The Democrat Utopia

[Scarlet]

Too bad a mentally ill Trump doesn't have the courage to seek help.  But nah, let's vote for him three times.

 

Ironically, I haven't seen any comments from board Trumpists saying he should never have ran for office.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Sometimes you just have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps.

 

Admitting you have a problem and seeking help is pulling yourself up. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

Too bad a mentally ill Trump doesn't have the courage to seek help.  But nah, let's vote for him three times.

 

Ironically, I haven't seen any comments from board Trumpists saying he should never have ran for office.

 

There are no board Trumpists. We used to have a guy named Archy around here, but I don't see him anymore. 

[Archy1221]

16 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

There are no board Trumpists. We used to have a guy named Archy around here, but I don't see him anymore. 

 

We all know you secretly do

[TGHusker]

17 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

running a government not a geriatric retreat. And while we’re at it, no special healthcare, pension or retirement benes that the average citizen can’t participate in.

 

These people are supposed to serve us not themselves. If we fix that basic concept, we fix a whole bunch of our other problems at the same time.

ALL I CAN SAY IS AMEN 

[TGHusker]

17 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

What a load of horse s#!t. These people think they’re above the law. It’s that simple. Nobody should be above being called to testify and provide answers and statements under oath. I don’t care if it diminishes future efforts of others in the same office or not as truth and justice are way more important than any office. Pence is just another example of what’s wrong with our government.

I tell you what, this type of elitism is how we end up wt a J6.   When a crime is committed there is no longer an executive privilege.  And pray tell, where is 'executive privilege' found in the constitution?  It surely isn't a blanket privilege to avoid testifying in such a serious case as J6. 

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-1/ALDE_00013377/

Quote

 

Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The doctrine of executive privilege defines the authority of the President to withhold documents or information in his possession or in the possession of the Executive Branch from the Legislative or Judicial Branch of the government. While the Constitution does not expressly confer upon the Executive Branch any such privilege, the Supreme Court has held that executive privilege derives from the constitutional separation of powers and from a necessary and proper concept respecting the carrying out of the duties of the presidency imposed by the Constitution.¹ Although there are various and distinct components to executive privilege,² the privilege’s foundation lies in the proposition that in making judgments and reaching decisions, the President and his advisors must be free to discuss issues candidly, express opinions, and explore options without fear that those deliberations will later be made public.³

Conceptually, the doctrine of executive privilege may well reflect different considerations in different factual situations. Congress may seek information within the possession of the President in the course of exercising its investigatory powers;⁴ government prosecutors may seek information in the course of investigating and prosecuting crimes;⁵ and private parties may seek information in the possession of the President for use as evidence in either a criminal or civil proceeding.⁶ In all of these contexts, the courts have generally assessed any asserted privilege by weighing the President’s need for confidentiality against the interests of the party seeking the information.⁷

Today, it is apparent that executive privilege is qualified rather than absolute. For the vast majority of U.S. history, however, the existence and appropriate scope of the privilege was uncertain and nearly untouched by the courts.⁸ Chief Justice John Marshall referred to the confidentiality of presidential communications in Marbury v. Madison and during the treason trial of former Vice President Aaron Burr,⁹ but in neither instance [ ] was Marshall forced to definitively decide whether such a presidential privilege existed and if so, in what form.¹⁰ In fact, the judiciary’s involvement in addressing the privilege’s use in resisting disclosure in the face of either judicial or legislative subpoenas did not begin in earnest until the 1970s and the Administration of Richard Nixon.¹¹ Prior to the Nixon era, executive privilege’s contours were defined, if at all, by historical practice and the actions and interpretations of Congress and the President. And with little further explication coming from the Supreme Court since, the Nixon era remains the defining era of judicial consideration of the privilege.

This lack of judicial involvement is most pronounced in the context of executive privilege disputes between Congress and the President. The Supreme Court has never directly considered the application of executive privilege in the context of a congressional investigation.¹² Lower federal court decisions are similarly scarce. The only appellate-level decision to reach the merits of an executive privilege dispute between Congress and a sitting President occurred nearly 50 years ago.¹³ In light of this near judicial vacuum, the historical actions and interpretations of the branches necessarily play a significant role in establishing the meaning of executive privilege.

 

 

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

There are no board Trumpists. We used to have a guy named Archy around here, but I don't see him anymore. 

ME 2

[JJ Husker]

2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

I tell you what, this type of elitism is how we end up wt a J6.   When a crime is committed there is no longer an executive privilege.  And pray tell, where is 'executive privilege' found in the constitution?  It surely isn't a blanket privilege to avoid testifying in such a serious case as J6. 

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-4-1/ALDE_00013377/

 

I’m not sure another J6 type deal isn’t warranted. Just not one for those reasons or by the same people. But there is definitely something broken with the way our government is supposed to function. Not sure how else it gets remedied because the people we are electing sure aren’t getting any better or fixing squat.

[Archy1221]

29 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

the people we are electing sure aren’t getting any better or fixing squat

True

[nic]

Quick, buy the originals before they are overwritten:-). I wonder if this will bump up the value of older prints?

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roald-dahl-childrens-books-rewritten-delete-references-fat-characters-add-inclusive-gender-terms

 

Edit: Yeah! Hiring sensitivity reader is the first mistake.

 

European publishers said they will not make changes to Roald Dahl's books, arguing that his stories will "lose all their power" after a U.K. publishing company revealed it had rewritten some of the late author's work to remove potentially offensive language.

Puffin Books, which published Dahl's classic works, hired sensitivity readers to update portions of the author's wording in the U.K. editions to ensure the books "can continue to be enjoyed by all today." The edits include new gender-neutral language and altered descriptions of certain physical appearances and were reportedly approved by Dahl's estate.  

 

 

[Archy1221]

I guess this person f’ed around and found out. And some people even believed this obviously fake narrative 

 

 

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I guess this person f’ed around and found out. And some people even believed this obviously fake narrative 

 

 

Wow, I guess I was wrong.

 

I figured the library was getting new carpet or something.

 

Turns out the books WERE pulled because of the law and to be reviewed.

 

I thought you were a a Desantis fan? 

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Wow, I guess I was wrong.

 

I figured the library was getting new carpet or something.

 

Turns out the books WERE pulled because of the law and to be reviewed.

 

I thought you were a a Desantis fan? 

[funhusker]

13 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Check out the 5:30 minute mark

 

[funhusker]

Just now, funhusker said:

Check out the 5:30 minute mark

 

Thanks for sharing the article.  I actually learned some things about the bulls#!t Desantis and the Florida Dept of Ed are putting their teachers through.

 

I wonder what the final amount of “unapproved” books will be after spending all this time and tax dollars.

 

Glad I don’t live/teach in Florida!