1. #8921
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    25,507
    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.
    No one is above the law!

  2. #8922
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    33,373
    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.
    "Nazis are like cats. If they like you, it's probably because you're feeding them." -John Oliver
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't care if he committed tax fraud. Scoring political victories and crushing the aspirations of your political opponents is more important than adhering to moral principles.
    Knadra finally just admitting Trumpkins care more about political victories than morals.

  3. #8923
    Immortal Stormspark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Columbus OH
    Posts
    7,253
    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.

  4. #8924
    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..

  5. #8925
    The Insane PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    19,633
    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.

  6. #8926
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeezy911 View Post
    Basically the same way as Clinton was Impeached, which was reelected in revenge.
    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...
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    100:1 odds that he wont
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  7. #8927
    The Insane Kujako's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In the woods, doing what bears do.
    Posts
    17,989
    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-

  8. #8928
    The Lightbringer Zaydin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    FL, USA
    Posts
    3,052
    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


  9. #8929
    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!

  10. #8930
    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.

  11. #8931
    pfft...Trump shits all over NATO just so he can excuse his love-jones for Russia.

  12. #8932
    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.

  13. #8933

  14. #8934
    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.

  15. #8935
    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

  16. #8936
    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.

  17. #8937
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    16,569
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    But what if the ruling majority never refused to vote for a budget, passing them no matter what, to prevent a triggering election?
    An election would still be held 5 years after the previous one. It's required by the Constitution.

    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.
    Only in a technical de jure sense. The GG is appointed by the Queen from a list provided by the current PM. Current convention is that the list consists of exactly one name. The GG is de facto appointed by the PM.

    And yeah, the GG holds a collection of "in case of emergency" powers stored behind some rather thick glass. They haven't even come close to being used in modern Canadian history.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    When impeachment witness said "the president can name his son barron not make him a baron"

    what part of this statement is factually wrong?
    It might be debatable. What exactly constitutes a "title of nobility" has never come before the Courts to my knowledge.

    Obviously a heritable title is right out, but it might be legally permissible for the US government to create an honorary title of "Baron", in the vein of state titles like Nebraska's Admirals or Kentucky's Colonels.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  18. #8938
    The Insane PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Upside Down
    Posts
    19,633
    Republicans want public hearing - Democrats give them public hearings. Republicans cry.
    Republicans complain that the Dems are slow-walking the process - Dems speed up the process. Republicans cry.
    Republicans demand evidence - Democrats produce credible witnesses, tapes, transcripts, even legal scholars. Republicans cry.


    All three points have something in common

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by arandomuser View Post
    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
    GOP: Theres too much politcal correctness in today's world!

    witness breaks down her statement in plain English that even Jim Jordan can understand

    GOP: OMG! Why is she so snarky and rude . I yield my time to Jim Jordan, who is a very classy and stable human being.

  19. #8939
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/whit...ry?id=67502822

    Former Vice President Joe Biden is responding unequivocally to a top White House official who said Wednesday that President Donald Trump is demanding a full Senate trial, featuring live witnesses, if and when the House sends over articles of impeachment: He does not plan to attend voluntarily.

    "No, I’m not going to let them take their eye off the ball," Biden said outside a campaign event in Iowa Falls, Iowa, on Wednesday afternoon. "The president is the one who has committed impeachable crimes, and I’m not going to let him divert from that. I’m not going to let anyone divert from that."
    So the alleged quid pro quo is about Joe Biden and his son, but Biden said he will not testify if a trial goes forward in the senate. I am sure he has nothing to hide.

  20. #8940
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/whit...ry?id=67502822



    So the alleged quid pro quo is about Joe Biden and his son, but Biden said he will not testify if a trial goes forward in the senate. I am sure he has nothing to hide.
    why would he attend, what biden may or may not have done has 0 impact on if trump broke the law or not.

Posting Permissions

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