OT: American Politics
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
Bleedsblue&white
Well-known member
I got you beat.
My parents joined a cult (Anglican church in Cookstown with a young passionate priest) around '75, as a kid I had no choice but to be there.
Fast forward to me wearing a Motley Crue headband to church, and the minister telling everyone I was wearing the sign of the devil on my forehead and was probably attracting demons...so my mom got up, walked over to Rev. Ward and slapped him in the face.
Mom had my back.
Once my father could no longer physically intimidate me I was able to stop going.
Haven't talked to my parents in years.
Bleedsblue&white
Well-known member
C'mon habsy, reply to this.
Habsy
Not playing around anymore.
Usually when I know I won't agree in the least with someone I don't bother because history here has shown it's a waste of time but because I was asked to by someone who's obviously had some fucked up situations growing up, yes you Bleedsblue, I will. (BTW, sorry to hear about that stuff when you were younger, my parents were very religious too but I never had to experience crap like that).
This first part is why I didn't bother responding because it is over-the-top hyperbolic in my opinion and really not worth discussing. That being said, my reference to the reality of the constitution was mainly tongue in cheek. I said it because many on the left feel the constitution is outdated and doesn't really work in the new world hence, the "reality" of the constitution.
The President (I won't be referring to this as Trump because I agree wholeheartedly that he is loathesome so I need to put this is the perspective of the presidency) can claim executive privilege. You mentioned Obama, he used executive privilege far more than Agent Orange, especially in Fast and Furious. I have no issue in challenging executive privilege in the courts where it should be challenged. These democrats however rushed through weak and shoddily created impeachment articles claiming they did not have the time to go through the courts because of the urgency of the matter... they then proceeded to not send to the Senate. For those not in the hang Trump on anything crowd, it is shoddy at best.
If they want to challenge executive privilege assertions like the GOP did to Obama (Fast and Furious still pending in the courts btw) I'm all for it, that's the proper procedure.
Your assumption is way off base. You using typical Washington hypocrisy as proof is a waste of time. They are always against something before they were for it before being against it again.
They are unfair and Pelosi knows it. It's politics, I get it, but if an impeachment doesn't pass some sort of criminality smell test it won't happen.
Dems and Pubs tell each other FU all the time, only with smiles on their faces. This does belong in the court, it's not where the Dems took it. Trump sends everything to the courts, this is on the Dems trying to get a "win" before Christmas.
Wow, either you are clueless of how things really work or are self-deluding yourself and I really do not mean that as an insult as people tend to have blind spots, I know I do.
Any attorney that would allow his client, especially this guy Trump, to testify would be disbarred. The invitation to testify was a publicity stunt. There is zero obstruction of congress, that is such a joke of an article it screams of "shit, what else can we get him on?!?"
Just a little news flash for you, Trump hasn't gone against the constitution either, neither have the GOP where this is concerned. The Senate is the one to oust or condemn the President, what I believe you will find is they will actually acquit the President and that will further the divide.
I don't play this #bothsides game people here love to use. The Left believes they are in the right on absolutely everything and that the GOP is worse so that means the Dems are justified in their means... pass. The Dems are slimy, habitual liars just like the rest of them.
This first part is why I didn't bother responding because it is over-the-top hyperbolic in my opinion and really not worth discussing. That being said, my reference to the reality of the constitution was mainly tongue in cheek. I said it because many on the left feel the constitution is outdated and doesn't really work in the new world hence, the "reality" of the constitution.
The President (I won't be referring to this as Trump because I agree wholeheartedly that he is loathesome so I need to put this is the perspective of the presidency) can claim executive privilege. You mentioned Obama, he used executive privilege far more than Agent Orange, especially in Fast and Furious. I have no issue in challenging executive privilege in the courts where it should be challenged. These democrats however rushed through weak and shoddily created impeachment articles claiming they did not have the time to go through the courts because of the urgency of the matter... they then proceeded to not send to the Senate. For those not in the hang Trump on anything crowd, it is shoddy at best.
If they want to challenge executive privilege assertions like the GOP did to Obama (Fast and Furious still pending in the courts btw) I'm all for it, that's the proper procedure.
Your assumption is way off base. You using typical Washington hypocrisy as proof is a waste of time. They are always against something before they were for it before being against it again.
They are unfair and Pelosi knows it. It's politics, I get it, but if an impeachment doesn't pass some sort of criminality smell test it won't happen.
Dems and Pubs tell each other FU all the time, only with smiles on their faces. This does belong in the court, it's not where the Dems took it. Trump sends everything to the courts, this is on the Dems trying to get a "win" before Christmas.
Wow, either you are clueless of how things really work or are self-deluding yourself and I really do not mean that as an insult as people tend to have blind spots, I know I do.
Any attorney that would allow his client, especially this guy Trump, to testify would be disbarred. The invitation to testify was a publicity stunt. There is zero obstruction of congress, that is such a joke of an article it screams of "shit, what else can we get him on?!?"
Just a little news flash for you, Trump hasn't gone against the constitution either, neither have the GOP where this is concerned. The Senate is the one to oust or condemn the President, what I believe you will find is they will actually acquit the President and that will further the divide.
I don't play this #bothsides game people here love to use. The Left believes they are in the right on absolutely everything and that the GOP is worse so that means the Dems are justified in their means... pass. The Dems are slimy, habitual liars just like the rest of them.
BeLeafer
Well-known member
Sanders Is Hot in the Polls, and Still Treated Like a Second-Tier Candidate
There's evidence that Sanders' surge in the polls is being ignored. Is this a repeat of the type of blackout that happened in 2016?
www.vice.com
Corporate media isn't establishment propaganda, don't ya know.
BeLeafer
Well-known member
Yeah, he's got some good ideas but others are really half baked. He's definitely got some liberatarianism in him. So, I see the appeal for you. Nice to have some diversity of opinion on the stage. Too bad they block out Tulsi. Whatever you think of her, the anti-war thing is very important.
Has Bloomberg started polling north fo 5% yet? Because until he does, all he's doing is picking off the bottom feeders. Not that that is a bad thing, because this race needs some focus ... and soon.
BeLeafer
Well-known member
I say it'll be Biden, Sanders and maybe Warren. Buttigieg has had his 15 minutes.
BeLeafer
Well-known member
From the editor-in-chief of Mother Jones ... fuck me.
Mother Jones being overrun by right wing neolibs is probably even worse than it happening to the Guardian. At least the Guardian was always a liberal publication before it went all fascist (a relatively small step).
I'll accept everything you say.(for this purpose) But remember the result of this. If you want to commit crimes as a future President just tie it up in courts. It'll be 6 years + before anything can be used against you.
The left isn't right on everything nor is the right both are full of people.. people are beyond fallible and when it comes to money they don't necessarily make rational choices. Much like how we respond to "fear" We far outweigh the visible versus things we can't see.
And both sides aren't the same. They may both be wrong but like Asimov with the relativity of wrong the degree of wrongness matters.
Like all the Voter corruption. I'm sure there is a small amount but it's not what the Republicans tell us. and to me denying legit votes due to unproveable opines is a travesty..
And actually the Senate Republicans have gone against the oath that they will be taking.. (At least 2 Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell)
Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Constitution requires Senators sitting as an impeachment tribunal to take a special oath distinct from the oath of office that all Members of Congress must take. 1 This requirement underscores the unique nature of the role the Senate plays in impeachment trials, at least in comparison to its normal deliberative functions. 2 The Senate practice has been to require each Senator to swear or affirm that he will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. 3 The oath was originally adopted by the Senate before proceedings in the impeachment of Senator Blount in 1798 and has remained largely unchanged since. 4
Requirement of Oath or Affirmation | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
An annotation about Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the Constitution of the United States.
Now of course they could vote and change the rules before hand and make it so they don't have to affirm they will be impartial. And yes I know that they don't have to be even if the affirm it. I fully expect that Trump will be reelected.. If to nothing else the constant erosion of letting "Those people" vote.. Close polling places "Those people" use. Remove them from the rosters.
Hell I'd have mostly been happy if the Republicans rebuked Trump like the Democrats as a whole did to Clinton in his impeachment.. At least it might signal that there are lines..
also your correct that the rules from 2015 aren't fair.. Of course they aren't.. They were never intended to be of course the People who changed them never thought they'd be in the minority again..
Then again technically the fairness of said rules doesn't matter as the HOUSE is FREE to make it's own rules. (fair or unfair) and the courts based on Rehnquist will not countermand that.(this could be changed of course as well)
Wednesday's vote is a terrible thing for this nation... the only thing worse that could have been done is Nothing and Blessing the conduct that set up the circumstances for it happening.
Political Ambassadorships have been part and parcel of this republic since at least early 19th century and probably 18th. Pay enough money and you get one.. Neither side is innocent of this game.. Probably not even the Whigs..
But as to if this practice should continue? I'd agree with it's abolishment..
But as to if this practice should continue? I'd agree with it's abolishment..
Last edited:
Bleedsblue&white
Well-known member
Habsy,
I just think that Tryamw is doing a better job than most of laying out arguments without any of the extra crap we tend to throw around here..
I just think that Tryamw is doing a better job than most of laying out arguments without any of the extra crap we tend to throw around here..