|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The turmoil surrounding Comey's dismissal has frustrated the President and his senior-most aides, according to people familiar with the situation. All have expressed anger that the decision to fire Comey wasn't properly executed and created a sharp backlash. The topic has all but consumed the West Wing, where Trump remains holed up Friday, his seventh straight day without a public event.
Attempts to move on from the firing have been minimal. Trump's own official schedule remains empty, leaving some of his allies wondering whether his governing agenda has veered drastically off course. Even the normal parade of photo-ops has been scrapped; instead, Trump signed two executive orders behind closed doors Thursday, avoiding any more questions about his decision to remove Comey from his post.
www.cnn.com
|
The confederate statues would only accurate represent history if they included the fact that many of them were created in either A: reconstruction era or B: after segregation ended in the south and detailed that they were placed there to remind blacks that the south fought to keep them slaves. The south didn’t become super invested in naming schools after confederate generals until they were forced to desegregate them.
And losing the battle to keep the statue in place is a perfect celebration of the confederate legacy.
On May 13 2017 01:10 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 21:57 Yurie wrote:
Been listening to the History of Rome podcast and it is striking how often the best sources they have is statues and inscriptions on buildings. They have something akin to 0 accurate documents about some emperors but statues and inscriptions allows piecing together their actions.
That is something worth learning from. Permanency of history for the future isn't something to ignore, they can't learn from history if it is gone. That's an absurd comparison and you should feel bad for making it. You don't need to put a statue on a pedestal to record information in the present day, we're not an illiterate society and there aren't barbarians sacking our cities. A lot of our records from Ptolemaic Egypt come from a rubbish heap in Oxyrhynchus yet you wouldn't argue that it's important that we start dumping books in a hole in the ground in Oxyrhynchus to ensure that our descendants know the tragedy of Bella and Edward. Data permanency is still an interesting thing though given the short self life of many digital records, but that has a lot more to do with preserving cultural artifacts than historical knowledge.
But we also need to be realistic with the effects of publicly displaying specific artifacts. Germany didn't mark Hitler's or the SS's graves for a reason.
|
On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:On May 13 2017 00:08 Doodsmack wrote:
I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here.
I'm hoping Pence can take over, but I'm not a Trump supporter to begin with so that probably doesn't count ;D
Trump brought some issues to the forefront of the party, much like Bernie did, so they become the embodiment of those ideals. I guess that there is some belief that if the people are gone, then those ideals will be lost with them, hence some fanaticism surrounding them. As long as Trump is still around then there is still hope for drastic immigration/regulatory/whatever else reform, so they cling to him.
|
What on earth does this imply
|
Trump insinuated he has tapes of his conversations, much like Nixon did.
No, the irony of this statement in light of his position is not known to Trump.
|
On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far?
You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all.
Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed.
|
On May 13 2017 01:11 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +The turmoil surrounding Comey's dismissal has frustrated the President and his senior-most aides, according to people familiar with the situation. All have expressed anger that the decision to fire Comey wasn't properly executed and created a sharp backlash. The topic has all but consumed the West Wing, where Trump remains holed up Friday, his seventh straight day without a public event.
Attempts to move on from the firing have been minimal. Trump's own official schedule remains empty, leaving some of his allies wondering whether his governing agenda has veered drastically off course. Even the normal parade of photo-ops has been scrapped; instead, Trump signed two executive orders behind closed doors Thursday, avoiding any more questions about his decision to remove Comey from his post. www.cnn.com
Poor man. How will he escape to go golfing?
|
On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed.
I think the talk of impeachment needs to continue until either donnie dipshit is impeached, or until republicans lose all public support for failing to impeach him. I don't think there is any reason to stop talking about his russia ties or his conflicts of interest or his other crimes, and certainly no reason to stop talking about removing him.
|
And when Trump seems to be speed running Nixon’s second term, people are going to draw that comparison. One does not fire the FBI director and then tweet about tapes of conversations and then expect people not to talk about Nixon.
|
On May 13 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 00:33 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 13 2017 00:27 Mohdoo wrote:I think we've seen this a lot in this thread, most notably from Danglars and xDaunt. Both of them had this slow, bizarre adoption of Trump. If you look at their posts before Trump was dominant, its like some kinda split personality disorder. People who are already susceptible to this kind of thinking by a life of participation in religious institutions are particularly vulnerable, since appeals to authority and faith play a big role in unconditional support of your leader or the person fighting against "the bad guys". Its sometimes easy to forget just what kind of mental gymnastics is required to think stuff in the bible is actually true. I think those of us who don't participate in organized religion have already worked through "yeah, its weird, believe just kind of actually think that's true" when we were younger, but it is worth looking at. When someone says they think the bible has a shred of credibility or what have you, there are some interesting mental processes taking place. Its probably more about confirmation bias, loyalty, and pride than any of the brainwashing or other stuff that you mentioned. No one likes to admit they are wrong or picked the wrong person and no one wants to look like a fair-weather fan. EDIT: its the same thing for democrats and republicans alike, so i dont think the distinction is fair. The difference is that we aren't seeing people hope Trump gets ejected so that Pence or Ryan or someone can take over. People are identifying with the leader, Trump. They are defending *trump*, not just the party. That's the crucial distinction. What I am saying is that people with a history of religion are more likely to put leaders and authorities on a pedestal. The adoption of the Trump agenda and believing what he says is what is different here.
I think both sides prefer Trump over Pence / Ryan tbh
|
On May 13 2017 01:34 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed. I think the talk of impeachment needs to continue until either donnie dipshit is impeached, or until republicans lose all public support for failing to impeach him. I don't think there is any reason to stop talking about his russia ties or his conflicts of interest or his other crimes, and certainly no reason to stop talking about removing him.
This type of overreaction will seriously hurt the democrats.
|
|
|
On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed.
I would argue that not impeaching Trump does a lot more damage to the office and the nation then impeaching him can ever do.
This man is making an utter mockery of the position.
|
On May 13 2017 01:38 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:34 hunts wrote:On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed. I think the talk of impeachment needs to continue until either donnie dipshit is impeached, or until republicans lose all public support for failing to impeach him. I don't think there is any reason to stop talking about his russia ties or his conflicts of interest or his other crimes, and certainly no reason to stop talking about removing him. This type of overreaction will seriously hurt the democrats.
Why do you think that? Or do you just wish for it to be true because you voted for this mess?
|
It would feel a little silly impeaching him for acting just like we expected him to. This is what the people voted for.
|
On May 13 2017 01:38 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:34 hunts wrote:On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed. I think the talk of impeachment needs to continue until either donnie dipshit is impeached, or until republicans lose all public support for failing to impeach him. I don't think there is any reason to stop talking about his russia ties or his conflicts of interest or his other crimes, and certainly no reason to stop talking about removing him. This type of overreaction will seriously hurt the democrats.
There is no way. Civility gets you nothing in this political climate. If a House Democrat is worried about getting reelected, all they would need to do is throw a chair during some bullshit speech and their reelection would be secured.
|
On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed.
The constitution outlines the causes. You should read up. The actual vote is political, but you don't get votes on board without constitutional cause. Crimes and misdemeanors, amongst the rest, are criminal statutes not "no reason at all." You're taking this way too far.
|
On May 13 2017 01:39 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2017 01:38 biology]major wrote:On May 13 2017 01:34 hunts wrote:On May 13 2017 01:29 prplhz wrote:On May 12 2017 23:49 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Is there a legitimate cause for impeachment proceedings to begin yet? Or are we waiting for something bigger than what has surfaced thus far? You don't actually need a legitimate cause (whatever that means), impeachment is a purely political question. If you can get the votes, you don't need to prove anything. It's constitutional to successfully impeach a president for no reason at all. Impeachment shouldn't be done lightly though. First of all it can backfire (Clinton got a popularity surge through his impeachment, Andrew Johnson not so much but there wasn't a second attempt at him) and second of all it does damage not only to the president but to the office and the nation itself. I really hope this talk of impeachment just kind of stops for now because for the moment it's unrealistic and it shouldn't be rushed. I think the talk of impeachment needs to continue until either donnie dipshit is impeached, or until republicans lose all public support for failing to impeach him. I don't think there is any reason to stop talking about his russia ties or his conflicts of interest or his other crimes, and certainly no reason to stop talking about removing him. This type of overreaction will seriously hurt the democrats. Why do you think that? Or do you just wish for it to be true because you voted for this mess?
Because we aren't there yet, he didn't break any laws. He's just being dumb and disrupting american institutions but he was basically voted in to shake things up. By overreacting like you say, democrats will lose their credibility and appear partisan. They need to appear calm and rational, while trump continues his charades.
|
Imagine Pence as president though, would that really be any better? The guy seems just as dangerous if not more than Trump.
|
On May 13 2017 01:40 opisska wrote:
It would feel a little silly impeaching him for acting just like we expected him to. This is what the people voted for.
When his approval ratings continue to drop, it will become more viable. Congress can't use the excuse that "he is what people voted for" because it is their jobs to uphold their role as a check on the president. They are the ones that are supposed to display leadership and make the case to the public bout impeachment if they know it is for the good of the country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
