Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by Montegriffo » Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:55 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:17 am
i wouldnt say partisan but monte being ignorant of specific US policies seems accurate in this case. whatevs

war powers act, 1973, intended to limit executive war authority, in practice has given executive even more war authority. especially when they ignore it

Image
Just pointing out that the US is a nation not unfamiliar with going to war. No different from Britain or France or Spain before them.
War has never been an activity for which public consent is sought. To expect otherwise is to show a lack of understanding about how power works.
If pointing that out is considered to be "trolling" then I don't know what to say.
Other than don't be such a snowflake.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
The Conservative
Posts: 14797
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by The Conservative » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:11 pm

Montegriffo wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 12:55 pm
pineapplemike wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 11:17 am
i wouldnt say partisan but monte being ignorant of specific US policies seems accurate in this case. whatevs

war powers act, 1973, intended to limit executive war authority, in practice has given executive even more war authority. especially when they ignore it

Image
Just pointing out that the US is a nation not unfamiliar with going to war. No different from Britain or France or Spain before them.
War has never been an activity for which public consent is sought. To expect otherwise is to show a lack of understanding about how power works.
If pointing that out is considered to be "trolling" then I don't know what to say.
Other than don't be such a snowflake.
Please stay out of US politics, talking out of your ass is not a good look for you.
#NotOneRedCent

User avatar
pineapplemike
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by pineapplemike » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:24 pm

monte, is violating the war powers act more or less impeachable than trump's phone call with ukraine?

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by Montegriffo » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:36 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:24 pm
monte, is violating the war powers act more or less impeachable than trump's phone call with ukraine?
Apparently I'm not allowed an opinion on US politics.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
pineapplemike
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by pineapplemike » Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:45 pm

admitting subservience to TC isnt a good look either but to each his own, we all already know the correct answer anyway

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by Montegriffo » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:00 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:24 pm
monte, is violating the war powers act more or less impeachable than trump's phone call with ukraine?
After a quick search it seems to me that it has probably been violated by every President since it was passed into law.
Even Trump may have violated it with his attack on the Syrian airbase.
Plenty of speculation that it is unconstitutional anyway.
At the end of the day, if the President is to have the title of Commander in Chief then he has ultimate authority over the military.
As for whether Trump should be impeached or not that depends upon whether you think a President should be held to account for wrongdoings or not.
It's a massively floored procedure anyway. A 2/3rds majority in a partisan Senate makes it nearly impossible to obtain a conviction.
On the other hand, if no action or threat of action was ever taken to bring a President to order then there's little to stop one breaking whatever laws they want to for personal gain.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by Montegriffo » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:02 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:45 pm
admitting subservience to TC isnt a good look either but to each his own, we all already know the correct answer anyway
That was just stalling while I read up on the war powers resolution.
The day I'm subservient to the likes of TC you can take me out the back and put a bullet in my brain.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
The Conservative
Posts: 14797
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by The Conservative » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:09 pm

pineapplemike wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:45 pm
admitting subservience to TC isnt a good look either but to each his own, we all already know the correct answer anyway
Yes, we do, submitting to me would make life so much easier though...but if he doesn't just admit when he is wrong... it will save us all pages of bullshit while trying to argue his point using pretzel logic that he only understands.
#NotOneRedCent

User avatar
The Conservative
Posts: 14797
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by The Conservative » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:11 pm

Montegriffo wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:00 pm
pineapplemike wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:24 pm
monte, is violating the war powers act more or less impeachable than trump's phone call with ukraine?
After a quick search it seems to me that it has probably been violated by every President since it was passed into law.
Even Trump may have violated it with his attack on the Syrian airbase.
Plenty of speculation that it is unconstitutional anyway.
At the end of the day, if the President is to have the title of Commander in Chief then he has ultimate authority over the military.
As for whether Trump should be impeached or not that depends upon whether you think a President should be held to account for wrongdoings or not.
It's a massively floored procedure anyway. A 2/3rds majority in a partisan Senate makes it nearly impossible to obtain a conviction.
On the other hand, if no action or threat of action was ever taken to bring a President to order then there's little to stop one breaking whatever laws they want to for personal gain.
It is meant to be tough to pass because it requires bipartisan support, which isn't going to happen.

Oh, and a side note, you either break the warsaw act or you don't, there is no maybe...
#NotOneRedCent

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

Post by Montegriffo » Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:23 pm

The Conservative wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:11 pm
Montegriffo wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 2:00 pm
pineapplemike wrote:
Thu Dec 26, 2019 1:24 pm
monte, is violating the war powers act more or less impeachable than trump's phone call with ukraine?
After a quick search it seems to me that it has probably been violated by every President since it was passed into law.
Even Trump may have violated it with his attack on the Syrian airbase.
Plenty of speculation that it is unconstitutional anyway.
At the end of the day, if the President is to have the title of Commander in Chief then he has ultimate authority over the military.
As for whether Trump should be impeached or not that depends upon whether you think a President should be held to account for wrongdoings or not.
It's a massively floored procedure anyway. A 2/3rds majority in a partisan Senate makes it nearly impossible to obtain a conviction.
On the other hand, if no action or threat of action was ever taken to bring a President to order then there's little to stop one breaking whatever laws they want to for personal gain.
It is meant to be tough to pass because it requires bipartisan support, which isn't going to happen.

Oh, and a side note, you either break the warsaw act or you don't, there is no maybe...
Is the Warsaw act related to the Warsaw Pact?
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image