|
JosefStalinator posted:*the final 5 minutes of Comey's testimony* please let it be real
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sure fine. Which article? The Vox one I posted is from December. I mean, sure, if they know exactly what's in the AHCA and still vote for their bad representatives to make sure other people don't get free stuff, they're pretty lovely people. But I think a lot of the folks in the Vox piece, and the group they represent, are going to at the very least stay home next November. stone cold posted:please let it be real I mean, at least some part of it seems to be pretty drat real. Comey said Trump was pretty drat pointed about his association with Russian hookers. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
What the gently caress am I going to do with the next 7 hours 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Mulva posted:The Supreme Court has ruled that in general it'd stay out of that poo poo, but like any other legal proceeding it reserves the right to step in if it feels the Senate was corrupt. The SCOTUS would not try to interfere in the hypothetical botany is asking about. That is crazy talk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Which article? The Vox one I posted is from December. I mean, sure, if they know exactly what's in the AHCA and still vote for their bad representatives to make sure other people don't get free stuff, they're pretty lovely people. But I think a lot of the folks in the Vox piece, and the group they represent, are going to at the very least stay home next November. Oh maybe I confused this with another thread, I thought we were talking about today's Vox piece I don't like that a leopard is eating my face, but I chose a party and I'm supposed to trust the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party to do what the party stands for posted:Smith didn’t like the changes we talked about in the Republican plan — but she wasn’t especially worried about them either. She understood that her premium might go up and her subsidy could go down. But she felt like she had picked a side in America’s political debate, and for now, she is going to stick with it. *kill all faggots I'm confused why a leopard is eating my face, but the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party has gotta know what's best for me even if I can't see the reasoning posted:Martin has kept up with the health care debate. When we met in mid-May, he told me he was waiting for the new CBO number that would come out the next week. What he saw online made him think the new bill would be a raw deal for him. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
botany posted:Those of you with a better understanding of procedure than me: Hypothetically, what would happen if the GOP decided to get this whole thing over with, house republicans vote to impeach, impeachment passes the house by simple majority, senate quickly wraps up investigation and votes to acquit, all shortly before the '18 midterms and thus before dems can do anything about it. Is there a double jeopardy rule in government? Could the dems start the whole thing over if they take over house & senate? One thing to keep in mind is that conviction requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate rather than a simple majority vote. Democrats are pretty unlikely to win the Senate back in 2018 and anything more than a very slim majority is effectively impossible. In other words, even an unimaginably huge win for the Democrats in 2018 doesn't put us that much closer to being able to convict Trump of... anything. In the scenario you're talking about here, the first vote to remove him from office would have to fail on a razor thin margin for Democratic wins in 2018 to make it viable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If it actually did, it would force a Constitutional crisis as the legislative says "What? No - this is our thing. gently caress off." You think this is the first time the issue has come up? NIXON v. UNITED STATES [Not that Nixon], where Judge Nixon tried to claim that a subcommittee and not the entirety of Congress hearing testimony violated the intent of the Constitution. The Court declined to review, but they had thoughts on the matter as impacts the Presidency. For instance some made a point of saying they didn't believe a Presidential impeachment was, by nature, unreviewable. Justice Souter in particular said if the Senate acted in such a way as to threaten the integrity of it's results judicial interference might well be appropriate. Which very much does go towards the hypothetical that was brought up. e: I mean it's not likely, but you don't gently caress in someone else's backyard goes both ways. Senate tries to run a bullshit 'trial' and the Supreme Court has proven itself willing to question their power on the issue. Mulva fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh maybe I confused this with another thread, I thought we were talking about today's Vox piece Ah, that explains it. I meant this one. This is the money quote, IMO: quote:There was a persistent belief that Trump would fix these problems and make Obamacare work better. I kept hearing informed voters, who had watched the election closely, say they did hear the promise of repeal but simply felt Trump couldn’t repeal a law that had done so much good for them. In fact, some of the people I talked to hope that one of the more divisive pieces of the law — Medicaid expansion — might become even more robust, offering more of the working poor a chance at the same coverage the very poor receive. Some of these people will probably cling to their delusion past the 2018 midterm, but I think a lot of them are going to be ripe for the picking by the Democrats, if they can at least convincingly act like they can empathize with them. (or "feel their pain," as it were)
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
please god, let me be the first to post this https://twitter.com/thetomzone/status/872688066833649664
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
...what is it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
Samovar posted:...what is it? Eichenwald is reading porn in another tab. Hentai, specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Samovar posted:...what is it? Hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Samovar posted:...what is it? Kurt Eichenwald posted a screenshot while he still had a tab open for Hentai.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Samovar posted:...what is it? Took me a sec too. Eichenwald is apparently a hentai fan. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
Samovar posted:...what is it? kurt eichenwald, journalist for newsweek? who the alt right hates so bad that a guy (who was arrested) deliberately sent kurt flickering gifs to trigger his epilepsy, was chatting on twitter and posted a screenshot of his browser forgetting to close out what appears to be hentai in another tab
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Samovar posted:...what is it? https://twitter.com/athodyd/status/872688854649769984
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
A really gross form of hentai at that. Very disturbing if true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
Classic.
Fame Douglas fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:A really gross form of hentai at that. Very disturbing if true. This implies there are plenty of hentais out there that you wouldn't kink shame cause they're just totally above board. Could you elaborate on where exactly that line is drawn?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Some of these people will probably cling to their delusion past the 2018 midterm, but I think a lot of them are going to be ripe for the picking by the Democrats, if they can at least convincingly act like they can empathize with them. (or "feel their pain," as it were) Yeah, in the new article there is one guy who says if the AHCA passes it will affect how he votes in the future. Hopefully there are enough people like that to make 2018/2020 wave years for the Democrats and save the unrecoverable assholes who just want the poor to die even if that includes them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, in the new article there is one guy who says if the AHCA passes it will affect how he votes in the future. Hopefully there are enough people like that to make 2018/2020 wave years for the Democrats and save the unrecoverable assholes who just want the poor to die even if that includes them. Yeah, I agree it's beyond  that some of these people are still voting Republican. But keep in mind, it's only a few months into this administration. It's closer to election day '16 than election day '18 (I know, not the most comforting thought, but bear with me). At some point, for a lot of them, the mental gymnastics aren't going to cut it anymore, and they'll desert Trump. They may not become good leftists, but they'll at the very least stay home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
please do not ruin this moment of laughing at the journalists embarassment for accidentally exposing his spank bait by splitting hairs about what genre of porn this is and where it ranks on the perv index
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:please do not ruin this moment of laughing at the journalists embarassment for accidentally exposing his spank bait by splitting hairs about what genre of porn this is and where it ranks on the perv index What a girl and an octopus do in the sanctity of their own home is none of our business.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
no kinkshaming, please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
Despera posted:What a girl and an octopus do in the sanctity of their own home is none of our business. The word "sanctity" loses a bit of meaning in this context, I find.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Lolin' at the weebs flipping out upthread 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Mulva posted:e: I mean it's not likely, but you don't gently caress in someone else's backyard goes both ways. Senate tries to run a bullshit 'trial' and the Supreme Court has proven itself willing to question their power on the issue. If the Senate tosses out a President and the SCOTUS says "no you don't" and insists he's supposed to stay in, and he stays in, then the Constitution is a dead letter at that point. More so than it is now, which is saying a lot. That's way beyond McConnell's poo poo with Obama and Garland, for example. In fact if we use the term "mcconnell" as a unit of measurement for the extent to which one wipes one's rear end with the Constitution, and set one mcconnell equal to the business with Obama and Garland, then your hypothetical interference with an impeachment is, like, 10 mcconnells of rear end-wiping. At least.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:no kinkshaming, please. no kurtshaming, please. Would be better if his name was Kirk but I just went for it
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Step up, thread. Comey's laying down dirt on Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, I agree it's beyond That's not a good thing - it just gives people more time to forget about all the poo poo the Republicans have pulled by 2018. Especially if they're smart and delay implementation of AHCA until after midterms (or maybe just throw in some one-time subsidies to reduce premiums for a year). Fortunately Trump will continue to poo poo all over everything he touches, so there's some hope yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
Stickman posted:That's not a good thing - it just gives people more time to forget about all the poo poo the Republicans have pulled by 2018. Especially if they're smart and delay implementation of AHCA until after midterms (or maybe just throw in some one-time subsidies to reduce premiums for a year). Fortunately Trump will continue to poo poo all over everything he touches, so there's some hope yet. Eh, it wouldn't be a good thing if it were a certainty that they'd actually get out and vote. But one usually has to be at least a little bit motivated to actually turn out in a midterm election. I'm not getting the feeling that these people are going to be "fired up and ready to go," as I think I heard one candidate say a couple times, once November '18 rolls around. I think a lot of them will just stay home - particularly, as you say, if Trump continues to poo poo the bed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay, so the SCOTUS is more likely to force a Constitutional crisis, by laughably inserting itself into something that is clearly the sole purview of the House and Senate, than I thought. Sure, but if it's in response to the Senate failing it's duty to act as a check on the President, the Constitution is already dead. If the Senate throws a trial for it's guy [Or conversely, pushes one against the other guy] in such a manner that people feel the need to call them on it, checks and balances is already dead. Which means the foundation of the government is dead, which means it really doesn't matter much what happens next. Government has already fallen. That was the point of their comments. Impeachment is a political issue, none of them denied that. Many of them felt the need to point out that there is a Constitutional requirement for a trial, and one that was held in a fair manner with integrity to the process. If that fails, the Senate aren't holding up their end of the Constitutional agreement, which in turn means they aren't by nature allowed the protection of the Constitution as regards the political nature of impeachment. At which point we return to the role of the Supreme Court, as the final arbiters of Constitutional Law[tm]. "Constitutional crisis" is a phrase they mention more than once, it's not like they were unaware of it when talking in Nixon v US, but if the Senate fails to hold a proper trial we've already had a Constitutional crisis. That ship will have sailed, the only question would be what you do about it. And the Supreme Court has said at the point that the Senate has brought about the crisis, they are absolutely willing to consider reviewing it. With that as the bar, you'd have to be really loving incompetent to actually have someone prove you threw a trial, and thus give the Supreme Court the insanely unlikely window they need to even consider doing anything about it. Then again, with this shower of loving incompetents anything is still on the table. Mulva fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:26
|
|
|
trickybiscuits posted:Related video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zz76_C97GI Trump Memorial Day National Rave was amazing, he was building up to full techno viking but the MSM didn't wan't you to see that! 30 pages ago ain't nothing when you're filled with the base and mesmerized by the strobes and the music takes control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
When Comey finishes his prepared statement I want to see a nervous A/V guy wheel in one of those old carts with a big CRT on top and the last working VCR in DC. Comey reaches down and draws a VHS tape from his briefcase, holds it up for the cameras...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:26
|
|
|
Piss is the end my friend. Child's President credits roll.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:When Comey finishes his prepared statement I want to see a nervous A/V guy wheel in one of those old carts with a big CRT on top and the last working VCR in DC. Comey reaches down and draws a VHS tape from his briefcase, holds it up for the cameras... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:33
|
|
|
It will be such a relief when I can finally leak this piss tape.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:And where can we watch it? (In Australia) There's usually plenty of live streams on youtube that are available worldwide, worst case it'll be on CSPAN and I don't think they do region blocking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
My prediction for tomorrow morning: Committee Member: Mr. Comey, in your view, did President Trump's actions constitute criminal obstruction of justice? Comey, without skipping a beat: Yes, Senator. Committee Member: Disturbing if true. How do you feel about leaks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Pellisworth posted:Committee Member: Disturbing if true. How do you feel about leaks? "You grow accustomed to it...after repeated views."
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 10:48
|
|
