|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 15 2019 11:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 10:01 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2019 09:32 JimmiC wrote:
All 420 (not a pot reference) people voted, regardless of party to make the mueller report public. So I guess we will all know soon enough. Not all 420, but 420/424. If you want to be a dick and correct me on a small detail, then get it right. All 420 of the 424. So yes all 420.
Yes it’s a quibble, mainly because of the way you said “All 420 voted to make the mueller report public.” Four of the 424 abstained by voting present. Our last president was famous for how many times he voted present on controversial issues.
So four signaled some misgivings.
|
On March 15 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
All of the 420 present, voted. 4 voted in 'present'
420 Aye
0 Nay
4 Present
The NPR report was titled “House Votes Almost Unanimously For Public Release Of Mueller Report.”
|
United States43458 Posts
On March 15 2019 05:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 05:43 On_Slaught wrote:On March 15 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote:
He's behind on vetoes when compared to the Obama presidency. He has his "divisive" label to keep up, after all.
The only thing the supremes can do at this point is return to originalism and say Congress does not have the power to lend out emergency declarations (and entailed powers) to the executive. They made the process about as subjective as possible. Oops. Obama literally only had 2 vetoes in his first 6 years in office. Also, your point on the act ignores the fact that the original act had a provision that said the Congressional vote (the one that happened today) was un-vetoable. That was the check. However since then SCOTUS has ruled such "legislative vetoes" unconstitutional. There is a real argument, which I'm sure will be made, that the provision was vital and not serverable from the original act, thus making the whole act, and Trumps basis for this declaration, unconstitutional. First off, thank you for the agreement that Obama had more vetoes than Trump has had to date. I find so little to agree with you about, so I'd like to call attention to the times I do. Congress has no power to pass legislation that dodges presidential veto. They have to rescind the extension of emergency powers to the Executive via the normal passage of a bill. That follows constitutional order, not little inventions of their own. They can as well pass a Constitutional Amendment proposing a structure for declarations of emergency that allow them more control. That's the proper way to change normal legislative procedure.
2 in 6 years isn't really an apples to apples comparison you're trying to make it here.
|
I hope that the Mueller report is released. The nation needs full transparency regarding this clusterfuck.
|
On March 15 2019 12:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
All of the 420 present, voted. 4 voted in 'present' 420 Aye 0 Nay 4 Present The NPR report was titled “House Votes Almost Unanimously For Public Release Of Mueller Report.”
So what you're saying is, my statement was correct. Thanks for that. Anything else you'd like to add?
|
United States43458 Posts
On March 15 2019 12:50 xDaunt wrote:
I hope that the Mueller report is released. The nation needs full transparency regarding this clusterfuck.
Unfortunately it's just the tip of the iceberg. The base criminality of Trump, including tax evasion, money laundering, fraudulent businesses, political corruption, bribery, lying, race baiting, encouraging political violence, and a return to American fascism, will continue to cause issues. The problem isn't Mueller, it's the day to day conduct of Trump. The clusterfuck of shit will continue because the open sewer spewing shit is still uncapped.
|
On March 15 2019 12:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 12:45 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
All of the 420 present, voted. 4 voted in 'present' 420 Aye 0 Nay 4 Present The NPR report was titled “House Votes Almost Unanimously For Public Release Of Mueller Report.” So what you're saying is, my statement was correct. Thanks for that. Anything else you'd like to add?
No, because there were more than 420 present. It’s in your first sentence. Help any? I was busy seeing if the abstainers had reasons or made statements.
|
On March 15 2019 13:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 12:50 xDaunt wrote:
I hope that the Mueller report is released. The nation needs full transparency regarding this clusterfuck. Unfortunately it's just the tip of the iceberg. The base criminality of Trump, including tax evasion, money laundering, fraudulent businesses, political corruption, bribery, lying, race baiting, encouraging political violence, and a return to American fascism, will continue to cause issues. The problem isn't Mueller, it's the day to day conduct of Trump. The clusterfuck of shit will continue because the open sewer spewing shit is still uncapped.
I think that you are about to find out that you have been looking for criminality on the wrong side of the political aisle.
|
|
|
On March 15 2019 14:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 13:00 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2019 12:50 xDaunt wrote:
I hope that the Mueller report is released. The nation needs full transparency regarding this clusterfuck. Unfortunately it's just the tip of the iceberg. The base criminality of Trump, including tax evasion, money laundering, fraudulent businesses, political corruption, bribery, lying, race baiting, encouraging political violence, and a return to American fascism, will continue to cause issues. The problem isn't Mueller, it's the day to day conduct of Trump. The clusterfuck of shit will continue because the open sewer spewing shit is still uncapped. I think that you are about to find out that you have been looking for criminality on the wrong side of the political aisle.
Would you realize, Kwark, that while we talk about all those unsignificant details such as half the potus inner circle going or being threatened to go to jail, Hillary was using the wrong email server?
I miss the days of the two parallel threads. This one was worth reading.
|
|
|
I gotta hand it to Graham. One hundred percent of Democrats and allies would never think of appointing a special counsel to investigate the DOJ/FBI. Here they're at least aware that Graham wants that to happen. The natural curiosity of why anyone would vote against such a nonbinding resolution makes them seek the reason.
I don't think a special counsel into the domestic surveillance and unmasking/leaking will ever happen. I think that Mueller report is coming out just like the dossier did.
|
On March 15 2019 14:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 14:12 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2019 13:00 KwarK wrote:On March 15 2019 12:50 xDaunt wrote:
I hope that the Mueller report is released. The nation needs full transparency regarding this clusterfuck. Unfortunately it's just the tip of the iceberg. The base criminality of Trump, including tax evasion, money laundering, fraudulent businesses, political corruption, bribery, lying, race baiting, encouraging political violence, and a return to American fascism, will continue to cause issues. The problem isn't Mueller, it's the day to day conduct of Trump. The clusterfuck of shit will continue because the open sewer spewing shit is still uncapped. I think that you are about to find out that you have been looking for criminality on the wrong side of the political aisle. Would you realize, Kwark, that while we talk about all those unsignificant details such as half the potus inner circle going or being threatened to go to jail, Hillary was using the wrong email server? I miss the days of the two parallel threads. This one was worth reading.
Yeah sure, all of Trump's campaign are actual criminals who have been found guilty but xDaunt is a republican so those facts are easily discarded in favor of some conspiracy theory around Hilary.
He might as well be pulling the 'yeah but what about pizzagate and lizards' thing out of his ass at this point. Watching xDaunt degrade himself repeatedly on here by ignoring the rank, obvious criminality of the Trump campaign has been the most fun thing about the Trump swamp being drained.
Gone are the days when people would refer to him as a smart guy with bad ideological opinions. He is now just a guy who is acting like any of the morons on t_d, spewing the same mad rhetoric while being unable to see the most blindingly obvious facts.
Trump's campaign was a criminal campaign run for criminal reasons by criminals.
Wrong side of the ailse. lol.
|
On March 15 2019 16:10 Danglars wrote:
I gotta hand it to Graham. One hundred percent of Democrats and allies would never think of appointing a special counsel to investigate the DOJ/FBI. Here they're at least aware that Graham wants that to happen. The natural curiosity of why anyone would vote against such a nonbinding resolution makes them seek the reason.
I don't think a special counsel into the domestic surveillance and unmasking/leaking will ever happen. I think that Mueller report is coming out just like the dossier did. Correct me if I'm wrong but considering Trump is President he has the power to appoint someone to investigate the matter.
If Republicans actually believe something happened they don't need Congress to investigate it.
They might be waiting for Mueller to finish to not throw up a shadow of obstruction, but either way there is no need for such a display from Graham other then an overt attempt at blocking the motion to make the report public after it passed unanimously.
|
Random thought : MAYBE if the Trump DOJ hasn't appointed a SC and is not willing to re-investigate, then maybe it is because there is no basis?
Now there might be a basis to investigate the behaviour of the Obama doj and FBI, but again, it hasn't been done while Trump held all levers of power... There has already been a report by Horowitz, if there was enough inside, what's stopping them to do it? Maybe because there's just not enough and it's just a smokescreen.
It's really funny to see Trump's cronies crying about bias when they have all the power and do nothing with it. Of course it's the Dems fault.
|
On March 15 2019 19:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 16:10 Danglars wrote:
I gotta hand it to Graham. One hundred percent of Democrats and allies would never think of appointing a special counsel to investigate the DOJ/FBI. Here they're at least aware that Graham wants that to happen. The natural curiosity of why anyone would vote against such a nonbinding resolution makes them seek the reason.
I don't think a special counsel into the domestic surveillance and unmasking/leaking will ever happen. I think that Mueller report is coming out just like the dossier did. Correct me if I'm wrong but considering Trump is President he has the power to appoint someone to investigate the matter.
Investigating the people who investigated you isn't a good look.
|
On March 15 2019 21:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 19:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2019 16:10 Danglars wrote:
I gotta hand it to Graham. One hundred percent of Democrats and allies would never think of appointing a special counsel to investigate the DOJ/FBI. Here they're at least aware that Graham wants that to happen. The natural curiosity of why anyone would vote against such a nonbinding resolution makes them seek the reason.
I don't think a special counsel into the domestic surveillance and unmasking/leaking will ever happen. I think that Mueller report is coming out just like the dossier did. Correct me if I'm wrong but considering Trump is President he has the power to appoint someone to investigate the matter. Investigating the people who investigated you isn't a good look. Its almost as if I address that very thing 2 lines later in the same post...
please read before jumping.
|
On March 15 2019 14:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 12:58 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On March 15 2019 12:45 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2019 11:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
All of the 420 present, voted. 4 voted in 'present' 420 Aye 0 Nay 4 Present The NPR report was titled “House Votes Almost Unanimously For Public Release Of Mueller Report.” So what you're saying is, my statement was correct. Thanks for that. Anything else you'd like to add? No, because there were more than 420 present. It’s in your first sentence. Help any? I was busy seeing if the abstainers had reasons or made statements.
Where in the article does it say every house member was present? Must have missed that part...
|
On March 15 2019 21:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 21:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 15 2019 19:58 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2019 16:10 Danglars wrote:
I gotta hand it to Graham. One hundred percent of Democrats and allies would never think of appointing a special counsel to investigate the DOJ/FBI. Here they're at least aware that Graham wants that to happen. The natural curiosity of why anyone would vote against such a nonbinding resolution makes them seek the reason.
I don't think a special counsel into the domestic surveillance and unmasking/leaking will ever happen. I think that Mueller report is coming out just like the dossier did. Correct me if I'm wrong but considering Trump is President he has the power to appoint someone to investigate the matter. Investigating the people who investigated you isn't a good look. Its almost as if I address that very thing 2 lines later in the same post... please read before jumping.
Investigating someone after they finished investigating you still isn't a good look.
|
And what makes you believe that this administration cares about looks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
