UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-29-2017, 12:41 PM   #3426
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Fairly certain it depends? I don't actually know but I do remember Lincoln suspending the write of habeas corpus during the Civil War (which was during war time and I think was overturned by the SC).
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 01:02 PM   #3427
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
How much power can a President actually wield via executive order a) legally and b) practically? Like surely legally speaking they can't be a carte blanche to bypass the legislative branch whenever the executive feels like it.
As far as I understand it, the only practical limitation is in the details. The President can't use EOs to specify how much money will be allocated to a cause (or even how a cause will be paid for), only that the cause must happen. He also technically can't declare war, but EOs have been used to declare many a "military excursion" or variant thereof. Basically, the so-called "checks and balances" has been horribly eroded over the course of the past century.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 01:03 PM   #3428
Snorby
Snackin'
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
>Emi on Habeas Corpus

Lincoln suspended it in Maryland to prevent them from seceding (jailed 1/3 of the state legislature as well as the police chief and mayor of Baltimore among other folks). This was in March, and Congress was out of session until June. There were lots of challenges, and when it got to Maryland's Court of Appeals Roger Taney (the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS at the time) gave an official opinion against it, but never technically ordered Lincoln to cease his actions, and so he didn't. The June congressional session rolled around, and Copperheads filibustered the bill to suspend habeas corpus, so nothing was done then. Shortly afterward, Lincoln scaled back the jailings, causing legal challenges to lessen as well, until Congress was back in session in December and properly passed a bill to suspend habeas corpus.

From my understanding, Congress only has the ability to suspend habeas corpus during wartime or when there's a rebellion. Meanwhile, the President only has that ability while Congress is not in session and as such can't do it themselves, and even then it's only dubiously legal.
__________________

Click on Fawful for my ASB squad summary. Other links coming soon.
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 01:48 PM   #3429
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Executive Orders are on thin ice, Constitutionally speaking. It's highly likely that we'll see an end to them whether Trump gets a pocket SCOTUS pick or not - the main reason they still happen is because nobody has formally challenged the President's ability to issue formal orders down the line. Some EOs have been challenged, but never the power itself, and it's entirely possible that Trump will lose that toy in less than a year.

As I understand it. I believe Obama was the first Pres. to have his orders actually challenged, so the SCOTUS may have ruled the power OK constitutionally.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 02:06 PM   #3430
Blastoise
We deny our creators.
 
Blastoise's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Reduces construction time
Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Vaping is a good thing.

Fight me.
Vaping is for fedorabeards who want to look cool and mature, but are too pussy to smoke actual cigarettes and instead choose to huff candy-flavored water out of a robot's dick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
How much power can a President actually wield via executive order a) legally and b) practically? Like surely legally speaking they can't be a carte blanche to bypass the legislative branch whenever the executive feels like it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

Quote:
United States presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1]

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.
The basic idea is that the executive branch is responsible for...well, executing the laws passed by Congress, and so EOs are the president's guidance to his subordinates on how the various laws will be enforced and how laws with broad interpretation will be handled. One of the many things that Trump's immigration EO may be running afoul of is a 1965 law passed by Congress that overturned the old national immigration quota system (and which effectively discriminated against anyone not from western Eruope).
__________________
"It does not matter anymore. We cannot change the past. The future will have to do."
-Windham Khatib
Blastoise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 05:15 PM   #3431
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Fun fact: the quota system never actually died - we just flipped it and fucked with it to make life harder for everyone.

Immigration overview is still in progress.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 08:49 PM   #3432
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Executive Orders have always had the ability to sidestep Congress, but prior presidents have always respected the legislature to the point of not pulling the trigger on them to get around the problem. That, really, is one of the dangerous precedents set by Obama, who did not participate with Congress and did all of his decisions through the EO. Barring the Affordable Care Act, which will almost certainly get overturned by the Republican-controlled Congress (because it wasn't bipartisan to begin with), Obama's entire legacy can be undone by Trump using the same method Obama used to rule.

I've mentioned this in the past, but since the Boomers have taken control of the presidency, we've seen victor-go-spoils style of politics. There's very little bipartisanship as the demographics of the Republicans and Democrats have shifted, so we're having massive swings of policy depending on what colour political party is in office.

I think the bipartisanship problem is also because people have settled on diametrically opposed views that cannot be reconciled with one another. Like, I told people before that I was voting against Hillary on the sole issue of the TPP, and I didn't care about anything else she stood for. There was nothing Democrats could do to win my vote short of reversing that one position, because nothing felt stronger to me than anti-TPP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastoise View Post
Vaping is for fedorabeards who want to look cool and mature, but are too pussy to smoke actual cigarettes and instead choose to huff candy-flavored water out of a robot's dick.
That's true. But it's also true that vaping's core market - despite what anti-smoking advocates would suggest - are former smokers trying to kick the habit. Too many people see vaping as a new way to legitimize smoking, rather than a super effective tool to wean people off of the habit.

The killer part of cigarettes is the tar, and e-cigs don't have that. If the idea of addiction offends you, please direct your concern to alcohol, marijuana, internet porn, and other highly addictive yet destructive habits.

As far as I'm concerned, the best way to kill of tobacco smoking for good is to make e-cigarattes as cheap and common as possible. Because, your choice is between something with much more flexibility of flavour that WON'T kill you, and something that is guaranteed to give you lung cancer one day. Given the high taxes on cigarettes, it would be extremely easy to proliferate e-cigs.

Would there be collateral, i.e. kids doing it? Yes, but e-cigs also provide the only real future to an erosion of the cigarette culture. We're now 40 years into cigshaming and it hasn't uprooted the problem, things have stabilized despite almost universal anti-smoking propaganda. Vaping is a very promising alternative so long as the anti-smoking campaigns don't let up.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて

Last edited by Doppleganger; 01-29-2017 at 08:59 PM.
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 09:46 PM   #3433
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>That, really, is one of the dangerous precedents set by Obama, who did not participate with Congress and did all of his decisions through the EO.

Like I agree that it's a dangerous precedent but can you really blame him when the republicans spent 8 years trying to do literally everything in their power to stop him from governing?

EDIT: Also there's still some doubt as to whether or not ecigs are actually non-carcinogenic. They're probably better than cigarettes (but lbh that's a basically the lowest bar above intentional self harm in the ladder that is healthy choices), but that doesn't mean they're good.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 09:55 PM   #3434
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
There have been presidents in the past who have fought with Congress and lost, and so their presidencies are remembered as among the worst in history (Andrew Johnson, Herbert Hoover).

So yes, Obama committed a cardinal sin. One that will make his presidency look good in the short term, but he will be condemned in the long term just like Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon have been.

At the very least, you can credit Obama's use of the EO as a direct cause to Trump getting elected, and then Trump using the EO in the exact same way.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2017, 11:06 PM   #3435
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Neither of those examples are very good ones - Johnson got handed the biggest shitshow in American history (aka reconstruction) and was woefully unprepared for it, and Hoover got blindsided by the Great Depression and tried to deal with it while keeping his party happy. Sure, Obama got mired in the Recession but the Republican party literally told its Congresspeople to actively defy anything Obama did. He didn't fight Congress as much as Congress fought him.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 01:04 AM   #3436
Snorby
Snackin'
 
Snorby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,754
>Obama's use of the EO
I... don't think he'll go down in history as a bad President a la Nixon. And Jeri's right in that the opposition decidedly forced his hand. It's also noteworthy that Obama didn't even have the most executive orders out of all modern Presidents- In fact, the only ones who used them less were one term Presidents, and those one term Presidents STILL used them more on a per-term basis. He didn't abuse the executive order. It just looks like he did because the vast majority of things he got done were executive orders given Congress spent six of his eight years with their thumbs up their asses.


>Vaping

Can confirm, my mother vapes as a way to get off of smoking. It took a couple months, but she eventually got down to 0% nicotine in any of her e-cigs after 35 years of smoking, and 20 years of trying (and failing) to kick the addiction.

Sure, they might not be great for you, but if they can get a person from smoking a pack a day to absolutely no cigarettes in just a couple months, I think they aren't too bad.
__________________

Click on Fawful for my ASB squad summary. Other links coming soon.
Snorby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 08:40 AM   #3437
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
Nixon was a great President. One of the best we've ever had. The problem was that he knew it, and was intensely paranoid of the Democrats getting into office to dismantle everything he'd carefully built up over the previous 4 years, Trump-style. Fun history facts here! He's remembered for Watergate, but the actions he took during his presidency were grade-A fab. Bipartisan, practical actions to protect the country from the threats it was facing. Great president. Tremendous.

He was replaced by Ford who was the safe, inoffensive pick.

I think Obama will be remembered as FDR-lite. The parallels are pretty clear to me.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 09:02 AM   #3438
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Neither of those examples are very good ones - Johnson got handed the biggest shitshow in American history (aka reconstruction) and was woefully unprepared for it, and Hoover got blindsided by the Great Depression and tried to deal with it while keeping his party happy. Sure, Obama got mired in the Recession but the Republican party literally told its Congresspeople to actively defy anything Obama did. He didn't fight Congress as much as Congress fought him.
The idea is each of those presidents faced an external crisis and had an uncooperative Congress.

-Johnson had to deal with Reconstruction
-Hoover had to deal with the Great Depression
-Nixon had to deal with the Vietnam War
-Obama had to deal with the Great Recession AND the Afghan/Iraq War

Nixon is the unfavourable comparison, and is the closest comp to Obama (although obviously more extreme). Nixon expanded the powers of the president to do pretty much everything he wanted even though he got along with Congress, especially in relation to Vietnam or spying. Nixon abused the power of the presidency for personal aims and vendettas, which more often than not aligned with his political goals.

But a lot of the powers Nixon abused are still used by presidents today. His legacy was getting Americans distrustful of their leaders. With Hoover and Johnson, they went down as terrible presidents but they didn't cause Americans to lose faith in the political system.

Consider Lyndon Johnson could have put Nixon on trial for treason in his meddling with the Vietnam negotiations, but chose not do out of fear of the collateral damage to faith in the system. Heck, the fact that Watergate's entire purpose was for Nixon to conceal his pre-presidency efforts as sabotaging negotiations was withheld 40+ years after the fact. The truth was too horrible for ordinary citizens to take.

My answer is Obama basically should have fallen on his sword, and been a martyr like Jimmy Carter was. There were a number of ways he could easily have clowned the Tea Party, like playing the racist card or being an ineffective Mr. Smith.

There was little doubt when Obama was elected that he was optimistic and well-meaning, so he would have painted the Republicans in a terrible light by demonstrating how helpless he was against them given the divisions within his own Democratic Party.

But Obama is far too rational for that, and by his second term he set the stage for a lucrative post-presidency. He's going to spend the rest of his life doing what Bill did, getting rich on lobbying and speaking fees. That puts him below George W. Bush in my view, since Bush has retired to his hobbies on his ranch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorby View Post
>Obama's use of the EO
I... don't think he'll go down in history as a bad President a la Nixon. And Jeri's right in that the opposition decidedly forced his hand. It's also noteworthy that Obama didn't even have the most executive orders out of all modern Presidents- In fact, the only ones who used them less were one term Presidents, and those one term Presidents STILL used them more on a per-term basis. He didn't abuse the executive order. It just looks like he did because the vast majority of things he got done were executive orders given Congress spent six of his eight years with their thumbs up their asses.
Number of executive orders isn't relevant, since most are for housekeeping issues. Nor are how abusive his executive orders were (FDR authorized the Japanese concentration camps). The narrative around Obama is that, the stimulus package aside, he was unable to get any bipartisan support for any legislation, and chose to instead use EO to do what he wanted.

Fundamentally, this is an undermining of the entire American system, since it's saying the most important branch - the Congressional one - is meaningless. Obama's EOs also have flimsy enforcement, since without the force of law guaranteed by Congress it is very easy to reverse any decisions done through EO.

Trump pretty much undid all 8 years of Obama's presidency in 3 days. Affordable Care remains, but that will almost certainly bite the dust too, because it had no bipartisan support the first time it was passed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shuckle View Post
Nixon was a great President. One of the best we've ever had. The problem was that he knew it, and was intensely paranoid of the Democrats getting into office to dismantle everything he'd carefully built up over the previous 4 years, Trump-style. Fun history facts here! He's remembered for Watergate, but the actions he took during his presidency were grade-A fab. Bipartisan, practical actions to protect the country from the threats it was facing. Great president. Tremendous.
No, Nixon was a monster. He surpassed Ronald Regan as the most evil man to ever hold office. Like Obama, his president is basically worthless, and there is no positive legacy to speak of. Only deep wounds that haven't gone away.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 09:49 AM   #3439
Shuckle
Problematic Fave
 
Shuckle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
I specifically separated out Nixon's subversive actions from his Presidency. I just went way too far - he wasn't THAT great - and that was mostly because I said it right after waking up.

Yes, Nixon is inseparable from his reputation now, but as a leader, considering only the strength of his administration, he was effective and efficient.
__________________
Shuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 11:16 AM   #3440
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Nixon definitely had skills. But it's impossible to really say he accomplished anything when the entire Vietnam War he faced during his first 4 years was little more than a puppet show he orchestrated.

Among the non-Vietnam related accomplishments he boasts, most of them have sinister ulteriors. The War on Drugs was really about a war on the riffraff who opposed Nixon: hippies, minorities, women and socialists. Starting diplomacy with China was part of an economic imperialist agenda to fleece China of its resources (spoiler: it didn't work). This was similar to how the US had corporate fingers in the economies of countries all across the world due to rebuilding needs from World War II. Nixon started the ball that lead to the US recognizing the PRC as the legitimate ruling body of China.

His USSR accomplishments don't really speak much. Leonid Brezhnev, who succeeded Nikita Khrushchev as Soviet Premier, was an economic reformer who wasn't interested in raising hostilities with the US. It was not Nixon at all; detente would not have been possible if Khrushchev had remained in office. Nixon took credit for a willing partner who was winding down hostilities all by himself.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 04:22 PM   #3441
JustAnotherUser
Only Mostly Lurking
 
JustAnotherUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: England, UK
Posts: 2,297
Send a message via Skype™ to JustAnotherUser
Did Trump seriously just fire all the US' ambassadors? Literally what?
__________________
[JAU]
Spoiler: show
JustAnotherUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 08:58 PM   #3442
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
"Get with the program or go."

And the false narrative, too, that "a majority of Americans" support the travel ban as currently implemented ... It's one thing to try and connect the dots from "majority of Americans voted for Trump Trump won the election" to "America gave Trump the green light to make good on his campaign trail promises," but it's quite another to lie through your teeth about green card holders being prohibited from reentry being something that "a majority of Americans" ever wanted.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 10:00 PM   #3443
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
I love how they continue to spin the narrative about how only 109 people got detained on the first day (not sure where that number's from but let's keep in mind that many of them were detained for over 24 hours without access to attorneys or ability to contact their families because guidance on how to handle this situation was not issued nor were any of the agencies consulted prior to the order) as if A) this ban doesn't last 90 days and could the theoretically extended with the stroke of a pen, B) people who are from these countries who travel outside of the US for any reason are now banned and unable to return home to their lives they've established in America, and C) the rights of Legal Permanent Residents, not just nonimmigrant aliens who are here for temporary work, are being infringed upon.

Also, he is not wrong that these countries were identified by the Obama Administration - I don't know about the particulars but I can tell you that Syria and Iraq are listed in the bill which this Executive Order cites. Additionally, last December, travel to the countries singled out by the order made people who travel to these countries ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program (i.e. visa-free entry to the US for business/tourism purposes) for fear that people who traveled to these countries might have had malicious reason for their travel and an extra level of vetting is needed. There's a huge difference in taking extra precautions because someone traveled to a dangerous place vs. banning people based on their nationality. That is at worst an inconvenience, this is at worst a human rights violation.
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 10:21 PM   #3444
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Acting Attorney General: “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.”

Two hours later, Trump fires her, saying she 'betrayed' the White House.

Tired of mincing words. Fuck Trump. Fuck all of this shit.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 10:43 PM   #3445
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Yeah I

Yeah. Yeah.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 10:48 PM   #3446
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
Why haven't impeachment proceedings started yet?
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 10:56 PM   #3447
Jerichi
プラスチック♡ラブ
 
Jerichi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 蒸気の波の中
Posts: 14,766
>My answer is Obama basically should have fallen on his sword, and been a martyr like Jimmy Carter was. There were a number of ways he could easily have clowned the Tea Party, like playing the racist card or being an ineffective Mr. Smith.

Also this is absurd - Jimmy Carter is derided as one of the worst presidents of the modern era. Why would he actively try to emulate Carter? What would that achieve? A moral highground? Yes, the implications of Obama using his powers to circumvent legislators is somewhat troubling, but it is both fully within his power to do so and can be stopped, overturned or legislated away. Not to mention, due to his vast Republican opposition, Obama's orders were relatively tame.

Obama may have overstepped his bounds to some extent but he was reasonable in the steps he took. Trump is overstepping to the greatest degree.
__________________


私のことを消して本気で愛さないで 恋なんてただのゲーム 楽しめばそれでいい
閉ざした心を飾る 派手なドレスも靴も 孤独の友達

asbwffb

[jerichi]
Jerichi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 11:07 PM   #3448
deoxys
Fog Badge
 
deoxys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Why haven't impeachment proceedings started yet?
Because the Republicans are spineless.
deoxys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2017, 11:40 PM   #3449
Blastoise
We deny our creators.
 
Blastoise's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Reduces construction time
Posts: 3,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerichi View Post
Why haven't impeachment proceedings started yet?
Quote:
Originally Posted by deoxys View Post
Because the Republicans are spineless.
Ignoring how dire things would have to be to impeach when you control the executive and legislative branches, nobody wants to be the one who has to justify impeaching a president who hasn't even reached the end of week two. Gandalf will not be riding in with fucking Rohan at his back in the near future, so you might as well dig in.

EDIT: Learn to take comfort in the small miseries of our orange pisspig president, like how that termination announcement stinks of sheer Trumpian butthurt.
__________________
"It does not matter anymore. We cannot change the past. The future will have to do."
-Windham Khatib

Last edited by Blastoise; 01-30-2017 at 11:47 PM.
Blastoise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2017, 12:03 AM   #3450
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastoise View Post
Ignoring how dire things would have to be to impeach when you control the executive and legislative branches, nobody wants to be the one who has to justify impeaching a president who hasn't even reached the end of week two.
Can you explain for us why you so strongly believe that the Republican congressmen are all so in Trump's pocket as to make mutiny unthinkable? I'm sitting over here along with Jeri wondering what's taking McCain & Co. so fucking long to get the impeachment ball rolling. You seem to be pretty confident that the entire Republican Party sees Trump as "their guy," but surely you agree that they would rather have a Paul Ryan in office than Donald Trump.

And here they have the golden opportunity provided to them. Knowledge of Russia's influencing the election and not reporting it ... banning green card holders from returning home ... one provides the soft foundation for charges of treason, the other provides the sturdy foundation for charges of sheer ineptitude.

I can buy the argument that Trump & Co. have "bought them out" for a select number of Republicans. But even Trump and his cronies are not so wealthy as to buy out literally every Republican congressman. On the contrary, Trump's pockets are so shallow (compared with titans of industry) as to make it easy for a Republican-aligned industrialist to step in and buy his own counter votes to oust Trump from office. To say nothing of Democrat-aligned titans who could easily buy Republican votes. (Who says you have to stay put on your side of the aisle?)

"Nobody wants to be the one who has to justify impeaching a president who hasn't even reached the end of week two," you say, but I ask in all sincerity: why not? What egotistical politician wouldn't want to go down in the history books as the one who led the charge against America's greatest tyrant since King George? Who wouldn't want all of the hero-worship that would come from branding himself as "the one man of integrity who set party politics aside and fought for what was right, even at the risk of his own career"? I feel like ousting Trump from office is a fucking soft ball right now for any of these egotistical pricks on Capitol Hill. So why aren't they budging!?
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > Debate


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.