of an investigation (eliding pedantry about courts not doing it) is to determine whether an illegal act took place and who was responsible.

As long as they're respecting the Bill of Rights.
4th: Probable cause.
5th: Can't be compelled to testify against oneself.
6th: Informed of the accusation.

Suppose the police were to accuse you and a group of friends of some minor crimes based on circumstantial evidence. They ask you to testify your account of what you and your friends did that day. You plead the 5th, but they offer you immunity for the petty crimes, so you must testify. If you don't, they threaten you with contempt, leaving you imprisoned indefinitely until you do.

Suppose you misremember some minor details, or they believe someone else's story over yours. They charge you with several counts of perjury, with a penalty of 5 years jail time each. You can get a lawyer and fight it in court, but that might bankrupt you even if you win. They offer a guilty plea for a shorter sentence.

This is constitutionally suspect. They've basically entrapped you into perjury, regardless of not being found guilty of the initial crimes. A dedicated, well-paid prosecution can find many more obscure crimes to charge you with when they've got you under investigation. I hope you saved all your receipts, because here come the tax audits! From there, it's death by a thousand paper cuts, and you're spending over a decade behind bars.

For these reasons, we should really be wary of how far we allow the justice system to be twisted.

[smjjames]

Re the whole impeachment discussion: I'd rather have Trump be impeached for proveable crimes and while he is plenty corrupt, we have to be careful about impeaching just because we don't like him because precedent.

That is exactly why we should (try to) impeach him, in my view. Impeachment is usually brought up as regards crimes, but it's a political rather than criminal process; Congress can impeach a President for any reason it likes, as "misdemeanors" doesn't refer to misdemeanor crimes in this context. This makes it a useful safety valve in case someone utterly unfit for office manages to attain the Presidency, and a deterrent from things like second-term Presidents deciding they're no longer accountable to the people since they can't do anything to remove them anymore. Any absolute restrictions we place on that, including that impeachable conduct must be criminal, run the risk of instilling the wrong kind of job security.

I'm completely aware that it's entirely a political proccess, my point is that we need to be careful of precedence since impeachment shouldn't be thrown at someone just because they don't like the president. It'd be like Republicans impeaching Obama just because they don't like him, or just because he's a dem.

Also, nothing stopping a second term president from pivoting politically within the bounds of what they can do. Though they tend to not pivot very far.

Given that Trump is so mercurial, I can imagine him attempting to pivot to the left to work with the Democrats in the second term. Only problem is that he's almost absolutely burned every bridge (if theres any left) with the Democrats, which would make it impossible for the Democrats to work with him except to manipulate him.

[Bumber]

Given that Trump is so mercurial, I can imagine him attempting to pivot to the left to work with the Democrats in the second term.

I can't even imagine this.

Only problem is that he's almost absolutely burned every bridge (if theres any left) with the Democrats, which would make it impossible for the Democrats to work with him except to manipulate him.

It's more like he's built a wall (and he's gonna make the Democrats and Fake News pay for it!)

[Rolan7]

He donated primarily to Democrats until 2010, and he was buddy-buddy with a lot of them as a result.

I don't know what changed, but I still laugh when he's described as a Republican.  He's an independent who cynically joined an established primary (see: Bernie).  And when he somehow won that, he rode the wave of popularity - and, to literally everyone's surprise (especially him), won the general election.

He doesn't have any loyalty to the Republicans, or vice versa.  He's trying to use them and them him.  They're having a bit more success, but are stymied by his capriciousness and lack of interest in the party platform.  He's working his own agenda, which is kinda breaking all the established processes.

[smjjames]

He's actually drifted off from the Republican position plenty of times, only to be corrected by the Republicans reminding him about his base, which is why I can imagine him at least trying in order to achieve some sort of win.

Of course though, the mentioned burning of bridges and corruptness makes that nigh impossible except when the Democrats are willing to nudge him towards something or he drifts on his own.

[sluissa]

I have no idea what changed.


EDIT: Obligatory "Thanks, Obama."

[Doomblade187]

Damnit guys.

Not entirely sure what the context was for the funding hold, but it could mess some stuff up.

[Reelya]

Clearly, Obama Senior flew his new heavily-pregnant wife from the USA to Kenya (she was 3 months pregnant when they married in Maui) via whatever planes would get you to Kenya in 1961 - I'm sure the ride was extremely comfortable and safe for a pregant woman btw - to give birth in one of Kenya's state-of-the-art hospitals. And it was conveniently close to where his first wife and child lived (whom he was lying about to his new wife), so I'm sure Obama Senior introduced Ann to the whole family back home, after which, he flew his new wife and less than 1-month old baby back to America so she could resume college classes mere weeks after giving birth. It all makes perfect sense, I can't understand how anyone doesn't believe Obama was born in Kenya.

[smjjames]

I can't tell whether you're being heavily sarcastic there or actually buying into the whole birther thing.

[Kagus]

I can't tell whether you're being heavily sarcastic there or actually buying into the whole birther thing.

That's definitely sarcasm. Does make ya wonder how that idea managed to survive for so long though...

Also,

Damnit guys.

Not entirely sure what the context was for the funding hold, but it could mess some stuff up.

What the hell? Can't tell if this is just grand incompetence or harmful ignorance, but I guess time will tell...

If this turns out to be because of that smear campaign from RT calling the White Helmets a subsidiary group of IS, angry words will be had.