Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 10:37:42
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:[]There wasn't anything for Ouze to be wrong about because he made no claims.
, I think he was referring to this specifically when saying you're wrong again: cuda1179 wrote:So, once again, is this a case of "your evidence doesn't align with what I feel, so I will turn my nose up at it without providing any evidence of my own"?
You accused him of discounting evidence because it doesn't align with his opinion (he didn't) and then you told him not complain because he asked for a citation (he didn't). In fairness, I think he will be well within his rights to say you have now been wrong again.
He did refer to my correct statement that illegals get more back in returns than they contribute as "an extremely dubious claim" and that he doesn't believe it.
Also, that second thing you quoted wasn't directed toward him at all, so I don't know where you are going with that. I'm not the first, nor the last, person here to incorrectly quote a person or incorrectly assign an opinion, as you just showed by your own misquotation. I admitted it and apologized.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 10:45:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 11:09:34
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Hallowed Canoness
|
cuda1179 wrote:How much crud does a news source need to spit out before someone will claim the whole thing can't be trusted.
It's a spectrum  .
|
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 11:55:47
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
NinthMusketeer wrote: sebster wrote:So of the headline state of a 3.7 point decline, demographics account for about 1.5 points, with a real drop of 2.2. As to the reason for the 2.2 drop... well that's a decent question which so far has produced a hell of a lot of terrible answers.
No doubt a mix of factors, but the biggest one IMO would be that the labor market on average gives less money and less benefits for the same amount of work as compared to the past.
Or in other words; its tied to all the money being at the top. Amazing how many of the country's problems lead to that. Doubly amazing that so many people continue to vote for the party that actively promotes it.
Wealth inequality is a big concern but It doesn't matter what party you vote for. They will both lead this country to ruin. Just pick your poison.
Automatically Appended Next Post: skyth wrote:I think the labor participation dip has been attributed to people going back to school.
Doubt it - who can afford to quit their job to go back to school? Plus why would they? A college degree has never been worth less.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 11:58:45
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 13:24:31
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Battlefield Tourist
MN (Currently in WY)
|
Xenomancers wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote: sebster wrote:So of the headline state of a 3.7 point decline, demographics account for about 1.5 points, with a real drop of 2.2. As to the reason for the 2.2 drop... well that's a decent question which so far has produced a hell of a lot of terrible answers.
No doubt a mix of factors, but the biggest one IMO would be that the labor market on average gives less money and less benefits for the same amount of work as compared to the past.
Or in other words; its tied to all the money being at the top. Amazing how many of the country's problems lead to that. Doubly amazing that so many people continue to vote for the party that actively promotes it.
Wealth inequality is a big concern but It doesn't matter what party you vote for. They will both lead this country to ruin. Just pick your poison.
This is the kind of irresponsible political nihilism that gave us Trump.
We must all avoid this line of thinking for two reasons:
1. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy
2. It gains the holder of such views nothing
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 13:24:58
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 13:29:52
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Incorporating Wet-Blending
|
whembly wrote: jmurph wrote:Prestor Jon wrote:
http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-95-133
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens to all levels of government; (2) the variation in these estimates; and (3) areas in which the estimates could be improved.
GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments; (4) displacement costs and revenue estimates account for much of the variation in the estimates of the national net costs of illegal aliens; (5) the estimates are difficult to assess because the studies do not always clearly explain the criteria used to determine which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in the estimates; and (6) the cost estimates could be improved by recognizing the difficulties inherent in collecting data on a hidden population, focusing on key characteristics of illegal aliens, and explaining more clearly which costs and revenues are appropriate to include in such estimates.
So, the GAO acknowledges that it is basically a guess? The cost ranges from $2 billion to $19 billion (quite a range), and the studies don't even have clear criteria for their analysis.
Doesn't seem terribly useful.....
eh... do you think it's closer to $0 impact than a feth ton of money?
Here's the problem going down with this rabbit hole.
It shouldn't matter whether the illegal immigrants are a plus/negative to the economy.
They are here illegally, using finite resources that would otherwise go to actual citizens.
Would ought to expect our Federal government to enforce that damn laws (maybe reform them) and look out for it's own citizen's interests. That means, hammer employers who willingly hires illegals. If the farmer need cheap labor... allow migrant seasonal visas tailor-made for those industries.
I do not disagree with your last point at all; I was just pointing out that by any objective measure, that study is pretty crappy.
I do not agree that it does not matter if illegals are a net plus or negative. Good information is vital for good decisions and sound economic policy. If illegals are a net plus, they need to be addressed differently than if they are a negative. Likewise, the scale of said impact affects how that should be handled.
Cracking down on illegal hiring is the only way to stem immigration. If we would punish those benefitting from illegal labor and disincentive it, demand would wane and supply would follow. However, that means punishing the very donor class that supports our political establishment, making it very unlikely. So the top continues to steal the benefit of both illegal and legal laborers and increase their margin with consumers. Wealth reallocation at it's finest.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 13:30:57
-James
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 13:48:10
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
If anything, what seems to be concrete is that the impact is very hard to estimate. At the least it means someone claiming there is a net gain of money doesn't have solid evidence for that. We don't know, though I would lean towards a net expense for government. That doesn't factor the economic benefits though.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 13:55:49
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Quick thought on the whole "ISP selling your data" bill. Despite the actual content of the bill, isn't this exactly the kind of thing we usually crap on congress when they don't do it? Every time legislators complain about executive branch agencies having too much power to make regulations, it feels like our usual reply is to tell him "you gave them the power to regulate, you can fix it if they go to far".
My understanding is that the FCC introduced a regulation that was going to take effect in the future prohibiting the sale of this data, and in response to that the legislative branch introduced a bill to remove the power to regulate that particular issue. They didn't make it legal to sell, it's already been legal, they just stopped the regulation that would make it illegal in the future. They delegates regulatory power to the FCC, and then clarified that power.
At least that is my understanding.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:12:24
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
So with regards to Flynn, if he does testify, are we going to impeach Trump? Or is this going to just get swept under the rug?
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:24:22
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
jreilly89 wrote:So with regards to Flynn, if he does testify, are we going to impeach Trump? Or is this going to just get swept under the rug?
Probably inevitable at this point - both parties want him out. They have plenty of ammunition to go with. Could be worse though with pence. The dude is a huge proponent of intelligent design and hell have actual political support.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:35:01
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
jreilly89 wrote:So with regards to Flynn, if he does testify, are we going to impeach Trump? Or is this going to just get swept under the rug?
Depends entirely upon what Flynn actually says. I don't think it's likely that Flynn can produce testimony and evidence that will convince the Republican majority in the House to impeach a Republican president but it's possible.
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:35:11
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Maryland
|
Xenomancers wrote: jreilly89 wrote:So with regards to Flynn, if he does testify, are we going to impeach Trump? Or is this going to just get swept under the rug?
Probably inevitable at this point - both parties want him out. They have plenty of ammunition to go with. Could be worse though with pence. The dude is a huge proponent of intelligent design and hell have actual political support. Well, that depends. If it turns out that Pence knew about Flynn's activities, and then lied to cover for him - along with any other interactions that Pence had in aiding Trump - it would be difficult to see him being able to take the Presidency. It kind of leads to a dangerous hypothetical. Say if the worst imaginably possible, crazy-for-even-considering-it, situation happens; Trump and his campaign were actively working with a foreign government to interfere with the election, and the RNC and Republicans were complicit in helping Trump and his campaign. How far down the chain do we go for a President? I don't believe there are provisions for a new election if half of the government is suddenly untrustworthy.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 15:12:47
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:41:08
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
infinite_array wrote: Xenomancers wrote: jreilly89 wrote:So with regards to Flynn, if he does testify, are we going to impeach Trump? Or is this going to just get swept under the rug?
Probably inevitable at this point - both parties want him out. They have plenty of ammunition to go with. Could be worse though with pence. The dude is a huge proponent of intelligent design and hell have actual political support.
Well, that depends. If it turns out that Pence knew about Flynn's activities, and then lied to cover for him - along with any other interactions that Pence had in aiding Trump - it would be difficult to see him being able to take the Presidency.
It kind of leads to an dangerous hypothetical. Say if the worst imaginably possible, crazy-for-even-considering-it, situation happens; Trump and his campaign were actively working with a foreign government to interfere with the election, and the RNC and Republicans were complicit in helping Trump and his campaign. How far down the chain do we go for a President? I don't believe there are provisions for a new election if half of the government is suddenly untrustworthy.
I honestly don't know.
Here is the line of succession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:42:19
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
infinite_array wrote: Xenomancers wrote: jreilly89 wrote:So with regards to Flynn, if he does testify, are we going to impeach Trump? Or is this going to just get swept under the rug?
Probably inevitable at this point - both parties want him out. They have plenty of ammunition to go with. Could be worse though with pence. The dude is a huge proponent of intelligent design and hell have actual political support.
Well, that depends. If it turns out that Pence knew about Flynn's activities, and then lied to cover for him - along with any other interactions that Pence had in aiding Trump - it would be difficult to see him being able to take the Presidency.
It kind of leads to an dangerous hypothetical. Say if the worst imaginably possible, crazy-for-even-considering-it, situation happens; Trump and his campaign were actively working with a foreign government to interfere with the election, and the RNC and Republicans were complicit in helping Trump and his campaign. How far down the chain do we go for a President? I don't believe there are provisions for a new election if half of the government is suddenly untrustworthy.
What influence over the election do you think Russia exerted? If there is evidence that both the president and vice president committed actions that are deemed impeachable by Congress then we'd continue down the presidential succession. We have laws that define who the next in line is and the list is extensive enough that barring some kind of massive disaster that kills virtually every politician and appointee in DC we'll never reach a point where we won't have somebody to step in and be PotUS.
The line of succession is delineated by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[1] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices. The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members, beginning with the Secretary of State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:45:13
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
Oh god, so get rid of Trump, and we get Pence. Get rid of Pence, and we get Paul Ryan. At this point, I'd rather have Romney back. He's at least semi-competent and not completely crazy
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:53:48
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Stormin' Stompa
|
Well, if the RNC and the Republicans were found to have been complicit (as mentioned in Infinite's scenario) then the reasonable thing would be to go with the first non-Republican on the list - meaning Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
..
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 14:55:09
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:53:51
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Maryland
|
Right, and it was the line of succession I was talking about. The problem with my hypothetical is the consideration that, at various levels in the line of succession, each person could be charged with aiding Trump (working with the assumption that he was actively coordinating with a foreign government against the interest of the United States). Say, for some reason, Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch are found unable to act as president (would being charged and found guilty of obstructing investigations to pass bills under Trump's presidency count?) If a President is impeached and the line of succession goes down to, say, Tex Tillerson, would that person be allowed to take office without some kind of massive scandal, as they're assuming office after the person who put them into that position was impeached? Steelmage99 wrote:Well, if the RNC and the Republicans were found to have been complicit (as mentioned in Infinite's scenario) then the reasonable thing would be to go with the first non-Republican on the list - meaning James Mattis. Right, but Mattis was a Trump appointee and actively worked with Trump. In this situation, would he also be considered complicit, or at the very least, untrustworthy enough to be considered for the position? Would we have to go down the list until we find someone not actively associated with the Trump adminstration?
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 14:56:07
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:57:15
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard
Catskills in NYS
|
Steelmage99 wrote:Well, if the RNC and the Republicans were found to have been complicit (as mentioned in Infinite's scenario) then the reasonable thing would be to go with the first non-Republican on the list - meaning Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
..
I'd probably be OK with that certainly better than the other options.
|
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote:Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote:Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens BaronIveagh wrote:Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 14:57:50
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Stormin' Stompa
|
infinite_array wrote:Right, and it was the line of succession I was talking about.
The problem with my hypothetical is the consideration that, at various levels in the line of succession, each person could be charged with aiding Trump (working with the assumption that he was actively coordinating with a foreign government against the interest of the United States).
Say, for some reason, Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch are found unable to act as president (would being charged and found guilty of obstructing investigations to pass bills under Trump's presidency count?) If a President is impeached and the line of succession goes down to, say, Tex Tillerson, would that person be allowed to take office without some kind of massive scandal, as they're assuming office after the person who put them into that position was impeached?
Steelmage99 wrote:Well, if the RNC and the Republicans were found to have been complicit (as mentioned in Infinite's scenario) then the reasonable thing would be to go with the first non-Republican on the list - meaning James Mattis.
Right, but Mattis was a Trump appointee and actively worked with Trump. In this situation, would he also be considered complicit, or at the very least, untrustworthy enough to be considered for the position?
Would we have to go down the list until we find someone not actively associated with the Trump adminstration?
I agree. It would be a very difficult situation. I do think that appointing Mattis would be the lesser of several evils, and a more stable political situation (as he is an Independent). Automatically Appended Next Post:
Speaking of evils;
How can Ivanka Trump and her husband work in the White House?
Aren't there specific laws against that?
..
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 15:00:27
-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."
18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:00:30
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
infinite_array wrote:
Would we have to go down the list until we find someone not actively associated with the Trump adminstration?
Good luck with that
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:02:44
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Maryland
|
Would we use people still in their positions before they're replaced by Trump appointees? Like Mike Young, or Ed Hughler? Steelmage99 wrote: Speaking of evils; How can Ivanka Trump and her husband work in the White House? Aren't there specific laws against that? Sure, but we'd need to rely on Republicans to enforce the anti-nepotism laws. And that went so well with Trump's business divestment.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/31 15:05:36
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:05:34
Subject: Re:US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
If a man or woman is asking for immunity, then there is a mountain of beans to spill
This could be another Watergate, or another Iran-Contra. Or in this instance, a Moscow-Trump Tower
I've asked this question before, but how the hell did a super power get hijacked by the likes of Trump and Clinton?
Another American Revolution is long overdue. By peaceful democratic means of course, but a revolution none the less. Those wretches in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, should be exiled to America's Antarctic research bases.
Then the USA might have a chance again.
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:07:33
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)
The Great State of Texas
|
So you have gone down the rabbit hole of thinking Trump and evidently the vast majority of the executive is gong to be impeached?
I am 100% sure you are 100% correct. . .
|
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:10:57
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
Frazzled wrote:So you have gone down the rabbit hole of thinking Trump and evidently the vast majority of the executive is gong to be impeached?
I am 100% sure you are 100% correct. . .
Trump is undeniably guilty of being an
Trouble is, if you impeached Trump for that, you'd have to impeach half the human race!
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:12:31
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Maryland
|
Frazzled wrote:So you have gone down the rabbit hole of thinking Trump and evidently the vast majority of the executive is gong to be impeached?
I am 100% sure you are 100% correct. . .
Yeah, sure. Thats why I called it "a dangerous hypothetical" and "the worst imaginably possible, crazy-for-even-considering-it, situation." Because I totally believe it's going to happen.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:13:10
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
jreilly89 wrote:So with regards to Flynn, if he does testify, are we going to impeach Trump?
No.
jreilly89 wrote:Or is this going to just get swept under the rug?
Yes.The people that are in charge of this are the people that have a vested interest in keeping him in power. You better believe he's not going anywhere until they can squeeze some lopsided tax cuts for the 1%.
jreilly89 wrote:Oh god, so get rid of Trump, and we get Pence. Get rid of Pence, and we get Paul Ryan. At this point, I'd rather have Romney back. He's at least semi-competent and not completely crazy
I wasn't a big Romney fan, and I didn't vote for him. If Romney had won, I could have shrugged and said OK, I can try to support him. I may not have agreed with his policies but I feel pretty confident I'd never have reason to suspect he dabbled in some light treason.
|
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:13:24
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
|
Frazzled wrote:So you have gone down the rabbit hole of thinking Trump and evidently the vast majority of the executive is gong to be impeached?
I am 100% sure you are 100% correct. . .
If there's evidence Russia did interfere, and Trump/Pence are both successfully impeached, wot happens then?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:15:22
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Frazzled wrote:So you have gone down the rabbit hole of thinking Trump and evidently the vast majority of the executive is gong to be impeached?
I am 100% sure you are 100% correct. . .
If there's evidence Russia did interfere, and Trump/Pence are both successfully impeached, wot happens then?
We have a line of succession.
1 Vice President Mike Pence (R)
2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch (R)
4 Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (R)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin (R)
6 Secretary of Defense James Mattis (I)
7 Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R)
8 Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke (R)
β Secretary of Agriculture Mike Young (D)[a]
9 Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross (R)
β Secretary of Labor Ed Hugler (I)[a]
10 Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price (R)
11 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson (R)
β Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao (R)[b]
12 Secretary of Energy Rick Perry (R)
13 Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (R)
14 Secretary of Veterans Affairs David Shulkin (I)
15 Secretary of Homeland Security John F. Kelly (I)
I think all this impeachment talk is way, way premature though.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/31 15:16:49
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:17:13
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Frazzled wrote:So you have gone down the rabbit hole of thinking Trump and evidently the vast majority of the executive is gong to be impeached?
I am 100% sure you are 100% correct. . .
If there's evidence Russia did interfere, and Trump/Pence are both successfully impeached, wot happens then?
An arrest warrant gets issued for the Clintons, citing secret documents found in the ruins of Benghazi that implements Hilary as the mastermind behind the whole Trump Russia axis.
|
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:23:09
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Blackclad Wayfarer
|
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Frazzled wrote:So you have gone down the rabbit hole of thinking Trump and evidently the vast majority of the executive is gong to be impeached?
I am 100% sure you are 100% correct. . .
If there's evidence Russia did interfere, and Trump/Pence are both successfully impeached, wot happens then?
An arrest warrant gets issued for the Clintons, citing secret documents found in the ruins of Benghazi that implements Hilary as the mastermind behind the whole Trump Russia axis.
As a Trump supporter, I can't be fully blind. There is easily a extremely small chance he does get impeached. He did have a 99% chance to lose the election from established polls and flipped the table and won against HRC. I don't think it was Trump specifically, but I'd say there is a chance that at least one member has something major going on with Russia.
in other news, Bernie 2020 when!?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2017/03/31 15:24:09
Subject: US Politics: 2017 Edition
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
infinite_array wrote:Right, and it was the line of succession I was talking about.
The problem with my hypothetical is the consideration that, at various levels in the line of succession, each person could be charged with aiding Trump (working with the assumption that he was actively coordinating with a foreign government against the interest of the United States).
Say, for some reason, Paul Ryan and Orrin Hatch are found unable to act as president (would being charged and found guilty of obstructing investigations to pass bills under Trump's presidency count?) If a President is impeached and the line of succession goes down to, say, Tex Tillerson, would that person be allowed to take office without some kind of massive scandal, as they're assuming office after the person who put them into that position was impeached?
Steelmage99 wrote:Well, if the RNC and the Republicans were found to have been complicit (as mentioned in Infinite's scenario) then the reasonable thing would be to go with the first non-Republican on the list - meaning James Mattis.
Right, but Mattis was a Trump appointee and actively worked with Trump. In this situation, would he also be considered complicit, or at the very least, untrustworthy enough to be considered for the position?
Would we have to go down the list until we find someone not actively associated with the Trump adminstration?
At each stop in the line of succession each new person would be evaluated on an individual basis. If Congress impeaches Trump then Pence becomes PotUS then Congress would have to hold hearings and vote to impeach Pence then Ryan becomes PotUS then Congress would have to hold hearing and vote to impeach Ryan etc. The odds of a Republican majority Congress successively impeaching multiple Republicans (PotUS, VP, House and Senate leaders and multiple/all Cabinet members) is extremely unlikely to happen. It is also highly unlikely that Flynn will produce evidence that links at least a dozen top Republicans to collusion with Russian agents to directly influence the 2016 election. If the conspiracy was that large then people would have been able to actually produce evidence of it by now without needing Flynn to testify. The Russians didn't make Comey issue statements about Hillary and her email server, the Russians didn't make Hillary's campaign keep her from making visits to important states like Wisconsin. What is it that people expect to find? We already know about all of the business dealings and financial connections that Trump and members of his team have with Russia. Is there any proof that Russia provided the DNC emails to WikiLeaks? Federal officials have repeatedly said that there is no evidence of any actual tampering with ballot counts so what is it that we think Russia did?
|
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
|