|
I feel like this incident is going to attach itself forever to the Trump presidency.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Whats the actual mechanism for getting him out, how does that happen? Don't really know how that works in the US, only experience of that is you guys trying to get rid of Clinton for bullshitting about his sex antics. The House of Representatives (analogous to the House of Commons in Britain) has to vote to impeach, then they'd have a trial in the Senate (roughly the House of Lords) and if the Senate votes to convict then he'd be removed from office. Bill Clinton is the only president to have been impeached in modern times, and he was acquitted. Nixon resigned before they could start the process. What a Trump impeachment might look like is anyone's guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:More like/b/ but yeah pretty much. The entire "lol trumps fine" thread is just: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I don't have a problem with it. Either people have a right to stroll down the sidewalk with a gun on their hip, or they don't. If they do, then I'm not interested in a "ok, you can do that, but keep your mouth shut and don't carry a sign" exception. There is a huge difference between an individual carrying a gun and a small army assembled to attend a rally on a permit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:38
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Whats the actual mechanism for getting him out, how does that happen? Don't really know how that works in the US, only experience of that is you guys trying to get rid of Clinton for bullshitting about his sex antics. The House draws up Articles of Impeachment, as was done with Clinton. The House then votes on whether or not to charge the President with those Articles of Impeachment. Then the Senate holds a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. If 2/3 of the Senate votes that the President did whatever he's accused of in the Articles of Impeachment then dude's out on his rear end and the VP is the new President. This has never happened in US history. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton had the House pass Articles of Impeachment against them and Nixon resigned before that could happen to him. The Senate has never voted to oust the President because that's some serious poo poo, the 2/3 majority is super high, and passing Articles through the House is already a real big gently caress you to the guy. Edit: Alternatively a majority of the Cabinet get together and by majority vote that the President is incapacitated. The VP then becomes acting President. The President can then reclaim his powers by sending a letter to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Temp of the Senate that says he's good to go for the Presidency again. The Cabinet can, if it so chooses, send another letter by the will of the majority to Congress that says "nu-uh, the President is still unfit". Congress then holds a vote and if 2/3 of Congress thinks the President is totally still wack, the VP remains acting President until at lest 34% of Congress is satisfied that the President is once again fit to President. Gyges fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Aug 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The House of Representatives (analogous to the House of Commons in Britain) has to vote to impeach, then they'd have a trial in the Senate (roughly the House of Lords) and if the Senate votes to convict then he'd be removed from office. They may also try to use the 25th amendment. I would argue that a President courting mainly to Nazis would not be discharging the duties of their office. But that's kind of a creative end run, if the party turns on him they'll just impeach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:except the ACLU agrees that freedom of speech is not absolute, and that there are limits. specifically wrt speech that incites violence. now i dunno about you, but nazis seem to incite violence constantly as part of their ideology. purifying america into a sea of lily-white won't come about non-violently after all. further, the ACLU has to pick and choose cases since they have limited resources. so why was the ACLU defending nazis? it's not like the case was precedent setting, nor was it like the alt-right (funded and supported by people like the kochs and loved by trump) were without legal support. being involved with this case has only caused them to be hated. and I can't say it's without good reason Exactly. I don't think "Nice shop you have here, shame if anything happens to it" is protected speech, because it is threat and intimidation, which are not protected speech. Holding a rally to voice speech is content-neutral, but holding a rally where a army deploys for the purposes of intimidation is not speech, it is an act of menacing, and we don't have to go along with the coy pretensions that it is anything but that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Whats the actual mechanism for getting him out, how does that happen? Don't really know how that works in the US, only experience of that is you guys trying to get rid of Clinton for bullshitting about his sex antics. Two ways. One, impeachment followed by conviction. Only applicable in cases of Treason, Bribery, or high crimes or misdemeanors. Congress decides what that means, so it can be literally anything. Then the house of representative votes to impeach, and if they get half plus one, the president is impeached. He keeps his job, but looks super stupid. Then congress holds a trial, with the chief justice presiding. Testimony is given on both sides and evidence is presented, but there's no real process. Finally the Senators vote to convict--with a two thirds majority, the president is out. This has never happened, although twice a president has been impeached. Two, the Vice President, with the assistance of the majority of the... I want to say cabinet? Can declare the president mentally unfit for the job. Again, what this means is defined by the VP and his crew, so that's fun. Upon announcement, the President is immediately replaced by the Vice President and becomes unemployed. If the President wants to fight this one, it goes to congress and a trial is held, again presided over by the Chief Justice. Majority gets the Resolute Desk. This has also never happened. The VP, the House, and the Senate are all held by toadies of the president terrified of his popularity, so neither one will happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Did the ACLU need to rush to help nazis in either case? Condiv posted:my feelings are growing less and less complicated. them not taking this case wouldn't be against their principles as far as i can tell, since nazis very obviously incite violence with their rhetoric. These are words with specific meanings. The ACLU, by its principles, would defend against any argument that #unitetheright creates an incitement that justifies infringing on the first amendment. You don't have to agree with it, but I do appreciate you demonstrating that you haven't the foggiest here. Regarding the tweet-it's a state chapter who swiftly acknowledged they hosed up and apologized. lovely that it was sent in the first place, but you're stretching more than usual when you try to use it to paint the entire org. Hieronymous Alloy posted:One thing I'd be interested in seeing litigated is the right to assemble and air their views while carrying weapons, riot gear, etc. These guys are up-armoring to a greater degree than the police. This is interesting to me as well, as it sits at the intersection of 1A (along with prior restraint and the heckler's veto) and 2A. If a violent history is enough to restrict, is it based on the group? What if the group changes names? Is it based on the membership? Are convictions necessary or is merely being present at previous violent protests enough? Under 2A, can the presence of lawfully owned and carried firearms be used to restrict the freedom of assembly? They're interesting questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
There is also the 25th Amendment, where the VP and Cabinet can declare the president incapable of serving and elevate the VP as acting president. This leads to a theoretically indefinite ping pong of the president declaring he's the president again, and the congress voting on whether he is or not. This, too, has never happened (although they got close with Reagan toward the end). Since W Bush, the president often voluntarily invokes this whenever he's under general anesthesia for a significant amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I feel like this incident is going to attach itself forever to the Trump presidency. The turning point for the national socialist wave that culminated in him being appointed president for life?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I feel like this incident is going to attach itself forever to the Trump presidency. One week from now: "Remember before Mueller's team arrested Kushner coming off of Air Force 2, and we almost had a FBI/Secret Service shoot out? What were we even thinking about less week? Was that Charlottsville? I can't even remember, did that happen before or after Scaramucci?" Although honestly, even though I've said for a while "Russia is the only story that matters", I think this is a pretty big inflection point as well. My initial guess was that the "discipline period" from Kelly's move to CoS would last until 15-20th. I am thinking that the week from August 15th onwards will be like Mueller week in terms of what happens, on several fronts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The House draws up Articles of Impeachment, as was done with Clinton. The House then votes on whether or not to charge the President with those Articles of Impeachment. Then the Senate holds a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. If 2/3 of the Senate votes that the President did whatever he's accused of in the Articles of Impeachment then dude's out on his rear end and the VP is the new President. This is a better explanation. Notably, Andrew Johnson came exceedingly close, I believe it was a one vote difference, and they loving should've because he derailed Reconstruction and happily hosed over black people in America. The 25th Amendment thing will not happen unless Trump tries to launch nukes, it would be viewed as a soft coup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
It WOULD be a soft coup. It's a hard coded soft coup. Invoking it would lead to unprecedented chaos in the executive branch and in the federal government. Imagine that old timey ad of two kids having weiners and it's a kid asking Uncle Sam "gosh Sam why does your constitution let you have TWO presidents?" and Sam just looks loving haggard. It's late and I could go for some hot dogs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The House draws up Articles of Impeachment, as was done with Clinton. The House then votes on whether or not to charge the President with those Articles of Impeachment. Then the Senate holds a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. If 2/3 of the Senate votes that the President did whatever he's accused of in the Articles of Impeachment then dude's out on his rear end and the VP is the new President. also if Congress says the President is adequately fit for office, the Cabinet can submit another declaration of incapacity if they do it before the President fires enough of them that they lose their majority 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:except the ACLU agrees that freedom of speech is not absolute, and that there are limits. specifically wrt speech that incites violence. now i dunno about you, but nazis seem to incite violence constantly as part of their ideology. purifying america into a sea of lily-white won't come about non-violently after all. further, the ACLU has to pick and choose cases since they have limited resources. so why was the ACLU defending nazis? it's not like the case was precedent setting, nor was it like the alt-right (funded and supported by people like the kochs and loved by trump) were without legal support. being involved with this case has only caused them to be hated. and I can't say it's without good reason No case sets precedent until it does. Arguing and winning the case that Nazi's can't march because they're bad dudes would set precedent for future political gatherings. The ACLU has a history going back decades and decades of fighting for the rights of Nazis to march through the streets and piss everyone off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is a better explanation. Notably, Andrew Johnson came exceedingly close, I believe it was a one vote difference, and they loving should've because he derailed Reconstruction and happily hosed over black people in America. I think there's a nonzero chance Trump could legitimately go senile in the White House (especially if, god forbid, he serves a second term) but yeah I wouldn't count on him getting 25thed unless he either tries to nuke someone or displays his senility in a very public, obvious, and embarrassing way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:It WOULD be a soft coup. It's a hard coded soft coup. Invoking it would lead to unprecedented chaos in the executive branch and in the federal government. Oh absolutely, but the Republicans won't do it because they know their base with castigate them for it, not because they give a poo poo about precedent or decorum or whatever bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
We can argue over the merits of the ACLU's view on the first amendment indefinitely, but I wish that we could at least remain aware that they are doing vital work on behalf of marginalized people on a multitude of fronts. Representing Gavin Grimm and relentlessly and immediately opposing the Muslim ban are two massive examples just off the top of my head. Ignoring that and declaring the entire organization a bad-faith actor seems counterproductive at best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:It WOULD be a soft coup. It's a hard coded soft coup. Invoking it would lead to unprecedented chaos in the executive branch and in the federal government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Holy poo poo Oakland is flipping the gently caress out right now. It sounded like WW3 a minute ago. https://twitter.com/thomas_peele/status/896594369880272896 I guess this will teach those Virginia nazis who not to mess with?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The House of Representatives (analogous to the House of Commons in Britain) has to vote to impeach, then they'd have a trial in the Senate (roughly the House of Lords) and if the Senate votes to convict then he'd be removed from office. So basically enough of his own party would have to turn on him and vote with the democrats to start things off. Under what premise though? Something like 'We put this motion before the house, the president is a loving raving lunatic and should be removed straight away before he fucks the country up and starts another war.' e: oh there were another bunch of answers, thanks to you as well, reading
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:We can argue over the merits of the ACLU's view on the first amendment indefinitely, but I wish that we could at least remain aware that they are doing vital work on behalf of marginalized people on a multitude of fronts. Representing Gavin Grimm and relentlessly and immediately opposing the Muslim ban are two massive examples just off the top of my head. Ignoring that and declaring the entire organization a bad-faith actor seems counterproductive at best. ACLU is staffed by people and people gently caress up sometimes. Overall they're a positive force for freedom and democracy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Gyges posted:No case sets precedent until it does. Arguing and winning the case that Nazi's can't march because they're bad dudes would set precedent for future political gatherings. The ACLU has a history going back decades and decades of fighting for the rights of Nazis to march through the streets and piss everyone off. And there's plenty of room for debate on whether or not it's a good thing! Arguing that defending Kessler's suit is out of character or against their principles, on the other hand, is revealingly moronic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:We can argue over the merits of the ACLU's view on the first amendment indefinitely, but I wish that we could at least remain aware that they are doing vital work on behalf of marginalized people on a multitude of fronts. Representing Gavin Grimm and relentlessly and immediately opposing the Muslim ban are two massive examples just off the top of my head. Ignoring that and declaring the entire organization a bad-faith actor seems counterproductive at best. The ACLU represents the line of thinking that the law must be enforced as uniformly and uncompromisingly as possible, and that the only way to ensure justice for all is to ensure that the rules are upheld at all times as closely as possible to the way they're written, even if it means bad dudes might abuse them to get out of trouble. Versus the notion that sometimes the rules should be bent or broken to uphold justice, etc. I don't strictly speaking agree with it but the ACLU is nothing if not internally consistent so...
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Thanks. An impeachment could happen without any Republicans defecting at all after the 2018 elections if the Dems win enough House seats. The most likely thing he'd end up getting impeached for is Russia poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/liamstack/status/896582026324656128
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:We can argue over the merits of the ACLU's view on the first amendment indefinitely, but I wish that we could at least remain aware that they are doing vital work on behalf of marginalized people on a multitude of fronts. Representing Gavin Grimm and relentlessly and immediately opposing the Muslim ban are two massive examples just off the top of my head. Ignoring that and declaring the entire organization a bad-faith actor seems counterproductive at best. i haven't done that Paracaidas posted:Look, it's obvious your grasp of 1A issues is about as nuanced as your grasp of most other topics: and it's obvious you're dodging the question. was it necesary the ACLU involve themselves with this case? would the first amendment have been harmed if they didn't? doesn't seem to me like these alt-right nazis were going to be short on legal representation, and the ACLU's limited resources could've been better spent elsewhere than helping a potentially violent (turned actually violent) nazi rally. quote:These are words with specific meanings. The ACLU, by its principles, would defend against any argument that #unitetheright creates an incitement that justifies infringing on the first amendment. You don't have to agree with it, but I do appreciate you demonstrating that you haven't the foggiest here. nazis came, they incited imminent lawless action, and then counterprotestors got mowed down. i think that fits the bill. quote:Regarding the tweet-it's a state chapter who swiftly acknowledged they hosed up and apologized. lovely that it was sent in the first place, but you're stretching more than usual when you try to use it to paint the entire org. cool. then the national chapter went and defended the lovely state chapter so... Condiv fucked around with this message at 05:59 on Aug 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i haven't done that Wasn't really aimed at you, just been seeing a lot of that sort of sentiment going around on social media.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:And there's plenty of room for debate on whether or not it's a good thing! If there was precedent on the books to prevent these kinds of things, the major Trump protests would have been shutdown using them. A ruling to prevent nazis from gathering can be used for hosed up purposes in the hands of bad actors, and Sessions is definitely one of those
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Thanks. He'd also need to be voted out by two thirds of the senate of which there are a hundred and 51 are republicans. It's a tough sell and I think they'd only get rid of him if it was a choice between him and the republican party. His current approval ratings are around 37.5%. Impeachment and impeachment proceedings probably won't happen until he hits the mid twenties approval rating. He'll take a hit from this, but he's far off from impeachment unless Mueller bears fruit or he fucks up in a way that hurts the economy, like passing healthcare without analyzing the impact to 1/6th of our economy. Only 15% of the way through his term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:This could be an interesting wedge. Trump could be the President who ties the GOP to literal Nazis. Forever. They're aware of this and it's up to them to do something if they want to save their party's image. These links are easily forgotten because so many Americans are emotionally invested in not seeing them in the first place. But we can chase the nazis back into their holes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Should we have this or should we not? It actually very difficult to use the 25th amendment to permanently seize power since the President can just keep sending letters that say he's totally cool to Congress. In order to make it permanent, you need the same number of votes as you would to impeach the guy and if you've got that many votes for an intended permanent action it's easier to just impeach the fucker. Otherwise you've got to keep voting to keep him out of power every few days.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
car terrorist literally suffered from terminal internet poisoning
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Thanks. In the constitution, it is "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", and what that is, isn't described. Clinton's impeachment was on something that many (or most) people think was politically motivated, and not a true high crime and misdemeanor. The point is, the impeachment has to be about a crime, and not just general incompetence. But there is already a federal grand jury for Trump, and a the best lawyers in the country are busy investigating his shady business dealings. Also, we have this matter of Trump publicly bragging on national television about doing something that looks a lot like obstruction of justice. So, if the political winds shift, and especially if Trump goes on a scorched earth war against his own party, then congress has an obvious reason to proceed with impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
Absolutist 1A thinking is poison, and will be the death of us all
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Pakled posted:An impeachment could happen without any Republicans defecting at all after the 2018 elections if the Dems win enough House seats. There is no world where Trump is both impeached and convicted without Democratic control of both houses and overwhelming control at that. A reminder that the only reason Nixon had to resign was because he had a Democratic Congress to contend with, Republicans of the era overtly supported him and did not think he'd done anything wrong. Republicans are spineless pieces of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and it's obvious you're dodging the question. was it necesary the ACLU involve themselves with this case? would the first amendment have been harmed if they didn't? doesn't seem to me like these alt-right nazis were going to be short on legal representation, and the ACLU's limited resources could've been better spent elsewhere than helping a potentially violent (turned actually violent) nazi rally. Yes, it is the long held position of the ACLU that helping Nazis have rallies is helpful for the health of the 1st Amendment. They've been quite up front about this since Skokie, Illinois. Which was in 1978. quote:nazis came, they incited imminent lawless action, and then counterprotestors got mowed down. i think that fits the bill. The ACLU argued that they should be allowed to march. The ACLU did not argue that they should be allowed to mow down pedestrians and beat up people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The ACLU argued that they should be allowed to march. The ACLU did not argue that they should be allowed to mow down pedestrians and beat up people. This is a really loving stupid argument, though. And the people at the ACLU should realize this if they had any brain in their heads
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There is no world where Trump is both impeached and convicted without Democratic control of both houses and overwhelming control at that. Republicans started to peel away but the big shift was the tapes and what basically amounted to a confession. I'm not sure if it's "he did that and it was okay" and more "I don't believe that he did that, show me evidence." Which isn't good either, but still.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2017 06:05
|
|