America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,010 comments
  • 1,484,712 views
NotThePrez
Ah, not sure how I missed that. :lol:

Still, seems like a rather...brave move. Since The House controls the impeachment process, the White House is (as far as I can tell) actually committing obstruction, which is itself an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...
IMO, it'll all be resolved in court and take months unless the House commits bravely to taking a vote. Right now they appear timid and non-committal, hiding behind Schiff.
 
Chrunch Houston
She took it upon herself to open this "impeachment inquiry", or whatever the hell it is. In the Clinton case the Judiciary Committee voted. That gave them, and the White House subpoena power.

Nothing in law has changed from a month ago until today, even with Nancy's proclamation. This whole thing is just a bunch of BS. It is a circus to placate the lefty loons.

Then let them vote.
Click to expand...


Here you go

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html
During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.

But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.
Click to expand...

They're not voting because they don't need to.

However, I'm fascinated by your immediate uptake of the republican talking points, which seem to have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Trump actually did attempt to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival - an allegation that has been following Trump around since before he took office. I absolutely love that your main point here is that somehow Pelosi didn't follow procedure (looks like she did), and not at all that your guy may have attempted to bribe foreign governments into helping him win the next election, and then effectively said he'd like to execute the whistleblower that point out this impropriety (obstruction), refuses to comply (obstruction), accused Pelosi of treason (obstruction), and already was obstructing in the previous Russia investigation.

But no, let's ignore all that stuff, let's ignore the US President joking about killing people that would inform the public about his misdeeds and focus on a congressional procedural point. That seems prudent.
 
Danoff
Here you go



They're not voting because they don't need to.

However, I'm fascinated by your immediate uptake of the republican talking points, which seem to have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Trump actually did attempt to get a foreign government to investigate a political rival - an allegation that has been following Trump around since before he took office. I absolutely love that your main point here is that somehow Pelosi didn't follow procedure (looks like she did), and not at all that your guy may have attempted to bribe foreign governments into helping him win the next election, and then effectively said he'd like to execute the whistleblower that point out this impropriety (obstruction), refuses to comply (obstruction), accused Pelosi of treason (obstruction), and already was obstructing in the previous Russia investigation.

But no, let's ignore all that stuff, let's ignore the US President joking about killing people that would inform the public about his misdeeds and focus on a congressional procedural point. That seems prudent.
Click to expand...
Dude, calm down. Just let them vote.
 
Chrunch Houston
They can call it whatever they want, but whatever this is, it is not impeachment.
Click to expand...

It’s an impeachment inquiry. The actual impeachment is when they make the decision to take him to trial in the senate. At this stage they are merely collecting evidence.
 
Dotini
IMO, it'll all be resolved in court and take months unless the House commits bravely to taking a vote. Right now they appear timid and non-committal, hiding behind Schiff.
Click to expand...

As @Danoff has mentioned/alluded to, the House is being non-commital because they're still in the evidence collection phase to determine if taking the president to court is worthwhile. The president, however, keeps on making decisions that make the House's lives a lot easier on that front.
 
I know that the primary focus of the impeachment investigation will be the President's (and his subordinates') interaction with the Ukraine, and Biden's interaction with the Ukraine - and I think that's the proper thing to do in this case. But far more disturbing to me in general is the President insinuating the execution of the whistleblower would be appropriate (smarter, I believe is how he characterized it). And then accusing Pelosi of treason (another thinly veiled death threat). His comment about civil war is similar. It's quite disturbing to see the POTUS threatening the lives of his opponents - for so many reasons, but one of which is the ultimate dehumanization of "the other side", which is exactly what they'll do in return. It's yet another way that Trump lowers the standard for discourse.

The obvious concern is that it is intended to have a chilling effect on any criticisms of our supreme, wise leader. Which is in and of itself an abuse of power and a corruption of the office.

These last few weeks have been a new low... again.
 
Danoff
I know that the primary focus of the impeachment investigation will be the President's (and his subordinates') interaction with the Ukraine, and Biden's interaction with the Ukraine - and I think that's the proper thing to do in this case. But far more disturbing to me in general is the President insinuating the execution of the whistleblower would be appropriate (smarter, I believe is how he characterized it). And then accusing Pelosi of treason (another thinly veiled death threat). His comment about civil war is similar. It's quite disturbing to see the POTUS threatening the lives of his opponents - for so many reasons, but one of which is the ultimate dehumanization of "the other side", which is exactly what they'll do in return. It's yet another way that Trump lowers the standard for discourse.

The obvious concern is that it is intended to have a chilling effect on any criticisms of our supreme, wise leader. Which is in and of itself an abuse of power and a corruption of the office.

These last few weeks have been a new low... again.
Click to expand...
And we still have so long for him to say "hold my beer." What does that say about US society though, that such a person can become elected president?
 
Rallywagon
And we still have so long for him to say "hold my beer." What does that say about US society though, that such a person can become elected president?
Click to expand...

Well he wasn't doing all of this when he was elected. There was still a good level of benefit of the doubt being extended to him, his behavior has been deteriorating through his presidency (as he has been getting more and more comfortable). I don't think he could get elected now. But we shall see. Choice affirmation bias is a big deal, and a lot of people are so personally invested in defending their vote that they'll vote blindly again, despite a lot of new information.
 
Rallywagon
And we still have so long for him to say "hold my beer." What does that say about US society though, that such a person can become elected president?
Click to expand...
We are a society of laws, not of men. Otherwise, we would immediately kill anybody who angers or threatens us.

Though the wheels of justice grind slow, they grind exceedingly fine.
 
Danoff
Well he wasn't doing all of this when he was elected. There was still a good level of benefit of the doubt being extended to him, his behavior has been deteriorating through his presidency (as he has been getting more and more comfortable). I don't think he could get elected now. But we shall see. Choice affirmation bias is a big deal, and a lot of people are so personally invested in defending their vote that they'll vote blindly again, despite a lot of new information.
Click to expand...

I think the narrative needs to switch from "only deplorables vote for Trump!" to "Donald Trump does not deserve your vote, you are better than him". But people are going to do what people are going to do. If he is this reckless and vindictive while also trying to win reelection, can you imagine how bad he would be if he won again? A Lame Duck Donald would be a scary thing indeed.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
If he is this reckless and vindictive while also trying to win reelection, can you imagine how bad he would be if he won again?
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think that the lack of impeachment over obstruction outlined in the Mueller report emboldened him. And I think re-election might be enough to make him start acting out on his worst statements.
 
Danoff
Agreed. I think that the lack of impeachment over obstruction outlined in the Mueller report emboldened him.
Click to expand...

We admire lots of fearless, sometimes reckless people who are driven to win no matter what the cost. Those people make legendary footballers, race car drivers, mountain climbers, skydivers and so on.

In a senior politician (arguably the most senior politician) with the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people in their hands it's a horrible trait to see in action. I'm not an American but I still feel strongly that Trump disgraces the seal of his office and actively betrays the trust that people inside and outside America necessarily put in him.
 
Last edited:
Dotini
Sensationally good news! Pence is to release his own phone calls with Ukraine in an attempt to support Trump. This means both can be removed from office and ipso facto Pelosi is President!

https://apnews.com/e48c28cf0625430fa829431df3872ead
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Out of interest, is the Anne Sacoolas case getting much airtime in the US? She's the wife of a diplomatic officer who killed a 19 year old motorcyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road. She was interviewed at the scene and said in her statement that she had no plans to leave the country. She's left the country and is back in the US. Her husband's diplomatic protection is preventing an application for her extradition... as far as I recall the USA has never waived diplomatic immunity?
 
Wouldn't be the first time someone with such status broke the law and simply left the country.

It's purely anecdotal evidence but living in a small capital city, I've heard plenty of stories of similar things happening; drink driving, drug driving, crashed cars, xyz. I'm sure death by dangerous driving has also been swept under the rug all over the world.
 
Liquid
Wouldn't be the first time someone with such status broke the law and simply left the country.

It's purely anecdotal evidence but living in a small capital city, I've heard plenty of stories of similar things happening; drink driving, drug driving, crashed cars, xyz. I'm sure death by dangerous driving has also been swept under the rug all over the world.
Click to expand...

Last year in the US there were ~39k motor vehicle deaths, not including animals or pedestrians. Human factors are by far the leading cause. No news here.
 
Dotini
Last year in the US there were ~39k motor vehicle deaths, not including animals or pedestrians. Human factors are by far the leading cause. No news here.
Click to expand...

I was talking specifically about incidents where the suspect had diplomatic immunity.
 
Liquid
I was talking specifically about incidents where the suspect had diplomatic immunity.
Click to expand...
Oh! I think there was case from a few years ago some drunken Saudis killed someone. And I think in NYC where the UN is located, world diplomats en masse receive routine immunity from all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors.
 
TenEightyOne
Out of interest, is the Anne Sacoolas case getting much airtime in the US?
Click to expand...

I first heard about it on overnight BBC America radio. Other than that, I haven't noticed it. But I haven't searched for it either. Traffic accidents aren't really news, nor is diplomatic immunity. When you multiply the two together, it is almost zero. Neither are popular.
 
TenEightyOne
Out of interest, is the Anne Sacoolas case getting much airtime in the US? She's the wife of a diplomatic officer who killed a 19 year old motorcyclist by driving on the wrong side of the road. She was interviewed at the scene and said in her statement that she had no plans to leave the country. She's left the country and is back in the US. Her husband's diplomatic protection is preventing an application for her extradition... as far as I recall the USA has never waived diplomatic immunity?
Click to expand...

FWIW, it was front page news on CNN (I think) yesterday. I no longer see it front page but it's there...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/uk/harry-dunn-parents-us-diplomat-crash-gbr-intl/index.html
 
Dotini
I first heard about it on overnight BBC America radio. Other than that, I haven't noticed it. But I haven't searched for it either. Traffic accidents aren't really news, nor is diplomatic immunity. When you multiply the two together, it is almost zero. Neither are popular.
Click to expand...

Diplomatic immunity isn't news if the person is trying to get out of a speeding ticket or being caught with a prostitute. It is news when someone is claiming diplomatic immunity after killing someone because they're a massive idiot behind the wheel of a car...I mean I drove in the UK, I'm not sure how you end up on the wrong side of the road if you're paying the slightest bit of attention.

@TenEightyOne while the story is making rounds, it's not the main focus of one of the 24-hour news networks. It did show up on ABC World News tonight though and my Google New feed does have links to various stories regarding it.

Apparently Trump has even weighed in on it implying that these things happen and said he wants to work something out. But because our glorious leader is grossly incompetent with intel, someone took a picture of Trump's secret notes that he was waiving around in the open:



It looks like the US has no plans to extradite or really do anything. So, essentially, Sacoolas is getting away with vehicular manslaughter with zero repercussions.
 
TenEightyOne
We admire lots of fearless, sometimes reckless people who are driven to win no matter what the cost. Those people make legendary footballers, race car drivers, mountain climbers, skydivers and so on.
Click to expand...
Sometimes even elite championship drivers and climbers make mistakes which take the lives of others yet they sometimes still live, and legal efforts have been made to hold them accountable. Tony Stewart made a dumb mistake when he ran down a driver standing in front of him shaking his fist. And he answered for it in court. There's a local case at law in which a commercially guided climbing expedition ended in mass death.

If a diplomat with immunity is found responsible for causing harm, damages should be paid by the nation of the offending diplomat.
 
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
We admire lots of fearless, sometimes reckless people who are driven to win no matter what the cost. Those people make legendary footballers, race car drivers, mountain climbers, skydivers and so on.

In a senior politician (arguably the most senior politician) with the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of millions of people in their hands it's a horrible trait to see in action. I'm not an American but I still feel strongly that Trump disgraces the seal of his office and actively betrays the trust that people inside and outside America necessarily put in him.
Click to expand...

I think we admire fearless people who are driven to succeed when the price they pay to do so is personal. I can't think of many people who have succeeded at no personal cost but great cost to others who are held in universally high regard. It's why business titans like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have at best a mixed reception.

I'd say most people who make it to being president have to be driven to a similar level; the sheer amount of work that has to go into it must make it nearly life consuming. But as always, there's a sliding scale. You can have people who are capable of doing awful things but are at least generally intending to work for the benefit of the community at large. And you can have people who are moral sinkholes who would punt a baby down a well if they thought there was a buck (or a vote) in it.

The difficulty of a president (or any leader) is that the person must be tough enough to make decisions that will legitimately have negative impacts when they believe that it's for the greater good, but be empathetic enough to keep fighting for that greater good and keep the common man in sight at all times. It's a rare combination, and clearly the process fails spectacularly sometimes. Sometimes it fails to give you any appropriate candidates at all.
 

Latest Posts

Back