Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Trump of the Will


Recommended Posts

BTW, to be clear, this water on cops biz in NYC has nothing to do with left or right politics.  It was extraordinarily, insanely, dangerously hot and humid here.  Hydrants were open.  People got boisterous, too much so in the minds of some cops.

https://www.morningjournalnews.com/news/local-news/2019/07/water-dumped-on-new-york-cops/

In the meantime, looks like Puerto Ricans are succeeding with their relentless pressure on that racist, criminal, corrupt, ugly, pos, Rosselló:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/us/puerto-rico-crisis-wednesday/index.html

What happens after this though, one wonders, especially as gerrymandering hearings are going on all over the island -- and the push is equally relentless to turn PR into a vacation home for the obscenely wealthy, who would vastly prefer, that other than as servants, all Puerto Ricans be removed from the island.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

This is where a foreigner needs help understanding US law.

Trump filed suit against NY and their law regarding tax returns, as a violation of his First Amendment rights.

Huh???

I don't really know the specifics/context, but sounds like your confusion is due to the incorporation doctrine:

Quote

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Prior to the doctrine's (and the Fourteenth Amendment's) existence, the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government and to federal court cases. States and state courts could choose to adopt similar laws, but were under no obligation to do so. 

After the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court favored a process called “selective incorporation.” Under selective incorporation, the Supreme Court would incorporate certain parts of certain amendments, rather than incorporating an entire amendment at once. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dems are sticking to the report and have gotten a lot of 'accurate' and 'generally accurate' from Mueller. The Rs have gotten a few 'I disagree with your characterization' from Mueller. I hope there's some way to give that a little punch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

Is anyone actually hoping anything tangible - politically or otherwise - will come from Mueller's testimony?  Because stop holding your breath.

I mean, personally that sounds pretty tangible to me. But then he apparently looks "confused" which means it won't matter to Republicans. Because Republicans greatest tools are projection and hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The formerly utterly spineless Puerto Rican House of Representatives have begun impeachment proceedings against the governor.  Presumably then, resignation cannot be far behind. Evidently the infamous 'chat logs' also contain evidence of at least 5 crimes, four of which are classified as serious.

Trump's twits contain evidence every single day -- not to mention outright lies.  This all qualifies as impeachable. One cannot expect / hope anything in particular from today's testimony but it does terrify and infuriate the tvillain, who cannot stop lying, and implicating himself in many crimes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Is anyone actually hoping anything tangible - politically or otherwise - will come from Mueller's testimony?  Because stop holding your breath.

Best case scenario: target is not moving public perception, but that of Congress. Because IF they can push this to proceedings, it forces to GOP to actually fight back on obstruction itself rather than sidestepping with this legally untenable position of ‘no collusion, no obstruction’. Arrest the public’s attention to the gravity of presidential obstruction itself and you might have a game-changer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Best case scenario: target is not moving public perception, but that of Congress. Because IF they can push this to proceedings, it forces to GOP to actually fight back on obstruction itself rather than sidestepping with this legally untenable position of ‘no collusion, no obstruction’. Arrest the public’s attention to the gravity of presidential obstruction itself and you might have a game-changer. 

I think this is a bit backwards, congress has read the report - unless there is a public opinion shift they're not going to do anything differently - they won't support impeachment proceedings unless there is public support for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

Is anyone actually hoping anything tangible - politically or otherwise - will come from Mueller's testimony?  Because stop holding your breath.

Well we did establish that Jace is not above the law…

In all seriousness though, Dems got enough of what they needed, and the second committee hearing is where the sparks will fly, if there are any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think this is a bit backwards, congress has read the report - unless there is a public opinion shift they're not going to do anything differently - they won't support impeachment proceedings unless there is public support for it.

Understood, but we don’t know where their threshold is. It might not take as much as we think. If they can see someone articulate a talking point that might get past this ‘Mueller Found Nothing’ bs, or even if they can see how much the GOP is relying on legally unsound posturing, they might coalesce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

I think this is a bit backwards, congress has read the report - unless there is a public opinion shift they're not going to do anything differently - they won't support impeachment proceedings unless there is public support for it.

Congress hasn't read the report. That's pretty clear by almost everyone in Congress saying they haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Huh, I stand corrected.  And honestly anyone who hasn't read it probabaly doesn't deserve their position.

This is true. It's why starting impeachment inquiries was so important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked each of my congress reps if they've read the report and not one of them said yes. They just spewed talking points about it but I didn't get a direct yes or no. This is one of the may reasons politicians suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...