Jace, Extat Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Very powerful. Very powerful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 13 minutes ago, Raja said: Sigh. What? You actually expected reasoned arguments to come from that thimble brained dolt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 14 minutes ago, Raja said: Sigh. “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 57 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I had the same thought, and by my reading of section IV, I think they can. Problem is he can sue over the meaning of “unable.” The intent was not to remove a president simply because they suck at their job. He could have a case there. 39 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: The real question I wonder about is whether "acting" cabinet officers have the ability to vote on an invocation of the 25th Amendment and whether Trump likes "acting" cabinet officers for that very reason. If someone is completely shameless and only cares about staying in office for as long as possible, even my non-lawyer brain could come up with some ways to screw with the 25th. Like, do only the votes of Senate confirmed Cabinet Secretaries count? If so, is the majority needed defined as a majority of cabinet positions, or just a majority of however many positions are currently filled? If it needs to be a quorum, especially a quorum of cabinet heads approved by the Senate, a President can keep the number of such positions filled below the quorum needed. If acting Secretaries don’t count towards the quorum or get a vote in removing the president, stock as many positions as possible with them. If they do get a vote, fire and replace as many as possible with acting Secretaries, since they can be put in place without congressional approval and the president can choose them simply based on loyalty. And that’s before we get to legal arguments about what satisfies the president being unable to perform their duties. And by the time a Republican president became so unpopular or publicly unable/unfit to be president that the Cabinet actually turned on him, I get the feeling it would be strictly academic anyway, since either an impeachment trial or an election would be likely to dispose of that president first. But if 3 years of Trump and what we saw during his campaign didn’t get Republicans to turn, what could? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Corvinus said: Would a psychological and/or physical evaluation be required, then? I double majored in psych and poli sci and I have no idea. Best guess is that if the president can’t be arrested, he can’t be forced into hospital supervision where the psych evaluation would take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corvinus85 Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 More on the Kurds not helping us in WWII comment. I mean, I can't even... https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-defends-abandoning-the-kurds-they-didnt-help-us-with-normandy Quote “Now the Kurds are fighting for their land, just so you understand. They’re fighting for their land. And as somebody wrote in a very very powerful article today: They didn't help us in the Second World War, they didn’t help us with Normandy, as an example, they mention names of different battles... but they’re there to help us with their land,” Trump said. The president appears to have been referring to a Tuesday Townhall column by Kurt Schlichter praising Trump for his decision. “The Kurds helped destroy ISIS, true. It’s also true that the Kurds would have fought ISIS anyway, since the psycho caliphate was right next door,” Schlichter writes. “Let’s be honest—the Kurds didn’t show up for us at Normandy or Inchon or Khe Sanh or Kandahar.” I'm sure his brain melted after Normandy, and just said "some battles" Based on this comment, Germany is screwed, amaright? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 You all seem to be forgetting who was the king that had a lot to do with why the 13 North American colonies rebelled and declared Independence. The people who wrote impeachment into the Constitution knew very well -- and not only because of that king -- what happens when a country is ruled by someone who isn't competent to rule. King George had to be 'put away' more than once -- and then there was a regency by someone who wasn't competent mentally or intellectually to rule either. This is why they wrote into the Constitution a means for removing a president who wasn't competent mentally, or one who was endangering the country, which this guy is doing. Not to mention shooting the Kurds in the face in front of the entire world. Look at this guy and his enablers yelling about regicide for pete's sake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Zorral said: You all seem to be forgetting who was the king that had a lot to do with why the 13 North American colonies rebelled and declared Independence. The people who wrote impeachment into the Constitution knew very well -- and not only because of that king -- what happens when a country is ruled by someone who isn't competent to rule. King George had to be 'put away' more than once -- and then there was a regency by someone who wasn't competent mentally or intellectually to rule either. This is why they wrote into the Constitution a means for removing a president who wasn't competent mentally, or one who was endangering the country, which this guy is doing. Not to mention shooting the Kurds in the face in front of the entire world. Look at this guy and his enablers yelling about regicide for pete's sake! It was established several years ago that Donnie could shoot someone in the face in broad daylight and not suffer politically for it. No reason for shifting sights to a collection of brown folks to change that calculus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 36 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said: I get the feeling it would be strictly academic anyway, It's all academic because it's never been done and it leaves some wiggle room. I'm actually really interested in this part: Quote A majority of "the principal officers of the executive departments" (the United States Cabinet), OR "Such other body as Congress may by law provide" (some other group that Congress chooses) What is this body they speak of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 Second War War sounds like an anime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said: It's all academic because it's never been done and it leaves some wiggle room. I'm actually really interested in this part: What is this body they speak of? Committee of doctors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said: Committee of doctors? I guess. It seems like it could be anything. And first off, do they have to pass legislation to make this happen? Even that feels a bit vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 And again, it rises, from the media grave to which bedbug and the gops had consigned it: "In an exclusive excerpt from All the President’s Women, Karen Johnson, one of 43 women with new allegations against the president, tells her story." https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29391247/donald-trump-assault-allegations-karen-johnson-all-the-presidents-women-book/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, Zorral said: And again, it rises, from the media grave to which bedbug and the gops had consigned it: "In an exclusive excerpt from All the President’s Women, Karen Johnson, one of 43 women with new allegations against the president, tells her story." https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a29391247/donald-trump-assault-allegations-karen-johnson-all-the-presidents-women-book/ I'm kinda over this shit. Just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 9, 2019 Share Posted October 9, 2019 58 minutes ago, Zorral said: You all seem to be forgetting who was the king that had a lot to do with why the 13 North American colonies rebelled and declared Independence. The people who wrote impeachment into the Constitution knew very well -- and not only because of that king -- what happens when a country is ruled by someone who isn't competent to rule. King George had to be 'put away' more than once -- and then there was a regency by someone who wasn't competent mentally or intellectually to rule either. This is why they wrote into the Constitution a means for removing a president who wasn't competent mentally, or one who was endangering the country, which this guy is doing. Not to mention shooting the Kurds in the face in front of the entire world. Look at this guy and his enablers yelling about regicide for pete's sake! You're 100% correct, and also nothing you wrote is material to current values. You can argue all day that Trump was PRECISELY the kind of person Madison was afraid of getting into office to the point where they put in multiple failsafes (State voting, electoral collegiates who were supposed to deny voting for people like this, multiple checks and balances in power, and impeachment itself). All have failed. All of them. And all of them will continue to fail because 40% of the populace does not care even a little bit who is in office provided that they have the right party membership and the economy is doing mostly okay. The kurdish thing will improve his polling, mark my words. People will be happy we're pulling out. People will even be happy that the Kurds are getting shot. You're arguing from a point of what should be, and that's a reasonable place to be, and it isn't going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted October 10, 2019 Share Posted October 10, 2019 My conservative friend at work and I have been talking politics the past couple of days. He was extremely irked at a certain senators parody of Trump. calling it 'disrespect never seen before.' I pointed out that Trump is disrespectful towards everybody. Told him that if Trump acts like a jackass, then Trump gets treated like a jackass. That gave him pause....for a little while. Then he jumped back into the 'respect' argument with the decision of a certain city to turn down the opportunity to host a Trump rally. Told him that decision had to do with the Trump campaign not paying their bills. His response was ' so what, he's the president, we (conservatives) respected Obama even though we didn't like him, therefore these people need to start respecting Trump before it destroys the country.' Reminded him again about the unpaid bills. He goes ' so what, we taxpayers are footing the tab anyhow!' (I don't believe he makes a distinction between 'Trump Campaign' and 'US government.' ) He then goes on with a longish spiel about how the impeachment process thus far is illegal (didn't believe me when I told him otherwise) and Trump was in the right to not cooperate and Trump would beat this impeachment thing easily and there was no way the senate would ever vote to convict. I told him things were not quite that settled. (I was thinking of Trump acting as his own 'war room' on impeachment - a real bad move - but didn't get the opportunity to speak. He finished with a comment praising Trump for abandoning the Kurd's and getting the US out of the middle east. Didn't seem impressed when I pointed out Trump almost accidentally got us into a war in that region a time or two already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 10, 2019 Share Posted October 10, 2019 the landlocked kurds selfishly withheld all of their amphibious invasion craft from normandy as a cynical bargaining position in their struggle against imperialist clients of britain and france. they entertained joff davis' declaration of confederate independence for the sake of the avaricious kurdish textile industry and ignored general grant's request for fine kurdish liquors. they made the self-oriented decision to decline general washington's request for peshmerga divisions against the british, saving them for their own struggle against istanbul. when ben franklin invented electricity, where were the kurds and their unique electromagnetic insulation technologies? when colombus enslaved and killed 8 million arawak, no kurd offered to help collect their hidden gold. when the romans nailed up jesus, did any red-blooded kurds stop their liberation struggle against the parthians to stand up for the martyr and the american way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 10, 2019 Share Posted October 10, 2019 I honestly don't know how to live in a world with bottomlessly stupid shitheels who say things like "Obama was treated with respect by conservatives" and it causes me stress and loathing and worry for the country my son will grow up in... every goddamn day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 10, 2019 Share Posted October 10, 2019 What is this body they speak of? we'd need a statute, an enabling act, that creates the agency tasked with exercise of this function. am not aware of one. for now, the decision rests with these. it could be something very cool, theoretically non-partisan, appointed for life, medically oriented in part, with broad subpoena power. an ombudsman of sorts, a watchman. and then we'd need a metawatchman for that watchman, just to make sure. and then another for the second, and so on, wherein the body coincides without remainder with the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted October 10, 2019 Share Posted October 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, sologdin said: What is this body they speak of? we'd need a statute, an enabling act, that creates the agency tasked with exercise of this function. am not aware of one. for now, the decision rests with these. it could be something very cool, theoretically non-partisan, appointed for life, medically oriented in part, with broad subpoena power. an ombudsman of sorts, a watchman. and then we'd need a metawatchman for that watchman, just to make sure. and then another for the second, and so on, wherein the body coincides without remainder with the electorate. Such positions should be appointed by the executive of course, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.