|
So Papadopoulos is now a convicted felon, right?
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Nephzinho posted:Lol if Pence is caught up in everything and they're genuinely worried about President Pelosi enough to change things. presidential succession is set by law, trump can't change it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:John Kelly out as chief of staff because he's the new vice president. Pence is fired Nope, Vice President Jim "Mad Dog" Mattis is the only fitting for 2018 change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Really I find most of the discussion about "fixing" the Senate to be an absurdity. If state populations continue to become as unbalanced as they predict, there's no way Rhode Island and Wyoming are willingly going to cede power to California and Texas. If people here are convinced its absolutely necessary to limit Senate power they will have to turn to extra-constitutional methods. Say through the eight states predicted to contain half the US population in 2040 agreeing between themselves to strip the Senate of power and daring the littler states to secede. people would prefer to abolish the senate from within the rules of the existing game because then you don't need to resocialize everyone to new rules after implementing them through what is in effect a revolution. that said, many of these sort of fundamental changes get forced through based on the implicit understanding that such a revolution would be in the offing if people don't agree on their own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:I'd eat the gently caress out of Fluffin Coffee Drops, Quitterbread bars, and Canical Bear-Widded Nutts. Apple Cabin Foods opened a bakery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
Effectiveness isn't a synonym with good. Experience can make you effective, it won't make you good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:again, this is a stupid argument, but most importantly it's one you retreated to because your original argument was objectively wrong. since retreating to "who cares what the constitution says anyway" is implicitly a "yes, i was very wrong about what the constitution says", it is clear we are all in agreement that the original argument - "you can just pass a law to abolish the senate because the constitution didn't specify what powers it has!!!!!" is obviously wrong and it takes about thirty seconds of reading the constitution to realize it's obviously wrong. We can't impose proportional representation in the Senate via amendment (well, technically we can, but it will never happen) and I figure that also means you can't abolish it via amendment either, but I've never heard an argument that you can't change what the Senate does via amendment, either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
Nothingburger: https://twitter.com/PaulSzoldra/status/1071107432791691264
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:When you say "pass a law" are you including amendments? no, when I say "pass a law" there I mean 50%+1 of the Senate, 50%+1 of the House, and presidential signature. there are surprising areas you can tinker with the constitution via regular legislation, but abolishing the Senate is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:When you say "pass a law" are you including amendments? Oh yeah, an amendment could strip most or all powers from the Senate as long as within that advisory body the States were still equally represented.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1071079657997590530?s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:again, this is a stupid argument, but most importantly it's one you retreated to because your original argument was objectively wrong. since retreating to "who cares what the constitution says anyway" is implicitly a "yes, i was very wrong about what the constitution says", it is clear we are all in agreement that the original argument - "you can just pass a law to abolish the senate because the constitution didn't specify what powers it has!!!!!" is obviously wrong and it takes about thirty seconds of reading the constitution to realize it's obviously wrong. Retreating into whining denials isn't really the kind of ironclad argument that you seem to think it is. Your opinions on constitutional changeability are pretty clear and entrenched, there's not much to say about it. What would be the purpose of going into a point by point constitutional argument when you're not open to any debate and the whole thing is totally hypothetical anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Does Trump think that the line of succession includes the JCS?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
ewiley posted:Does Trump think that the line of succession includes the JCS? Rick Romero, is that you!?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Update on James Fields court case We are now waiting for the verdict. It could be any moment now
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
maybe in another month we'll learn what the guidance was https://twitter.com/shaneharris/status/1071108809341448193
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Retreating into whining denials isn't really the kind of ironclad argument that you seem to think it is. Your opinions on constitutional changeability are pretty clear and entrenched, there's not much to say about it. What would be the purpose of going into a point by point constitutional argument when you're not open to any debate and the whole thing is totally hypothetical anyway? im sorry, are you going "well you won't believe me so why should i bother to so much as copy and paste the parts of the constitution that support me" and then bleating that im "[r]etreating into whining denials" i know you're wrong because i went and read the whole, like, four pages of article I and II. you were obviously wrong, you couldn't even point to a single thing that supported your argument and started trying to move the goalposts, why would i suddenly decide you might have a point when you've been very convincingly showing that you don't? there's no more "debate" because i pointed you to the specific sections of the constitution that showed you were wrong and got crickets in response. what do you want, a participation trophy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Update on James Fields court case There's no earthly way he gets found not guilty, right? Right  ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
eke out posted:if i'm reading this right, simona just doxxed the person who wrote the letter about witnessing Papadopoulos' secret deals to Schiff (that got published about two weeks ago) The slut shaming and general misogyny in this tweet is strong. Edit: I also like the xenophobic/racist parting shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Something for those of you who are nervous eaters... Aren't you glad that these sorts of learning based AIs are being deployed to do things like evaluate babysitters (spoiler: PoC mysteriously get bad ratings) and screen job applicants (spoiler: women get discriminated against)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:people would prefer to abolish the senate from within the rules of the existing game because then you don't need to resocialize everyone to new rules after implementing them through what is in effect a revolution. that said, many of these sort of fundamental changes get forced through based on the implicit understanding that such a revolution would be in the offing if people don't agree on their own. Yeah, I guess what I'm getting at is all of these schemes people keep talking about to strip power from the Senate are so farcically fantastical I don't understand why anyone is even entertaining them. It's thinking oh, maybe Republicans will just come to their senses and decide worker and environmental protections are good, and Mitch McConnell will put the Puppies and Rainbows for Everybody bill up for a vote. If people are serious about removing the Senate they need to start making real threats regarding what will happen if they don't get their way. If they aren't willing to go that far, they need to focus on alternatives means of advancing their agendas through an unrepresentative Senate, say by making DC a state. Granting DC statehood of course would undermine the goal of stripping power from the Senate, as it would almost certainly oppose those moves for the same reasons as Wyoming and Alaska.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The slut shaming and general misogyny in this tweet is strong. simona is like, a genuinely terrible human being
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
eke out posted:simona is like, a genuinely terrible human being When you say this, is this the subject of the tweet or the author?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:When you say this, is this the subject of the tweet or the author? author, simona is papadopolus's wife who is super sketchy in a lot of odd russia-linked ways and she's claiming george's ex is the one who leaked details of his crimes to Schiff
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:Aren't you glad that these sorts of learning based AIs are being deployed to do things like evaluate babysitters (spoiler: PoC mysteriously get bad ratings) and screen job applicants (spoiler: women get discriminated against)? No, but I am tremendously excited for hand buttersnacks, hollowey maples and brown cheesey cookies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:im sorry, are you going "well you won't believe me so why should i bother to so much as copy and paste the parts of the constitution that support me" and then bleating that im "[r]etreating into whining denials" Frankly this is exactly what I'm talking about when I mentioned that there's always going to be folks who see the constitution as sacred and cannot be reinterpreted. You pointed to the bill passing, veto, and treaty powers as being bedrock arguments against reform, but the merest reading indicates plenty of room for reassessing them. The first two Art. I powers simply say that the relevant bills should be passed or approved by the senate and house - there's nothing preventing a law from making such senate approval implicit and reliant upon the house decision, or acknowledging such powers and then transferring them, or guiding what happens if the senate is simply disbanded and no longer exists. The third Art. II power is even easier to ignore, since it simply references "senators present [who] concur" - without any senators, there's no issue. But this kind of thing is never going to satisfy you, since it basically treats the constitution like weasel-worded legal contract rather than a hallowed document handed down from the forefathers. Kaal fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Dec 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:author, simona is papadopolus's wife who is super sketchy in a lot of odd russia-linked ways and she's claiming george's ex is the one who leaked details of his crimes to Schiff yeah i don't know what to think of simona's various connections - she spent a year working for Joseph Mifsud, Papadopoulos' Russian connection, and was the one who introduced george to him but i've now spent long enough reading her tweets to think there may be no illegal anything there, just a very petty, bad person
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:author, simona is papadopolus's wife who is super sketchy in a lot of odd russia-linked ways and she's claiming george's ex is the one who leaked details of his crimes to Schiff Oh lol ok this now 100% makes sense hahaha that’s amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Real interested in Bars *
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Frankly this is exactly what I'm talking about when I mentioned that there's always going to be folks who see the constitution as sacred and cannot be reinterpreted. You pointed to the bill passing, veto, and treaty powers as being bedrock arguments against reform, but the merest reading indicates plenty of room for reassessing them. The first two Art. I powers simply say that the relevant bills should be passed or approved by the senate and house - there's nothing preventing a law from making such senate approval implicit and reliant upon the house decision, or acknowledging such powers and the transferring them, or guiding what happens if the senate is simply disbanded and no longer exists. The third Art. II power is even easier to ignore, since it simply references "senators present [who] concur" - without any senators, there's no issue. But this kind of thing is never going to satisfy you, since it basically treats the constitution like weasel-worded legal contract rather than a hallowed document handed down from the forefathers. Seems silly to talk about since all of that would definitely be challenged in court like the legislative line-item veto the Clinton administration passed was (God could you imagine how hosed we would be under Trump if that had been upheld, although I suppose something like that was Clinton's goal). If you assume we've already stacked the court with anti-senate judges then why not just change the constitution at that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:There's no earthly way he gets found not guilty, right? Anything is possible but these make it hard to see him getting off. Also the defense was going to have his mom and mental health people speak but they ended up not using them. They are trying to push Self Defense as reasoning https://mobile.twitter.com/splcenter/status/1069641462902636545 https://mobile.twitter.com/cvillenews_desk/status/1068557572213538816 https://mobile.twitter.com/EmilyGorcenski/status/1069847535479488512 https://mobile.twitter.com/Hokieman78/status/1067902454363316225 https://mobile.twitter.com/RealAlexRubi/status/1070058428213678080
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you assume we've already stacked the court with anti-senate judges then why not just change the constitution at that point. Well having to stack the court in the first place is almost certainly a requirement at this point, and the only reason not to do a constitutional amendment is that it would then get tied down in state legislatures. And for that matter, there's plenty of folks who see the senate apportionment as being constitutionally inviolable. You'd need control of the judiciary, for sure, as well as control of the majority of state legislatures, which at this point probably means making a bunch of new democratic states. At that point you're basically talking about French Revolution / Tennis Court Oath / Constitutional Convention-type of politicking, where you may as well just throw all the rules out the window. Which probably would be better than the status quo, even if it ended up Balkanizing the country a little bit. Kaal fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Dec 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Wow I missed this detail. Like did he do it the day of?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/Ocasio2018/status/1071115755041800192
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 19:59
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:Wow I missed this detail. Like did he do it the day of? lol he’s going down for first degree murder and the Nazis are going to flip the gently caress out. Does Virginia still do the death penalty? ^ haha holy goddamn poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Frankly this is exactly what I'm talking about when I mentioned that there's always going to be folks who see the constitution as sacred and cannot be reinterpreted. You pointed to the bill passing, veto, and treaty powers as being bedrock arguments against reform, but the merest reading indicates plenty of room for reassessing them. The first two Art. I powers simply say that the relevant bills should be passed or approved by the senate and house - there's nothing preventing a law from making such senate approval implicit and reliant upon the house decision, or acknowledging such powers and then transferring them, or guiding what happens if the senate is simply disbanded and no longer exists. The third Art. II power is even easier to ignore, since it simply references "senators present [who] concur" - without any senators, there's no issue. But this kind of thing is never going to satisfy you, since it basically treats the constitution like weasel-worded legal contract rather than a hallowed document handed down from the forefathers. you're real dumb and this is all nonsense, that you are trying to paper over by claiming that i view the constitution as "sacred and cannot be reinterpreted". no, you're just proposing dumb interpretations that don't satisfy the laugh test. they're just dumb. they're not clever reinterpretations that im upset about because they attack the holy nature of the constitution, they're stuff that requires acting like we're all dumb and can't read english. you can't disband the senate by legislation because the constitution specifically calls for two senators to be elected per state, and for the senate to do business you need a majority of duly elected senators. the phrase "senators present [who] concur" is part of the section on treaties and you cannot have two thirds of senators present concurring if no senators are present; when no senators are present you don't have a quorum (you need a majority present to do business); what the word "present" means is you only need two thirds of those present - i.e. if you've got 60 senators present and 40 off on vacation, 40 of the senators present can vote in favor and approve it, you don't need 67 (which is what it would take if instead of "present" it said "duly elected"). but if three senators are present, you don't have a quorum and can't do business. stuff where you use the rules to violate the spirit is stuff like "well an amendment can't make the senate proportional rep, but it can strip the senate of any power that matters". that is good and useful stuff for using the wording of the constitution against itself to force it into a workable state, things like that are great. there are a number of things where you can use ordinary legislation to great effect; i've suggested, for example, massively abusing the interstate compact clause to give select states hilarious numbers of senators while maintaining their state government, as a way to force through fixes. you're just saying a lot of dumb things that are poorly thought through that don't actually work and getting pissy when that's pointed out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Somewhere in D.C an overworked intern is pulling his hair, trying to draw out “NOT GUILTY YOU ARE PUPPET ARE TROOPS” for 87 pages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Owns
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Should have sent a poet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
I hope they step on his balls so hard day one his eyes pop out
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 20:04
|
|
