|
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. |
- Mentally ill lone wolf
- Thoughts and prayers
- All should have the right to have 10 assault rifles in a hotel room
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Those were pretty good remarks from trump. If he leave it here he will have done a pretty good job with this situation
|
This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction.
|
that was probably one of the best statements from trump I've ever heard? A bit too much emphasize on faith for me but that's just you guys in the US and besides that it was fairly decent I think?
No ego issues, nothing of the other usual Trump issues either. Clearly not his speech/statement but it's good that way
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On October 02 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/broderick/status/914801273584709632This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction.
it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit
|
On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit
Of course. There are no solutions to products made by billion dollar industries being used to make people’s lives worse. Nothing can be done. Apathy for the sorry state of humanity is the only option, as we ironically watch the world burn. Guns and social media, totally impossible problems to solve.
|
On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit
Hmm, if only there was a way for these kinds of people to not have the most effective tools to do shitty things. Nah, that can't possibly make sense.
|
On October 02 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/broderick/status/914801273584709632This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction.
The public should stop being retarded and see Twitter as an actual news source?
|
On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On October 03 2017 00:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On October 02 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/broderick/status/914801273584709632This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction. it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit Of course. There are no solutions to products made by billion dollar industries being used to make people’s lives worse. Nothing can be done. Apathy for the sorry state of humanity is the only option, as we ironically watch the world burn. Guns and social media, totally impossible problems to solve.
of course you can have solutions that involve infringing on the rights set out in the US Constitution
|
On October 03 2017 00:19 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On October 02 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/broderick/status/914801273584709632This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction. it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit Of course. There are no solutions to products made by billion dollar industries being used to make people’s lives worse. Nothing can be done. Apathy for the sorry state of humanity is the only option, as we ironically watch the world burn. Guns and social media, totally impossible problems to solve. of course you can have solutions that involve infringing on the rights set out in the US Constitution
Alright, never update a law because it's out of date and horribly inept.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On October 03 2017 00:20 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 00:19 ahswtini wrote:On October 03 2017 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On October 02 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/broderick/status/914801273584709632This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction. it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit Of course. There are no solutions to products made by billion dollar industries being used to make people’s lives worse. Nothing can be done. Apathy for the sorry state of humanity is the only option, as we ironically watch the world burn. Guns and social media, totally impossible problems to solve. of course you can have solutions that involve infringing on the rights set out in the US Constitution Alright, never update a law because it's out of date and horribly inept.
sounds like a terrible idea, don't be silly!
|
On October 02 2017 02:03 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2017 16:10 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:50 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 15:23 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:12 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 14:13 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 08:04 ChristianS wrote:On October 01 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2017 07:26 LegalLord wrote:On October 01 2017 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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. 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," It's very debatable if abuse of authority is in high crimes and misdemeanors. Obama's standouts were recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and amending a legislative act after passage. Depending on the investigations, also possibly surveilling, unmasking, and leaking conversations of an opposed presidential campaign (though probably an underling would go down for that, but included for sake of completeness). I've heard some of the arguments against it as well. But the basis was definitely included in the high crimes and misdemeanors as the term was used by the founders. It should've been a sufficient threat by itself to discourage that behavior, but nowadays it's a popularity contest paired with evidence of crime. I'd have to look up the quote from you, but unless I'm mistaken I recall you saying Congress should have impeached him because of an EO you thought was unconstitutional (was it DACA? or something else?), so that was what I was referring to specifically. I have trouble finding any reading of the Constitution that suggests that an unconstitutional EO like DACA or the Obamacare cost sharing payments would be grounds for impeachment – the Constitutional remedy would be the Supreme Court declaring the order unconstitutional. Hell, plenty of people on the left think Trump's travel ban was unconstitutional, but I've seen very few of them think that was grounds for impeachment (they might think there are plenty of other grounds, of course). But I didn't really mean to drudge up arguments over the constitutionality of specific Obama actions, anyway. That doesn't seem like a constructive place to take the thread right now. I just meant to demonstrate that partisans of the opposition tend to want to impeach presidents even when most of the legal community would not think there's any good legal basis for it, and if they could sway most of the country to their way of thinking, presumably Congress would just do it anyway. So the "evidence of crime" isn't a true requirement in any meaningful sense – people could come up with something or other to call "high crimes and misdemeanors" for pretty much any president if they got unpopular enough. The real significance of the "evidence of crime" is hopefully in making them that unpopular in the first place. Each branch has their checks and balances. The executive is under the legislative via removal, the executive post-constitution is now under the supreme court as well (the second not written into the constitution, invented afterwards). You really have got to read the federalist papers and antifederalist papers. The spectre of replacing one king for another sat high in voters' minds. They are very instructive in this regards, but rather long. I don't think you'd come out thinking the travel ban and rewriting Obamacare are similar. But yeah, your examples don't show a grasp of when partisans have a legitimate point for impeachment versus when they do not. Of course they were concerned about replacing one king with another, and I don't doubt that reading those would be educational. Yes, judicial review was a later invention. But the idea that a President would be impeached for trying to do something by executive order that either violated the Bill of Rights or was not a power given to him in the first place is insane. Bills, EOs, and the like get challenged in court all the time, and nobody has ever thought that if they were found unconstitutional, that meant whoever wrote them should be impeached. Honestly, the Constitution did not seem very clear to me in the first place about what should happen if the legislative or executive tried to violate the Constitution, which is why judicial review was created in the first place. If you have a better idea of what the Constitutional remedy for something like that was, enlighten me – I haven't read the Constitution straight through since high school, maybe I forgot something. I'm not going to get into the weeds on every single action people think Obama could have been impeached for, but thinking that DACA or the CSR payments are grounds for impeachment remains an excellent example of partisans requiring essentially zero proof of "high crimes and misdemeanors" to call for impeachment. If those are constitutional actions, he's allowed to do them, and if they're not, a court can rule accordingly. There's no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be found here. No offense intended, but you absolutely should read the federalist papers. They had to sell this constitution to the states to ratify. It specifically argued that the courts were not a good place for impeachments, as well as detailing their role away from executive actions. Make you mind clear about what it does and does not say from it's writers/debaters arguing why they made the choices they did. You should also review the English use of impeachment to see more into how high crimes and misdemeanors included acting outside the limits on power and refusing to obey an act of Parliament. It's also amusing how your two cited examples are not the ones I said particularly stand out. Stick to examples I bring up? Edit: On October 01 2017 15:43 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 15:26 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 15:17 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 14:48 Aquanim wrote:@DanglarsOn October 01 2017 10:39 Aquanim wrote:On October 01 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On October 01 2017 03:16 micronesia wrote:
The main concern is not with Trump acting the way he is, but with people still supporting him.
I mean, if a goat was elected president but had trouble getting any major legislation pushed through since all it does is eat plants, we wouldn't blame the goat, we'd blame the people who thought it was a good idea to elect the goat, and even more so, we'd blame the people who give the goat high marks and plan to re-elect the goat for its role in rescuing Puerto Rico from the ongoing disaster over there (not that we should blame the goat either, but you get the idea).
Kind of the same thing here... Trump didn't do much to hide what he was before he was elected. People voted for him, and they are predominantly the problem. Other parties (e.g., Hillary) are also at fault for the way things turned out, but the most fundamental blame, in my opinion, points at people who voted for the person doing things like today's tweets. 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? "Under the assumption" "that would not have happened." Under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices, what responsibility do you have for voting for Trump? Seriously now, some of my primary contentions are wrapped up in what you want to stipulate away. No dice. If you keep not clarifying your position regarding what "responsibility for the Trump presidency" actually entails I'm going to have to start making guesses about what your position is. Fair warning. In the hypothetical world where Trump starts a war with a nuclear-armed North Korea and a lot of people die in America and elsewhere as a result, and where if Clinton or Rubio or whoever else had been elected that war would not have happened and nothing comparably bad would have happened, who is responsible for that outcome? Sadly, I'm done playing games with hypotheticals when you do not make useful bases. I tried to point this out with the "under the assumption that Hillary was the worst president of the two choices," which is an equally useless hypothetical to the first one you gave. Secondly, you've shown a lack of reading and responding to the actual post without launching into tangents from the get go. Like a solid half of our exchanges (probably more) historically have been a paragraph from me, and then right into questions. Let's see your thoughts on what micronesia wrote, and my response in light of it, and then try and train your questions in a useful direction. I can't indulge absurdity for no real gain. So assume you know 100% that the world would end tomorrow if you cast your ballot for Clinton, but you also knew Trump would bring national prosperity, racial harmony, and monumental technological and societal progress in four years ... you get the picture. How about this one: is there anything you can imagine Trump doing in the remainder of his presidency that would make you regret your choice? I would have assumed nuclear war with NK would clear that bar, but now I'm not certain. Just one last hypothetical!!! Sorry, ChristianS, your strange uncertainty notwithstanding, I really see no point going further into hypotheticals. I gave two examples for why they're unwelcome, which you didn't address. I responded to your post on micronesia, which you haven't given a response to. What the hell response did you want to Show nested quote +I'm specifically talking about policy and the direction of the US. I don't think we'll get very far about Clinton's uniquely terrible things vs Trump's uniquely terrible things. Hell, even talking about Obama's unprecedented and terrible things. I read that as "we shouldn't get into this," and since it sounded like it would require a full airing of grievances for both Clinton and Obama I agreed. It's not even Festivus yet. I'm not gonna go read the entire federalist papers just to have a discussion on an internet forum, but to be clear, I never said impeachment should be handled by the judicial branch. I said impeachment is not a practical solution to extraconstitutional actions from the legislative and executive branches. If that was the only remedy the Constitution had to that problem, that was a failing on the Constitution's part. That, like the expressed powers strategy for limited government, failed, each needing a fix added (judicial review and the Bill of Rights, respectively). I focused on the CSR payments and DACA because I was defending my original characterization as an insufficient justification for impeachment, which was based on those two things. If you don't think those two things would be sufficient justification for impeachment, I apologize for attributing that viewpoint to you; I must have misremembered what you had said should be an impeachable offense. My argument was not "there are no good justifications by which Obama could have been impeached," it was "these two justifications are not good, but some partisans would accept them." I didn't say the former specifically because I didn't want to get out in the weeds on GM and Chrysler bailouts, birtherism, and whatever other justifications the far right offered. That discussion seemed useless at this point anyway, seeing as he's not predident anymore. Look: I didn't expect you to actually answer the hypothetical. I know it generally takes more than that to drag an answer out of you. But you kept complaining that the hypotheticals required you to accept a bunch of assumptions that you disagree with. For purposes of discussion that's not necessarily a bad thing anyway, and you're smart enough to consider an idea without believing it. But the hypothetical I asked required no such assumptions anyway. It was just "is there anything Trump could do that would make you decide he was the wrong choice after all?" You could just answer "no," or "short of nuking someone unprovoked, no," or whatever else you might clear the bar for you. Several liberals, including Kwark, were willing to answer the reverse question before the election. I'm not gonna spend 15 pages trying to get an answer out of you, but if you really wanted the hypothetical not to require any assumptions you don't share, I offered that. Do with it what you will.
Your reading list is your choice. I think we could clear up the lines if you brought that history/scholarship into your existing knowledge of the constitution.
I'm of the opinion that posters who start with bs hypotheticals without addressing the bulk of my post don't deserve a response. I wanted to make that clear. Get some argument equity first before launching sideways into your preferred direction. I understood your post's viewpoint, and the desire to turn it into a tame hypothetical on someone else's behalf.
|
On October 03 2017 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On October 02 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/broderick/status/914801273584709632This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction. it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Isn't this America's official motto? Well it's, "In God we Trust" which is basically the same thing.
|
On October 03 2017 00:19 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 00:12 Plansix wrote:On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On October 02 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/broderick/status/914801273584709632This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction. it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit Of course. There are no solutions to products made by billion dollar industries being used to make people’s lives worse. Nothing can be done. Apathy for the sorry state of humanity is the only option, as we ironically watch the world burn. Guns and social media, totally impossible problems to solve. of course you can have solutions that involve infringing on the rights set out in the US Constitution
We have been able to write laws that governed both guns and media service that protect the public without violating the first and second amendment. Saying there is “nothing that can be done” is a lazy argument that will be dunked on every time it is used.
|
On October 03 2017 00:27 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2017 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On October 03 2017 00:08 ahswtini wrote:On October 02 2017 23:57 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/broderick/status/914801273584709632This thread on twitter about all the disinformation being circulated on social media is really depressing. How does the public navigate this shit when it is so prolific? One of these fictions will gain traction. it's just one of those things that has no solutions. like mass shootings. ppl are shit and will use whatever tools are at their disposal to be shit ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens Isn't this America's official motto? Well it's, "In God we Trust" which is basically the same thing.
God or the free market. The only two things Americans trust to solve the problems facing people.
|
Two things?
"In invisible force we trust" - Its actually the same 
|
On October 03 2017 00:38 Velr wrote:Two things? "In invisible force we trust" - Its actually the same
Invisible forces to solve problems are better than trusting the government to govern.
|
On October 03 2017 00:38 Velr wrote:Two things? "In invisible force we trust" - Its actually the same
Maybe Trump isn't like Hitler but instead a lot more like Darth Vader? 🤔
|
I look forward to finding out that all these guns were legally obtained and that there is nothing that can be done under current law to prevent this from happening in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
