Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem
 Share

Recommended Posts

And they backpedaled in exchange to get the statement about the call on record.

Expect acquittal today I guess.

For the record, as much it feels it could be doom and gloom out of this, even taking into account this trial was heading into acquittal anyway, this is not the end of things. New York and Georgia will still press charges against Trump over the taxes and the SoS call. The 14th Amendment can still be called to strip Trump's ability to seek reelection. So, this ain't over just yet.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, Armchair General said:

Since when was math racist?

 

Because a schools district in Oregon is changing their curriculum to be more inclusive and I'm having trouble wrapping my head around it. I mean, they expect kids to come with at least two answers because "finding the right one" is offensive or something; where the average math problem is essentially hit or miss.

I never thought that math could be racist. I also never thought that I would say that.

Things like math and science require precise answers and calculations. In a school setting, if you get a problem wrong, you can learn from your mistakes and correct yourself for similar problems later on. Anywhere else, like with accounting, if anything is remotely off, it'll lead to huge repercussions. Some math problems can have multiple solutions, but those are rare and usually pretty specific when it comes to those multiple solutions.

Even so, how would someone argue for 2+2 having a logically different answer than 4 (meaning that fish doesn't count as an answer)? If a kid solves the problem with the "correct" answer, will they be marked as wrong because of it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t really care about the math thing. They’re alternative learning strategies that most students will never have to worry about let alone know exist, but now that Fox News has gotten ahold of it I’m sure conservatives will lather themselves into a frothing frenzy over it. So thanks for doing your part in that, I guess.

As for the impeachment trial, they really should have called witnesses and made this as painful as possible for Republicans. But I always expect Democrats to stop just short of throwing the full punch for really dumb reasons, so whatever.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a double-edged sword anyway. The Republicans would stall and prolong the trial as long as possible, and delay the voting on stuff like the COVID Relief. Whether or not these matters could be tackled at the same time, the Republicans would refuse to do so, then blame Democrats for the delay.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure they will not continue to behave the way they always have from this point forward, now that we have given them what they wanted by not embarrassing them further in the trial.

Never have I wanted to jettison someone into the sun more than I do right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a consolation, that's the sort of statement that can be used to now bring down on Trump the 14th Amendment. Whether or not that's what McConnell wants with taking this course of action... or being his intention to do so.

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Crysta said:

What does the 14th have to do with anything?

The 14th is also a way to bar someone from running for office.

Section 3

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Emphasis mine. It only takes simple majority in both houses to pass. Super Majority is needed to overturn it. I don't intend to imply or outright state McConnel is trying some 4D chess move here, but notice how you need Bipartisanship to bar via impeachment, against doing so by the 14th Amendment. Most Republicans are afraid to lose Trump's cult of a voter base... so...

Again, I don't claim to know this is what they're aiming, but it'd make sense if they wanted to cut Trump loose without losing face with his voters. At least, those who want Trump gone from the party. They wouldn't do this while they still had Senate majority, but now they're the minority party...

Edited by Acacia Sgt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I don’t really care about the math thing. They’re alternative learning strategies that most students will never have to worry about let alone know exist, but now that Fox News has gotten ahold of it I’m sure conservatives will lather themselves into a frothing frenzy over it. So thanks for doing your part in that, thanks.

Sorry for giving my thoughts about it, then. I didn't want to leave his comment unheard.

Anyway, you're welcome! 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, indigoasis said:

Sorry for giving my thoughts about it, then. I didn't want to leave his comment unheard.

Anyway, you're welcome! 🙂

The best conversations are sometimes the ones that never start.

2 minutes ago, Acacia Sgt said:

The 14th is also a way to bar someone from running for office.

Section 3

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Emphasis mine. It only takes simple majority in both houses to pass. Super Majority is needed to overturn it. I don't intend to imply or outright state McConnel is trying some 4D chess move here, but notice how you need Bipartisanship to bar via impeachment, against doing so by the 14th Amendment. Most Republicans are afraid to lose Trump's cult of a voter base... so...

Again, I don't claim to know this is what they're aiming, but it'd make sense if they wanted to cut Trump loose without losing face with his voters. At least, those who want Trump gone from the party.

The fact that it's really not being talked about anywhere as an alternative leads me to believe there's probably a catch. Censure seems to be the only one they're seriously looking into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Crysta said:

The best conversations are sometimes the ones that never start.

I can agree with that.

~ ~ ~

Concerning censure, what exactly does it mean? The best I can gather is that, if Trump wanted to run for re-election, he'd get a firm "NO" and sent home with a slap on the wrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I figured, since that's exactly what Google said, but I wanted to be sure. For all I know, it could mean something entirely different in the context of the situation. Anyway, I guess it's just a metaphorical jester's hat.

It looks like Andrew Jackson was the only president (so far) to have been censured (but it was expunged, so whoop-de-doo). With that said, of Trump was censured, what are the chances that he'd be expunged? I wouldn't expect him to be, but I'm curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Sooks said:

What is expunging a censure?

Basically, what Crysta said. It can apply to more than just a censure, though. In law, it's essentially just removing a conviction from the records, acting as if it never happened. Shoblongoo could explain it better than I could.

~ ~ ~

I just figured out Trump got acquitted because they were 10 votes short, even though the votes were 57 guilty, 43 not guilty. This says to me that, since it was 100 votes (why did they need 110?), he's exactly 57% guilty. Can't wait to see that statistic in history books.

Edited by indigoasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Absolutely no reason why witnesses shouldn't have been called.

It wouldn't have mattered. The Republicans that voted against a guilty verdict would have done exactly the same even if witnesses were called.

Edited by NinjaMonkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned before, prolonging the trial would be something the Republican would cling to to keep trying to discredit the Democrats. They already kept repeating the trial was unconstitutional despite how erroneous that statement is, so adding "they kept focusing on this sham of a witch hunt instead of actually doing their jobs" would be just more fuel to the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

It wouldn't have mattered. The Republicans that voted against a guilty verdict would have done exactly the same, even if witnesses were called.

It's not necessarily about the outcome, that's a given that acquittal was going to happen not matter what was done. Not calling witnesses establishes a bad precedent for this sort of thing and you don't want either party to get away with an acquittal without allowing witness a second time.

The Republicans would never allow someone to get away like Trump has with no witnesses being called and thus, the Democrats should've put the same amount of pressure. They're being too soft on the Republicans when they should be putting on the pressure to make them behave more properly. Their insistence on denying accountability on Trump needs to be with a drive to sink them instead of letting them "sink or swim". 

But of course I'm biased on the subject as I want both parties to cease, starting with the Republican party.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really disagree with the overall sentiment, but that's a dumb headline when you acknowledge victory was never possible in the first place lol

EDIT: I'm assuming the author thought it was possible, in which I have to wonder if they've been paying attention at all

we really need to stop worrying about what the republicans might do and blame dems for and start operating like we're living in a reality that clearly shows that if republicans control the house and senate in 2024, there’s no way a victorious democrat will be certified and allowed to take office

i'm really surprised that hasn't seemed to sunk in yet

 

 

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...