laklak wrote:Lol what a shitshow. What fucking good does any of this do?

What good does impeaching a guy who has caused and fomented a break-down of national institutions over years resulting in a significant part of the country believing that the election system is open to such massive fraud that millions of votes can be rigged to the point that thousands of people storm the capitol looking to hang or hurt your nation's elected officials?


Firstly, If nothing else: principle - if this is how Presidents can behave, you don't have a country. Secondly, the values the USA prides itself in having and which it proselytizes around the world are quite literally on the table at the moment; this shows where the US stands. Thirdly, if impeached, then a follow up vote can occur to remove Presidential privileges meaning, for example, that the tax-payer doesn't have to contribute their earnings towards this guy's security for the remainder of his life, plus it could then ensure that this conman can no longer hold office.

I'd say that there's never been a time when MORE good come from impeachment.

laklak wrote: McConnell has already said there won't be a vote in the Senate, and there's only a week left anyway.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. McConnell's about to lose his position, and there's no time limit here - the proceedings can and will go past one week.

laklak wrote: Even if they decided to hold a trial it would never finish in time.

In time for what?

laklak wrote: FFS it's not even decent political theater, it's just moronic posturing.

It's neither. It really isn't.

laklak wrote:I cannot wait to GTFO of this stupid country. I'd FAR rather live under an African absolute monarch than these petulant, whiny, little bitches.

The great thing about living under a tyranny that's already occurred is that dissent's already been stamped out, frequently through violence and murder, so now there's a lovely semblance of unity. Just make sure you stay in line, put your feet where you're told, and utter not a peep. In a healthy democracy though, debate is always going to occur and the public can vote to choose who they want to lead the conversations.

laklak wrote:Lol what a shitshow. What fucking good does any of this do? McConnell has already said there won't be a vote in the Senate, and there's only a week left anyway. Even if they decided to hold a trial it would never finish in time. FFS it's not even decent political theater, it's just moronic posturing.

I cannot wait to GTFO of this stupid country. I'd FAR rather live under an African absolute monarch than these petulant, whiny, little bitches.

No but, seriously - of course it's theater. Anyone with 3 rational bits left can play out how the trial & acquittal would go. Anyone with a decent attention span & who doesn't get their info in an echo chamber knows the one decent chance for impeachment & conviction was following the Mueller probe, when 11 indictable counts were outlined, and the House leadership & the media made it all go away. It's the same people running the show now (in both categories).

Some expanded-squad members mean what they say (as does the congressman from my state, who drafted the impeachment thingy)... but some of those are paying attention enough to warn against the move we're seeing towards a more totalitarian state, which is actively being endorsed by media consumers whose emotions were warped by four years of compulsively binging on the Trump soap opera. Our species is predictable, and also fucked.

Fap.

I have no idea how to communicate effectively on the topic of Trump's removal from Twitter. Everyone who has responded has misunderstood my position.

Your entire post at the top of this page, Spearthrower, is the sort of thing I expect from a high schooler. Actorly, navel-gazing, and making no meaningful claim about anything real. It can almost be transposed to another time period & a different country - almost as though you don't like to scrutinize & question the thing you write about, but just want to express something strongly.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I have no idea how to communicate effectively on the topic of Trump's removal from Twitter. Everyone who has responded has misunderstood my position.

I don't use Twitter, so I have no idea how to show the posts, so I will just C&P below. I assume from what you've written that your position is something very similar to Dorsey's.

I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump
from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?

I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.

That said, having to ban an account has real and significant ramifications. While there are clear and obvious exceptions, I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us.

Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.

That's roughly how I read your position: totally undesirable and worrying, yet also justified and necessary.


I will say that the above is ironic in that the co-founder of Twitter exhibits above how dysfunctional Twitter actually is because no serious conversation can occur in a body of text limited to 280 characters. I don't know if people start thinking in such abbreviated forms too and whether this can lead to people being unprepared to engage in necessary complexity and nuance.

arugula2 wrote:Your entire post at the top of this page, Spearthrower, is the sort of thing I expect from a high schooler. Actorly, navel-gazing, and making no meaningful claim about anything real. It can almost be transposed to another time period & a different country - almost as though you don't like to scrutinize & question the thing you write about, but just want to express something strongly.

That's funny because when I returned after many years away, I mistakenly thought you were the user Arcanyn - a guy who rarely posts, but when he does so, those posts are typified by cautious reasoning. I thought 'what the fuck has happened to him to change so much?' Your posts, on the other hand, can be summarized very simply by 'Look at me! Aren't I special?'.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I have no idea how to communicate effectively on the topic of Trump's removal from Twitter. Everyone who has responded has misunderstood my position.

My reading of your post is that you see Twitter's ability to ban people (who depend on that platform for their income) even if they have done nothing wrong as a problem. While you approve of Trump being banned from social media platforms you are worried that it sets a precedent potentially enabling unjustified bans in the future.

Is that a misunderstanding of your position? If not, maybe you did not get the gist of my reply, most likely because I have failed to express it with sufficient clarity. If you are interested in finding out what I meant to say I'll elaborate.

arugula2 wrote:Your entire post at the top of this page, Spearthrower, is the sort of thing I expect from a high schooler. Actorly, navel-gazing, and making no meaningful claim about anything real. It can almost be transposed to another time period & a different country - almost as though you don't like to scrutinize & question the thing you write about, but just want to express something strongly.

Your entire post, arugula2, is the sort of thing I expect from a high schooler. Actorly, navel-gazing, and making no meaningful claim about anything real. It can almost be transposed to another time period & a different country - almost as though you don't like to scrutinize & question the thing you write about, but just want to express something strongly.

Tortured_Genius wrote:

arugula2 wrote:Your entire post at the top of this page, Spearthrower, is the sort of thing I expect from a high schooler. Actorly, navel-gazing, and making no meaningful claim about anything real. It can almost be transposed to another time period & a different country - almost as though you don't like to scrutinize & question the thing you write about, but just want to express something strongly.

Your entire post, arugula2, is the sort of thing I expect from a high schooler. Actorly, navel-gazing, and making no meaningful claim about anything real. It can almost be transposed to another time period & a different country - almost as though you don't like to scrutinize & question the thing you write about, but just want to express something strongly.

Try this:

https://www.pakin.org/complaint

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

felltoearth wrote:


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Trump may be tamed by prison if he dies in it.

His advanced age is the only advantage here.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I have no idea how to communicate effectively on the topic of Trump's removal from Twitter. Everyone who has responded has misunderstood my position.

I think it’s your lady parts. Try talking without a vagina.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Question.

If he is convicted and goes to prison, does he get a Secret Service detail?

I'd like to think that if that were to happen, the senate would have no problem stripping his SS detail. Then again, we live in interesting times.

Last night I was watching impeacment session in congress 15 mins 30 min 1 hour it wasnt ending everyone coming and talking 30 seconds or 2 minutes thank God I went to bed that video is 7 hour 47 minutes

Sorry, I could've saved you the trouble. Democrats said what everyone already knows, Republicans twisted themselves into pretzels, seeming to forget that their standard for impeachment is lying about a blowjob.

DougC wrote:Question.

If he is convicted and goes to prison, does he get a Secret Service detail?

No, not in prison, and he can have his privileges stripped with a straight majority vote if convicted in the Senate trial following impeachment.*

With 3 members of my US family in the Secret Service, and two of them on active duty (one who's protected both Obama and Trump) - I am really fucking hoping that he's stripped of his post-Presidential privileges; he doesn't deserve the level of professional commitment and sense of duty they bring to their job. No one should ever have to or be expected to take a bullet for him; let him have his paid cronies do that.


* Error: Actually, as far as the relevant law goes (3 USC 102: Compensation of the President), if he's convicted in Senate Trial, he automatically loses those privileges... the vote I mentioned is to disqualify him from further office.

Can Trump have any charges brought to him over insurrecrion and sedition after he's finished pretending to be President and no longer has immunity?

Animavore wrote:Can Trump have any charges brought to him over insurrecrion and sedition after he's finished pretending to be President and no longer has immunity?

Absolutely, but they'll have to get in the long queue. This is probably why we're going to see a 11th hour pardon - he'd better not leave it too late!

There's talk of charging him but proving the link between Trump's behaviour and what happened may not be possible. As such, it may not be worthwhile.