poprock wrote:Which means elections are effectively meaningless now as the outcome is entirely corruptible.
I think this is an interesting thing to delve into.
Nobody is fixing any elections here. No results are being tampered with. Nobody is being coerced. Technically, democracy is in fine form and the election processes are ticking along nicely.
What’s being manipulated is public opinion – the elections and referenda do reflect the genuine will of the people, but that ‘will of the people’ is being manipulated.
Thing is … it always has been. These are just new tools to do it with. More effective tools.
GooberTheHat wrote:The video apparently shows prostitutes pissing on a bed Obama slept in, with Trump watching, not taking part
poprock wrote:I love that the wording of Manafort’s indictment is actually “conspiracy against the United States”, so we can officially say that campaigning for Trump’s presidency was a conspiracy against the country.
monkey wrote:Trump has committed all kinds of impeachable offences already.
Diluted Dante wrote:Do you think Trump gives a shit?
WorKid wrote:No he hasn't, as much as we'd like to think so.monkey wrote:Trump has committed all kinds of impeachable offences already.
Manafort is probably going to turn on Trump in order to avoid jail. At that point he'll become an unreliable witness in the eyes of the deplorables. This needs a smoking gun, not a paper trail and a lot of debate about who knew what.GooberTheHat wrote:When the offence is so blatant and undeniable I think the GOP would cave to the pressure.
Well, he has and he hasn't. Impeachment is just the process that decides whether or not to have a trial. You don't need all the evidence up front.WorKid wrote:No he hasn't, as much as we'd like to think so.Trump has committed all kinds of impeachable offences already.
The Constitution allows for the impeachment and removal of a president for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But no controlling authority serves as a check on how lawmakers choose to interpret that standard, which makes it as much a question of political will as of legal analysis.
In the case of Mr. Clinton’s trial, for example, Robert Byrd, a Democratic senator from West Virginia at the time, told his colleagues that he thought Mr. Clinton was clearly guilty of perjury but that removing him from office was a bad idea.
“To drop the sword of Damocles now, given the bitter political partisanship surrounding this entire matter, would only serve to further undermine a public trust that is too much damaged already,” he said. “Therefore, I will reluctantly vote to acquit.”
WorKid wrote:Only if you think the senators are corrupt too. Otherwise haven't they got an obligation to uphold the Constitution and so not to impeach the President on bullshit pointless charges?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!