Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by Quest, Apr 24, 2019.
Fix your teeth.
Funniest part about that was "Obama's legacy..." Whatever "legacy" existed hes been systematically dismantled by Prez. Great article. Laugh out loud funny.
If you say so.
Is oldfella knavs baby daddy?
It's true, impeachment is not revolution. It isn't aimed at overthrowing the system or tearing down institutions. It's built into the system as a way for institutions to protect themselves from a power-mad executive. Anybody hoping for some massive historical reckoning is going to be disappointed, no matter the outcome.
But if America is that horrible, if the system isn't worth preserving in any degree, then why not let Trump finish destroying it?
Because he's not destroying it. We have an entire system of checks & balances (over and above the impeachment procedure) to guard against the HMIC going overboard.
Really? What are they? They aren't really working, whatever they are.
Because accelerationism isn’t the answer, either. If we truly believed that was the solution, then since cancer kills millions of people a year, we’d just let it finish people off and declare the problem solved. We don’t, because it takes someone who is privileged enough to avoid the worst of the effects to find such a “solution” viable. The end goal is to prevent that kind of tragedy, not exacerbate it.
Because the bar for "going overboard" is set very low for you. This would probably be because you think that every U.S. politician/leader who is more right wing than Karl Marx is "overboard."
Mike Amaras, matt hunter, jay sekolow are gingers and related too each other!
Another baseless claim by @oldfella1962. Kindly provide evidence that matthunter "thinks that every U.S. politician/leader who is more rightwing than Karl Marx is 'overboard'."
Of course, the checks and balances depend on everyone involved operating in good faith. Telling everyone in shouting distance not to testify or honor subpoenas, appointing judges on the basis of their ideological loyalty and such makes a mockery of the idea of checks and balances.
Garamet did you have threesome with trump and stormy daniels?
well keep hope alive! There's always the ultimate "check & balance" called THE BALLOT BOX or in this case TERM LIMITS because that's the only way Trump is leaving with that weak sauce of an impeachment sham going on as we speak.
When you boil it down, both impeachment articles claim that: Trump relies on and respects checks and balances (and we still hate his guts)
Art 1: the POTUS shall conduct foreign policy, and there could be disagreement about foreign aid between Congress (w power to appropriate funds for aid) and POTUS, in which case you take it to the COURTS (i.e. checks and balances).
Art 2: if POTUS claims e.g. executive immunity or exec privilege re testimony or evidence that raises a legally ambiguous question (qualified experts can argue in both directions), you take it to the COURTS to decide (i.e. checks and balances).
In spite of TLS finding this amusing, I stand by it.
Creatures like him don't give a fuck about objective truth, they just want to be pat on the back for whatever barnyard noises that come out of their belch hole.
As Garamet has noted Oldfella can’t be arsed to cite examples when called out.
No, impeachment is the ultimate sanction against Presidential misconduct. But it was necessary here because the current POTUS feels himself unconstrained by any law other than the limitless bounds of his own ego.
Senator Kaine is ready and Abel, biatches!!
no, impeachment is not the ultimate sanction if it does not remove him from office. That said not electing him will do the trick.
So give it a go, douchebag. Which whacko in your clown car beats Prez?
any one of them wearing an Obama mask?
It would be much shorter to name all of them who were beneath donnie the republican criminal trump. I will include the list.
The true response of the bully. Calling somebody a crybaby for pointing out a wrong. Might makes right and such. It's only weak sauce because you equate bullying with strength. Bullies always think that way until somebody comes along and kicks their ass. There's always somebody who can do it and it's often someone you wouldn't look twice at.
Bullshit. Presidents Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter, and H.W. Bush failed to win reelection during the 20th century. The political winds just blew against them. None of them abused their power or disrespected the Constitution as much as Trump.
"The true response of the bully. Calling somebody a crybaby for pointing out a wrong. Might makes right and such. It's only weak sauce because you equate bullying with strength. Bullies always think that way until somebody comes along and kicks their ass. There's always somebody who can do it and it's often someone you wouldn't look twice at." - MikeBR549
Might makes right and such. It's only weak sauce because you equate bullying with strength! where the fuck do you get that from? It's "weak sauce" because the Democrats have no fucking case - if this were a criminal case no prosecutor would even touch it. That's why Pelosi was reluctant to begin the process. I'm not "bullying" I'm stating a fact. And if there's any "bullying" going on it's on the part of the Democrats IMHO. And no I don't believe bullying is a sign of strength - it's a sign of a lack of character and class - the Democrats being a prime example of that!
Bottom line you misread/misinterpreted the fuck out of my comment. The "wrong" being pointed out is the actual impeachment joke. So I guess I'm the actual crybaby - why are you bullying me?
Of course, this process is not a criminal one and comparing it to one is apples to oranges. And I was not calling you a bully. I was pointing out that Trump's responses are in line with what a bully would do. Of course, if you wish to wear that particular shoe be my guest. Going along with a bully doesn't make you one, but it might make you sycophant.
Separate names with a comma.