Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Compel wrote:
That and one of the speakers during the ceremony actually talked about how it was raining...

Then there's the fact that Melania had an umbrella over her at one point. Must have been to keep the sun off...

I honestly don't think he'll be impeached. I don't exactly know how that works, not being American but it feels to me, being impeached would be tantamount to people in politics admitting they made a mistake. And that's not going to happen.

Getting shot... In all seriousness, dear God I hope that doesn't happen. Not *just* because of the whole 'political assassination isn't cool' thing. Or, well, assassination at all, generally speaking. But also and more-so, there's that whole martyr thing. That would just be terrible for the planet.

What I imagine is mostly likely (aside from us all dying in nuclear fire), is that after a year or so, he'll get bored and wander off. Or people in the party will encourage him to do so.

I might have even dreamed about it. "Hello everyone, I've come to you today to tell you I'm stepping down from President. Don't worry though, I love you guys, I love you guys, it's been a great honour but I set out to make America Great again and I've done my job. Now America's great, *insert made-up stats,* "but my family needs me, I want to spend time with them. Don't worry though, I leave you in Mike Pence's hands, as you know, he's a great guy, great guy. Top man, ace."

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"Crowd size" is the new "hand size"... innit?

When Trump lies out of his mouth, then yes it becomes a deal. When the POTUS lies within 24 hours of being inaugurated, a lie so stupid that anybody with a pair of eyes looking at a picture can see it, then it's a pretty good sign of something.

How many lies today so far? Record breaking crowds, great weather, never talked bad about the intelligence agencies.

Dunno... but he's sure going to be that "Here... hold my beer*" President for sure...

*he famously doesn't drink, so what is it?

...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.

For not liking Trump you are awesome at parroting his speech. #FakeNews, adversarial press.

Is this the same press that you and others claimed ignored Clinton in favor of Trump, despite having more negative stories on Clinton? The same lies about ignoring Obama during the 2012 election, despite having more negative stories on Obama than McCain?

Reporting truth does not make the press adversarial, just because you or Trump don't like the news.

And there are plenty of stories about the "adversarial press" and Obama.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/obama-media-romance-118521

Oh c'mon... you know there's a difference between 'Reporting that something happens' vs. 'let's spin this in a manner to mitigate the damages.'

Furthermore, the press has gone off the rails more often than not. Just last night, a reporter tweeted that the Winston Bust is back in the oval, but no sign of MLK's bust... which, he didn't see... that's incorrect, both busts are there. Yet, the media-circle-jerks are trying to make something of 'Trump takes out the MLK's bust... what does that mean??!?!"

Do mistake me... I'm glad that the press is going full-bore adversarial here... as they should.

 LordofHats wrote:
Part of me suspects Trump really might not be prepared for how difficult it is going to be to hide from cameras now. Even as a candidate there's a much better ability to avoid the press and media attention when you don't want it, especially in election season when all those cameras are as occupied with a dozen other people as they are with you.

I know "gaslighting" has to be the most overused word of 2016, but as long as he can simply come out and say "I've always done the exact opposite of what I've done, everybody else is just lying" because the people simply believe him there won't be any change.

Just look at the #NeverTrump folks flocking to his defense and repeating his arguments, even in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Compel wrote:
That and one of the speakers during the ceremony actually talked about how it was raining...

Then there's the fact that Melania had an umbrella over her at one point. Must have been to keep the sun off...

That makes Bush look even more stupid, wrangling that thing during the sunshine.

 Compel wrote:
I honestly don't think he'll be impeached. I don't exactly know how that works, not being American but it feels to me, being impeached would be tantamount to people in politics admitting they made a mistake. And that's not going to happen.

It essentially works like this:

The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.

If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.

If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.

For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.

Bill Clinton was impeached by the House... but, the Senate was unable to get to the 61st vote to remove him from office.

Getting shot... In all seriousness, dear God I hope that doesn't happen. Not *just* because of the whole 'political assassination isn't cool' thing. Or, well, assassination at all, generally speaking. But also and more-so, there's that whole martyr thing. That would just be terrible for the planet.

Yeah... don't wish that in any case.

What I imagine is mostly likely (aside from us all dying in nuclear fire), is that after a year or so, he'll get bored and wander off. Or people in the party will encourage him to do so.

I might have even dreamed about it. "Hello everyone, I've come to you today to tell you I'm stepping down from President. Don't worry though, I love you guys, I love you guys, it's been a great honour but I set out to make America Great again and I've done my job. Now America's great, *insert made-up stats,* "but my family needs me, I want to spend time with them. Don't worry though, I leave you in Mike Pence's hands, as you know, he's a great guy, great guy. Top man, ace."

Nah... he's a narcissist with a massive alpha ego. He won't willing step down.

He is 70 years old though... so, his health may be a factor.

 LordofHats wrote:
Part of me suspects Trump really might not be prepared for how difficult it is going to be to hide from cameras now. Even as a candidate there's a much better ability to avoid the press and media attention when you don't want it, especially in election season when all those cameras are as occupied with a dozen other people as they are with you.

Now there's just him. No one else.

This!

This is going to be what I'm watching. He's a narcissistic, thin-skinned bully who's operated in a bubble surrounded by his sycophantic family that rely completely upon him for their livelihood and has shown that he has not a shred of tolerance for anyone who says "peep" out of line with him, his views or his positions. Now, he's going to be under the biggest of microscopes on the biggest of stages. He's the oldest POTUS ever to be sworn in, he's got a penchant for junk food, looks eminently out of shape and pasty, and I have absolutely no doubt that he has no idea of the degree of pressure he's about to experience in this job. I truly cannot stand this individual. He is repugnant to me on so many levels. But as a human being I do worry about how this will affect him and as an American, I worry about how his response to this adversity and pressure will affect our country and the world.

Well then...

I guess his son-in-law is going to have a WH position after all...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-transition-jared-kushner-hillary-clinton-precedent-231577

THere's a distinction between appointees heading an agency vs. WH positions? o.O

Looks bad...

 Compel wrote:
I honestly don't think he'll be impeached. I don't exactly know how that works, not being American but it feels to me, being impeached would be tantamount to people in politics admitting they made a mistake. And that's not going to happen.

Here the Impeachment process is so rigorous it's only been carried out fifteen times successfully. All fifteen successfully impeached persons were court judges, with the highest ranking one being Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. No elected official has ever been successfully impeached if only because they either retired, or ended up leaving office before the process was completed. Nixon probably would have been impeached, but he resigned before the process could really get going.

Trump won't be impeached for the simple reason that I don't think the Republicans can back out of him now. The House is integral to the process, and the Republicans aren't going to lose the House anytime soon imo. EDIT: Besides, I think there's a certain attitude in the party that the White House is best for them when it distracts from their shenanigans in the legislature. The Republicans don't care about having an effective executive.

 whembly wrote:
Well then...

I guess his son-in-law is going to have a WH position after all...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-transition-jared-kushner-hillary-clinton-precedent-231577

THere's a distinction between appointees heading an agency vs. WH positions? o.O

Looks bad...

I was fairly certain that was established during the Clinton presidency, but I might have been mistaken.

And while I was typing I read the link, and that was what I was thinking off.

Can impeachment be filed while an impeachment is on-going?

 LordofHats wrote:

Trump won't be impeached for the simple reason that I don't think the Republicans can back out of him now. The House is integral to the process, and the Republicans aren't going to lose the House anytime soon imo.

If he is impeached, then Pence would take over I think.

Which makes it more likely that the Republicans might get "their" guy into the Oval Office after all.

So... Trump really does not know how to spell honor (or even the correct spelling, "honour" )

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/donald-trump-posts-embarrassing-spelling-9668453

 Compel wrote:
Can impeachment be filed while an impeachment is on-going?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Do mean can someone be impeached twice at the same time? I'm just confused by the wording XD


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
So... Trump really does not know how to spell honor (or even the correct spelling, "honour" )

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/donald-trump-posts-embarrassing-spelling-9668453

The number of gaffes today is just unpresidented

 LordofHats wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Can impeachment be filed while an impeachment is on-going?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Do mean can someone be impeached twice at the same time? I'm just confused by the wording XD

I figured he meant something like:

If the Senate is currently doing their bit for an impeachment for X, can the House begin an impeachment process for Y.

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Can impeachment be filed while an impeachment is on-going?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Do mean can someone be impeached twice at the same time? I'm just confused by the wording XD

I figured he meant something like:

If the Senate is currently doing their bit for an impeachment for X, can the House begin an impeachment process for Y.

Oh.

The Impeachment process is laid out in Article II Section IV. A member of the Senate can present charges for impeachment, but the Senate doesn't have the power to begin the process proper. Only the House of Representatives can begin the impeachment process. Technically speaking just about anyone can bring charges for impeachment. The House initiates impeachment and determines the charges that will be heard, and the Senate then conducts the "trial" process of impeachment.

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Can impeachment be filed while an impeachment is on-going?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Do mean can someone be impeached twice at the same time? I'm just confused by the wording XD

I figured he meant something like:

If the Senate is currently doing their bit for an impeachment for X, can the House begin an impeachment process for Y.

Oh.

The Impeachment process is laid out in Article II Section IV. A member of the Senate can present charges for impeachment, but the Senate doesn't have the power to begin the process proper. Only the House of Representatives can begin the impeachment process. Technically speaking just about anyone can bring charges for impeachment. The House initiates impeachment and determines the charges that will be heard, and the Senate then conducts the "trial" process of impeachment.

My "I am not a lawyer but I google stuff I don't understand on the internet" thought was always something like: The House serves as the DA and can indict , the Senate serves as the Jury with a Justice presiding over the trial.

But can the House impeach for something else while the Senate is conducting a trial for something? Is there a limit of how many times a President can be impeached for different things? Is there a double jeopardy thing going on?

Had this thrown at me by a very progressive friend.

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/18/scahill_blackwater_founder_erik_prince_the


Thoughts on the validity? It is Trump, so I wouldn't be surprised, and I'm sure Blackwater/Academi wants to get back into the war profiteering (and civilian murdering) business, but it's also democracy now, which is not known for their lack of bias.

I'm not sure impeachment is going to happen, institutionalising however?

Trump said he was going to get work dor the 96 million adults out there without jobs. That 96 million is a real number but it is all adults who aren't working, not just the ones who want jobs and can't get one. It includes people in college, stay at home parents, and the retired.

Either Trump wants to put Gertrude Weaver, the oldest American, back to work, or he's an idiot who random figures plucked out of nowhere with no understanding of what they mean.

There's no way a healthy democracy could elect a buffoon who doesn't understand basic measures, so we must conclude Trump the only way Anerica going to be great again is by getting rid of all retirement nonsense.

Get a fething job, Gertrude.

The first White House press meeting to set the tone: Lie, Son, Lie; White House claims largest crowd size in history, despite evidence to the contrary

 LordofHats wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-in-cia-visit-attacks-media-for-coverage-of-his-inaugural-crowds/2017/01/21/f4574dca-e019-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-bignews3_pp-cia-1141am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.963c673894be

Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.

You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.

Does that mean those Huff Post and New York Times news articles I linked about Obamaand Clinton helping destabilize Lybia are now accepted?

 sebster wrote:
Trump said he was going to get work dor the 96 million adults out there without jobs. That 96 million is a real number but it is all adults who aren't working, not just the ones who want jobs and can't get one. It includes people in college, stay at home parents, and the retired.

Either Trump wants to put Gertrude Weaver, the oldest American, back to work, or he's an idiot who random figures plucked out of nowhere with no understanding of what they mean.

There's no way a healthy democracy could elect a buffoon who doesn't understand basic measures, so we must conclude Trump the only way Anerica going to be great again is by getting rid of all retirement nonsense.

Get a fething job, Gertrude.

I think the best way to show those numbers are BS when talking about unemployment, is to say that Obama is now one of them (as he is not working as of yesterday).

 d-usa wrote:


My "I am not a lawyer but I google stuff I don't understand on the internet" thought was always something like: The House serves as the DA and can indict , the Senate serves as the Jury with a Justice presiding over the trial.

Nah that's pretty much it.

But can the House impeach for something else while the Senate is conducting a trial for something?

I assume the House can amend their "indictment." I don't think the Constitution defines such a provision, but it would be bizarre to require them to have a whole other impeachment if the first reveals startling information. Kind of at the end of my "I'm not really a lawyer but I read stuff" rope on that one XD

Is there a limit of how many times a President can be impeached for different things?

No. The Bill of Rights protections have traditionally been interpreted not to apply to Impeachment processes, partly because impeachment is not classified as the civil or criminal matter. It's just something the legislature can do. Note that the actual proceedings are protected. Congress cannot compel you to testify against yourself for any reason, but the measure of evidence in an Impeachment is simply what will get the Senate to convict, and there is no means by which the Judge can overrule the jury.

Is there a double jeopardy thing going on?

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, so there is no double jeopardy. A president could find themselves impeached, removed from office, and then sent to federal court on criminal charges as far as I understand it.

The Courts have historically not involved themselves in Impeachment because it's always been assumed that impeaching an official is inherently a political matter (i.e. a political question). This was made official with Nixon, when the court ruled (after he resigned) that impeachment is a political question and thus is not subject to appeal or judicial review.

Yeah, to take a really stupid example.

A political figure capable of being impeached is seen killing someone in cold blood. Lets call him Oswald Cobblepot.

Impeachment proceedings begin. Partway through these impeachment proceedings, the Oswald kills another person.

Does a second impeachment happen?

Co'tor Shas wrote:Had this thrown at me by a very progressive friend.

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/18/scahill_blackwater_founder_erik_prince_the


Thoughts on the validity? It is Trump, so I wouldn't be surprised, and I'm sure Blackwater/Academi wants to get back into the war profiteering (and civilian murdering) business, but it's also democracy now, which is not known for their lack of bias.

While I would be hesitant to trust such a source, if true, that's extremely worrying. I wasn't aware that DeVos was related to, much less a sibling of, Prince, and that alone is almost as worrying given the position DeVos will likely occupy and the access she could grant.

Ahtman wrote:The first White House press meeting to set the tone: Lie, Son, Lie; White House claims largest crowd size in history, despite evidence to the contrary

Yay...

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-in-cia-visit-attacks-media-for-coverage-of-his-inaugural-crowds/2017/01/21/f4574dca-e019-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-bignews3_pp-cia-1141am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.963c673894be

Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.

You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.

Does that mean those Huff Post and New York Times news articles I linked about Obamaand Clinton helping destabilize Lybia are now accepted?

I mean, if you payed attention, you would realize the point was about content not source.. NYT are a well-trusted source, as are things like WaPo, BBC, NPR, ect. But that doesn't mean things can't be wrong, or disagreed with.

 Compel wrote:
Does a second impeachment happen?

I honestly do not know XD This might be something laid out in the House rules but I haven't really ever looked through those.

This is the relevant section;

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

I think it might be irrelevant for the matter of impeachment, because the process doesn't follow traditional courtroom procedure and the only punishment is removal from office, which one murder would seem sufficient to secure. At the same time, there's really no limitation on how broad these kinds of investigations get. Just look at the email scandal and Benghazi, which basically got up, ran, and kept running until the people running it finally gave up the ghost.

I think the Founders just kind of assumed the only way anyone would get impeached is if they seriously fethed up. Though I highly suspect that after Mr. Cobblepot gets impeached he'll get a mean visit from Batman followed by a criminal case in the offending jurisdiction.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-in-cia-visit-attacks-media-for-coverage-of-his-inaugural-crowds/2017/01/21/f4574dca-e019-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-bignews3_pp-cia-1141am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.963c673894be

Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.

You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.

Does that mean those Huff Post and New York Times news articles I linked about Obamaand Clinton helping destabilize Lybia are now accepted?

I mean, if you payed attention, you would realize the point was about content not source.. NYT are a well-trusted source, as are things like WaPo, BBC, NPR, ect. But that doesn't mean things can't be wrong, or disagreed with.

I figure if any news source, ranging from left to right, I happen to google lays strong involvement with what happened in Lybia at Obama and Clinton's feet, there must be some truth to it

Relapse wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-in-cia-visit-attacks-media-for-coverage-of-his-inaugural-crowds/2017/01/21/f4574dca-e019-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-bignews3_pp-cia-1141am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.963c673894be

Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.

You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.

Does that mean those Huff Post and New York Times news articles I linked about Obamaand Clinton helping destabilize Lybia are now accepted?

I mean, if you payed attention, you would realize the point was about content not source.. NYT are a well-trusted source, as are things like WaPo, BBC, NPR, ect. But that doesn't mean things can't be wrong, or disagreed with.

I figure if any news source, ranging from left to right, I happen to google lays Lybia at Obama and Clinton's feet, there must be some truth to it

Which D-usa (among others) did explain exactly what the goings on were. You can blame a lot of things on the Obama admin, but not Libya. Europe was going in no matter what, we just joined them.

Involvement is one thing, the idea that Obama and Clinton are majorly responsible for what resulted in Libya or that they created the situation is another, for reasons explained at length already.