|
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. |
On November 16 2017 01:18 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 01:05 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 16 2017 00:37 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2017 23:53 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2017 23:49 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2017 23:44 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2017 23:19 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2017 14:23 Aquanim wrote:On November 15 2017 14:09 Danglars wrote:On November 15 2017 13:52 Nyxisto wrote:
the US has a mass shooting pretty much every week, sooner or later that's bound to coincide with a senator being attacked. you're hunting for patterns in the noise. I don't think there has been any evidence that should lead anybody to believe that the two incidents are connected or that there is anything especially mysterious about either one.
I don't know what this has to do with Islamic terrorism or not doing anything about it. There's plenty of things that can be done about it, there's just nothing spooky about it. The US does not have a mass shooting every week. Senators being attacked is rare. Throwing up your hands in mystification and helplessness is a pretty dumb thing to do. I’d like answers. What's the definition of mass shooting you're using? A quick Google search indicated to me that the US has mass shootings considerably more frequently than once a week, which doesn't seem like it supports the argument you're trying to make. It is true that mass shootings of the scale of the Las Vegas shooting are unusual. With respect to the Rand Paul thing, what is dissatisfactory to you about this explanation? People do not walk into churches and kill 26 people or rent a hotel room and shoot 58 people every week. I understand it's tough to systematize a definition, but gang violence in Democratic strongholds does not make national headlines. Quibbling at this point when my point was clear maybe be your thing, but it isn't mine. On November 15 2017 14:01 Nevuk wrote:...
The rand Paul attack was pretty clearly personal, they were neighbors. Both men seem to be trying to keep it private so I'm assuming it would be bad for both if the reason came out.
...
Also, to be absolutely clear, are you saying that the two events might be related, or do you just want answers about them individually? Both, thanks. I think you missed the middle question, to wit: what is suspicious to you about Rand Paul getting into a altercation with his neighbour about lawn maintenance or whatever? He wouldn't have tweeted out this article conflicting reports. ... We still don't know about either. Okay then. No matter whether he got into an altercation with his neighbour because of lawn maintenance or dislike of Trump or both, what makes you think there's any possible connection with the Las Vegas shooting? See: Original post. Tweet response to tweet. So they're connected by whataboutism? They arnt connected and he doesn't say they're connected you clearly didnt read anything and just want to repeat what you heard on oliver.
People have been using whataboutism as a term in this thread for, at least, months now.
|
On November 16 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2017 01:34 Plansix wrote:
Democrats are now going to block Alexander-Murray if the Republicans are going to repeal the mandate. I doubt the Republicans can pass the tax bill, esp with a repeal in it. See all the other times it failed. And there is no need for the Alexander-Murray bill if the repeal does pass because the entire system will self immolate anyway. Seems like an easy statement to make. Its 2017, anything is possible. But it is good to put the gun to Republicans head and remind them that lighting everything on fire has consequences.
I see this less as the Democrats putting a gun to the Republicans head and more as the Democrats throwing away a bandage because its not going to help after the Republicans put a bullet through their own head.
|
Plaster as in band-aid?
edit:
I was raised bilingual so confusing vocabulary comes natural to me xD
|
On November 16 2017 01:46 thePunGun wrote:
Plaster as in band-aid?
my English vocabulary failed me for a moment so I just replaced it with bandage but yes ^^
|
For some people, all the outrage over some casual sexual assault (I mean golly, not even rape for cryin' out loud) is considered somewhat of a women's rights thing. For the type of women who have, sadly, been raised to believe "boys will be boys and women just need to keep their heads down", it becomes a defense of culture thing. In these bumfuck rural communities, it is a part of their natural order for men of power to deviate a bit. But for the sake of community cohesion, it is expected that women will bottle it all up inside and not "pull the community apart". Lots of people in these areas believe efforts to demonize "human nature" are somewhat of an attack on their culture. And with these areas being deeply hierarchical, there's also the creepy component of people wanting to protect their leader.
|
On November 16 2017 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 01:38 Gorsameth wrote:On November 16 2017 01:34 Plansix wrote:
Democrats are now going to block Alexander-Murray if the Republicans are going to repeal the mandate. I doubt the Republicans can pass the tax bill, esp with a repeal in it. See all the other times it failed. And there is no need for the Alexander-Murray bill if the repeal does pass because the entire system will self immolate anyway. Seems like an easy statement to make. Its 2017, anything is possible. But it is good to put the gun to Republicans head and remind them that lighting everything on fire has consequences.
the quote from patty murray is actually "trying to put out a fire with penicillin".
|
Senator Leahy just alleged this tweet could interfere in his court decisions. I want this humorous twitter guy and excellent judge confirmed. The tweet theatre is great.
|
Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee introduced new articles of impeachment against President Trump, citing several of his actions during his time in office as "violations of the U.S. Constitution."
"The time has come to make clear to the American people and to this president that his train of injuries to our Constitution must be brought to an end through impeachment," said Cohen at a Wednesday morning press conference.
Cohen, along with three co-sponsors of the motion, claim Mr. Trump has obstructed justice in his firing of former FBI Director James Comey, violated the foreign emoluments clause by taking money from foreign powers, violated the domestic emoluments clause by profiting off of the Trump brand during his presidency, undermined the federal judiciary by pardoning former Sheriff Joe Arpaio and undermined the freedom of the press with his persistent badgering of the news media.
Cohen called for the House Judiciary Committee, to begin impeachment hearings immediately. Although he doesn't expect the House to act upon the articles, he says it's the committee's responsibility to hold hearings on the matter.
This isn't his first attempt at impeachment -- in an earlier attempt, he accused Mr. Trump of having violated the foreign emoluments clause, but admitted Wednesday that that effort found little support, even among members of his own party.
For this resolution, though, Cohen says he has five other Democrats on board. Still, he conceded that "it'd be a stretch to say" that House leadership was on board with the legislation.
Democratic leaders largely oppose the effort, fearing that it only riles up the GOP base that is strongly supportive of the unpopular president. Cohen noted that numerous Democrats "constrained by strong Trump supporters" in their districts were unlikely to back the resolution.
Resolution co-sponsor Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, said Democrats are not seeking impeachment for what Mr. Trump did before he was president, but rather the actions he's taken since taking office.
"There's many reasons I think the president is an awful president and an afwul person but not all of those rise to the level of impeachment charges," noted Gutierrez.
He added that it was imperative to file the articles of impeachment for fear of "failing to do our jobs."
"I see a crime and I have a responsibility to dial 9-1-1 immediately," said Gutierrez. "I don't reach consensus with all my neighbors and friends, I call the police and I activate an investigation."
Vocal advocate for impeachment charges Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, was also in attendance at the press conference, lending his support to Cohen's proposal. Reps. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio; Adriano Espaillat (D-New York); and John Yarmuth (D-Kentucky) also endorse the charges.
CBS
Cohen's got five. It's bucking Dem leadership who currently think it risks increasing GOP voter turnout and activity.
|
The Senators don’t have much to go on, since the man doesn’t have a written decision, legal brief or even transcript from arguing a motion. But knowing the current Senate, they will confirm him.
|
On November 16 2017 02:03 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tennessee introduced new articles of impeachment against President Trump, citing several of his actions during his time in office as "violations of the U.S. Constitution."
"The time has come to make clear to the American people and to this president that his train of injuries to our Constitution must be brought to an end through impeachment," said Cohen at a Wednesday morning press conference.
Cohen, along with three co-sponsors of the motion, claim Mr. Trump has obstructed justice in his firing of former FBI Director James Comey, violated the foreign emoluments clause by taking money from foreign powers, violated the domestic emoluments clause by profiting off of the Trump brand during his presidency, undermined the federal judiciary by pardoning former Sheriff Joe Arpaio and undermined the freedom of the press with his persistent badgering of the news media.
Cohen called for the House Judiciary Committee, to begin impeachment hearings immediately. Although he doesn't expect the House to act upon the articles, he says it's the committee's responsibility to hold hearings on the matter.
This isn't his first attempt at impeachment -- in an earlier attempt, he accused Mr. Trump of having violated the foreign emoluments clause, but admitted Wednesday that that effort found little support, even among members of his own party.
For this resolution, though, Cohen says he has five other Democrats on board. Still, he conceded that "it'd be a stretch to say" that House leadership was on board with the legislation.
Democratic leaders largely oppose the effort, fearing that it only riles up the GOP base that is strongly supportive of the unpopular president. Cohen noted that numerous Democrats "constrained by strong Trump supporters" in their districts were unlikely to back the resolution.
Resolution co-sponsor Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, said Democrats are not seeking impeachment for what Mr. Trump did before he was president, but rather the actions he's taken since taking office.
"There's many reasons I think the president is an awful president and an afwul person but not all of those rise to the level of impeachment charges," noted Gutierrez.
He added that it was imperative to file the articles of impeachment for fear of "failing to do our jobs."
"I see a crime and I have a responsibility to dial 9-1-1 immediately," said Gutierrez. "I don't reach consensus with all my neighbors and friends, I call the police and I activate an investigation."
Vocal advocate for impeachment charges Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, was also in attendance at the press conference, lending his support to Cohen's proposal. Reps. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio; Adriano Espaillat (D-New York); and John Yarmuth (D-Kentucky) also endorse the charges. CBSCohen's got five. It's bucking Dem leadership who currently think it risks increasing GOP voter turnout and activity.
it is a stupid movie just so he can jerk off and go "I AM DOING SOMETHING!!!" It will never work and the Dem leadership is right that it's a horrible idea
|
A judge sitting on a state supreme court made a public statement that clearly trivializes a then ongoing dispute still being decided by the nation's highest court. "It's just tweets" doesn't cut it anymore, Trump supporter denial to the contrary notwithstanding.
|
Cohen is a complete moron
|
On November 16 2017 02:06 farvacola wrote:
A judge sitting on a state supreme court made a public statement that clearly trivializes a then ongoing dispute still being decided by the nation's highest court. "It's just tweets" doesn't cut it anymore, Trump supporter denial to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yes, but you understand how law works and some people in this thread don't.
|
On November 16 2017 02:06 farvacola wrote:
A judge sitting on a state supreme court made a public statement that clearly trivializes a then ongoing dispute still being decided by the nation's highest court. "It's just tweets" doesn't cut it anymore, Trump supporter denial to the contrary notwithstanding.
Have you read this guys twitter feed? This smacks of telling nominees that there are some topics not open to humor.
Just absurd. Jokes about bacon are about picking more and more ludicrous topics to advocate bacons usefulness and supremacy of the ingredient.
It’s a microcosm of Democrats problem of being perceived as humorous scolds. And if you meet a gay or lesbian human being that joking about marrying bacon trivializes their judicial victory, I pity them.
|
Yeah, I often see federal judges ripping it up on twitter, cracking wise about recently made decisions they may hear down the line.
|
On November 16 2017 02:04 Plansix wrote:
The Senators don’t have much to go on, since the man doesn’t have a written decision, legal brief or even transcript from arguing a motion. But knowing the current Senate, they will confirm him.
That sounds like a good thing to go on. "You don't have any experience whatsoever" is a way more valid critique than "You offhandedly tweeted a joke that might be offensive if read in one very specific way"
|
On November 16 2017 02:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 02:06 farvacola wrote:
A judge sitting on a state supreme court made a public statement that clearly trivializes a then ongoing dispute still being decided by the nation's highest court. "It's just tweets" doesn't cut it anymore, Trump supporter denial to the contrary notwithstanding. Have you read this guys twitter feed? This smacks of telling nominees that there are some topics not open to humor. Just absurd. Jokes about bacon are about picking more and more ludicrous topics to advocate bacons usefulness and supremacy of the ingredient. It’s a microcosm of Democrats problem of being perceived as humorous scolds. And if you meet a gay or lesbian human being that joking about marrying bacon trivializes their judicial victory, I pity them.
Your lack of empathy for others who had their rights denied them by government authorities throughout the country, some even following Obergefell, smacks of self-important narrow-mindedness of the kind indicted by Leahy. Either that or you genuinely think the treatment of gay people should differ from state to state much like Willett does (better yet, why not both?).
And that's all ignoring the obvious violation of the "appearance of propriety" standard that most states require their judges follow, especially regarding topics germane to a live controversy. Then again, we've routinely established that you like to talk about legal topics with all the authority of having read the day's shock conservative headlines.
Above all, the latitude white men and women should be given in terms of public jokes makes for a nice casus belli among the "FREEDOM IS UNDER ATTACK" crowd, so kudos for sticking to the script.
|
Senator, as for the bacon tweet, that was the day after the Obergfell decision was issued and it was my attempt to inject a bit of levity," he said. "The country was filled with rancor and polarization. It was a divisive time in the nation."
Leahy followed up, asking Willett, "And you think that cut back the divisiveness with a comment like that?"
"Senator, I believe every American is entitled to equal worth and dignity," Willett said. "I've never intended to disparage anyone and would never do so. That's not where my heart is."
Business Insider
Thankfully, Willet responded plainly and seriously to the questioning.
I dream of a future free America where a judge can indulge in humor on social media without otherwise rational people indulging in idiocy.
Farvacola’s senatorial twin: Justice Willett, this shows a clear antagonism to the President of the Executive Branch. Can you assure me that you respect the separation of powers and don’t consider it to be a laughing matter?
|
It's ok Dangles, we get it, you think people who think and act like you are under attack, no need to fill the thread with shitty twitter jokes.
|
On November 16 2017 02:29 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2017 02:04 Plansix wrote:
The Senators don’t have much to go on, since the man doesn’t have a written decision, legal brief or even transcript from arguing a motion. But knowing the current Senate, they will confirm him. That sounds like a good thing to go on. "You don't have any experience whatsoever" is a way more valid critique than "You offhandedly tweeted a joke that might be offensive if read in one very specific way"
When federal judges get vetted, they pull everything the Judge wrote all the way back to their college days. If they wrote a movie review at one point, someone is going to read it. Only the truly uninformed or willingly ignorant would believe that jokes on twitter would be immune to this meticulous review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
