Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Which Tyler

US Politics - I'm not orange I'mpeach

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

New Fox News poll out showing the general trend continuing: support for impeachment up among all voting groups, including Republicans.

The eye popping number there is 51% supporting removal.  I don't think any poll thus far has shown that over 48% til now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DMC said:

The eye popping number there is 51% supporting removal.  I don't think any poll thus far has shown that over 48% til now.

The matrix/aliens/illuminati/lizards must have realized that the jig is up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rupert sees Trump as a liability for his right-wing crusade he'll be gone. As soon as Fox turns on Trump for reals it's game over for him. The wingnut fringe on the right will abandon Trump and he'll only have the truly loony tinhat types who continue to support him. Trump may well resign. But Fox will have enough Republican senators falling over themselves to convict that Trump could indeed see the senate vote to remove.

The political fate of the country decided by an Australian. Foreign interference indeed.

All hail president Pence. I think with some deep breaths and sighs of relief Pence will have a strong chance at winning in 2020. But they have to take Trump out ASAP to give him his best run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trump lacks the capability to shut the fuck up--he'd make puerile accusations that bring pence and the rest of them down too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

trump lacks the capability to shut the fuck up--he'd make puerile accusations that bring pence and the rest of them down too.

He would make it nearly impossible for the Country to “move on” from his horrible administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If Rupert sees Trump as a liability for his right-wing crusade he'll be gone. As soon as Fox turns on Trump for reals it's game over for him. The wingnut fringe on the right will abandon Trump and he'll only have the truly loony tinhat types who continue to support him. Trump may well resign. But Fox will have enough Republican senators falling over themselves to convict that Trump could indeed see the senate vote to remove.

The political fate of the country decided by an Australian. Foreign interference indeed.

All hail president Pence. I think with some deep breaths and sighs of relief Pence will have a strong chance at winning in 2020. But they have to take Trump out ASAP to give him his best run.

Murdoch has been an American citizen since 1985. Though he probably made the decision to become a naturalized American for business reasons, I think people who support immigrants shouldn't now say he's an example of "foreign interference." 

I also don't think one poll is going to get Rupert Murdoch to abandon Trump. It may happen, but they're not there yet. At least on CNN and MSNBC last night they were saying that although the Fox News division reported the poll, the evening shows on Fox which get the highest ratings didn't mention it, except when one Democrat who was being interviewed brought it up. If the right wing hosts on the evening shows start supporting the impeachment inquiry, then we'll know Murdoch has decided to bail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You're the lawyer. But I can't help but think they'd be tempted to look at the original intent behind the amendment, thus defining its scope once and for all... Impeachment was always meant as a political process (that much is certain), but the inability clause(s) always seemed to focus on continuity of government. Not that the SCOTUS would go into details but they could very well rule that the inability has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt or something along those lines...

(not trying to be a smartass here, just genuinely curious as to the whys and hows of such matters)

No.  This court is heavily textualist and generally rejects "legislative history", or the intent of the draftspersons, in interpreting statutes.  How textualism is applied by the various members varies.  Some of the members believe that you should read the text and should apply the words of the text as such words were understood at the time that the text was written.  Others just look at the text and apply the words of the text as they are understood today, but always in context of the text as a whole (not the individual words in the text).  

15 hours 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! 

Nope.  25th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1965.  Was adopted in the context of the Kennedy assassination, including LBJ's less than stellar health.  Also, historically, the example of Woodrow Wilson was probably still remembered, though 50 years in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sologdin said:

trump lacks the capability to shut the fuck up--he'd make puerile accusations that bring pence and the rest of them down too.

I suspect Trump purposely involved many of his top people. It's a loyalty test. And he is like a mobster, so naturally he wants his associates to kill to prove they are on his side. He is also likely aware that Pence is the most likely person to replace him. He probably purposely involved Pence in some manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

I suspect Trump purposely involved many of his top people. It's a loyalty test. And he is like a mobster, so naturally he wants his associates to kill to prove they are on his side. He is also likely aware that Pence is the most likely person to replace him. He probably purposely involved Pence in some manner.

 I find this unlikely. Pence wasn't bright enough to stay out of it, is all, and if Trump is smart enough to do that in advance I'll eat my new winter tires. Sans ketchup.

The man is a fucking imbecile, it's just now he's President his stupidity has taken on staggering proportion.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Disagree. Her career is one of many things, including hurting marginalized people. That has nothing to do with her race, but much to do with the race of those who were hurt by her power as AG.

Nope. Those same people have been hurt far worse by Biden's actions during his career. Yet he suffers a lot less for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

No.  This court is heavily textualist and generally rejects "legislative history", or the intent of the draftspersons, in interpreting statutes.  How textualism is applied by the various members varies.  Some of the members believe that you should read the text and should apply the words of the text as such words were understood at the time that the text was written.  Others just look at the text and apply the words of the text as they are understood today, but always in context of the text as a whole (not the individual words in the text).  

Nope.  25th Amendment wasn't adopted until 1965.  Was adopted in the context of the Kennedy assassination, including LBJ's less than stellar health.  Also, historically, the example of Woodrow Wilson was probably still remembered, though 50 years in the past.

Was talking about impeachment there, not the 25th.  I know when the amendment was adopted -- when there was felt a need to spell out succession, after Kennedy's assassination.

Impeachment, it's time of composition, was different. 

King George was still alive, and presently, bedbug's kool-aid drinkers are yelling 'regicide.' 

Which to me, as an historian, was striking, as from the beginning, the US has always been deeply suspicious and hostile to their presidents assuming monarchical privilege and trappings.

The Jeffersonians were always banging on about the federalists wanted to make Washington a king -- and Washington himself was extremely sensitive to this, so much so that he froze Adams out for a while for wanting the POTUS to be addressed as "Excellency."  Later, the infuriated section of those who opposed Andrew Jackson's insane financial policies etc., referred to him as King Andrew, and so pictured him in their papers.  There was great disgust over the Reagans going for lavish livery and so on when RR took the WH, and so on and so forth.  Which is why I'm still puzzled why these idjiots would employ 'regicide.'  Well they are idiots.

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Was talking about impeachment there, not the 25th.  I know when the amendment was adopted.

Thanks for clarifying. Wasn't clear from context.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Thanks for clarifying. Wasn't clear from context.  

I did say the "Constitution" and assumed one would understand it was impeachment since the 25th wasn't until so much later.

I remain puzzled at their choice of 'regicide,' because, after all, the rulers with whom bedbug identifies, caters to, and considers his friends, are, one and all, autocratic, murderous, lying, sadistic tyrants -- not a beloved, aged Queen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't the regicide caricature just some numbnuts on ingraham's show, who also thinks that the whistleblowers are 'suicide bombers'? he's manifestly unserious--best not to paint the entire trump cohort with his brand of imprecision, as they have plenty of other flavors on offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still also thinking about him shooting our allies, the Kurds, in the face on the world stage, to show his gangster roots cred, as warning to US all.  Remembering when he said he could shoot somebody on 5th Ave. in daylight and nobody would care?  Which, in a sense he did, as he assaulted a woman in either Bonwit Teller or Lord & Taylor, which are on 5th Ave., and suffered nothing at all.

Well, considering what even faux noose polls are saying, that now a majority of US voters favor impeachment, maybe those days are over?

~~~~~~~~~

Quote

sn't the regicide caricature just some numbnuts on ingraham's show, who also thinks that the whistleblowers are 'suicide bombers'? he's manifestly unserious--best not to paint the entire trump cohort with his brand of imprecision, as they have plenty of other flavors on offer.

This is all part and parcel of controlling the narrative and history, creating a glorious lost cause mythos, and to fire up the base.  They are all serious about this, and most of all he is. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. Howling has everything to with it.  It matters not at all to Them what They howl as long as it keeps his base howling too.

I still think 'regicide' was a wrong choice for that.  But nevermind, it was coupled with suicide bomber.

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×