This is hilarious. In October of 1995 the senate passed a bill to move the embassy to Jerusalem (93-5 and house was 374-37) Were you calling for the impeachment of Clinton, Bush and Obama for not moving it? Or is your outrage only selective?Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Did... Lewk just accuse another human being of selective outrage? Is that a thing that just happened?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Yeah basically. I never called for Obama to be impeached for not enforcing the law to move the embassy but others here are quick to jump on the Impeach Trump train which is amusing and fanciful. Unless there is some yet unseen damning evidence Trump will be the president for at least the next three years. Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if the Republicans pick up one or two seats in the senate while keeping control of the House in the mid-terms.
whataboutism has been his go to defense mechanism for the past couple of years. I think he is the only one who doesn't see how shallow and childish it is.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
'Despite passage, the law allowed the President to invoke a six-month waiver of the application of the law, and reissue the waiver every six months on “national security” grounds. The waiver was repeatedly invoked by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama.[5] President Donald Trump signed a waiver in June 2017.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act (google time < 3 seconds)
What waiver is the Trump administration invoking over the Russia sanctions, exactly?
And were presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama under investigation for colluding with Palestine to interfere in the 2016 election?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
No, no it's not what impeachment is for. Just what did they TEACH you regarding Andrew Johnson's impeachment?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Had just one of seven Republicans not gone against the party lines that's precisely what Johnson would have been impeached for.
Though later SCOTUS rulings have indeed argued that the President does indeed have the right to go against Congress and that's the whole point of separation of powers.
Aaaaaaannnnytime you're ready guys.
Just whenever suits you.
No rush.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I think this is too charitable but it's not completely absurd: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...nd-prudent-now
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes, if others had decided differently it is what Johnson would have been impeached for. Similarly, if several hundred congress-critters had decided to, they could have impeached Taft because "dude is fat." Bu that's not what impeachment is for, and, in MY CLASSES, the situation with Johnson was used to highlight what impeachment was not supposed to be used for. Maybe that's not the case for OG, maybe they taught him something different, something more wrong.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Does it matter what impeachment is "designed for"? The requirements are so ambiguous and executive so political that there's no real reason to expect impeachment based on "merit."
Hope is the denial of reality
No not if hundreds had. One.
The impeachment of Johnson was voted for 35 "guilty" to 19 "not guilty". A large plurality in favour of guilty and only a solitary vote short of the two-thirds requirement that would have led to his removal.
The fact remains that impeachment is vague and it remains the preserve of the Senate and what can pass by two-thirds through a highly partisan and highly divided Senate. In reality so far (only narrowly due to Johnson) that has in your entire history been nothing, except potentially Nixon if he hadn't resigned prior to impeachment.
It doesn't matter one iota what your classes think, it matters how the Senators vote. If only one more Senator had voted to remove Johnson he'd have been gone, your classes be damned.
Barring some incredible smoking gun that is so damning it convinces dozens of Republicans to vote against Trump but not damning enough he resigns like Nixon, there is no plausible way Trump gets impeached. Not because of merit or classes, but because of Senate numbers.
Donald Trump Just Asked Congress to End the Rule of Law
Donald Trump’s first State of the Union was a deeply dangerous speech.
It was deeply dangerous because he finally followed in the footsteps of European leaders like Hungarian President Viktor Orban who have long ago learned to give an attractive look to authoritarian populism.
Like them, Trump eschewed openly racist remarks in his speech, even emphasizing how much he (supposedly) cares about the fate of Latinos and black Americans. Like them, he called for economic policies, like paid family leave, that would actually benefit ordinary people. And like them, he then cast himself as the only man willing to prioritize the interests of his supporters over those of foreigners and political elites.
It was Bannonism without Bannon’s penchant for shock and awe. And it played shockingly well.
But Trump’s speech was also deeply dangerous for an even more important reason: Under the cover of his soothing rhetoric about unity and bipartisanship, Trump called on Congress to give him unprecedented and unquestionably antidemocratic powers: “Tonight,” he said, “I call on the congress to empower every Cabinet secretary with the authority to reward good workers—and to remove federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”
By design, it is easy to overlook the true significance of the second half of that phrase. But dwell on it for a moment, and imagine what this would actually look like in practice. Under Trump’s proposal, any Cabinet secretary could decide that, say, a law enforcement official investigating the president had “undermined the public trust” or “failed the American people”—and fire him on the spot. In other words, Trump is calling for an end to any semblance of independence for the IRS, the FBI, the Department of Justice, or any other federal agency.
To be sure, such legislation is unlikely to pass. While the constant standing ovations for Trump from the Republican benches demonstrate the degree to which the GOP has now embraced the president, they are not yet at the point of dismantling the rule of law quite so brazenly; even if they did, the Supreme Court would be very likely to strike such a law down as unconstitutional.
But the fact that Trump’s authoritarian demand is unlikely to be realized anytime soon does not make it unimportant. In his first State of the Union, the 45th president of the United States asked Congress for the authority to end the rule of law. And that—not Trump’s supposedly unifying policy proposals, much less his supposedly presidential ability to read a speech off a teleprompter—should be the headline of every newspaper tomorrow.
All that time the GOP spent screaming how the Dems were politicizing agencies was nothing but projection. A true shocker.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 01-31-2018 at 11:57 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
OG made a comment about what impeachment was for. I answered. You want to have a different discussion, about the limits on the misuse of power. Great discussion, go start your own thread on it. Maybe pick your examples from recent activity in the ministerial departments of the UK. Or maybe we can talk about the Spanish demands regarding Gibraltar in the context of Brexit.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
No fucking Arabs: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b05836a255fe36
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I don't think it's a different discussion whatsoever, it's the exact same discussion. The closest the Senate ever got to actually impeaching a President is the Johnson case that only fell by a single vote and if one more Senator had gone forwards with it, it would have been for precisely what OG said. Now as far as what impeachment should be for I agree that the Johnson case was the Senate overreaching and it would have been wrong to remove the separation of powers by the Senate removing him for disagreeing with them . . . however the fact remains the Senate could if it chose to actually do so.
It won't, but it could. The provisions for what the Senate can vote on are vague and left largely to the House and Senate to decide upon. Johnson fell within that remit.
No, but apparently Andrew Johnson was all up in the Russian's shit.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Rand, what was Johnson impeached for?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
From my understanding and memory going against the Senate in removing and replacing a General that the Senate had passed a law basically to prevent him from removing him, but he did it anyway.
Yes, they passed a law which would not (and did not) pass constitutional muster with the intent of forcing him to violate it so they could use that as a trumped up (and also invalid) excuse to try and impeach him. If it had gone before the Supremes (as it would have if they'd actually convicted him) it would have been thrown out as upholding the Constitution is not any kind of "high crime or misdemeanor." You've been arguing that whatever Congress says works does work. That's not the case and never has been the case. And since Trump similarly isn't doing anything that's not fully in his constitutional authority wrt those sanctions. . .
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Twitter Link
This is what Trump has allowed to flourish. Right wing politicians will attack you for comparing them to Nazis as they compile and publicly display lists of people they deem bad because they are Jewish.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Hilariously, some of the people on that list aren't Jewish--despising Nehlen knows no religion.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That dude has been practically universally condemned. When you're too extreme for Bannon...
Donald Trump accuses FBI and Justice Department of favouring Democrats over Republicans
Attacking your own FBI and Justice departments, after you picked the heads of both departments... someone is guilt as fuck
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Its a bit more complicated than that and I think you know that. Several of the key decision makers have been there for quite awhile and one felt he had to recuse himself.
Yeah. Sessions, for being involved in Trump's contacts with Russia and hence a target in any investigation himself!
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Oi, the "rule of law" party has exposed its soft belly of partisanship. Party first.
Right well that changes things.
It was my understanding that if the vote had gone against him he would have gone. No ifs, no buts, no Supremes - he would have been terminated with immediate effect.
If you're saying it would have gone to the Supremes to determine with the Senate has done its job properly or not, then that's a different kettle of fish. That wasn't my understanding.
It would have been a constitutional crisis. Impeachment in the House is not up for judicial review. Conviction of impeachment in the Senate is a kind of legal proceeding so it is somewhat murkier. It shouldn't be up for judicial review but then Congress shouldn't be attempting to get rid of a President who balks them with his veto by trumping up an impeachment on unconstitutional grounds either.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Trump Doesn’t Understand the Difference Between Treason and Unpopularity
https://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2...-unpopularity/
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote