EPTOn June 08 2017 06:50 Nevuk wrote:
What's with the console display on that statement?
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7793
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
What's with the console display on that statement? | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
President Donald Trump flatly denied Thursday that he ever urged ex-FBI Director James Comey to back off or close the investigation into former national security advisor Michael Flynn. "No. No ... next question," Trump said when asked during a joint news conference with Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos if he had, in any way, tried to influence the probe. In a reported memo, Comey allegedly says Trump asked him to let the probe into Flynn go. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/18/trump-denies-ever-urging-comey-to-back-off-of-flynn-investigation.html | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 08 2017 06:30 KwarK wrote: Markets still seem to think that Trump's tax reforms are coming which is a good sign for him. Either that or it's a bubble. I think it's a bubble. Anyone hoping for significant legislation right now is a fool. And there are definitely signs of irrational valuations. Though you are right that on a sufficiently long time scale you would always be right in predicting downturns, so meh. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On June 08 2017 07:08 LegalLord wrote: I think it's a bubble. Anyone hoping for significant legislation right now is a fool. And there are definitely signs of irrational valuations. Though you are right that on a sufficiently long time scale you would always be right in predicting downturns, so meh. Lame duck president almost immediately. | ||
|
HelpMeGetBetter
United States764 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 08 2017 08:07 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: so everything Comey is going to say has already been released? what is the point of tomorrow then? Grandstanding, mostly. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2017 08:07 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: so everything Comey is going to say has already been released? what is the point of tomorrow then? Saying under oath and then questions. Unless you are into taking all press releases at face value. Edit: again, law is super boring shit. There is a reason film is all about witnesses and closing arguments. And that shit is normally pretty boring too. If you every want to see how boring, read an unedited deposition on any lawsuit of substance. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On June 08 2017 08:07 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: so everything Comey is going to say has already been released? what is the point of tomorrow then? Due process. Evidence has to be formally heard by an investigation before it is used in said investigation. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
Also, has anyone figured out what the hell is up with Qatar and the intentions behind trump taking sides? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 08 2017 08:17 warding wrote: Does the legality of anything that trump does matter given that impeachment is a political process? Isn't there also a weird equilibrium where republicans won't impeach and democrats want to continue the slow roast of this administration in the hopes that by the next election cycles the country turns decidedly democrat? The volatility of the current environment leads us to think that something big must happen soon but what if there's just going to be heavy turbulence for the rest of the flight? Also, has anyone figured out what the hell is up with Qatar and the intentions behind trump taking sides? it matters slightly; mostly in that when things fall out of the range of plausible deniability, into implausible deniability, or smoking gun territory, it gets harder to defend him. impeachment and removal technically requires an actual crime; and there's usually a few people on the edge in congress who will waver and argue over whether the actual crime was committed. (i.e. the politics for them is such a close call that the minor questoin of legality actually affects their willingness to impeach). there is some of that equilibrium effect. it'll probably be turbulent for a long whlie; impeachment is slow absent a smoking gun; unless trump falls far the republicans decide to ditch him entirely or he goes really REALLY far off the rails. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2017 08:17 warding wrote: Does the legality of anything that trump does matter given that impeachment is a political process? Isn't there also a weird equilibrium where republicans won't impeach and democrats want to continue the slow roast of this administration in the hopes that by the next election cycles the country turns decidedly democrat? The volatility of the current environment leads us to think that something big must happen soon but what if there's just going to be heavy turbulence for the rest of the flight? Also, has anyone figured out what the hell is up with Qatar and the intentions behind trump taking sides? Trump doesn't matter. The office of the president matters. This is about bring the evidence before the public through due process. Impeachment isn't about making a case to the senate, is making a case to the US public that their duly elected President did something wrong and should be censured or removed from office. And the latter is undoing the will of the people, which is the foundation of our goverment. Nothing about the political part is weird. Elections have consequences and president is mostly immune to tradition criminal prosecution(this isn't fully resolved legally). The people who voted for Trump gave him that protection and only the House can vote to remove it(through removing him). So until the people decide he needs to be removed, either through election or changing our sitting elected officials minds, our goverment will function(or dysfunction) like it is now. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 08 2017 09:01 Doodsmack wrote: Imagine if Democrats run on a platform of impeaching Trump in 2018 lol. If they want to lose, that would be the platform. People vote for jobs and to improve their lives, not to remove someone from office. So there is like a 57% chance that will be the platform. On June 08 2017 09:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I could easily see Republicans move to impeach Trump. As soon as polls shows 65-70% disapproval and the house in danger of flipping or near flipping. That is close to magical thinking. Shit has got to get a lot worse. His numbers among republicans are still in the 70%. That needs to be in the 50% or lower. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On June 08 2017 08:17 warding wrote: Also, has anyone figured out what the hell is up with Qatar and the intentions behind trump taking sides? There are no intentions behind Trump taking sides. It was an off the cuff reaction with negative ramifications, like almost everything Trump does in office that isn't put in front of him by Ryan/the GOP. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 08 2017 04:53 GreenHorizons wrote: lol So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus? You're correct that they can't currently carry (on campus), I was under the understanding that you supported students being able to carry guns on campus though? I actually giggled when I saw the pictures and video compared to the hyperbolic bullshit describing it. Like, holy sh*t man are you serious with this trash? Is this you conceding the police regularly intimidate POC and that is an exponentially bigger problem than some marginalized people at Evergreen feeling the need to defend themselves from a dangerous and violent environment? I lead with 'We have problems communicating' and sure enough, it happens. You lie and say guns are allowed, next reponse [no comment]. I say nothing about my opinion on guns on campus, you say "So you're against students being able to carry guns on campus." I'm rolling my eyes here. I know you to be one of the more extreme posters here on white fragility, uncle tom blacks, "whiteness" (as in "Whiteness is complicit with white terrorists"-GH), and BLM. I put out my true opinions with the necessary bite to match. You literally cannot see intimidation and only seek some kind of recognizance on police brutality against PoC? Just like in the past, I want police reform against brutality against all citizens. Not making this a race issue in the least. And I do accuse you and others of hurting blacks in inner cities. Police officers are more wary to do community policing given how BLM types won't hesitate to make every interaction another Ferguson. But to recognize and learn how your diatribes hurt blacks across the nation, you might have to stop shutting down speakers like Heather McDonald that made a whole book on the subject. Your hierarchy of who matters when and your oppression gradient, with its attendant speech=violence and "danger" from liberal professors, is absolutely a problem here that I might not see resolved in my lifetime. | ||
| ||
