News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Impeach Trump????

Started by fencerider, September 30, 2017, 11:04:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Baruch

Boomers ... worst generation of all time.  A good argument for universal abortion 1946-1964 ;-)

"China Furious After UK Considers Offering Citizenship To 3 Million Hong Kong Residents" ... Taiwan also has this offer.  If China opens up with military action outside of the mainland, nuke the bastards!

"Rosenstein Admits He Would Not Have Signed FISA Warrant If He Knew Of Exculpatory Evidence, Throws McCabe Under The Bus" ... the one guy not fired by Trump.  He as been ratting on the other rats.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

I don't get something. How are they going to fit 'political bias' into any legal action for imposing sanctions against social media platforms in the US. Politcial bias is not something defined as punishable by law. 
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 03, 2020, 04:06:36 PM
I don't get something. How are they going to fit 'political bias' into any legal action for imposing sanctions against social media platforms in the US. Politcial bias is not something defined as punishable by law.

There are Internet service providers and there are publishers.  Newspapers are publishers.  They are legally responsible for what they publish, whether they wrote it or a letter to the editor by an outside source.  It is a law, to treat Internet service providers like a bulletin board at a grocery.  If you put an add on the bulletin board at the grocery (dog grooming etc) the grocery isn't liable.  So this is a technicality, it isn't about bias.  If there were a bias law in the US like in other countries, then all media would be completely censored by authorities to prevent free speech.  As in China.  Also Turkey where you can't talk about Armenians etc, Germany and France regarding fascism etc. GB doesn't have free speech either.

So if the cut-out for Internet service providers is removed selectively from Twitter, then not only are they and posters liable to criminal law, they are also open to civil law for slander for example.  Usually, politicians have their own cut-out in the law, they are not subject to being charged with slander (in the course of politicking, or politics would be muzzled).  The applicability of these Internet regulations, outside of the US, is problematic, because different nations have different laws, but the Internet is international.  So there are "routers" at the electronic border, to screen things out.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

gotta love this--from Vanity Fair, Kenzie Bryant; What's the opposite of smizing?  Let's ask Melania Trump!

"The photo op catches them exactly as they are, as their actions have conclusively shown them to be: grunty oafs using religious iconography to advance an agenda devoid of any humanity."

That's why his base are devoted to the orange monster and his squeeze, they reflect the same. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 03, 2020, 07:16:38 PM
gotta love this--from Vanity Fair, Kenzie Bryant; What's the opposite of smizing?  Let's ask Melania Trump!

"The photo op catches them exactly as they are, as their actions have conclusively shown them to be: grunty oafs using religious iconography to advance an agenda devoid of any humanity."

That's why his base are devoted to the orange monster and his squeeze, they reflect the same.

I would agree.  But I don't find Democrats and what they believe to be virtuous.  I do think that Republicans think that wealth is a measure of virtue.  From a psychology viewpoint, all of this is really based on how good or bad your relationship with your parents was ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Mike Cl

This is an article by George Will (whom I dislike very, very much--he is a conservative that supported Bush and Cheney--war criminals), the successor of William F. Buckley--not very fond of him, either.  But both could write and express thoughts in cogent ways.

Trump must be removed. So must his congressional enablers.
This unraveling presidency began with the Crybaby-in-Chief banging his spoon on his highchair tray to protest a photograph â€" a photograph â€" showing that his inauguration crowd the day before had been smaller than the one four years previous. Since then, this weak person’s idea of a strong person, this chest-pounding advertisement of his own gnawing insecurities, this low-rent Lear raging on his Twitter-heath has proven that the phrase malignant buffoon is not an oxymoron.

Presidents, exploiting modern communications technologies and abetted today by journalists preening as the “resistance” â€" like members of the French Resistance 1940-1944, minus the bravery â€" can set the tone of American society, which is regrettably soft wax on which presidents leave their marks. The president’s provocations â€" his coarsening of public discourse that lowers the threshold for acting out by people as mentally crippled as he â€" do not excuse the violent few. They must be punished. He must be removed.
Social causation is difficult to demonstrate, particularly between one person’s words and other persons’ deeds. However: The person voters hired in 2016 to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” stood on July 28, 2017, in front of uniformed police and urged them â€œplease don’t be too nice” when handling suspected offenders. His hope was fulfilled for 8 minutes and 46 seconds on Minneapolis pavement.

What Daniel Patrick Moynihan termed â€œdefining deviancy down” now defines American politics. In 2016, voters were presented an unprecedentedly unpalatable choice: Never had both major parties offered nominees with higher disapproval than approval numbers. Voters chose what they wagered would be the lesser blight. Now, however, they have watched him govern for 40 months and more than 40 percent â€" slightly less than the percentage that voted for him â€" approve of his sordid conduct.
Presidents seeking reelection bask in chants of “Four more years!” This year, however, most Americans â€" perhaps because they are, as the president predicted, weary from all the winning â€" might flinch: Four more years of this? The taste of ashes, metaphorical and now literal, dampens enthusiasm.

The nation’s downward spiral into acrimony and sporadic anarchy has had many causes much larger than the small man who is the great exacerbator of them. Most of the causes predate his presidency, and most will survive its January terminus. The measures necessary for restoration of national equilibrium are many and will be protracted far beyond his removal. One such measure must be the removal of those in Congress who, unlike the sycophantic mediocrities who cosset him in the White House, will not disappear “magically,” as Eric Trump said the coronavirus would. Voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger for petting.
In life’s unforgiving arithmetic, we are the sum of our choices. Congressional Republicans have made theirs for more than 1,200 days. We cannot know all the measures necessary to restore the nation’s domestic health and international standing, but we know the first step: Senate Republicans must be routed, as condign punishment for their Vichyite collaboration, leaving the Republican remnant to wonder: Was it sensible to sacrifice dignity, such as it ever was, and to shed principles, if convictions so easily jettisoned could be dignified as principles, for . . . what? Praying people should pray, and all others should hope: May I never crave anything as much as these people crave membership in the world’s most risible deliberative body.

A political party’s primary function is to bestow its imprimatur on candidates, thereby proclaiming: This is who we are. In 2016, the Republican Party gave its principal nomination to a vulgarian and then toiled to elect him. And to stock Congress with invertebrates whose unswerving abjectness has enabled his institutional vandalism, who have voiced no serious objections to his Niagara of lies, and whom T.S.â€,Eliot anticipated:
We are the hollow men . . .
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
or rats’ feet over broken glass . . .

Those who think our unhinged president’s recent mania about a murder two decades ago that never happened represents his moral nadir have missed the lesson of his life: There is no such thing as rock bottom. So, assume that the worst is yet to come. Which implicates national security: Abroad, anti-Americanism sleeps lightly when it sleeps at all, and it is wide-awake as decent people judge our nation’s health by the character of those to whom power is entrusted. Watching, too, are indecent people in Beijing and Moscow.
 
His only saving grace (besides the above article) is he published Men At Work, about baseball--so I guess I don't hate that part of him.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

#3696
The neo-Cons were Trotsky revolutionaries in the 60s, before they defected to the think tanks.  I don't think much of their advice.  Irregular removal of a President (or any other elected office holder) is treason.  Article 25 is tricky.  Technically given his custom pain meds, JFK should have been removed.  That and his serial sex mania.  it was unnecessarily traumatic for the CIA/FBI to take him out the way they did.  They really hated that he didn't want to nuke the Soviet Union, and botched the Bay of Pigs.

Given Obama's obsession with his father's post colonial Kenyan politics, he needed to be removed too.  All of them do, back to George Washington.  Only sociopaths are willing to be politicians (hence my dismissal of democracy).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

#3697




The tweet was deleted.  But the internet always remembers.

drunkenshoe

So this is written by one George Will, a conservative comentator. Anti-American part is myeh, you know...lol. But other than that it looks good.
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

drunkenshoe

Quote from: Baruch on June 03, 2020, 06:14:37 PM
So if the cut-out for Internet service providers is removed selectively from Twitter, then not only are they and posters liable to criminal law, they are also open to civil law for slander for example.  Usually, politicians have their own cut-out in the law, they are not subject to being charged with slander (in the course of politicking, or politics would be muzzled).  The applicability of these Internet regulations, outside of the US, is problematic, because different nations have different laws, but the Internet is international.  So there are "routers" at the electronic border, to screen things out.

Slander? Slander is something completely different. Political bias is a joke term. What happens to the person as a result of this 'political bias' to begin with? What's the context, definition and scope of it?

Also when it comes to slander, defamation... how does that work for a man who he was an auspicious public figure before he was elected for the office? If I got anything about how the specific subject is handled in general in the States, it is protected by the first amendment.

Anything you say or post publically about a public figure's person -UNLESS it is something like accusing him of some infamous crimes- it is fucking freedom of speech. Period. You can't go and accuse people of crimes or felonies, but you can hell say anything you want about them or their actions. It's not about Trump. It could be an actor, a celebrity...a youtube vlogger. They can try to press charges, they can't do anything. Otherwise, there would be another huge dimension of bullshit cases in somewhere like the States anyway.

And now about a man, as a politician, as a president?! He is at the most legal ground for any political comment, opinion, criticism directed to his person and his actions as long as the first amendment stands.

I have no idea how executive orders work, but I guess it would need to fit in your constitution, right? Because if they try to do something like that the first judge on the route would take that and shove it up somebody's ass. As they've done it on different issues before.

There is no case. Or I got it all wrong, lol. Enlighten me.

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

#3700
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 04, 2020, 08:46:43 AM
So this is written by one George Will, a conservative comentator. Anti-American part is myeh, you know...lol. But other than that it looks good.

He is one of the ex-Trotsky-ites .. from the 60s.  He is not a real conservative, he is a Left Authoritarian.  As a nationalist, he is Stalinist.  Not Lincoln.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#3701
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 04, 2020, 11:14:45 AM
Slander? Slander is something completely different. Political bias is a joke term. What happens to the person as a result of this 'political bias' to begin with? What's the context, definition and scope of it?

Also when it comes to slander, defamation... how does that work for a man who he was an auspicious public figure before he was elected for the office? If I got anything about how the specific subject is handled in general in the States, it is protected by the first amendment.

Anything you say or post publically about a public figure's person -UNLESS it is something like accusing him of some infamous crimes- it is fucking freedom of speech. Period. You can't go and accuse people of crimes or felonies, but you can hell say anything you want about them or their actions. It's not about Trump. It could be an actor, a celebrity...a youtube vlogger. They can try to press charges, they can't do anything. Otherwise, there would be another huge dimension of bullshit cases in somewhere like the States anyway.

And now about a man, as a politician, as a president?! He is at the most legal ground for any political comment, opinion, criticism directed to his person and his actions as long as the first amendment stands.

I have no idea how executive orders work, but I guess it would need to fit in your constitution, right? Because if they try to do something like that the first judge on the route would take that and shove it up somebody's ass. As they've done it on different issues before.

There is no case. Or I got it all wrong, lol. Enlighten me.

This is why politicians can be slandered, but can't charge the slanderer with slander, if the slanderer is another politician (tongue tied).

Executive orders are widely abused.  They are often blocked by courts.  They are increasingly used by both parties when in the WH.  This happens because Congress is totally dysfunctional.  Over the decades, the Congress has delegated more and more of their job to the Executive (for plausible deniability).  The US needs Sulla or Caesar or Octavian.  The legislature needs to be proscribed (sarc). 

The biggest fail, delegation of Congressional powers, were the Federal Reserve and the war powers.  With the advent of nuclear weapons, from 1945 forward, there is an "implied declaration of war" against all other countries ... because you can't get a vote on it in 30 minutes while the ICBMs are falling.  This was partially pulled back from Nixon forward.  But it really isn't tested in court (or SCOTUS).  If SCOTUS was proactive not reactive (it is reactive by design) ... all military action starting with the Korean War would be illegal.

Usually all US courts are reactive (except for where the District Attorney brings charges).  When you are charged with a law breaking that is criminal, the courts are pro-active, they charge you.  All other court actions are like a civil law suit.  A third party has to bring an objection, and have some court hear it (as was the case repeatedly with Trump's blocking of travel from certain Muslim countries).

Given that the US is designed to be decentralized, and given that government is partisan at all levels, and given that (in my experience with law concerning seniors and their wills) the point of law is to never have a clear decision.  It all depends on the circumstances, and how much coffee the judge had with breakfast that morning ;-)  In short, the US is a functional anarchy, compared to other societies (with Napoleonic Law for instance).

There is real slander.  If you were an American business person, and I claimed that your oyster bar was poisoning people (wrong month) ... and it isn't true.  You can take me to court and destroy me financially, and make me legally apologize.  If I say you are cheating on your husband, and put it on Twitter (today) then you can't do a thing.  If I did that in a newspaper, and the editor was stupid enough to publish it, then you can sue the newspaper, the editor and me.  As I understand it, in GB, the threshold for slander is much lower than in the US.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

Mattis denounces Trump

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American peopleâ€"does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

Baruch

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 04, 2020, 02:41:13 PM
Mattis denounces Trump

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American peopleâ€"does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

Mattis was fired.  Disgruntled former employee.  When a former general criticizes you, this is because they support the Deep State, where the military controls the civilian officials.  That isn't the US Constitution.  Mattis supposedly mad that we didn't continue war in Syria and Ukraine (maybe).

I thought the commies hate what the US is doing in Afghanistan etc .. are anti-military?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hydra009

Two nominations on hold until Trump can explain ousting two watchdogs

Held up by a Republican no less.  The gang has been getting restless lately.

I'd read the tweet, but it's a crime against the english language.  There should be a trigger warning for that one.

QuoteThe Trump administration has ousted government watchdogs at several departments in recent weeks, including State Department Inspector General Steve Linick, acting Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General Christi Grimm, acting Transportation Department Inspector General Mitch Behm, and top Pentagon official Glenn Fine, who led the committee responsible for overseeing implementation of the $2 trillion coronavirus relief law. In early April, Trump fired the inspector general for the intelligence community, Michael Atkinson, who flagged the Ukraine whistleblower complaint.