Jump to content

wildcat09

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    13187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by wildcat09

  1. 44 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

    Allow me to quote Joe Biden and Congressperson Nadler:  

    Biden: "It would have been wrong for Richard Nixon to have been removed from office based upon a purely partisan vote. No president should be removed from office merely because one party enjoys a commanding lead in either house of the Congress … 

    It is our constitutional duty to give the president the benefit of the doubt on the facts … Brett Kavanaugh, who was associate independent counsel in Ken Starr’s office for three years, put this argument most succinctly in a recent article he published in the Georgetown Law Journal: The President is not simply another individual. He is unique. He is the embodiment of the federal government and the head of a political party. If he is to be removed, the entire government likely would suffer, [and] the military or economic consequences to the nation could be severe’ …

    To remove a president is to decapitate another branch and to undermine the independence necessary for it to fulfill its constitutional role … To remove a duly-elected president clashes with democratic principles in a way that simply has no constitutional parallel

    “Federalist 65 also sounds a warning – again, it is a warning that has been invoked over and over again – that impeachments inevitably risk being hijacked by partisan political forces

    Given the essentially anti-democratic nature of impeachment and the great dangers inherent in the too-ready exercise of that power, impeachment has no place in our system of constitutional democracy except as an extreme measure – reserved for breaches of the public trust by a president who so violates his official duties, misuses his official powers or places our system of government at such risk that our constitutional government is put in immediate danger by his continuing to serve out the term to which the people of the United States elected him …

    “For one branch to remove the head of a co-equal branch unavoidably harms our constitutional structure …

    “I cautioned that we remember Alice’s plight when the Queen declared ‘sentence first, verdict afterwards’ …

    “The country is not well served when either policy disagreements or personal animosities drive the process …

    “I am here today to call for bipartisanship in the impeachment process. It is a concept many will say they agree with. But actions speak louder than words. 

    The Framers of the Constitution knew that the greatest danger associated with impeachment was the presence of partisan factions that could dictate the outcome. 

    “It is clear from the debates and from the commentaries on the Constitutional Convention that the Framers were concerned that anything less than bipartisanship could, and would, do great damage to our form of government. They knew that to contemplate an action as profound as undoing a popular election requires at a minimum that members of both parties find that the alleged wrong is grave enough to overturn the will of the majority of the American people. 

    “The Framers also understood the sentiment expressed nearly 200 years later by Congresswoman Barbara Jordan during the impeachment proceedings of Richard Nixon. She said, ‘it is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision’ …

    “In the case of an impeachment, fair means bipartisan … Once the election is held, our leaders hold office until the next election. It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the presidency and it usurps the people’s voice

    Permit one branch of government to subjugate another to its partisan wishes, and you permit the kind of concentration of power that can lead to tyranny. So the system the Framers established is utterly incompatible with the idea that sharp partisan divisions could be sufficient to impeach …

    “Impeachment can be legitimate if and only if it emanates from a bipartisan conviction that the president has committed high crimes and misdemeanors – when people of opposing viewpoints can come together in agreement over the seriousness of the offense and the appropriateness of the sanction …

    “Look back at the Nixon impeachment. It took on legitimacy when a core of Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee were moved by the nature of President Nixon’s offenses to break party ranks and vote for articles of impeachment … There was bipartisan consensus that what Nixon did was impeachable …

    “Bipartisanship should not wait until the matter reaches the Senate chamber …

    “The Constitution provides that ‘the Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments.’ Some consider this provision to impose a duty upon the Senate to try or adjudicate all impeachments. Even if the Constitution imposes such a duty, the Senate has not understood this duty to adjudicate as necessarily requiring a formal trial. There is precedent for the Senate considering dispositive motions that would allow the Senate to render a judgment without holding a trial.”

    And Nadler - 

    “Benjamin Franklin called impeachment, ‘a substitute for assassination’ … The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters as expressed in a national election. We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our very system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat. And we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress of the absolute necessity …

    We have no right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people

     

    Nixon deserved impeachment; Clinton did not. 

    What you're saying is that it would not warrant impeachment if Trump started having his political opponents killed so long as most of the GOP refused to publicly oppose the killings.

    • Like 3
  2. 25 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    what an utterly chickenshit attack.  typical.

    One would think that someone completely devoid of empathy would have thicker skin, but here’s you whining like a little Trump.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  3. 3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    super anecdote.

    many will also tell you they don't want to follow the rules of the shelter(drugs/alcohol) and would prefer to sleep on the street.

     

    "somebody needs to do something!"  "not that!!!"

     

     

    Is it cool to live your life as someone completely devoid of anything remotely resembling empathy?

    • Like 2
  4. 1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

    this whole thing actually reminds me of a couple of things in our meandering journey in austin sports. 

    how hornfans shat itself, spawning the shag

    this was around the same time that 1300 the zone was going through some similar tumultuous change, as new ownership could not grasp their audience and their staff, and ended out fucking their own face, spawning the horn.

    then @blacklab does a reddit AMA, and drops a "tree fiddy" as a joke and that becomes an actual part of a real case in court, resulting in a sham judgment handing shag over to kevin fucking morgan, and the result is the surl. kevin fell victim to the idea that the users of a website go there because of a URL the same way ownership of the zone or klbj think that the loyalty to a radio station is the frequency (i still haven't tuned back into 590 AM after they shitcanned ward, and probably won't anytime soon).

    looks like the same thing happened to deadspin and all G|O properties. it's amazing to me how rich people just expect people to fall into line.

    it doesn't always work like that. some attempt to understand your audience, your staff, and what the business is trying to fucking accomplish goes a long way.

    anyways. deadspin is dead. way to fuck the golden goose you idiots.

    Yeah the whole thing immediately reminded me of this group of assholes.  It's annoying to see Deadspin die but I'm glad it's dying as spectacularly as it is over something so fucking stupid.  I can't imagine a way to make the ownership group look dumber than they do now. Meanwhile, the writers will catch on at other places, many of which their readership already read at least occasionally, though hopefully a core group can start something new together. Not that the vultures that fucked it up would actually learn a lesson from it, but it's the closest thing to a giant middle finger that anyone can really accomplish against their types in our shitty society.  

  5. 36 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

     

    “Correct decision” does not equal “easy decision”. Worldwide, that’s probably hundreds of millions in lost ad revenue. Regardless, I hope every other platform follows their lead.

     

    Edit: scrolled like three posts down after typing this and saw that I basically quoted some right wing asshole with my quote about the lost revenue. I’m not backing away from my assumption on that, just clarifying that it came from my own drunk brain.

    Not sure what it is for twitter but for Facebook political ads are actually a tiny percentage of their ad revenue, so I’d imagine twitter is similar. 

  6. 2 hours ago, Seasick Sailor said:

    Yeah, we are seeing the effects of the response to the Taubman incident and JV banning the Detroit reporter from the club house. 

    Well also seemingly half of all national sports journalists live in the DC area and virtually none live in Houston.

  7. 4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    Let me throw this at you, what if I found a black woman who hated blacks and women?! I think a female Clayton Bigsby would do well. Just as long as they NEVER slipped up, even for a second, and acted like a human being.

    Will Candace Owens be old enough in 2024? If so we might be in trouble.

  8. 20 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    While pissing off the suits above certainly didn't help their cause, this was always going to be how things went down, regardless of who they mocked (or didn't).  As somebody who follows DS and a few of the other Gawker/Gizmodo sites, things have been really going downhill over the past several months, and it wasn't necessarily politics.

    It was pretty clear a while back that whoever bought the company planned to cut costs and use all of the sites to promote the popular content of the other sites, which can help drive up advertising revenue, but it can also drive down staffing needs - You have X amount of writes for a site, but if all of the sudden 25% (or more) of that site was being replaced by stories from other sites, you can cut a writer or two or three.

    That was the appeal of that company - while they may be different domains, they were all hosted as one large site, and if you got a popular story going on one site, it only took a few clicks to promote it across all of the other sites, and voila, you almost instantaneously drive up the number of views.

    Yeah, all the Gawker network sites were doomed the moment some vulture capitalists bought them up and that has nothing to do with partisan politics.  Most private equity acquisitions are just bust out scams.

    • Like 1
  9. 39 minutes ago, Bottlecap said:

    David Roth and Drew Magary are national treasures, especially when they go in raw on el trumpo. Fuck BIG BILLIONAIRE. 

    When Trump's administration ends Roth should compile all of his articles about Trump into a book. It'd be the definitive book on the Trump era and nothing else would even come close. Also he could remember some guys in it too.

    • Like 2
  10. 1 hour ago, mchookem said:

    jfc i can't even.

    i just don't understand. really, i can't wrap my head around it like at ALL. ~half of my fellow citizens look at that and think Obama is a piece of shit and Trump is a god. how is that our reality? HOW??

    wtf happened to us. 

     

    A bunch of conservative white people got really mad when a black man got elected President.

    • Like 1
  11. 9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    She wasn't. Putin was seated at a separate table and went from table to table to talk to people. He came to her table to talk with Flynn and never really talked to Stein. Watch.

    The Green Party? Dude, come on. How deep does this McCarthyism run?

    So everyone who furthers a purpose of the Russian state is a "useful idiot"? Or is it just the ones MSNBC and Hillary are mad at?

    Worse. We are actively funding Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and protecting it in the UN.

    Ah, so if Hillary is unknowingly furthering Russia's ends, it's innocent.

    If Gabbard is doing it, it's nefarious.

    Gotcha lol

    My thoughts have nothing to do with McCarthyism or Hillary. Hillary can fuck off and I think the "HILLARY WAS RIGHT" people are idiots.  Of course she was right but so was everyone else with a functioning brain, it didn't make her unique or special. I also don't think simply anyone who helps further a purpose of the Russian state is an agent.

    But I do have a couple simple questions for you. Do you or do you not think that the findings in Part 1 of the Mueller report about Russia's attempts to infiltrate the Trump campaign and otherwise fuck with our election are accurate?  If you think they were accurate, do you think they limited their influence attempts only to the Trump campaign? I think the findings were accurate and I think it would be stupid to think that Russia limited their attempts to only the Trump campaign. While I doubt they found similar success with other campaigns, I DO think they could have been successful to some extent with Stein's campaign. To the extent they were, it's probably because Stein was running a grifting operation and was happy to accept support from anyone who could help her keep it going.

    This anti-anti Trumpism shit is tiring. Yeah, some #RESISTANCE types are dumb, but they're far from the biggest problem. The Kurds and others in Rojava had a really good and interesting experiment going on there that deserved support and protection. Anyone who's supposed anti-imperialist politics would lead them to support their slaughter at the hands of Turkish and Russian imperialistic ambition should seriously rethink their shit. 

     

     

  12. 14 minutes ago, Goredho said:

    Your second sentence is the only thing that really makes sense here.  Otherwise, take the win and move on to your next criminal endeavor.

    No, I think the explanation for their behavior is that Trump wants to vindicate Putin and Russia in the eyes of the American public to justify lifting sanctions against Russia, which Putin has been demanding.  In order to do that they have to find a way to refute the basic factual findings of the Mueller report pertaining to Russia's meddling operations.

    • Like 1
  13. 1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

    The Stein picture is from the RT Gala in 12/2015.

    RT is is a Russian-government-funded television network, much like al-Jazeera is Qatari. RT runs actual international journalism with editorial independence with good shows like Breaking the Set with Abby Martin and On Contact with Chris Hedges. It also has had dumb ones like Larry King and Jesse Ventura. At its best, it is far better international journalism than basically anything you get from mainstream American media. (al-Jazeera, of course, is head and shoulders above American media in journalistic independence and quality)

    RT gave Stein airtime because anti-imperialist messages like Stein's don't get mainstream media airtime. So she went to the gala.

    Anti-imperialists often do and say things that jingoists get nervous about.

    c'est la vie

    If they don't know they're in on the gag, then it's pointless to even talk about, because then literally any American who proposes anything that Russian power would like is now an "asset".

    All of us have some views that Russian power supports. The idea that Russian power and good are just diametric opposites at all points is just dumb.

    C'mon man, Jill Stein didn't get seated at a table with Vladimir Putin by accident.

    Do I have a precise theory?  No. I tend to think Stein is largely a grifter who ran for President for the same reason most of the Republican field of candidates did (including Trump): self-promotion. But I certainly think her campaign could have been influenced by Russian intelligence. Hell, Trump's campaign was riddled with Russian intelligence contacts and it would be dumb to think his is the only one they tried to influence, so there's no real reason to doubt that the woman literally seated at a dinner at Putin's table wasn't at least a target of Russian influence attempts. Did they succeed to the extent that she consciously chose to be a Russian asset? No clue. Maybe she was just a useful idiot, maybe the Russians weren't successful at infiltrating her campaign like they were Trump's, but she furthered their purposes regardless.

    As for Tulsi, I don't think she's coordinating with Russia but I think she knows her politics and Putin's politics align.

    There's virtue in anti-American imperialism politics, but this shit about "oh everyone is just saying this shit about these two because they oppose American imperialism" is stupid.  They're two shitty people, one of whom has already played spoiler in an election between a bad choice and a potential dictator, and the other very obviously intends to play the same role. Neither one of them actually opposes imperialism, they just oppose American imperialism.  When the anti-anti Trump/anti-American imperialism stance ends up affirmatively supporting Russian imperialism, it's disappeared completely up its own ass. An extended-duration US presence in Syria sucks, but so does abandoning the SDF and allowing Turkey and Russia to carve up and destroy Rojava. In fact, that sucks much more.

    • Like 2
    • Fuck You 1
  14. 57 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    Nah man Glenn Greenwald is only responsible for exposing, at tremendous personal risk, two of the biggest corruption stories in modern history, Snowden & Lava Jato. But some of his Tweets are bad, so basically he's garbage unlike these temporary-non-Republicans who supported the Iraq war and think BDS is basically ISIS and Israeli soldiers shooting children in the head through a chain link fence is regrettable, but fine.

    Tulsi Gabbard is lame and her politics aren't anything I care about and it's cool that she'll disappear soon and nothing of value will be lost. She's not a Russian agent or asset.
    Jill Stein is kind of funny and even less relevant than Tulsi, which is hard to pull off if you supposedly have thousands of agents working on your behalf. She's not a Russian agent or asset, either.

    Still waiting for evidence of actual Russian intelligence connections to either of these women.

    Well, there was this:

    170405-putin-flynn-dinner-jhc-1700_ae6b4

  15. 4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

    Damn, actions have consequences.
     

    That dude just blew up his career. There’s always barber college and the world will always need ditch diggers. 

    He'll probably have a job with MLB by the end of the week.

    • Haha 1
  16. 1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

    Going to be hilarious when President Pete installs Bipartisan Moderate choices to the SC that overturn Roe and strike down regulation of CO2 emissions

     

    Pete's heel turn this week has been pretty epic.  He's obviously fully bought in on politics as WWE. Next we'll see him take a chair to Bernie or Warren and start promoting Tulsi.

×
×
  • Create New...