The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

It is unbelievable how people can have such misguided faith in a huge government under socialism to do the right thing.

 

[actaeon277]

I had a nice talk with a liberal yesterday and would like to share the cliff notes.

1. President Obama was respected all over the world and was close to “perfect” President Trump is a fool that everyone hates.

2. 3 million more votes went to Hillary so President Trump is not a legal President the Electoral College is not fair and racist.

3. President Tump supporters are stupid and can’t understand what’s going on.

4. President Trump and his family have personally made billions because of the office and that’s why he wanted to be President

6. Putin and Trump conspired to win the election and very few people voted for Tump the ballots were manipulated electronically.

7. President Tumps tax cut was only for the top tax bracket and was a political favor for his rich buddies.

8. The Congress is going to impeach Trump he does something wrong everyday so what’s it matter.

9. Socialism is the answer we all need to pitch in and give more to the poor and demand corporation’s make smaller profits.

10. The green new deal is great and will ensure everyone is treated equal.

I could go on you guys get the point !

Did this play through your head?
[video=youtube;5hfYJsQAhl0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/video]

 

[actaeon277]

It is unbelievable how people can have such misguided faith in a huge government under socialism to do the right thing.

Posit 1: People can not be trusted.
Posit 2: The government is made up of people.
Result: Socialist scratches head, and engages in 1984 "doublethink"

 

[jamil]

I had a nice talk with a liberal yesterday and would like to share the cliff notes.

1. President Obama was respected all over the world and was close to “perfect” President Trump is a fool that everyone hates.

2. 3 million more votes went to Hillary so President Trump is not a legal President the Electoral College is not fair and racist.

3. President Tump supporters are stupid and can’t understand what’s going on.

4. President Trump and his family have personally made billions because of the office and that’s why he wanted to be President

6. Putin and Trump conspired to win the election and very few people voted for Tump the ballots were manipulated electronically.

7. President Tumps tax cut was only for the top tax bracket and was a political favor for his rich buddies.

8. The Congress is going to impeach Trump he does something wrong everyday so what’s it matter.

9. Socialism is the answer we all need to pitch in and give more to the poor and demand corporation’s make smaller profits.

10. The green new deal is great and will ensure everyone is treated equal.

I could go on you guys get the point !

Wow. Liberals have horrible punctuation.

 

[Alpo]

Are the two mutually exclusive? And is there a causative correlation between the two, historically speaking?

.

I think it can be made to work in affluent countries with relatively small populations. Norway or Sweden, for example.

It can also been beneficial for poorer countries IF there is a real distribution of economic wealth of the country back into the hands who need it most...as opposed the country elites...OR the World Bank.

All countries seem to have some social programs and success of those programs are sometimes measurable. However, state control of the means of production is normally a bad thing for those countries not mentioned above.

 

[nonobaddog]

"State control" is inherently a bad thing all by itself.

 

[Alpo]

First.

Rather than waste electrons repeating something that anyone who is interested can scroll to, I'll just respond.

What is "with it" or cool with 12 to 20-somethings, doesn't mean that a 50 or 60-year old becomes hip and trendy when using the same words and phrases.

Eventually, everyone has to hang up their skateboard.

 

[Brad69]

Screw You Jamil!

 

[Kutnupe14]

It is unbelievable how people can have such misguided faith in a huge government under socialism to do the right thing.

I think it's folly to have faith in any government that is "huge." Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism... Respectively: Mass Starvation, Slavery, Genocide...

 

[KG1]

We still do not not have a vote, so impeachment is still just talk.

Keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi hasn't formally pulled the trigger on a full House vote authorizing the impeachment inquiry that her party says it is undertaking, as is the precedent.

By forgoing a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry, Mrs. Pelosi has amped up the partisanship. Instead of moving ahead with the full backing of the elected representatives of the American people, she has launched the Trump impeachment by personal ukase. Even more remarkable, it has been greeted with a collective ho-hum. True, the Constitution does not require a House vote. It’s also true, however, that Mrs. Pelosi has no precedent for what she has done, and by eliminating a House vote, she has denied the House minority the opportunity to be heard before Congress begins exercising its most formidable constitutional power short of declaring war the process of removing an elected president.

Upon further procedural review of this a full house vote is not required simply to launch an impeachment inquiry which is the phase in the process that the Democrats are currently in.

Also according to what I've researched the House and the Senate have the right to make their own rules governing procedure. (I guess the issue that some are taking is does Speaker Pelosi have the sole right to set the procedural rules?)

The only time a full House vote is required is when Articles of Impeachment are formulated by, usually the Judiciary Committee under the current rules which it seems like the rule has been changed somewhat by the Democrats because the inquiry is taking place within the Intelligence committee at the present time but I guess the House retains the right to change the rules.

Getting back to the point in the procedure where a full House is required to vote is apparently only after Articles of Impeachment have been formulated and voted on through whatever Committee is tasked with the impeachment inquiry then the results are presented for a full House debate and subsequent vote.

If the Articles of Impeachment are approved the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

Interesting read on the legal standard and procedure can be found here: https://litigation.findlaw.com/lega...achment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html .

 

[Tombs]

Did you ever see a 12 year old kid who, when taken to a restaurant, has no idea how to use a knife and fork?.....not because he has a mental/physical impairment or because mommy always cut up his food for him. Nope. It's because since the time he was old enough to get off the bottle, he's been eating out of fast food containers. McDonalds, Taco Bell, KFC.

It seems as if you are doing that with language as well. Latest: LARPing. Last month: Woke.

You've decided that the English language is a Happy Meal. Well, it isn't. You either stand against grammar entropy or you don't. TLex is correct.

And all this parsing that Bug is doing is ridiculous. Just because Trump feels threatened, he doesn't have permission to label getting called on coloring outside the lines "a coup". He who sows chaos to weaken the ground upon which his opponent treads must step carefully. Trump is not a careful man.

Language evolves. I'm sorry you don't bother to keep up with it.
If you want to uphold the standards you claim to praise, I suggest you revert to the use of old english.
[video=youtube;Y63dBBlHlSk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y63dBBlHlSk[/video]

 

[Ingomike]

Upon further procedural review of this a full house vote is not required simply to launch an impeachment inquiry which is the phase in the process that the Democrats are currently in.

Also according to what I've researched the House and the Senate have the right to make their own rules governing procedure. (I guess the issue that some are taking is does Speaker Pelosi have the sole right to set the procedural rules?)

The only time a full House vote is required is when Articles of Impeachment are formulated by, usually the Judiciary Committee under the current rules which it seems like the rule has been changed somewhat by the Democrats because the inquiry is taking place within the Intelligence committee at the present time but I guess the House retains the right to change the rules.

Getting back to the point in the procedure where a full House is required to vote is apparently only after Articles of Impeachment have been formulated and voted on through whatever Committee is tasked with the impeachment inquiry then the results are presented for a full House debate and subsequent vote.

If the Articles of Impeachment are approved the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

Interesting read on the legal standard and procedure can be found here: https://litigation.findlaw.com/lega...achment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html .

You are in agreement with the article and me, just pointing out she has not done any "official" act, just talk, so she is either playing both sides against the middle or an idiot. Hard choice. LOL

 

[KG1]

You are in agreement with the article and me, just pointing out she has not done any "official" act, just talk, so she is either playing both sides against the middle or an idiot. Hard choice. LOL

The problem is there are no rules that are outlined within the Constitution concerning how to formally launch an impeachment inquiry. It only designates which Chamber of Congress plays what role in the process.

So in light of that it’s just all kind of ambiguous on how to proceed other than precedent set forth in prior impeachment proceedings.

Now did Pelosi break with precedent? IDK but it looks to me like there are no hard and fast binding rules.

Who knows.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Thanks for all the well wishes. I'm feeling good. I'm fortunate to have good health care and great doctors and nurses helping me to recover.

None of us know when a medical emergency might affect us. And no one should fear going bankrupt if it occurs. Medicare for All!

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1179494005064847361

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Oh, and Nickelback complained about Trump's tweet, so Twitter removed it.

Childish.



Trump, to Twitter:

 

[Ingomike]

The problem is there are no rules that are outlined within the Constitution concerning how to formally launch an impeachment inquiry. It only designates which Chamber of Congress plays what role in the process.

So in light of that it’s just all kind of ambiguous on how to proceed other than precedent set forth in prior impeachment proceedings.

Now did Pelosi break with precedent? IDK but it looks to me like there are no hard and fast binding rules.

Who knows.

One interesting thought is, if there is no formal vote to begin impeachment proceedings does anyone have to cooperate with their witch hunt? That may play out between the house and executive branches in the courts. Does the constitutional authority to impeach begin with just a statement of one member?

 

[T.Lex]

Couple things as I get caught up.

Apparently Nickleback (or a different copyright holder) took down whatever Trump retweeted. That's kinda funny.

Since it has come up, I guess I'll clarify the origins of the French "coup d'etat." It absolutely was a "illegal", usually with some force or threat of force, undoing of the ruling government. Along the lines of generals or high level ministers deciding they didn't like the King and deposing them. "Illegal" in the sense that the then-current ruler would have people arrested if he caught wind of such a coup.

An impeachment is a fundamentally legal exercise - at least in the US. There are defined boundaries and processes. It cannot be a coup. Even hyperbolicly.

If we accept the "its just an exaggeration" then all sorts of things become ok, that become more absurd.

I would be grateful to Pelosi if the impeachment committee never recommends articles of impeachment. It makes sense from her perspective to draw this timeline out until maybe it goes away. My sense is that she actually doesn't want to do this, but knows that if she doesn't she risks a civil war/revolution/coup/battle royale within her own party.

 

[jamil]

Rather than waste electrons repeating something that anyone who is interested can scroll to, I'll just respond.

What is "with it" or cool with 12 to 20-somethings, doesn't mean that a 50 or 60-year old becomes hip and trendy when using the same words and phrases.

Eventually, everyone has to hang up their skateboard.

Exactly why would you assume I've used those terms to become hip and trendy? Really. Why would you assume that? Expand your imagination a little and get back to me.

Possibly, those electrons may have been worth it to you. Or, you could just continue to assume that it's the only possible explanation because you know the purpose of every ****ing thought that runs through people's minds. Presumption is intellectually lazy. But what can you do? Eh, nevermind. It's probably time to start Thursday's course of meds. Then recess time with the walker.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

LARPing originates in the 70s.

"Woke" originates from the 60s to 70s.


I use LARPing as a jab at the "battle-ready" mindset of people itching for a civil war they'll probably never get.

 

[Birds Away]

Rather than waste electrons repeating something that anyone who is interested can scroll to, I'll just respond.

What is "with it" or cool with 12 to 20-somethings, doesn't mean that a 50 or 60-year old becomes hip and trendy when using the same words and phrases.

Eventually, everyone has to hang up their skateboard.

First you lefties wanted my guns and now you want my skateboard? Where does it end, Comrade?