|
I think the United States will continue to trundle on kind of like France
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i mean yeah Byzantium but do you count HRE as a continuation too? The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire. Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
Pick posted:I think the United States will continue to trundle on kind of like France pretty much. we will be a world power but the second gilded age that we live in sorta hosed us. but hour end began in the 60s. Antifa Turkeesian posted:I have a feeling that the next 100 years are going to massively eclipse the 20th century in terms of dynamism, but not in the sense of accomplishment or progress. That century may be the 22nd, but it's definitely coming soon. stop with the loving mad max cursed earth poo poo. we get it. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:The Treaty of Westphalia was 1648 You have successfully made your pedantic point. What I meant was that we can look back 1000 years in history and remember and know about all sorts of nations, city states, polities, kingdoms, empires, tribes, collectives, etc. I should perhaps have been more clear, but I think the jist of what I was saying was. e: didn't need to be so snarky. How are u fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Feb 11, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:14
|
|
|
How are u posted:
We know about one guy that sold really crappy copper
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
How are u posted:
"Whenever I am corrected it is pedantry. When I correct others, it is important and edifying"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:"Whenever I am corrected it is pedantry. When I correct others, it is important and edifying" nah your point was dumb
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
i think the US isn't going anywhere, the question isn't "will the US exist as a country" (it will, modern countries don't really have a mechanism to splinter or fail or fall), its "to what extent does the US have global power", and that can wax and wane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
(paraphrased) "suppose he was just some guy in the crowd... Inciting a riot isn't protected by the first amendment". "Nobody in American would be protected (by the 1st) if they did what he did."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
If we're trying to be pedantic, the Roman Republic only lasted from 509 bc to 27 bc - only 482 years!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Pick posted:We know about one guy that sold really crappy copper I hope I'm as famous as that "farewell wondrous femininity" Roman graffiti guy, but for bad posting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
"we commend you for your scrupulous attention" lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
Threefor posted:"Scrupulous attention" lol Yeah, I like the "I know you're half-listening and are going to lie to yourselves, you partisan fucks" jabs Raskin's throwing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:41
|
|
|
I have a question: are the managers allowed to address specific Senators by name? Or is that, like, not within their purview because the Senators couldn't respond?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I have a question: are the managers allowed to address specific Senators by name? Or is that, like, not within their purview because the Senators couldn't respond? I suspect they would have to be called as witnesses to be directly questioned and cross-examined.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:44
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I suspect they would have to be called as witnesses to be directly questioned and cross-examined. Well I don't mean necessarily that it would be a dialogue. I mean is Raskin allowed to say "Mr. Cruz you said such and such on this date"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I suspect they would have to be called as witnesses to be directly questioned and cross-examined. Isn't that the section of the trial that happens after the Defense does their BS, assuming they don't move straight to voting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Well I don't mean necessarily that it would be a dialogue. I mean is Raskin allowed to say "Mr. Cruz you said such and such on this date"? They've quoted other Senators (notably Mike Lee) based on press accounts. "Mr. Cruz, I'm told you said..." is hearsay and not admissible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
biracial bear for uncut posted:Isn't that the section of the trial that happens after the Defense does their BS, assuming they don't move straight to voting? O poo poo you are right. There will be question time potentially.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They've quoted other Senators (notably Mike Lee) based on press accounts. This isn't a court of law and doesn't have any legal threshold for evidence. That said, it would just give Rs another out to use if they want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:47
|
|
|
Murgos posted:This isn't a court of law and doesn't have any legal threshold for evidence. Yes, but it would start a shitshow. Said Senator would object and they'd have to hash it out. We saw last night when Lee objected, they just withdrew the evidence. Polarizing the opposition and solidifying their defiance isn't a good strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Sounds like they'll be done presenting within the next 40 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I suspect they would have to be called as witnesses to be directly questioned and cross-examined. And congresspeople are protected by the constitution from being forced to testify in congress, so they would be able to refuse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
I hope there's a secret cabal of senators who will vote yes. It would be a certain political death sentence (also a personal hell as we've seen what Trump supporters are capable of) but goddamn I would actually respect a republican for once. I know that's why it won't happen but it's a beautiful fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:I'm getting worried about them wrapping up in their final five hours. They have to tie this back to Trump incitement. (And personally I think it needs to be different than the repeat phone images we've been seeing from the violence.) It seems like Neguse is attempting to handle that now, and I feel like he’s doing a pretty decent job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Maerlyn posted:I hope there's a secret cabal of senators who will vote yes. It would be a certain political death sentence (also a personal hell as we've seen what Trump supporters are capable of) but goddamn I would actually respect a republican for once. I know that's why it won't happen but it's a beautiful fantasy. I'm sorry to say that I expect you will be disappointed. If we set the over/under at 6.5 republican senators voting to convict I would take the under.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
I'm sure it's been discussed and I missed it ,but... Is a secret ballot a possibility? Would a conviction be any more likely if it were?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I have a question: are the managers allowed to address specific Senators by name? Or is that, like, not within their purview because the Senators couldn't respond? https://www.senate.gov/visiting/common/generic/Senate_in_session.htm quote:In the vice president’s absence, the president pro tempore -- who is generally, but not always, the most senior member of the majority party -- presides or designates other senators from the majority party to take the chair. Senators must direct all remarks to the presiding officer, whom they address as “Mr. President” or “Madam President.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I'm sorry to say that I expect you will be disappointed. You know what, I'm gonna take the over on that, against my better judgment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:06
|
|
|
This guy keeps sounding like he is 3 seconds away from tears.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
mdemone posted:O poo poo you are right. There will be question time potentially.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I'm sure it's been discussed and I missed it ,but... I recall in the first impeachment trial (lol) that the possibility of a secret ballot was discussed and no one seemed to think it couldn't be done. Someone would have to request it and it would require a majority vote, I think. Rather than jumping right in on the conviction though they should warm it up on some less impactfull stuff first to see how the wind is blowing. Like a resolution to request trump answer written questions from the senators or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:12
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I'm sure it's been discussed and I missed it ,but... I'm sure the QAnon folks would be completely persuaded if Trump were convicted on a secret ballot. I don't really see the point of a secret ballot. It would undermine accountability and transparency. No one would admit to voting to convict. A huge conspiracy theory would erupt around Pat Leahy as if he were the only one who knew the outcome. Given the current narrative of a corrupt bureaucracy stealing the election, I see nothing positive coming from it at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
generic one posted:It seems like Neguse is attempting to handle that now, and I feel like he’s doing a pretty decent job. Tech trick reminder: On a live stream you can pause then play it back above speed 1.0 and it will eventually catch up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Looking forward to it. I'm about 35min behind due to work meetings. Not on C-Span. It'll jump straight to the current moment when you un-pause if it's LIVE. Watching on the from the beginning tab lets you skip around though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
It's laughable that Schoen is commenting on the Managers' case when he's not even there to listen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Maerlyn posted:I hope there's a secret cabal of senators who will vote yes. It would be a certain political death sentence (also a personal hell as we've seen what Trump supporters are capable of) but goddamn I would actually respect a republican for once. I know that's why it won't happen but it's a beautiful fantasy. lol. while i think we will get more than we expected. the GOP is too loving rotten at this point. the rot started in 68 and got worse from there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 22:28
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:lol. while i think we will get more than we expected. the GOP is too loving rotten at this point. the rot started in 68 and got worse from there. In a lot of ways Trump has already been marginalized. There was a national election and the Republicans lost the House, Senate and Presidency. Trump got 46% of the vote in 2016 and he got 46% of the vote in 2020. So, if you are a republican politician (and not one of the True Believers), does it make sense to jeopardize yourself to make a moral stand? Or do you play the odds and slink away under the table and just hope he really is done? I hope that they can find it in themselves to show history that actions have consequences but I'm not going to hold my breath.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
In order to see balanced views, I'm catching up elsewhere. One correspondent thought they should have closed by tying directly to Sicknick and was confused by the closing references. (And they would have been offended if they had closed with more screaming videos.) It interesting to hear the anchors on these networks that can't even ask a concise question to the correspondents. Meanwhile, "emotion substituting for high crimes,... defense lawyers focusing more on the legal arguments". "I think this is a winnable case (for the prosecution), but dereliction of duty isn't in the article... but they can't prove incitement". "They can't prove Trump intended violence". "I think it's a confused presentation,... wasn't thought through". Sad I'll fall behind tomorrow due to meetings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:52 |
|
|
Murgos posted:In a lot of ways Trump has already been marginalized. There was a national election and the Republicans lost the House, Senate and Presidency. Trump got 46% of the vote in 2016 and he got 46% of the vote in 2020. i think the issue (for them) is he holds sway of the party base and the various gribbles who came out for him and got him over the finish line and rhey know if they decide to finish it, their asses are gone and get primaried, they are probably gonna get primaries anyway. its far from over with the trumpists even if trump himself strokes out before 2024. i am just hoping the trumpists cost the GOP seats and poo poo in 2022.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2021 23:39
|
|