It is humorous, though, that the same people who long for across-the-board gun control and confiscations are also the people who think Trump is *this close* to being an outright dictator. If he were a dictator, wouldn't he declare guns to be illegal, causing them to cheer, and then roll tanks and military personnel down their residential streets, causing them to cry foul? The only way to fight back against that would be...guns....but....oh, yeah. That all makes for great talking points but neither "confiscation" nor "going Palpatine" are going to happen, which is why getting down that rabbit hole is pointless.
Except it's his followers who would use guns the guns to keep in power. Do you really think the military or the police or any other branch of government would go to war against open carrying citizens in protest?
And Trump has already said he deserves a third term because of all the presidential harassment he has put up with. Have you checked his pinned tweet recently? It's the cover of Time magazine where they stated populism was the new norm in America and used Trump as the example. But I doubt he read even the cover, he's pinned it because it has Trump 2020, Trump 2024, Trump 2028 etc campaign boards.
HAHA he's joking! No he isn't. He seriously thinks he can do it. And if he does win 2020, what really is stopping the republican party of making them their candidate for 2024? The constitution? Ha!
Anti-vaxxers are dangerous lunatics, and Facebook gives them a platform to cause this kind of EASILY preventable death. I don't know what the hell is wrong with these people, but it gets more infuriating by the month. And I'd like to call out Robert Kennedy Jr. and Jenny McCarthy specifically for their role in mainstreaming this horseshit. Vaccinate your goddamn kids, and don't believe that frickin' Theraflu is a bigger danger to your child than the ACTUAL VIRUS!!!!:
Anti-vaxxers are dangerous lunatics, and Facebook gives them a platform to cause this kind of EASILY preventable death. I don't know what the hell is wrong with these people, but it gets more infuriating by the month. And I'd like to call out Robert Kennedy Jr. and Jenny McCarthy specifically for their role in mainstreaming this horseshit. Vaccinate your goddamn kids, and don't believe that frickin' Theraflu is a bigger danger to your child than the ACTUAL VIRUS!!!!:
Interesting article on anti-vaxxers. I can see the psychology of why some people would not want to be forced to vaccinate. I still think it's dumb though...
It kinda negates your theory that countries with gun control have lower suicide rates though. It sounds logical but the numbers don't back it up...
It's hard to disentangle multiple effects. The US being almost, but not quite, at the top of a list of comparative countries for suicide rate may not be clear evidence that the availability of guns make a difference, but it's hardly evidence that they don't ...
More relevant I think are the studies looking at how suicides can be prevented - which do clearly show that suicides are affected by the availability of different methods. The article I referenced yesterday referred to that - here's a couple of tasters:
"Part of the problem with guns is that they are by far the most fatal means. There are three statistics which together paint a stark picture of the role of firearms in American suicides: about 85% of people who use a gun will die; about 95% of people who use another means will survive; and about 90% of those who survive will not go on to try again."
"And legislation passed in the UK in 1998 outlawed the sale of painkillers in bottles, meaning anyone wanting a large quantity had to push them out from blister packs one by one. That seemingly small obstacle had a significant effect — painkiller overdoses fell by 43% over the next decade and overdose-related liver transplants by 61%.
Similar reductions have been observed in the US after the installation of access barriers that prevent people jumping from bridges, and studies tend to show little or no "substitution" effect — ie increases in the number of suicides at nearby bridges. In San Francisco, where dozens of people die every year after jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, a five-year, $76 million metal suicide barrier, paid for by the state, is scheduled for completion by 2023."
It is humorous, though, that the same people who long for across-the-board gun control and confiscations are also the people who think Trump is *this close* to being an outright dictator. If he were a dictator, wouldn't he declare guns to be illegal, causing them to cheer, and then roll tanks and military personnel down their residential streets, causing them to cry foul? The only way to fight back against that would be...guns....but....oh, yeah. That all makes for great talking points but neither "confiscation" nor "going Palpatine" are going to happen, which is why getting down that rabbit hole is pointless.
You're right that neither is going to happen (and fears that Trump is going to become a dictator are nonsensical imo), but there are two actual hypothetical scenarios here:
1) Dictator Trump has the support of the military, at which point it will not matter in the slightest how many guns the populace has.
2) Dictator Trump does not have the support of the military, at which point his extremely short reign will not be made appreciably shorter by how many guns the populace has.
Any civilian population can arm themselves against government oppression - this has been shown a multitude of times over the past three hundred years in countries with radically different gun laws. It has also been shown that whether such untrained civilian militias can prevail against a regular military depends entirely on said military (largely its leadership, morale, and willingness to fight).
It is the most absurdist of fantasy to think that every American gun owner put together is going to be more than a petty annoyance to a tyrannical government that enjoys the services of a compliant US military, and equally absurdist to think that such a government could exist in the near future.
In the meantime, however, American gun culture and laws kill an enormous amount of real people in the real present, while still doing nothing to help in hypothetical futures that won't exist.
Turns out Trump wasnt entirely lying about pre-existing conditions. It looks like the administration wants the courts to avoid striking down the ACA until after the election
Why - because it's broadly popular, and it will hurt Trump's reelection chances.
HAHA he's joking! No he isn't. He seriously thinks he can do it. And if he does win 2020, what really is stopping the republican party of making them their candidate for 2024? The constitution? Ha!
1) He's really old.
2) Amending the constitution is really hard and would require political acumen and savvy Trump has never displayed.
3) FDR was popular and could strongarm his party. Trump is unpopular and demonstrably cannot do so (see: every time he clashes with them over Russia and loses).
4) He most likely doesn't even want to stay President that long, given the job is hard and he doesn't enjoy it (as he himself and others privy to the White House have said pretty much since he took office). I suspect he wouldn't even run for reelection except that'd look like he "lost".
People thought Bush would never step down from power either. They look pretty silly now, don't they?
The president regularly tears up documents into pieces, when they're supposed to be preserved.
Where is all the outrage from conservatives who are so butt hurt about Nancy Pelosi tearing up a couple papers. It's a regular occurance for the Prez. Where were they demanding justice for this?
The preservation of government documents does not apply to every copy of a government document--a copy of a document is not the original. As long as one copy of a document exists then it has not been "destroyed", otherwise no legislator would ever be able to shred their copies of propsed legislation or recorded minutes of a meeting.
Meanwhile, I see that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule in the immediate future as to whether or not Don McGahn, former White House Counsel, can be forced to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Also, the Senate Judiciary Committee is floating the idea of issuing subpoenas to Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower, and that Senators Grassley and Johnson, Chairs of the Finance and Governmental Affairs Committees, respectively, have obtained documents from the Dept. of the Treasury relating to Hunter Biden's travels (at the time he was afforded Secret Service protection and, as you all know, the Secret Service is a subset of the Treasury). Meanwhile, the White House is downsizing the National Security Council, meaning that Vindman's position is being eliminated--I am confident that he will be able to find another job somewhere else.
All things considered, any bets on how long before the House impeaches Trump again? It is mid-February now so I am going to guess "early June". That should give the Senate enough time to acquit Trump again before elections in November.
On a final note, it appears that politicians in the House of Representatives are allowed to investigate political opponents but the occupant of the Oval Office is *not* allowed to invesitgate political opponents. That is a very curious double standard.
Saying Vindman's "position is being eliminated" is a real interesting way of getting around "he was fired for being called to testify under oath and telling the truth" and saying "I am confident he will find another job" is a nice way of getting to "I think it's perfectly fine he is suffering these repercussions".
One of the House's MANDATES is investigation of the Executive Branch SPECIFICALLY. These are entirely disingenuous arguments meant to do nothing but minimize Trump's admitted (he did it again yesterday) actions. The upstanding military vet losing his job in vindictive retaliation is treated like someone who loses a babysitting gig, and you, who lectures us about civics, pretends not to know the role of the House of Representatives is entirely different from that of the Executive. But again, the stance that it is now perfectly normal and acceptable for the President to point to anyone he likes and say "investigate them" is duly-noted for future reference. In civilian life, what is happening to Vindman would be called witness retaliation. It is, again, what the mob did to keep people in line.
If the constantly shifting standards that are applied to Trump were allowed to take place in the actual legal system, no prosecutor would ever secure another conviction anywhere. Every defendant would obstruct the investigations, their lawyers would participate, and after acquital, they would take revenge on whoever testified. Sounds like plan. Wanna try it out??
Also, the Treasury Department will turn over this Secret Service info about Hunter Biden but REFUSES to comply with a plain as day law requiring them to turn over Trump's tax returns to the House. You want your double-standard, I found it for you. Maximum scrutiny for Trump's opponents, none allowed for him.
And I don't know how to tell those on the right this, but Joe Biden isn't gonna be the nominee. That is close to being certain now, and it is a lock if he finishes 4th again on Monday. And if Sanders secures it, I know EXACTLY where Trump and his team are going next months in advance of when it actually takes place, just like I knew 48 before the nature of the whistleblower report was revealed what that was.
@Balrog99 "It kinda negates your theory that countries with gun control have lower suicide rates though. It sounds logical but the numbers don't back it up..."
Did you even read his comment? He said other countries has less GUN RELATED suicides.
2) Amending the constitution is really hard and would require political acumen and savvy Trump has never displayed.
Everyone brings up this point. But what if Republicans just say, in 2024 "Trump is our candidate because the populace wants him to continue being president." He's been planting the seeds that this is his motive for the last year and half now. The "he's joking" argument doesn't comply.
Are states just going to leave him off the ballots? Great, plays right into their hand that the swamp and democratic establishments are too afraid to run against him since he won twice already. Start having a write in vote, make sure no other republican candidate runs leaving the democratic candidate running unopposed. Unopposed means no national debates, which means everything is left to the campaign trail and advertisements.
The constitution has no teeth and its meaning is dictated by the supreme court. If he gets this far, expect Trump and his enablers to muddy the water as much as they can to continue to cling to power.
~
The other thing that they can do is have one of his children run as a puppet and keep him around as an "advisor" who attends all the meetings, takes part in all the phone calls, still holds all his rallies and attacks anyone who gets out of line on twitter.
Saying Vindman's "position is being eliminated" is a real interesting way of getting around "he was fired for being called to testify under oath and telling the truth" and saying "I am confident he will find another job" is a nice way of getting to "I think it's perfectly fine he is suffering these repercussions".
One of the House's MANDATES is investigation of the Executive Branch SPECIFICALLY.
I was unaware that we were allowed to put words into other poster's mouths here. The phrase "position is being eliminated" came from the White House, not my--they aren't *my* words. I was also unaware that you could read my mind. When I state that I am confident he will find another job that means his resume should be sufficient to seek a job for which he is well-qualified. I did not wish any ill intent upon him--he did that to himself, given that actions have consequences.
I presume you mean Article 1 Section 8, yes? If not, then which article/section do you mean?
In related news....so much for trying to get Trump for violating Emoluments. What now, Democrats?
Interesting that is being brought up. Here is yet FURTHER evidence that every trip to his own resort is lining Trump's pockets to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. Note before anyone tries to frame this in another way: This is not about the cost of the trips and protection themselves. It's about the fact that Trump is literally pocketing all the lodging costs of the Secret Service agents. Directly:
In related news....so much for trying to get Trump for violating Emoluments. What now, Democrats?
A corrupt dictatorship where the President enriches himself while in office and silly people celebrate being puppets for the Republican elite?
I don't get why people celebrate a corrupt President who is above the law. Hooray he can keep profiting off his position while in office and take in money and make foreign policy based on bribes. Haha that'll teach those Dems, lets see what else we can let him do!?
Trump is not going to declare a dictatorship in America and rule eternally, or change the election rules to run a third term. Just like he wasn't a secret Russian asset, and Kavanaugh wasn't a gang rapist, nor did he blackmail Ukraine, or any of the other wild accusations we've had to suffer through over the years.
What is somewhat likely is Trump Jr. trying to start a political career based on the legacy of his father. Based on Jr.'s behavior I would say it is as least on the table.
This is an acceptable fact of American politics that nobody was previously questioning, but now that it's Trump all reason and logic go out the window. Can anyone really consider George or Jeb Bush as oligarchs with too much power? Or the Kennedy's who currently hold office?
More likely than not Trump Jr. will simply represent one ideological wing of the GOP.
The dictatorship was in response to "what now democrats". So the response was that is the way we're headed.
Clearly, only 1 Republican in the entire House of Representatives and the Senate has the courage to oppose Trump at all.
So when courts toss out the emoluments clause lawsuit from the ONLY branch of government that is at all interested in checking his power, the House of Representatives while saying they "lack standing" to challenge his authority that's what's next - dicatorship.
Is it a literal dictatorship? Maybe, maybe not. Clearly, rhe Republican party is too cowardly to do anything to stop him - or even worse they're collaborating along while Nero fiddles while Rome is burning - and Democrats unable to stop him despite doing their patriotic best.
Trump is not going to declare a dictatorship in America and rule eternally, or change the election rules to run a third term. Just like he wasn't a secret Russian asset, and Kavanaugh wasn't a gang rapist, nor did he blackmail Ukraine, or any of the other wild accusations we've had to suffer through over the years.
Psst. This one happened. If you want to die on a hill, that's not the right one.
Trump is not going to declare a dictatorship in America and rule eternally, or change the election rules to run a third term. Just like he wasn't a secret Russian asset, and Kavanaugh wasn't a gang rapist, nor did he blackmail Ukraine, or any of the other wild accusations we've had to suffer through over the years.
What is somewhat likely is Trump Jr. trying to start a political career based on the legacy of his father. Based on Jr.'s behavior I would say it is as least on the table.
This is an acceptable fact of American politics that nobody was previously questioning, but now that it's Trump all reason and logic go out the window. Can anyone really consider George or Jeb Bush as oligarchs with too much power? Or the Kennedy's who currently hold office?
More likely than not Trump Jr. will simply represent one ideological wing of the GOP.
Ummmm, yeah. It was talked about ALL the time during W.'s term. It was one of the main arguments used against Hillary, and a Kennedy hasn't ran for President since 1980, and there hasn't been one on the ticket since 1960. For that matter, the Kennedy family has more myth than actual time in power outside of Ted's Senate seat. JFK was killed two years into his term, and RFK was killed in the middle of a primary. Their actual legacy is a Presidency that was cut off by a bullet halfway through one term, and holding one Senate seat. Nothing compared the the Bush family (2 Presidencies and the Governorship of two of the largest states in the country). The hypothetical I was presenting was setting up Jr. or Ivanka in an immediate succession plan.
Trump is not going to declare a dictatorship in America and rule eternally, or change the election rules to run a third term. Just like he wasn't a secret Russian asset, and Kavanaugh wasn't a gang rapist, nor did he blackmail Ukraine, or any of the other wild accusations we've had to suffer through over the years.
What is somewhat likely is Trump Jr. trying to start a political career based on the legacy of his father. Based on Jr.'s behavior I would say it is as least on the table.
This is an acceptable fact of American politics that nobody was previously questioning, but now that it's Trump all reason and logic go out the window. Can anyone really consider George or Jeb Bush as oligarchs with too much power? Or the Kennedy's who currently hold office?
More likely than not Trump Jr. will simply represent one ideological wing of the GOP.
Ummmm, yeah. It was talked about ALL the time during W.'s term. It was one of the main arguments used against Hillary, and a Kennedy hasn't ran for President since 1980, and there hasn't been one on the ticket since 1960. For that matter, the Kennedy family has more myth than actual time in power outside of Ted's Senate seat. JFK was killed two years into his term, and RFK was killed in the middle of a primary. Their actual legacy is a Presidency that was cut off by a bullet halfway through one term, and holding one Senate seat. Nothing compared the the Bush family (2 Presidencies and the Governorship of two of the largest states in the country). The hypothetical I was presenting was setting up Jr. or Ivanka in an immediate succession plan.
Conservatives post stuff like this unironically lol - they want a monarchy.
Well also their politicians will not stand up to him ever. Just one did and they want to throw him out lol. Because the only ideology of the Republican party is "Are you loyal to Trump?" or not.
@Balrog99 "It kinda negates your theory that countries with gun control have lower suicide rates though. It sounds logical but the numbers don't back it up..."
Did you even read his comment? He said other countries has less GUN RELATED suicides.
Of course I read it. Are you saying that gun related suicides are somehow different from other suicides? Does it really matter how somebody ends their own life? To me it doesn't. Belgium has a higher suicide rate than the US even with strict gun control. Period. Don't care how they died. Do care why they died...
Trump is not going to declare a dictatorship in America and rule eternally, or change the election rules to run a third term. Just like he wasn't a secret Russian asset, and Kavanaugh wasn't a gang rapist, nor did he blackmail Ukraine, or any of the other wild accusations we've had to suffer through over the years.
What is somewhat likely is Trump Jr. trying to start a political career based on the legacy of his father. Based on Jr.'s behavior I would say it is as least on the table.
This is an acceptable fact of American politics that nobody was previously questioning, but now that it's Trump all reason and logic go out the window. Can anyone really consider George or Jeb Bush as oligarchs with too much power? Or the Kennedy's who currently hold office?
More likely than not Trump Jr. will simply represent one ideological wing of the GOP.
Ummmm, yeah. It was talked about ALL the time during W.'s term. It was one of the main arguments used against Hillary, and a Kennedy hasn't ran for President since 1980, and there hasn't been one on the ticket since 1960. For that matter, the Kennedy family has more myth than actual time in power outside of Ted's Senate seat. JFK was killed two years into his term, and RFK was killed in the middle of a primary. Their actual legacy is a Presidency that was cut off by a bullet halfway through one term, and holding one Senate seat. Nothing compared the the Bush family (2 Presidencies and the Governorship of two of the largest states in the country). The hypothetical I was presenting was setting up Jr. or Ivanka in an immediate succession plan.
One of the main arguments against Hillary? That's a massive stretch. I actually can't recall a time when anyone warned about the dangers of a Clinton Dynasty, but maybe we just travel in different circles. It was certainly not a major criticism from anyone I know of. It was more about her public policy record. Same goes for Bush, though admittedly my recollection from 20 years ago isn't the best.
@Balrog99 "It kinda negates your theory that countries with gun control have lower suicide rates though. It sounds logical but the numbers don't back it up..."
Did you even read his comment? He said other countries has less GUN RELATED suicides.
Of course I read it. Are you saying that gun related suicides are somehow different from other suicides? Does it really matter how somebody ends their own life? To me it doesn't. Belgium has a higher suicide rate than the US even with strict gun control. Period. Don't care how they died. Do care why they died...
Suicides are more effective when you have a gun, clearly, but as you point out, the weapon isn't the root cause of suicide and getting rid of guns won't stop people from wanting to kill themselves.
The problem I have with the ban guns to stop suicides argument is that it is only effective under a total gun ban. Restricting assault weapons or other such half measures won't stop a man from getting a hunting rifle or handgun.
But they say they don't want total gun bans. Well, which is it? This line of reasoning can only go one way.
The problem I have with the ban guns to stop suicides argument is that it is only effective under a total gun ban. Restricting assault weapons or other such half measures won't stop a man from getting a hunting rifle or handgun.
But they say they don't want total gun bans. Well, which is it? This line of reasoning can only go one way.
This article I posted before explains how making the chosen method of suicide even a little bit harder can make a big difference to suicide rates - that doesn't require a total gun ban (which no-one is proposing). Things like using permits to purchase, red flag laws, encouraging safe storage and providing information about suicide can all have a significant impact on the numbers.
Comments
Except it's his followers who would use guns the guns to keep in power. Do you really think the military or the police or any other branch of government would go to war against open carrying citizens in protest?
And Trump has already said he deserves a third term because of all the presidential harassment he has put up with. Have you checked his pinned tweet recently? It's the cover of Time magazine where they stated populism was the new norm in America and used Trump as the example. But I doubt he read even the cover, he's pinned it because it has Trump 2020, Trump 2024, Trump 2028 etc campaign boards.
HAHA he's joking! No he isn't. He seriously thinks he can do it. And if he does win 2020, what really is stopping the republican party of making them their candidate for 2024? The constitution? Ha!
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/facebook-anti-vaxxers-pushed-mom-not-give-her-son-tamiflu-n1131936
You can't cure stupid...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/health/anti-vaccination-movement-us.amp.html?0p19G=7900
It's hard to disentangle multiple effects. The US being almost, but not quite, at the top of a list of comparative countries for suicide rate may not be clear evidence that the availability of guns make a difference, but it's hardly evidence that they don't ...
More relevant I think are the studies looking at how suicides can be prevented - which do clearly show that suicides are affected by the availability of different methods. The article I referenced yesterday referred to that - here's a couple of tasters:
"Part of the problem with guns is that they are by far the most fatal means. There are three statistics which together paint a stark picture of the role of firearms in American suicides: about 85% of people who use a gun will die; about 95% of people who use another means will survive; and about 90% of those who survive will not go on to try again."
"And legislation passed in the UK in 1998 outlawed the sale of painkillers in bottles, meaning anyone wanting a large quantity had to push them out from blister packs one by one. That seemingly small obstacle had a significant effect — painkiller overdoses fell by 43% over the next decade and overdose-related liver transplants by 61%.
Similar reductions have been observed in the US after the installation of access barriers that prevent people jumping from bridges, and studies tend to show little or no "substitution" effect — ie increases in the number of suicides at nearby bridges. In San Francisco, where dozens of people die every year after jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, a five-year, $76 million metal suicide barrier, paid for by the state, is scheduled for completion by 2023."
https://nypost.com/2020/02/05/nancy-pelosi-pre-ripped-pages-of-trumps-sotu-speech-video-shows/
You're right that neither is going to happen (and fears that Trump is going to become a dictator are nonsensical imo), but there are two actual hypothetical scenarios here:
1) Dictator Trump has the support of the military, at which point it will not matter in the slightest how many guns the populace has.
2) Dictator Trump does not have the support of the military, at which point his extremely short reign will not be made appreciably shorter by how many guns the populace has.
Any civilian population can arm themselves against government oppression - this has been shown a multitude of times over the past three hundred years in countries with radically different gun laws. It has also been shown that whether such untrained civilian militias can prevail against a regular military depends entirely on said military (largely its leadership, morale, and willingness to fight).
It is the most absurdist of fantasy to think that every American gun owner put together is going to be more than a petty annoyance to a tyrannical government that enjoys the services of a compliant US military, and equally absurdist to think that such a government could exist in the near future.
In the meantime, however, American gun culture and laws kill an enormous amount of real people in the real present, while still doing nothing to help in hypothetical futures that won't exist.
He failed miserably to repeal it when Republicans had control of both House and Senate, and it will only be harder to do so four years later.
It is distinctly more likely that President Sanders will get his single payer option, and that isn't very likely.
1) He's really old.
2) Amending the constitution is really hard and would require political acumen and savvy Trump has never displayed.
3) FDR was popular and could strongarm his party. Trump is unpopular and demonstrably cannot do so (see: every time he clashes with them over Russia and loses).
4) He most likely doesn't even want to stay President that long, given the job is hard and he doesn't enjoy it (as he himself and others privy to the White House have said pretty much since he took office). I suspect he wouldn't even run for reelection except that'd look like he "lost".
People thought Bush would never step down from power either. They look pretty silly now, don't they?
Where is all the outrage from conservatives who are so butt hurt about Nancy Pelosi tearing up a couple papers. It's a regular occurance for the Prez. Where were they demanding justice for this?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164
And:
Trump ate sensitive document after Cohen meeting says former White House aide
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-ate-sensitive-document-after-cohen-meeting-former-white-house-aide-1069399
Meanwhile, I see that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will rule in the immediate future as to whether or not Don McGahn, former White House Counsel, can be forced to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. Also, the Senate Judiciary Committee is floating the idea of issuing subpoenas to Eric Ciaramella, the whistleblower, and that Senators Grassley and Johnson, Chairs of the Finance and Governmental Affairs Committees, respectively, have obtained documents from the Dept. of the Treasury relating to Hunter Biden's travels (at the time he was afforded Secret Service protection and, as you all know, the Secret Service is a subset of the Treasury). Meanwhile, the White House is downsizing the National Security Council, meaning that Vindman's position is being eliminated--I am confident that he will be able to find another job somewhere else.
All things considered, any bets on how long before the House impeaches Trump again? It is mid-February now so I am going to guess "early June". That should give the Senate enough time to acquit Trump again before elections in November.
On a final note, it appears that politicians in the House of Representatives are allowed to investigate political opponents but the occupant of the Oval Office is *not* allowed to invesitgate political opponents. That is a very curious double standard.
Thanks for contributing to his publicity...
I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but the tweet is hilarious.
One of the House's MANDATES is investigation of the Executive Branch SPECIFICALLY. These are entirely disingenuous arguments meant to do nothing but minimize Trump's admitted (he did it again yesterday) actions. The upstanding military vet losing his job in vindictive retaliation is treated like someone who loses a babysitting gig, and you, who lectures us about civics, pretends not to know the role of the House of Representatives is entirely different from that of the Executive. But again, the stance that it is now perfectly normal and acceptable for the President to point to anyone he likes and say "investigate them" is duly-noted for future reference. In civilian life, what is happening to Vindman would be called witness retaliation. It is, again, what the mob did to keep people in line.
If the constantly shifting standards that are applied to Trump were allowed to take place in the actual legal system, no prosecutor would ever secure another conviction anywhere. Every defendant would obstruct the investigations, their lawyers would participate, and after acquital, they would take revenge on whoever testified. Sounds like plan. Wanna try it out??
Also, the Treasury Department will turn over this Secret Service info about Hunter Biden but REFUSES to comply with a plain as day law requiring them to turn over Trump's tax returns to the House. You want your double-standard, I found it for you. Maximum scrutiny for Trump's opponents, none allowed for him.
And I don't know how to tell those on the right this, but Joe Biden isn't gonna be the nominee. That is close to being certain now, and it is a lock if he finishes 4th again on Monday. And if Sanders secures it, I know EXACTLY where Trump and his team are going next months in advance of when it actually takes place, just like I knew 48 before the nature of the whistleblower report was revealed what that was.
Did you even read his comment? He said other countries has less GUN RELATED suicides.
Everyone brings up this point. But what if Republicans just say, in 2024 "Trump is our candidate because the populace wants him to continue being president." He's been planting the seeds that this is his motive for the last year and half now. The "he's joking" argument doesn't comply.
Are states just going to leave him off the ballots? Great, plays right into their hand that the swamp and democratic establishments are too afraid to run against him since he won twice already. Start having a write in vote, make sure no other republican candidate runs leaving the democratic candidate running unopposed. Unopposed means no national debates, which means everything is left to the campaign trail and advertisements.
The constitution has no teeth and its meaning is dictated by the supreme court. If he gets this far, expect Trump and his enablers to muddy the water as much as they can to continue to cling to power.
~
The other thing that they can do is have one of his children run as a puppet and keep him around as an "advisor" who attends all the meetings, takes part in all the phone calls, still holds all his rallies and attacks anyone who gets out of line on twitter.
I was unaware that we were allowed to put words into other poster's mouths here. The phrase "position is being eliminated" came from the White House, not my--they aren't *my* words. I was also unaware that you could read my mind. When I state that I am confident he will find another job that means his resume should be sufficient to seek a job for which he is well-qualified. I did not wish any ill intent upon him--he did that to himself, given that actions have consequences.
I presume you mean Article 1 Section 8, yes? If not, then which article/section do you mean?
In related news....so much for trying to get Trump for violating Emoluments. What now, Democrats?
A corrupt dictatorship where the President enriches himself while in office and silly people celebrate being puppets for the Republican elite?
I don't get why people celebrate a corrupt President who is above the law. Hooray he can keep profiting off his position while in office and take in money and make foreign policy based on bribes. Haha that'll teach those Dems, lets see what else we can let him do!?
What is somewhat likely is Trump Jr. trying to start a political career based on the legacy of his father. Based on Jr.'s behavior I would say it is as least on the table.
This is an acceptable fact of American politics that nobody was previously questioning, but now that it's Trump all reason and logic go out the window. Can anyone really consider George or Jeb Bush as oligarchs with too much power? Or the Kennedy's who currently hold office?
More likely than not Trump Jr. will simply represent one ideological wing of the GOP.
Clearly, only 1 Republican in the entire House of Representatives and the Senate has the courage to oppose Trump at all.
So when courts toss out the emoluments clause lawsuit from the ONLY branch of government that is at all interested in checking his power, the House of Representatives while saying they "lack standing" to challenge his authority that's what's next - dicatorship.
Is it a literal dictatorship? Maybe, maybe not. Clearly, rhe Republican party is too cowardly to do anything to stop him - or even worse they're collaborating along while Nero fiddles while Rome is burning - and Democrats unable to stop him despite doing their patriotic best.
The Republic is failing.
Psst. This one happened. If you want to die on a hill, that's not the right one.
Ummmm, yeah. It was talked about ALL the time during W.'s term. It was one of the main arguments used against Hillary, and a Kennedy hasn't ran for President since 1980, and there hasn't been one on the ticket since 1960. For that matter, the Kennedy family has more myth than actual time in power outside of Ted's Senate seat. JFK was killed two years into his term, and RFK was killed in the middle of a primary. Their actual legacy is a Presidency that was cut off by a bullet halfway through one term, and holding one Senate seat. Nothing compared the the Bush family (2 Presidencies and the Governorship of two of the largest states in the country). The hypothetical I was presenting was setting up Jr. or Ivanka in an immediate succession plan.
Conservatives post stuff like this unironically lol - they want a monarchy.
Well also their politicians will not stand up to him ever. Just one did and they want to throw him out lol. Because the only ideology of the Republican party is "Are you loyal to Trump?" or not.
Of course I read it. Are you saying that gun related suicides are somehow different from other suicides? Does it really matter how somebody ends their own life? To me it doesn't. Belgium has a higher suicide rate than the US even with strict gun control. Period. Don't care how they died. Do care why they died...
One of the main arguments against Hillary? That's a massive stretch. I actually can't recall a time when anyone warned about the dangers of a Clinton Dynasty, but maybe we just travel in different circles. It was certainly not a major criticism from anyone I know of. It was more about her public policy record. Same goes for Bush, though admittedly my recollection from 20 years ago isn't the best.
Suicides are more effective when you have a gun, clearly, but as you point out, the weapon isn't the root cause of suicide and getting rid of guns won't stop people from wanting to kill themselves.
The problem I have with the ban guns to stop suicides argument is that it is only effective under a total gun ban. Restricting assault weapons or other such half measures won't stop a man from getting a hunting rifle or handgun.
But they say they don't want total gun bans. Well, which is it? This line of reasoning can only go one way.
This article I posted before explains how making the chosen method of suicide even a little bit harder can make a big difference to suicide rates - that doesn't require a total gun ban (which no-one is proposing). Things like using permits to purchase, red flag laws, encouraging safe storage and providing information about suicide can all have a significant impact on the numbers.