| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:13 Acrofales wrote: How do you get kicked out of the senate? There's a procedure for that? What happens if in the (presumably) subsequent election, he is reinstated? They can try. There is an investigation and then a formal vote to expel. But doing that over documents that were withheld for political reasons is Pandora’s box. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:13 Saryph wrote: So the NY Times has been leaked some of the documents that have been blocked from the public having access to them, and they include Kavanaugh writing that Roe v. Wade isnt settled and can be changed, which is at odds with what he told the committee earlier this week. Obviously this is exactly what people were worried about, though I'm not sure if it changes anything. Responding to this take, Saryph brings up the leak that happened of documents allowed to be read confidentially by committee Senators. The nature of the leak is sometimes described by reporters as contradicting other statements made by kavanaugh. This is an attempt to violate the rules of the Senate to bring down the nominee. I think the actual leak more than affirms that there’s no “there” there. I think if you slow down the horses to read it, it’s barely even a dry statement of fact. Kavanaugh’s only crime is saying the kind of obvious stuff that sections of polite society would rather leave unsaid. If you want constitutional crisis, senators leaking documents subject to executive privilege is either getting there or already there. Things are getting more exciting and I think Trump’s chance of reelection just went up a bit. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22610 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:40 Danglars wrote: You call it a constitutional crisis. Others call it whistle-blowing a government conspiracy to withhold documents to pilot through an unfit political operative to the highest legal office.https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1037700471501320194 I think if you slow down the horses to read it, it’s barely even a dry statement of fact. Kavanaugh’s only crime is saying the kind of obvious stuff that sections of polite society would rather leave unsaid. If you want constitutional crisis, senators leaking documents subject to executive privilege is either getting there or already there. Things are getting more exciting and I think Trump’s chance of reelection just went up a bit. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:40 Danglars wrote: https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1037700471501320194 I think if you slow down the horses to read it, it’s barely even a dry statement of fact. Kavanaugh’s only crime is saying the kind of obvious stuff that sections of polite society would rather leave unsaid. If you want constitutional crisis, senators leaking documents subject to executive privilege is either getting there or already there. Things are getting more exciting and I think Trump’s chance of reelection just went up a bit. Executive privilege can be challenged and is not unlimited. However, given the speed of these hearings and that the privilege was invoked the day before they were to start, it is a pretty questionable use of privilege. Also, invoking privilege about behalf of an administration that is no longer in power is questionable at best. If the Trump administration was committed to using its executive powers in a fashion that allowed for due process, Booker’s threat would like an abuse. But given that Trump’s administration has not respect for the rule of law or the limits of his office’s power, the complaints that Senators like Booker are breaking the rules are pretty hollow. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9999 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:50 Doodsmack wrote: Conservative Twitter is going nuts over the idea that the NYT op-ed writer is a member of the deep state. Except, hes talking about senior Trump appointees. But hey, when party loyalty has reduced you to supporting Donald Trump, you gotta say what you can. The deep state according to Trump is anyone working inside the administration who doesn't support Trump. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:13 Acrofales wrote: How do you get kicked out of the senate? There's a procedure for that? What happens if in the (presumably) subsequent election, he is reinstated? article 1 section 5 sub 2 of constitution "2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:40 Danglars wrote: https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1037700471501320194 I think if you slow down the horses to read it, it’s barely even a dry statement of fact. Kavanaugh’s only crime is saying the kind of obvious stuff that sections of polite society would rather leave unsaid. If you want constitutional crisis, senators leaking documents subject to executive privilege is either getting there or already there. Things are getting more exciting and I think Trump’s chance of reelection just went up a bit. Run me through the logic here? How does this increase Trump's chances of re-election? Though I personally think they're pretty high anyway; has a President ever lost re-election while the economy is doing okay-good? And if you think this is a final straw, isn't it already bad that your side of the aisle held up the nomination for the best part of a year just to spite the sitting President? It seems to me that no matter how theatrical the stuff with Brett gets, it's entirely the fault of Republicans for taking the seat hostage in the first place when Obama - by all accounts - recommended a perfectly reasonable judge, and I know you're fond of those sorts of arguments so you should be in full support of these shenanigans. Many a time have you tut-tutted the left and said 'well if you didn't want x to happen, you shouldn't have done y'. This is exactly that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:59 zlefin wrote: article 1 section 5 sub 2 of constitution "2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." And Booker’s response was “Bring it.” I don’t think the Republicans are prepared for the political fall out for ejecting someone from the Senate when they need the Democrat’s votes to keep the government going. Edit: The all the Democrats on the committee support the release of documents. They are getting released. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 06 2018 23:23 ShoCkeyy wrote: Imo, Republicans already stole a nomination from the democrats when they chose to not even hear Merrick, if I were the Dems, I would be doing the same thing. Funny enough, Brett praises Merrick as a judge, and they both voted together on the same issue 93% of the time, yet Republicans chose to not hear the nomination because it was "Obamas" nomination. Despicable turn of events in my opinion. the dems don't have the votes to block the nomination in the same way the Republicans did. They'd need a majority for that, which they do not have. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 07 2018 00:21 Mohdoo wrote: The question of "should this be released or not?" should always be answered with "yes". This only stops being true for blatantly obvious national security things. But some dude's confirmation hearing? Anything whatsoever should be on the table. More importantly, the committee has always decided what documents to withhold through a bipartisan agreement. And privilege has never(from all reports) had to be invoked by the White House, since the Judiciary committee was always able to work it out if privilege was a problem. The Republicans side stepped that process, telling the Democrats to just eat shit and like it. And now they are all shocked that the Democrats are punching back. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 07 2018 00:04 iamthedave wrote: Run me through the logic here? How does this increase Trump's chances of re-election? Though I personally think they're pretty high anyway; has a President ever lost re-election while the economy is doing okay-good? And if you think this is a final straw, isn't it already bad that your side of the aisle held up the nomination for the best part of a year just to spite the sitting President? It seems to me that no matter how theatrical the stuff with Brett gets, it's entirely the fault of Republicans for taking the seat hostage in the first place when Obama - by all accounts - recommended a perfectly reasonable judge, and I know you're fond of those sorts of arguments so you should be in full support of these shenanigans. Many a time have you tut-tutted the left and said 'well if you didn't want x to happen, you shouldn't have done y'. This is exactly that. It’s an example of Democrats willing to burn it all down because they’re still wishing Clinton won and got their picks (and regret that Republicans won the Senate back during Obama’s tenure). It really works against any 2020 Democrat claims that they’re the path back to sanity in politics. And if you’re still sore at “seat hostage” business, blame Biden. I really think your characterization of the issue is just the opposite partisanship of mine. Since Supreme Court justices are practically legislators, their nominations close to presidential election years are political election decisions. It’s just refusal to come to terms with the consequences of a politicized court that leads to all these silly “hostage” and “just to spite.” Why not let the Kavanaugh hearings proceed without breaking the rules on leaks and constant interruptions, if you really are against doing things just to spite the president? | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8193 Posts
Meanwhile, Kim is playing The Donald like a f-ing violin. The guy would say Satan is a great guy if he made him a cheap compliment. That’s pathetic. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 07 2018 00:31 Danglars wrote: It’s an example of Democrats willing to burn it all down because they’re still wishing Clinton won and got their picks (and regret that Republicans won the Senate back during Obama’s tenure). It really works against any 2020 Democrat claims that they’re the path back to sanity in politics. And if you’re still sore at “seat hostage” business, blame Biden. I really think your characterization of the issue is just the opposite partisanship of mine. Since Supreme Court justices are practically legislators, their nominations close to presidential election years are political election decisions. It’s just refusal to come to terms with the consequences of a politicized court that leads to all these silly “hostage” and “just to spite.” Why not let the Kavanaugh hearings proceed without breaking the rules on leaks and constant interruptions, if you really are against doing things just to spite the president? Because the “rules” have already been “broken”. The committee should have entered an bipartisan agreement on what documents would be released and Executive Privilege should not have been necessary. That didn’t happen, even though it was the norm up until the last nomination. If the Republicans don’t like the rules being broken, they are free to enforce them and investigate Booker’s release of privileged documents. I’m sure the Democrats would love to have a public investigation into why these documents were withheld how that relates to executive privilege. If Republicans want to play by the rules, enforce them and stop whining about how mean everyone is. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On September 07 2018 00:28 Plansix wrote: More importantly, the committee has always decided what documents to withhold through a bipartisan agreement. And privilege has never(from all reports) had to be invoked by the White House, since the Judiciary committee was always able to work it out if privilege was a problem. The Republicans side stepped that process, telling the Democrats to just eat shit and like it. And now they are all shocked that the Democrats are punching back. Well, when was the last time Democrats had a spine? If someone chooses paper when playing rock/paper/scissors 400 times in a row, it is fair to be surprised when suddenly they choose rock. Edit: Just saw it takes 67 votes to expel a member. So negative 400% chance of that happening. So not as spine-containing as I originally thought. Edit2: If "Bring it" isn't Booker's 2020 slogan, his entire campaign staff needs to be fired. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On September 07 2018 01:05 Mohdoo wrote: Well, when was the last time Democrats had a spine? If someone chooses paper when playing rock/paper/scissors 400 times in a row, it is fair to be surprised when suddenly they choose rock. Edit: Just saw it takes 67 votes to expel a member. So negative 400% chance of that happening. So not as spine-containing as I originally thought. Edit2: If "Bring it" isn't Booker's 2020 slogan, his entire campaign staff needs to be fired. To go back to the rock paper scissor's line, you stop picking paper and pick wreckingball when instead of scissors your opponent starts picking chainsaw. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
|
EPT
