-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliEra 2020 |OT 2| Dershowitz says "Quid Pro Quo on the Go?" [See Staff Post]
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Comically evil administration. Your country has really gone to shit these last few years, guys.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/16114628/harveyatkin.jpeg)
You know, I didn't see the Dershowitz quote live and thought it could charitably interpreted in context as saying the president can do things that are both in the public interest, but also happen to improve his election chances.
but no! There is more to the quote, and he said EXACTLY what people are saying he said!
but no! There is more to the quote, and he said EXACTLY what people are saying he said!
So I am reading through an interview in German newspaper/magazine "Zeit" with Dershowitz:
- abuse of power is not grounds for impeachment
- on if he thinks Trump abused his power and put his personal interests above the country's: every president did that and some presidents abused their power in more serious matters: starting a war to secure re-election for instance
- "I don't know Mick Mulvaney", on the question of whether this is basically Mulv's "Get over it"
- lying on oath, bribery (with money, probably doesn't consider aid to be money) would be examples where reps would be open to impeachment
- is pro bono
- critics of his beliefs are partisan and hypocrits
- on the 180 in regards to Clinton's impeachment (abuse of power is grounds for impeachment): changed my mind based on historical documents, esp. Curtis' defense of Johnson
- is a never Sanderser
What a grifter.
- abuse of power is not grounds for impeachment
- on if he thinks Trump abused his power and put his personal interests above the country's: every president did that and some presidents abused their power in more serious matters: starting a war to secure re-election for instance
- "I don't know Mick Mulvaney", on the question of whether this is basically Mulv's "Get over it"
- lying on oath, bribery (with money, probably doesn't consider aid to be money) would be examples where reps would be open to impeachment
- is pro bono
- critics of his beliefs are partisan and hypocrits
- on the 180 in regards to Clinton's impeachment (abuse of power is grounds for impeachment): changed my mind based on historical documents, esp. Curtis' defense of Johnson
- is a never Sanderser
What a grifter.
This unironically won Sanders vote for me. No way can I caucus with non-Indian food lovers.
the fuck do we need landmines for? are we having trouble killing enough people?
We're never going to be killing enough brown people to satisfy Trump.
The GOP has made their bed with Trump, there's no sneaking out in the middle of the night now.
Check to see which members of the administration just made huge investments in the prosthetic limb industry.
This is the best way to curry favor with me, too. With Medicare for All I should finally be able to get someone to put aloo on mysores.
Repubs are counting on the fact that they will retain the presidency in the general election. And they are probably are right, everything they do goes against the general consensus yet voters always reward them.
This is a fucked up system and like others have said I think we might need Sanders to win just because all sense of decorum is gone and there is clearly no fairness. If Sanders does win he should just abuse of the same system that trump is currently abusing but of course, for the right reasons. Fuck all republicans forever, evil worthless scum.
Ah, the Tulsi method.
Not voting in this case is worse because abstaining changes the outcome. It's a no vote without spine.
Honestly, if I was. D senator I'd call him on this today. Make him clean it up and either eat shit on TV or weaken the defense.
Well the Mexico wall fell over, so it's time to try something else.
Subscribing. We should start tweeting out that Roberts is definitely breaking a tie for witnesses so we get a nice Trump rage tweet today about Roberts. Just in time for votes tomorrow.
Trump was also claiming Mexico was paying for it last night which is objectively false. I assume his bizarre thinking was--we just signed the USMCA, so Mexico should be sending us more money, which will offset what taxpayer money we spent on the wall. Except that's not how any of that works and he sucks.
Did some research just to circle around at what I'm sure the DSCC already investigated.
Rev. Warnock not only supports LGBT rights, he acknowledges the role that religious communities have played in marginalizing LGBT folks:
He also advocated for LGBT after Obama came out for gay marriage:
Rev. Warnock not only supports LGBT rights, he acknowledges the role that religious communities have played in marginalizing LGBT folks:
He also advocated for LGBT after Obama came out for gay marriage:
This infighting + Warnock apparently being the best candidate possible is great to see. Still might not be enough, but it's clear we're doing the best we can for this election.
The burn it all down vote is out there and it's terrifying.
Fuck these clowns.
Dershowitz arguments are exhausting, incendiary takes. His goal is to exhaust the argument with garbage, not make sense to begin with.
By the time he's "clarified" his ridiculous arguments (at the expense of whining about you not comprehending the law), he has pivoted to making the next ridiculous statement.
Consider that line of his about being unhappy about Nixon being "tried by the blacks and liberals in D.C." He wanted to argue that the jury would be unfairly biased against Nixon, but said the quiet part loud.
He doesn't walk these garbage arguments back, he massages them into "acceptable" legal terms. He's the embodiment of the worst quality of lawyers.
By the time he's "clarified" his ridiculous arguments (at the expense of whining about you not comprehending the law), he has pivoted to making the next ridiculous statement.
Consider that line of his about being unhappy about Nixon being "tried by the blacks and liberals in D.C." He wanted to argue that the jury would be unfairly biased against Nixon, but said the quiet part loud.
He doesn't walk these garbage arguments back, he massages them into "acceptable" legal terms. He's the embodiment of the worst quality of lawyers.
Today I am filled with a deep sadness due to yesterday's events. Kids in cages, environmental de-regulation, ethics violations, and the litany of other issues with this administration are reprehensible enough, but yesterday's legal arguments amount to a direct attack on constitutional democracy's very foundation. And yet, during that attack Senators who have been charged with protecting the constitutional democracy nodded their head in agreement.
It is not hyperbolic anymore to be framing the 2020 election in terms of a democratic vs anti-democratic choice. The Republic is drifting down a road to totalitarianism and either it's happening too quickly for anyone to comprehend, or it's happening too slowly for people to see. Either way, there are darker days ahead.
It is not hyperbolic anymore to be framing the 2020 election in terms of a democratic vs anti-democratic choice. The Republic is drifting down a road to totalitarianism and either it's happening too quickly for anyone to comprehend, or it's happening too slowly for people to see. Either way, there are darker days ahead.
How do we solve this:
Why do we even need two chambers?
Just make House of Representatives have 4 year terms and split states into A representative and B representative like the senate and alternate elections
Why do we even need two chambers?
Just make House of Representatives have 4 year terms and split states into A representative and B representative like the senate and alternate elections
Dershowitz beginning to suck up all the airtime and twitter buzz, Trump will get pissed at that eventually, maybe in time for tonight's rally.
Newsom is an absolute lightweight at anything that demands leadership which is not shocking and also why his presidential run will be a failure.
That's where I am. Grew up under communism, and it hits closer to home than I'd like when my parents are falling for it, and my in-laws fail to see if because they are very successful boomers.
There's a lot of things that need to be fixed, I don't agree that simply getting rid of one chamber is either helpful or feasible.
A good place to start would be revisiting the permanent apportionment act and greatly increasing the number of Reps in the House from 435 to many hundreds more.
Apparently abiding by Constitutional law and the Oath of office are not part of that agreement.
- Status