Nebfanatic Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/17/us/politics/trump-emoluments-money.html Given the discussion over in the DOJ investigation thread, I wanted to start this poll. This article by NY times late last year sums up the issue nicely. If you don't have a subscription just go incognito! 1 Link to comment
NM11046 Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 I wish there was an option for "Yes, duh" 2 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted April 12, 2019 Author Share Posted April 12, 2019 39 minutes ago, NM11046 said: I wish there was an option for "Yes, duh" I didn't want to seem mean or unfair to our dear füh-ahem-leader. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 No brainer don't you think Link to comment
RedDenver Posted April 12, 2019 Share Posted April 12, 2019 I'm sure we'll hear about how "smart" Trump is for violating the Constitution to make money. 1 Link to comment
knapplc Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Hey. Hi. Remember this funny little sidebar conversation? The least criminal of Trump's crimes (this year)? Yeah, well, he's doing it again. And his spokes folks are basically saying Trump is "too rich to profit from it." But that begs the question - if Trump doesn't need to profit from it, why hold it at one of his properties? And if he doesn't need to profit from it, will he host them all for free? 1 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 Just amazing. Dictators flaunt their power because there is no one to check it. The Dems can't do it alone - they need the senate in order to kick him out. Hey here are 2 ideas: 1. Impeach him, kick him out of office if possible and then the next President - (SAN FRAN NAN perhaps) can cancel the contract 2. Let the voters vote in a Dem Senate and even if he gets reelected, the Dems can then try to impeach him again on new charges. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted October 17, 2019 Share Posted October 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, TGHusker said: Just amazing. Dictators flaunt their power because there is no one to check it. The Dems can't do it alone - they need the senate in order to kick him out. Hey here are 2 ideas: 1. Impeach him, kick him out of office if possible and then the next President - (SAN FRAN NAN perhaps) can cancel the contract 2. Let the voters vote in a Dem Senate and even if he gets reelected, the Dems can then try to impeach him again on new charges. The problem with 2 is the senate heavily favors people the Democrats can’t seem to reach. Link to comment
QMany Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 That's quite the holding. House refiles today. Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted February 8, 2020 Author Share Posted February 8, 2020 23 hours ago, schriznoeder said: He might be guilty but not enough people want to press charges so we are throwing it out. Is that how violations of the constitution are supposed to be handled? You need a majority to hold someone accountable? 1 Link to comment
sho Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 On 2/8/2020 at 10:12 AM, Nebfanatic said: He might be guilty but not enough people want to press charges so we are throwing it out. Is that how violations of the constitution are supposed to be handled? You need a majority to hold someone accountable? Isn't that true in all things? I mean if only 4 of the 12 jury members think a person is guilty, they don't find him guilty....if only 2 of 17 people in a grand jury think a defendant should be bound for trial, they don't get bound for trial. If majority don't believe, or rather refuse to acknowledge, the case goes away. Hence the phrase 'majority rules' 1 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted February 12, 2020 Author Share Posted February 12, 2020 On 2/10/2020 at 3:38 PM, sho said: Isn't that true in all things? I mean if only 4 of the 12 jury members think a person is guilty, they don't find him guilty....if only 2 of 17 people in a grand jury think a defendant should be bound for trial, they don't get bound for trial. If majority don't believe, or rather refuse to acknowledge, the case goes away. Hence the phrase 'majority rules' Those aren't apt comparisons to what we are seeing here. To bring the suit to court you have to have a majority regardless of the actual facts? That is not how our justice system is supposed to work. In the scenarios you presented those bodies would still be basing their decision on the actual evidence presented not if there is enough people that want this suit to happen. Link to comment
Recommended Posts