• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Great Zaganza said:
no, it's pretty mind-blowing that some not on food stamps would try to avoid paying $7 to the scouts.
Click to expand...

Again, it's a crime family, this is what they do, they always end up doing petty things like this, because those are the mechanisms they have in place, it's their routine. There was no real need for either recently indicted congressman to do what they did, either. But it's what they know, so it's what they do.

johnny karate said:
Did you just reference My Rhyme Ain’t Done by L.L. Cool J?
Click to expand...

Yes I did.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
If the author has at least two working brain cells, they must have known that this letter would be closely scrutinized. Putting in one or more red herrings would help protect their identity and spread maximum paranoia and dysfunction in the white house.

Hell, if this "resistance" is as widespread as implied, multiple authors may be in play here.
Click to expand...

Maybe if we look hard enough there'll be signature words for each of them! :p
 
ponderingturtle said:
I had heard that was included in the original definition of high crimes and misdemeanors from british law. That incompetence not just criminal activity was grounds for removal.
Click to expand...

I found this cool round up

The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice. On June 2, 1787, the framers adopted a provision that the executive should “be removable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”857 The Committee of Detail reported as grounds “Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”858 And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to “Treason, or bribery.”859 On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct that should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add “or maladministration” following “bribery.” Upon Madison’s objection that “o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested “other high crimes & misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.860

The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388.861 Treason is defined in the Constitution.862 Bribery is not, but it had a clear common law meaning and is now well covered by statute.863 “High crimes and misdemeanors,” however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.864 Use of the word “other” to link “high crimes and misdemeanors” with “treason” and “bribery” is arguably indicative of the types and seriousness of conduct encompassed by “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Similarly, the word “high” apparently carried with it a restrictive meaning.865

Debate prior to adoption of the phrase866 and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions867 were to the effect that the President (all the debate was in terms of the President) should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress’s “removal” debate, Madison maintained that the wanton dismissal of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.868 Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior.869 The scope of the power has been the subject of continuing debate.870
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't the "lodestar" editorial puts Trump in a lose-lose situation?

I can not see how Trump can just go forward under the public cloud that one or more of his own cabinet/aides likely view him as so crazy and stupid that they have to act as his keepers to constantly protect the country and the world from his most dangerous impulses. No head of any organization could do so, whatever the actual truth, simply for practical reasons. But given Trump's ego and fear of appearing weak this would be absolutely emotionally impossible for him. It would eat him alive.

Yet I can't see how Trump can afford to have have such a person/group unmasked and fired either. That would only publicly confirm what was stated in the editorial: that one or more of the officials Trump appointed to his administration, among those best in a position to judge, have concluded that he is desperately unhinged. And once unmasked such a person would be freed from restraint and, in response to the inevitable attempts to discredit them, would undoubtably then do their best to publicly prove their accusations.

[added] Surely "lodestar' must also have understood this and fully intended to put Trump in this corner. He/she must have realized that publication of the editorial would immediately lead to a frantic and intense search for the identity of its author. And given the resources of the USA government lodestar must have recognized that his/her identity will inevitably be revealed. My best guess: lodestar intended to come out of the closet and did so in this coying way so that the resulting search for his identity would confirm his accusations and that his views are widely held by others in the administration (in part by outing the others who were less willing to come forward publicly).
 
Last edited:
bonzombiekitty said:
You don't make money by spending your own money.
Click to expand...

I have observed in my personal experiences that the wealthiest are often the most petty and cheap when it comes to money whether it involves splitting the cost of a meal, buying tickets to a show, tipping a waiter, etc. I've been to dinners with people making high 6-figure incomes and instead of splitting the bill 50/50 they would insist on counting out the pennies if they owed $24.96 and I owed $25.04. Plus they would leave a 11% tip and I would have to quietly add to it when they were not looking.
 
LSSBB said:
"If such a law is passed"

Hmmm, doesn't sound like armed resistance to the tweet to me.

Your internal dialogue ump needs glasses
Click to expand...

If words had meanings, truth would be important. These sorts petty lies about a post that is right here in the thread just erode any chance at decent conversation around here.

Score one for TBD in that regard, I suppose. Maybe give Bob two points if that is how the game is to be played.
 
Giordano said:
Doesn't the "lodestar" editorial puts Trump in a lose-lose situation?

I can not see how Trump can just go forward under the public cloud that one or more of his own cabinet/aides likely view him as so crazy and stupid that they have to act as his keepers to constantly protect the country and the world from his most dangerous impulses. No head of any organization could do so, whatever the actual truth, simply for practical reasons. But given Trump's ego and fear of appearing weak this would be absolutely emotionally impossible for him. It would eat him alive.

Yet I can't see how Trump can afford to have have such a person/group unmasked and fired either. That would only publicly confirm what was stated in the editorial: that one or more of the officials Trump appointed to his administration, among those best in a position to judge, have concluded that he is desperately unhinged. And once unmasked such a person would be freed from restraint and, in response to the inevitable attempts to discredit them, would undoubtably then do their best to publicly prove their accusations.

[added] Surely "lodestar' must also have understood this and fully intended to put Trump in this corner. He/she must have realized that publication of the editorial would immediately lead to a frantic and intense search for the identity of its author. And given the resources of the USA government lodestar must have recognized that his/her identity will inevitably be revealed. My best guess: lodestar intended to come out of the closet and did so in this coying way so that the resulting search for his identity would confirm his accusations and that his views are widely held by others in the administration (in part by outing the others who were less willing to come forward publicly).
Click to expand...

He'll remove his mask and shout "I'm Kilroy! Kilroy... Kilroy.."





I love that song.
 
Giordano said:
[added] Surely "lodestar' must also have understood this and fully intended to put Trump in this corner. He/she must have realized that publication of the editorial would immediately lead to a frantic and intense search for the identity of its author. And given the resources of the USA government lodestar must have recognized that his/her identity will inevitably be revealed. My best guess: lodestar intended to come out of the closet and did so in this coying way so that the resulting search for his identity would confirm his accusations and that his views are widely held by others in the administration (in part by outing the others who were less willing to come forward publicly).
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it'll ever be proven.
It'll be interesting to watch how it plays out, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom