Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

EricHiggin said:

Metaphors. Not for everyone.

Then why don't you stop using them.  While you are at it why don't you stop using those really bad analogies as well.  I know you believe you are getting your point across but you really are not and only confusing your statements.



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:
Oh, I forgot to give you a key highlight from the Mueller testimony before Congress.

Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican, asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller answered, “Yes.”

Mueller said a lot of things, some that contradicted his report that were pointed out in his final hearing that he used the same excuses over and over to ignore it, if he even remembered it.

After he's left office? After? What he did before he even took office was so bad, that they have to wait until 2024 possibly to get him? It's not like he's gone underground. One day I'll be a star.

You seem to forget who is in charge of the Justice department at this time.  Who exactly would charge the president while he is in office.  I guess you really wasn't paying attention or just ignored the parts you thought were inconvenient to your opinion.



EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:
Oh, I forgot to give you a key highlight from the Mueller testimony before Congress.

Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican, asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller answered, “Yes.”

Mueller said a lot of things, some that contradicted his report that were pointed out in his final hearing that he used the same excuses over and over to ignore it, if he even remembered it.

After he's left office? After? What he did before he even took office was so bad, that they have to wait until 2024 possibly to get him? It's not like he's gone underground. One day I'll be a star.

The department of justice has a policy that sitting presidents cannot be indicted with crimes.



...

SuperRetroTurbo said:
If anyone would like to discuss the US' judicial system, I'm all ears.

I was having a conversation this morning about it. At the end of the day, it's corrupt but to what extent?

Every time I read something like this I laugh.  A system ran by humans is corrupted to some extent? NO WAY!!  I don't mean to demean those who post this or who have real concerns, but seriously can we just be happy that our system is not a total waste of human life?  I hate to except this level of ability, but when dealing with 300 million plus people in a country you can only hope to be better than shitty and I think we are less then shitty... maybe even kind of OK.



They are all kind of trashy... I mean who do you trust even a little bit?  Do you trust something who suddenly believes something they use to not believe in?  Do you trust someone who thinks a system that has killed hundreds of millions is a good idea?  This is really about finding someone who wont screw things up to bad till a real leader shows up.



Around the Network
konnichiwa said:

I learned today that affordable housing basically not exist in some areas (not really news) but I came accross this picture.

By some considered as a poor house in the bay, it is not really for the poor but for people who can't buy a house or rent app/house in the bay area.

How much does it cost for a bed and stay for a month?  1200$ a month.  Expectations are that the price can go up to 2.000$/month in five years yikes.

Whoever owns that place is really making a killing. 1200 Dollar just for such a bedspace? Even prices for simple bedrooms in Luxembourg are not that high



Bofferbrauer2 said:
konnichiwa said:

I learned today that affordable housing basically not exist in some areas (not really news) but I came accross this picture.

By some considered as a poor house in the bay, it is not really for the poor but for people who can't buy a house or rent app/house in the bay area.

How much does it cost for a bed and stay for a month?  1200$ a month.  Expectations are that the price can go up to 2.000$/month in five years yikes.

Whoever owns that place is really making a killing. 1200 Dollar just for such a bedspace? Even prices for simple bedrooms in Luxembourg are not that high

It's pretty insane.  $1200 would probably get me a 4 bedroom apartment here.  



the-pi-guy said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Whoever owns that place is really making a killing. 1200 Dollar just for such a bedspace? Even prices for simple bedrooms in Luxembourg are not that high

It's pretty insane.  $1200 would probably get me a 4 bedroom apartment here.  

where I live you can easily have a 4 bedroom home for that amount a month.  Anyway my dad had a house in the bay area so that price doesn't surprise me.  He was living in a very small house and it costed about 350K and that was 7 years ago so I am sure the property value is much higher now.



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Yes, humans get to choose when they criticize something. Like, what?

By all means, feel free to rebut criticism whenever you feel like it, but it seems like most of your defenses have been just awful. Like, comparing Trump's comments to a restaurant review. That is bad. That is real bad. 

That is the problem with most defenses of Trump. They are often real bad. Like, you brought up the whole Russia Report not too long ago. You know, the report which outlined numerous examples of Obstruction of Justice and said a lot of things that look reaaal bad for the president. Defenses seem to either be "Obstruction of Justice is totally cool, guys", "Yeah, but what about something else" or "TOTALLY EXONERATED. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO."

You can feel free to come to whatever opinion you desire, but it isn't some sort of conspiracy when other look at those bad arguments and go "Oh. That right there is a bad argument. Huh.". If your stupid-o-meter isn't going off from this shit almost every day than you should probably get that checked out because either it is busted, or you are part of the stupid problems.

You mean like Dave Ruben? His "stupid-o-meter" went off years ago and now he finds himself siding with Trump or conservatives quite often, oddly enough. Is the meter malfunctioning? Has it been calibrated lately? Why are so many subscribing to his show?

Yes.

Dave Rubin is an idiot.

I'm not really sure why you thought that was a good argument.

Why does he have so many subscribers? I mean, asking that question at all is a bit of a logical fallacy by way of "Appeal to Popularity", but I'll briefly try to answer it. People like being told what they want to hear. That's all Dave Rubin's show is. It is not a "Battle of Ideas", it is him repeatedly spoon-feeding you the same empty, regurgitated talking points over and over again, often from the mouth of some other bottom feeding urchin like Stefan Molyneux.

Here's the first video in a three hour long video series on why The Rubin Report is terrible if you feel like killing an afternoon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3TPxQao3m0



EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:
Oh, I forgot to give you a key highlight from the Mueller testimony before Congress.

Rep. Ken Buck, a Republican, asked: “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?”
Mueller answered, “Yes.”

1). Mueller said a lot of things, some that contradicted his report that were pointed out in his final hearing that he used the same excuses over and over to ignore it, if he even remembered it.

2). After he's left office? After? What he did before he even took office was so bad, that they have to wait until 2024 possibly to get him? It's not like he's gone underground. One day I'll be a star.

1). He didn't contradict anything in his report at the testimony.  Unless you can expressly identify it, I'm calling you out.

2). You might want to read the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel 1973 memo titled "Amenability of the President, Vice President, and other Civil Officers to Federal Criminal Prosecution while in Office" or the 2000 memo titled "“A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution”.  But since I already know you won't look it up, I'll conveniently post a few quotes from the 2000 memo below for you to ignore.

"In 1973, the Department concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive
branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions. We have been asked to summarize and review the analysis provided in support of that conclusion, and
to consider whether any subsequent developments in the law lead us today to reconsider and modify or disavow that determination.1 We believe that the conclusion reached by the Department in 1973 still represents the best interpretation of the Constitution."

"In 1973, this Department concluded that a grand jury should not be permitted to indict a sitting President even if all subsequent proceedings were postponed
until after the President left office."

"[W]e believe the better view is the one advanced by the Department in 1973: a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process."

"In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded tat the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers. No court has addressed this question directly, but the judicial precedents that bear on the continuing validity of our constitutional analysis are consistent with both the analytic approach taken and the conclusions reached. Our view remains that a sitting President is constitutionally immune from indictment and criminal prosecution.


RANDOLPH D. MOSS
Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel"

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 12 September 2019

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."