1. #7961
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Ah I see it's time for another game of Ring Around the Rosie, as the last guy got banned and someone else had to tag in for him to try and re-derail the thread again the more of someone else's exhausted talking points.
    Just report them for the obvious trolling. It worked on the last guy.

    And it's not like he was in good health to begin with. Of course, I feel that the whole "can't do the time, don't do the crime" thing here applies as well. If you can't stand the heat... don't sell your soul to the devil.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  2. #7962
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    Just report them for the obvious trolling. It worked on the last guy.



    And it's not like he was in good health to begin with. Of course, I feel that the whole "can't do the time, don't do the crime" thing here applies as well. If you can't stand the heat... don't sell your soul to the devil.
    I mean, Trump's history of being a paper skinned vulgarian is long and sordid, so the idea of the inquiry bruising his Ego like an abused avocado makes a fair bit of sense. It could also be a factor as to why his remaining handlers feel the need to keep him from testifying.

  3. #7963
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    I see we got the fake outrage of the hearing. It was a



    https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1...121026560?s=19

    Yes she was making a cheeky remark, yet now Melania and the Republicans are upset.
    This is probably the stupidest thing they've done in... well, honestly, probably like 15 minutes.

    It would be one thing if she actually use the kid in a statement, like talked about him personally. She literally just invoked his name. That's it. Who knew the damn names of children were off limits? I'm pretty sure every politician on both sides of the aisle has named the fucking kids of any politician they may be speaking about. Because it's just a name of a child, not Beetlejuice.

  4. #7964
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    The articles of impeachment being written up, and the draft report today are extremely damning. So are the testimonies of the constitutional scholars. It's good to see that the Trump shills on her finally realize that their party is wholly corrupt and anti constitutional, admitting that the Senate will not vote to remove Trump from office because they ARE the swamp.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  5. #7965
    Stood in the Fire Setheria's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    460
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That it's "unimaginable" is exactly the problem, frankly.

    The USA carefully avoided implementing any real checks and balances on the Presidency or, really, Congress for that matter. In fact, it provided them greater leeway and protections than private citizens, to engage in malfeasance and abuse, and not suffer legal penalties as anyone else would.

    You folks should have seen this coming. Not now. 250 years ago. This is one of the single most glaring fuck-ups by the Founding Fathers in drafting the Constitution. No other developed country is this helpless against malfeasance by their own government.

    In Canada, just as an example;
    1> The opposition parties could call for a Non-Confidence vote. And any budget vote is a Confidence vote. If the vote on any budget fails, or any separate Non-Confidence motion passes, Parliament dissolves and an election is called.
    2> The Governor General can decide that the government has acted egregiously or has lost the confidence of the people even if a non-confidence vote isn't gonna happen, and can dissolve Parliament and call an election (basically never happens, but it's there).
    3> The Prime Minister is just the Party's leader. Their position is more akin to Speaker of the House than to the President. He can be removed by his party with an internal vote to replace them as leader. They don't even need grounds, just an "ehh, not feeling them any more".
    4> No member of Parliament, and certainly not the PM, has any immunity to legal proceedings. If criminal charges are filed and the member is placed under arrest, their riding has an immediate by-election to replace them. They're pretty much out of office, just by being arrested and charged.

    Compare to the US situation. Budget bills failing and a government shutdown occurring would mean an election was called. The GG (I know the US has no equivalent) could have said "this is all screwy" and called an election. If Trump had been charged with any of the numerous crimes he's accused of (and note, charged. Not found guilty.) he'd be out of office already. And there'd be no protection against those charges, whether by federal or State authorities (so they can't rely on the AG to quash it). The Republicans could have decided, at any point, that it's too big a risk and replaced him with any other Republican. Etc.

    The USA has no checks or balances. This is entirely by (bad) design. It's not that these things are "unimaginable", it's that Americans thought they were magical perfect people who can do no wrong and bad things will never happen, and so you're completely blindsided the moment a figure emerges to educate you that bad people exist.

    It's like not bothering to pass laws banning murder and acting shocked when some fucko goes on a killing spree and you don't have any grounds to stop them. That's your fuckup for letting that happen in the first place. It was eminently "imaginable", you just didn't bother to think ahead and assumed everyone would play nice forever.
    I agree with the sentiment of your post, but one comment about the 'Governor General' role is that it, in and of itself, provides scope for malicious play.

    Take 'the dismissal' example from Australia for reference.

  6. #7966
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You'd still get the regular election periods.
    Members can also be recalled in their own ridings, if they fuck up badly enough.
    There's also the Governor General, who has basically no restrictions. They can be replaced after the fact, if the existing government goes back in, but that's about it.
    Our members of Parliament are also generally much closer to their ridings than members of Congress are in the USA. So there's a lot more direct accountability to those who vote for you.
    Also, again, if you're charged with a crime, you're out and a by-election is immediately called.
    I'm seeing that the Governor General is appointed by the Queen. And has some serious corruption-preventing guns to swing. The U.S. doesn't have that process anywhere.


    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Then there's all the other measures.

    Yes, it's possible for every single check and balance to fail, but the point is that Canada's government has multiple independent such checks. The USA has precisely one, with the President. Impeachment. Which is political in nature.

    Confidence usually is, but minority governments are also fairly common, where "party line" can't protect you from a non-confidence vote.

    The one where if you're charged with a crime, you're out of office and a by-election is called.

    Also, our civil service, including the Department of Justice, is professional and not political. Ministers and deputy ministers change with the government, but the rest of the system is apolitical by design; it's really not possible for a Minister to try and force the RCMP to make an arrest, or to get the Department of Justice to file bullshit charges. The professionals would refuse and go screaming to the press. It happened when Harper was trying to shut up government scientists, a few years ago, for instance.

    Any process can be abused. But we have a suite of independent processes, and a lot of them are not political to begin with.
    Canada certainly has a more robust system than the United States for rooting out corruption. However, the point isn't that we only have one (which I disagree with), the point is that the system we have is being gamed beyond what anyone could have reasonably expected. We literally have a President who has committed multiple felonies, while in office, and the people who should be removing him are violating their oath of office.

    So it's not that the Founder didn't anticipate corruption, they in fact decisively did, and it's not that the Founders didn't put into place rules and procedures to remove corruption, they also did that, it's the fact that the people in charge of removing corruption are corrupt themselves.

    However, your point, that the United States was caught woefully unprepared for this treasonous behavior, is valid.

  7. #7967
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,799
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I'm seeing that the Governor General is appointed by the Queen. And has some serious corruption-preventing guns to swing. The U.S. doesn't have that process anywhere.

    Canada certainly has a more robust system than the United States for rooting out corruption. However, the point isn't that we only have one (which I disagree with), the point is that the system we have is being gamed beyond what anyone could have reasonably expected. We literally have a President who has committed multiple felonies, while in office, and the people who should be removing him are violating their oath of office.

    So it's not that the Founder didn't anticipate corruption, they in fact decisively did, and it's not that the Founders didn't put into place rules and procedures to remove corruption, they also did that, it's the fact that the people in charge of removing corruption are corrupt themselves.

    However, your point, that the United States was caught woefully unprepared for this treasonous behavior, is valid.
    Indeed, the founders believed that the legislature would uphold their oath of office, and be beholden to the truth. The Republicans technically are playing by the rules if they vote not to remove Trump from office, but they are also violating their oath of office and living in some alternate reality. If the Senate doesn't vote to remove, and we don't get a major anti-GoP vote in 2020 and Trump is not voted out of of office, we're going to have a serious crisis on our hands. IF Republicans don't go full imperialist authoritarian and implement Trump as president for life, Republicans are going to deeply regret setting a precedent that a president can get away with any criminal behavior the next time a Democrat holds the office.
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  8. #7968
    Immortal Stormspark's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    7,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Butter Emails View Post
    Indeed, the founders believed that the legislature would uphold their oath of office, and be beholden to the truth. The Republicans technically are playing by the rules if they vote not to remove Trump from office, but they are also violating their oath of office and living in some alternate reality. If the Senate doesn't vote to remove, and we don't get a major anti-GoP vote in 2020 and Trump is not voted out of of office, we're going to have a serious crisis on our hands. IF Republicans don't go full imperialist authoritarian and implement Trump as president for life, Republicans are going to deeply regret setting a precedent that a president can get away with any criminal behavior the next time a Democrat holds the office.
    If they aren't all removed in 2020 the US will be the Fourth Reich, and there probably will not be another election. We can only hope it would lead to a civil war at that point, if not there will be a lot of refugees fleeing the country and the country overall would start to resemble Russia even more.

  9. #7969
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    In the case of the Executive Branch, a "reasonable person" standard can only be brought up based on the 25th Amendment. In that instance a majority of Cabinet members can decide that the President is no longer able to execute his duties, and should be removed, temporarily, from office. But even that situation would still require a vote from the House and Senate, requiring 2/3rds majority in both, to keep him out of office.
    Close. His defense partly revolves around ukraine attacking the 2016 election. No reasonable person, seeing the combined analysis of literally every intelligence agency the US has, would dismiss those in favor of claims not only unbacked by evidence, but put forth by the very nation the analysis determined did attack us.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  10. #7970
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,281
    4 scholars are asked to give us civics lesson. 3 come prepared. One wants to push his idea of a pedantic judicial system.

    Impeachment is back on boys girls.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  11. #7971
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    ROFLMAO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton

    You think he got a third term after he got impeached? Fucking cute. Guess who won the next election... it wasn't a Democrat...
    As I said, he's almost as smart as Trump. Almost.
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning.

    -Kujako-

  12. #7972
    Scarab Lord Zaydin's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    4,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    Basically the same way as Clinton was Impeached, which was reelected in revenge.
    You realize Clinton was impeached in his second term, right?
    "If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers

  13. #7973
    Trump believes in fighting corruption in allies we send foreign aid to, he just DEEEPLY forgot to ask for investigations into

    Turkey
    saudi arabia
    egypt
    israel( netanyahu indicted by his own government for bribery and corruption)

    I guess the key to needing a corruption investigations seems to be would it be valuable to trump personally,? Otherwise keep murdering journalist, beheading aposotates, jailing political opponets, All ok, since trump says turkey saudi arabia and egypt are tOTALLY NOT CORRUPT! because he didnt demand an investigation before giving us aid!

  14. #7974
    Quote Originally Posted by DocSavageFan View Post
    I don't know why I'm doing this as you will undoubtedly rationalize it away. That said...sometimes even a blind hog finds an acorn....so here goes.

    Trump's View of Ukraine as Corrupt Took Shape Early
    https://pressfrom.info/us/news/polit...ape-early.html
    Not surprising he is backing Russia in that story, but still doesn't mention anything about any other "corruption" like any specifics or anything. So, still swing and a miss. I mean, if he was so worried about corruption, why did he have a non-elected or non-appointed representative doing the "investigating"? He could have gone through the DoJ but didn't. He could have gone through the State Department, but didn't. No, he sent his personal fucking lawyer, that has now committed probably at least a dozen felonies to do this bribery and extortion. Just to get dirt, where dirt doesn't exist.

  15. #7975
    pfft...Trump shits all over NATO just so he can excuse his love-jones for Russia.

  16. #7976
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    This guys statement is the first intelligent thing I have read through this whole mess

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...rley-testimony

    President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
    7
    That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided. Although I am citing a wide body of my relevant academic work on these questions, I will not repeat that work in this testimony. Instead, I will focus on the history and cases that bear most directly on the questions facing this Committee. My testimony will first address relevant elements of the history and meaning of the impeachment standard. Second, I will discuss the past presidential impeachments and inquiries in the context of this controversy. Finally, I will address some of the specific alleged impeachable offenses raised in this process. In the end, I believe that this process has raised serious and legitimate issues for investigation. Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature. It comes down to a type of constitutional architecture. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of



    ________________

    In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment. The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record. That is not to say that the final record must have a confession or incriminating statement from the accused. Rather, it was meant to be a complete record of the key witnesses that establishes the full range of material evidence. Only then could the body reach a conclusion on the true weight of the evidence—a conclusion that carries sufficient legitimacy with the public to justify the remedy of removal.
    John Turley is a fucking moron. He said Clinton deserved his impeachment for lying, and what have you, even stated that the president didn't have to commit a crime to be impeached, and now, doesn't think the dozens of obstruction of justice and congress charges, bribery, extortion, and other violations, don't rise to that level.

    Also that moron is a fucking Bill Barr friend, so that means he is just as retarded and corrupt as Bill Barr.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    Maybe you should try reading the whole thing and stay on topic instead of personal attacks.
    Don't need to. Turley is a hack of scholar of any sort. No wonder he is a Fox News contributor.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.whas11.com/article/news/...c-d13c8dbab340

    Rand Paul is trying a new defense: Accusing Schiff of "spying" on Nunes because Nunes popped up in the phone records of an indicted foreign agent.

    So a repeat of the Carter Page nonsense all over again because they refuse to acknowledge reality. If Nunes didn't want to get caught up in this, he shouldn't have been talking to Lev Parnas.
    So, he is just as retarded as Nunes, Barr, Gaetz, Jordan, and Meadows? Color me shocked.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    Basically the same way as Clinton was Impeached, which was reelected in revenge.
    He was impeached in his 2ND TERM. How the fuck did he get re-elected as revenge, if he was already at term limits? What the actual fuck are you smoking?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Nelinrah View Post
    WTF are you smoking? The Democrats LOST the election after Clinton's impeachment.
    Not to mention, Clinton was in his 2nd term when he was impeached. He didn't get re-elected as revenge, because he was at his term limit.

  17. #7977

  18. #7978
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    4 scholars are asked to give us civics lesson. 3 come prepared. One wants to push his idea of a pedantic judicial system.

    Impeachment is back on boys girls.
    Yep, it was also the same retard that said that Clinton should be impeached for lying about getting a blowjob, and that even if he didn't commit a crime, he should go. He is also best friends with Bill Barr, and that nothing Trump did, the bribery, extortion, the multiple counts of obstruction of justice and congress, is nothing, compared to lying about getting a blowjob. He is fucking retarded.

  19. #7979
    Facts over feelings peopl, QUESTION:

    When impeachment witness said "the president can name his son barron not make him a baron"

    what part of this statement is factually wrong? i See the anti political corectness brigade out in full force TRIGGERED by this statement. Weird i guess they seem to care about hurt feelings than the fact that presidents cant give nobility titles to children very sad for drump

  20. #7980
    Quote Originally Posted by Trifle View Post
    That actually kinda happened in 1937. Some pharmaceutical company sold a literal poison as medicine, and the government suddenly realised there weren't any laws preventing this... 100+ deaths. I think the company had to pay a fine for mislabelling their product.
    In 1868 (50 years before we got women's suffrage) the UK accidentally allowed a woman to vote and a court ruling had to be made to make sure it didn't happen again.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •