| 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. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
The months preceding this event were about how PR wasn't able to pay it's debt. Now it's been completely destroyed. They are going to need the feds to protect them against the vultures Considering they are the type to kick a 90yo woman out on the streets for being $0.27 cents short on her mortgage, it comes as 0 surprise that the governors calls for help have been more tempered than those from the mayors and people themselves. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 01 2017 05:33 sc-darkness wrote: How is Trump's approval in the US nowadays? Any prospect of him getting impeached or resignation before his term ends? Obama wasn't great but he looks like a titan compared to Trump. Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. | ||
KwarK
United States43976 Posts
On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote: Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. That is not how impeachment works. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23932 Posts
I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24772 Posts
On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. I don't have a problem, in principle, with folks voting for the reasons you gave. However, those voters shouldn't try to simultaneously justify the reasoning for wanting to vote against certain people like Hillary and take no responsibility for the bad actions of the person they chose to vote for. It's one or the other. Either people voted for Trump knowing he would do embarrassing/harmful things like what we've been discussing here, and decided that was worth it to send a message that the status quo must end, or they shouldn't have voted for him. I'll make an exception for those too simple-minded to understand the ramifications of their vote (whole separate problem), but the majority of voters, like I said before, should have known exactly what they were getting as most of the people who voted for Hillary did once the election was over. If you voted for the current president, you are in part responsible for his actions. That's of course always true to some extent, but it's especially true when the candidate did such a good job of telegraphing exactly what type of a person he was and how that would not change when he got into office. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45857 Posts
On October 01 2017 06:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/914198851212402688 Wait, so it's gotten worse there? The rate of aid distribution (at least, water) is slower than the rate that the remaining rations have been running out? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote: I would think this would have been sorted out by now, but I keep hearing it from both sides. I said it from when the impeachment talk first started criminality is not in any way a requirement for impeachment. They could impeach him for wearing a tan suit if they wanted to, or he could hang an innocent person from the white house steps and not be impeached. All that matters is whether Republicans think it is acceptable behavior (so long as Dem's don't have 66 seats) for a president representing their party. So far, they still do. So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43976 Posts
On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote: So how new is the Uganda flair? I'm guessing it has to do with a suggestion for moving arrangements previously made. In principle yes, you could get impeached for anything. But given that even Andrew Johnson survived impeachment it is definitely not just that simple. It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote: It's baffling to me how you can make an utterly false statement as if it were fact, get publicly corrected by people who know you're ignorant, and then you still come back and try to clarify what they meant. Is there any subject on which you do not believe yourself to be an expert? Is there any amount of ignorance you could display that would make you stop posting the way you do? Two posts ago you didn't know what impeachment was. Hush. He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43976 Posts
On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote: He knew what it was. The process even nominally requires "high crimes and misdemeanors." But if the whole country felt as Danglars did, Obama would have been impeached for unconstitutional EOs, even though that's not theoretically an impeachable offense. If the whole country felt like Doodsmack, Trump would have been impeached on the testimony of Tony Schwartz, even though none of that is impeachable either. So yes, it winds up as just a political process, but if someone thought otherwise it wouldn't mean they "didn't know what it was," If we look at what he said On October 01 2017 06:33 LegalLord wrote: He said specifically that it isn't about popularity, it is about breaking the law, ie criminal convictions.Low approval. But you don't get impeached for being unpopular, you only get impeached for breaking the law. He doesn't look like the kind of person to resign from an ego trip like this. So let's examine that claim a little from a political and constitutional perspective. Firstly, let us ask ourselves which branch of government it is that brings criminal charges against an individual. It's actually the executive branch. The justice department, the FBI, prosecutors etc, they're all part of the executive branch. So, if impeachment were to require lawbreaking (which in turn requires a criminal conviction to have any legal existence) that would require the executive to impeach itself. Doesn't sound very plausible. Secondly, let us ask ourselves which branch of government actually brings impeachment proceedings against the executive. It is the legislative. The House votes on it and the Senate then tries the case before itself. They do not require a criminal conviction, and again, it would make very little sense from a constitutional perspective if they did because they have no powers of conviction, those lie with the executive. The question is entirely decided by whether the legislative collectively believe that the head of the executive should be impeached. And the silly thing is this should be pretty apparently to any individual, even one lacking a rudimentary understanding of the US constitutional structure. The role of the executive as the head of the investigative and prosecuting departments has been front page news throughout the Comey firing, the threat of Sessions being dismissed, the threat of McCabe being fired, and so forth. The idea that impeachment requires breaking the law should just sound wrong to anyone who says it, they should think "wait a second, but that means... that can't be right". It is decided by popularity within the legislative, and therefore within the electorate of the legislative. Always has been. It is a constitutional check on the power of the executive by the elected representatives of the people. LegalLord's post wasn't just wrong, it was the complete opposite of right. He didn't just state 1+1=3 with certainty, he stated 1+1=potato. I'm sufficiently tired of his shit that I stopped simply at telling him that it was wrong but GH generously decided to try and teach LegalLord the extremely obvious fundamentals of how impeachment works. At which point LegalLord shows up and pretends that he got it all along but that GH isn't quite right and he'll add to what GH said. We've all met someone like LegalLord before. Someone who will spout something incomprehensibly wrong and then when corrected will try to pass it off as if they knew what they meant all along, and even try to add something inane to what the person corrected them said in order to get the last word. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote: I don’t think the President retains support for his brilliant job at passing legislation or his vocal response to Puerto Rico. I do have a problem with people that think Trump is performing in his role well (or will drain the swamp and pass great tax reform). Don’t conflate that with the original decision to vote for him. Nobody listened when Americans were fed up with Obamacare, immigration policy, and legislation by technocratic elite. We (They) sent Trump to office to send the message that the status quo must end, this kind of bipartisan DC consensus in rejection of campaign promises to the contrary. It’s not an endorsement of the messenger or all the misdeeds and harm he will do in office. It’s that you didn’t get the message and still refuse to see why Trump got elected, preferring to engage in defamation of his base. I really wish it didn’t come down to this. We learned that the fiction of a ‘United’ states was only indulged if you voted the way elite opinion wanted you to vote. Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote: Under the assumption that a Trump presidency causes bad things for your nation to a degree that would not have happened under another reasonable alternative for president: Who do you think bears responsibility for those bad things happening? The people that put him there knowing damn well the kind of damage he will do. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On October 01 2017 08:33 sc-darkness wrote: It's probably not getting easier with global warming. Comments like these are as dumb as the it's snowing and -14, so my anecdotal retort about climate is right. There's a difference between weather and climate. Over the last 20 years, there has been no increase in # or severity of Hurricanes (compared to historical data). Keep peddling the bullshit though. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
bigmetazltank
34 Posts
On October 01 2017 10:56 ShoCkeyy wrote: The people that put him there knowing damn well the kind of damage he will do. We saw this when Alabama completely ignored Trump's support for Luther Strange and went straight for Roy Moore. For the alt-right, Neo-Nazis and white supremacists, Trump is only attractive because of his transparent bigotry and pettiness. That, for the most part, that's exactly what he promised to give America...only that people tried to justify these things with "tells it like it is", "isn't politically correct", "we need someone who can make good deals" and "at least he's funny". | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Other Games summit1g8273 tarik_tv5907 Doublelift2658 Liquid`RaSZi1471 shahzam540 JimRising  306ViBE59 Mew2King32 |
|
Escore
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Zoun vs Ryung
Lambo vs ShoWTimE
Big Brain Bouts
Fjant vs Bly
Serral vs Shameless
OSC
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
SHIN vs Bunny
ByuN vs Shameless
WardiTV Invitational
Krystianer vs TriGGeR
Cure vs Rogue
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
