US Politics 2

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Moggy » Wed Jan 22, 2020 8:15 am

Alaska isn't just territory, it's an entire state. There's no way he would get away with it.

Image
User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: US Politics 2
by captain red dog » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:00 am

The only way he could justify it would be to say its a fantastic financial deal for the United States, with some story that Russia paid a very good price for it.

But no, I don't see any President ever surviving the sale or relinquishing of state territory like that. Not gonna happen.

User avatar
Tomous
I Pissed My Pants
Joined in 2010
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Tomous » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:02 am

What the actual flying strawberry float, how is Trump giving Alaska to Russia even in the conversation :slol:

His presidency is mental.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Moggy » Wed Jan 22, 2020 11:14 am

Tomous wrote:What the actual flying strawberry float, how is Trump giving Alaska to Russia even in the conversation :slol:

His presidency is mental.


I thought buying Greenland sounded crazy, but maybe the stable genius has a plan to swap Greenland with Alaska? Sure Denmark might have something to say about that, but he'll worry about the details later.

Image
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Preezy » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:57 pm

I'm hearing the Alaska deal would be great for those Alaskans. You know, people are telling me that Alaskans love Russia and would very much like to be part of that great, great, beautiful and powerful nation, so if that's what they want then we could look at this deal. Obviously the USA, not including Alaska as that's Russia now or will be Russia when the deal is signed, the USA will be very handsomely rewarded as part of the deal and to celebrate I'll be commissioning a new Trump Hotel and Casino in Alaska so that those Alaskan-Russians, the ones living in Alaska right now as Americans but who will soon be Russians, can finally experience some quality casino action, maybe I could even host the Miss World 2021 there? But anyway, the best part of the deal is that we're going to save so much money, I love money, I've got so much of it I'm so rich and famous and my daughter is so hot, it'll be the most amount of money ever saved by a US President I'm hearing, because we will be able to finally remove the A from NATO as I believe the A stands for Alaska so if you think about all the business cards, flags, maps, tanks, uniforms, websites and all that stuff, all of it has NATO on it so if we take away the A for Alaska then when we get all that rebranded following the sale it'll actually be costing us less because there's 1 letter removed, which is just beautiful and something we should have done a very long time ago, but couldn't because those unpatriotic Democrats like Nasty Nancy, Crooked Hilary and China wouldn't let us. But now, my fellow Americans, not including the Alaskans as I've already stated, we can celebrate a great deal for us all, but mostly for me and our great allies the Russians. So important.

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Alvin Flummux » Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:02 pm

Apparently Federalist 65 actively prohibits the sale of states, or at least proves there's no way he could do it, but I've not read it so I can't attest to the truth of it.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Moggy » Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:05 pm

Alvin Flummux wrote:Apparently Federalist 65 actively prohibits the sale of states, or at least proves there's no way he could do it, but I've not read it so I can't attest to the truth of it.


Knock yourself out:

To the People of the State of New York:

THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments. As in the business of appointments the executive will be the principal agent, the provisions relating to it will most properly be discussed in the examination of that department. We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust. Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself? Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men? If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves? It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body. Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry? The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention. In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have followed the example. As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government. Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description? It is much to be doubted, whether the members of that tribunal would at all times be endowed with so eminent a portion of fortitude, as would be called for in the execution of so difficult a task; and it is still more to be doubted, whether they would possess the degree of credit and authority, which might, on certain occasions, be indispensable towards reconciling the people to a decision that should happen to clash with an accusation brought by their immediate representatives. A deficiency in the first, would be fatal to the accused; in the last, dangerous to the public tranquillity. The hazard in both these respects, could only be avoided, if at all, by rendering that tribunal more numerous than would consist with a reasonable attention to economy. The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding. This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security. There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it. The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.

These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments. There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion. It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender. After having been sentenced to a prepetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune? Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence? That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision? Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial. The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office. It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger. But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges. They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court. Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?

Would it have been an improvement of the plan, to have united the Supreme Court with the Senate, in the formation of the court of impeachments? This union would certainly have been attended with several advantages; but would they not have been overbalanced by the signal disadvantage, already stated, arising from the agency of the same judges in the double prosecution to which the offender would be liable? To a certain extent, the benefits of that union will be obtained from making the chief justice of the Supreme Court the president of the court of impeachments, as is proposed to be done in the plan of the convention; while the inconveniences of an entire incorporation of the former into the latter will be substantially avoided. This was perhaps the prudent mean. I forbear to remark upon the additional pretext for clamor against the judiciary, which so considerable an augmentation of its authority would have afforded.

Would it have been desirable to have composed the court for the trial of impeachments, of persons wholly distinct from the other departments of the government? There are weighty arguments, as well against, as in favor of, such a plan. To some minds it will not appear a trivial objection, that it could tend to increase the complexity of the political machine, and to add a new spring to the government, the utility of which would at best be questionable. But an objection which will not be thought by any unworthy of attention, is this: a court formed upon such a plan, would either be attended with a heavy expense, or might in practice be subject to a variety of casualties and inconveniences. It must either consist of permanent officers, stationary at the seat of government, and of course entitled to fixed and regular stipends, or of certain officers of the State governments to be called upon whenever an impeachment was actually depending. It will not be easy to imagine any third mode materially different, which could rationally be proposed. As the court, for reasons already given, ought to be numerous, the first scheme will be reprobated by every man who can compare the extent of the public wants with the means of supplying them. The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union; the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.

But though one or the other of the substitutes which have been examined, or some other that might be devised, should be thought preferable to the plan in this respect, reported by the convention, it will not follow that the Constitution ought for this reason to be rejected. If mankind were to resolve to agree in no institution of government, until every part of it had been adjusted to the most exact standard of perfection, society would soon become a general scene of anarchy, and the world a desert. Where is the standard of perfection to be found? Who will undertake to unite the discordant opinions of a whole commuity, in the same judgment of it; and to prevail upon one conceited projector to renounce his INFALLIBLE criterion for the FALLIBLE criterion of his more CONCEITED NEIGHBOR? To answer the purpose of the adversaries of the Constitution, they ought to prove, not merely that particular provisions in it are not the best which might have been imagined, but that the plan upon the whole is bad and pernicious.

PUBLIUS.

Image
User avatar
Kezzer
Member
Joined in 2012
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Kezzer » Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:17 pm

who did you call a publius ?! :x

Image
Image
Image

Check out the Digital Combat Simulator thread for some hardcore aerial combat! | Mumble | PCGT V | The Photography Thread
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Alvin Flummux » Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:04 pm

Moggy wrote:
Alvin Flummux wrote:Apparently Federalist 65 actively prohibits the sale of states, or at least proves there's no way he could do it, but I've not read it so I can't attest to the truth of it.


Knock yourself out


Ah strawberry float, I can't believe you've done this.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Moggy » Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:18 pm



:fp:

Image
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by KK » Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:30 pm

I’m no expert, but to me that definitely looks like the Star Trek badge.

Image
User avatar
Memento Mori
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Emperor Mori

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Memento Mori » Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:31 pm

Can the estate of Gene Roddenberry sue?

User avatar
Lex-Man
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Lex-Man » Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:31 pm

It's a shitter version of the star trek badge.

Amusement under late capitalism is the prolongation of work.
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Alvin Flummux » Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:43 am



:lol:

User avatar
Monkey Man
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Monkey Man » Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:42 am


Image
User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: Belfast

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Meep » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:18 pm

Nah, the Starfleet logo was ripped off from NASA to begin with so I don't think they have much of a case.

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Wilmington, OH, USA
Contact:

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Alvin Flummux » Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:09 pm

Meep wrote:Nah, the Starfleet logo was ripped off from NASA to begin with so I don't think they have much of a case.


That was a fairly transparent homage, though - fictional explorers and pioneers honouring real ones.

I doubt you could say that Trump's military fetish-driven "space force" could be considered the same.

User avatar
Peter Crisp
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Peter Crisp » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:41 am

I see Trump claimed Sanders is a Communist.
It's amazing how often Americans call anyone with any liberal ideas a Communist as it's like they have no idea what communism actually is.
I don't see Sanders demanding that all the means of production be taken over by the state and I don't think that trying to get a half decent minimum wage or actual workers rights like maternity leave counts either.

I'd love to see a journalist actually have a discussion with these people and ask them what they think Communism is and then actually point out that what they think it is has not even the slightest likeness to actual communism.

jiggles wrote:Nobody with a VR headset is going to be using it regularly this time next year, let alone in 4 years time.


Posted 16th March 2016. Let's see.
User avatar
Preezy
Skeletor
Joined in 2009

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Preezy » Mon Feb 03, 2020 11:51 am

Peter Crisp wrote:I'd love to see a journalist actually have a discussion with these people and ask them what they think Communism is and then actually point out that what they think it is has not even the slightest likeness to actual communism.

There was a video ages ago where a reporter/internet person went to a Republican rally (McCain's, maybe?) where he was asking people about the economic Tsars that Obama was employing and what they thought of the US having Tsars.

Naturally all of the interviewees were disgusted at the thought of the US having these communist monsters telling the President how to run the economy.... until the reporter informed them that it was Ronald Reagan who first introduced the concept :slol:

Will try and find the video.

User avatar
Cuttooth
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: US Politics 2
by Cuttooth » Tue Feb 04, 2020 7:20 am

What the strawberry float are the Democrats playing at? What an absolute farce! :lol: :fp:


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: <]:^D, Albear, Cuttooth, floydfreak, Garth, Google [Bot], Jezo, Lex-Man, MSN [Bot], OrangeRKN, Peter Crisp, PuppetBoy, Somebody Else's Problem and 61 guests