Yes, but Congress can’t change them. That’s my point.
My bad, I really thought law makers make the law.
It would require not only 2/3 majorities of both houses but 38 states to ratify.
Trump doesn’t need to worry about term limits. Russia has term limits and Putin has been in power for decades. He just needs to control all the levers of government, so he can bequeath power to whomever he wants - Don Jr., Ivanka, Jared, etc. - and keep this kleptocracy going forever.
We knew Trump would stress-test the checks and balances on the presidency, but I have been gobsmacked at how quickly and easily Trump has been able to corrupt all the government agencies he runs.
It will take years to unwind all that he has done in his first term. If he “wins” a second, I fear that’ll be game over. That’s why I believe (as I said above) that he will pull every dirty trick in the book to win up to and including cancelling the election or just disavowing the results. Who is left to tell him “no”?
Yeah, I do understand the process. My point was that it could be changed. And HH’s was that it could not be changed.
They do. But Presidential term limits is required by the Constitution. It’s not a law.
No, my point was that Congress cannot just unilaterally change it. I’m not sure what you’re trying to project on me here.
I can’t believe you can’t understand my point. I know basic civics. I understand that amendments start in congress then go to the states. I understand that if it doesn’t get ratified then, guess what? It isn’t passed/amended. I’m not an idiot, that’s all I’m trying to project on you.
Well, you stated this: “And HH’s was that it could not be changed.” That is factually incorrect.
because you stated:
https://forumbackup.orangewhoopass.com/t/inevitable-you-know-who-thread/240/282?u=budgirl
I know you are smarter than me, it’s all good.
(Dons flak jacket)
…”smarter than I”
(/runs)
1 Like
point made.[quote=“MusicMan, post:292, topic:240, full:true”]
(Dons flak jacket)
…”smarter than I”
(/runs)
[/quote]
Today’s shits and giggles include a Bill Barr Oscar-worthy performance where he complained about Trump tweeting at him to interfere in the Stone sentencing, conveniently glossing over the fact that he’d interfered in the case before Trump tweeted about it. Trump always says the quiet part out loud; that’s all Barr’s upset about.
And speaking of tweeting, Trump is trying to “Ukraine” the State of New York by threatening to prevent its residents from getting Global Entry clearance unless and until the state drops its investigations into his taxes, his corrupt charity and his inaugural committee slush fund. He stated this in explicit detail on Twitter.
This is going to be a long year.
And speaking of tweeting, Trump is trying to “Ukraine” the State of New York by threatening to prevent its residents from getting Global Entry clearance unless and until the state drops its investigations into his taxes, his corrupt charity and his inaugural committee slush fund. He stated this in explicit detail on Twitter
Can you provide your source or some quotes for this? I’d like to read some more on this. With what I’ve read it seems apparent to be tied to the dispute of NY not allowing access to the database for DHS. As shown below, once that is allowed the suspensions will be lifted. I’ve read Rep Demings (Fl) quote, but that’s just Demings projecting at this time. Nadler’s tweet is the same in drawing connections loosely.
From the article:
New York State is the only state that has banned their DMV from sharing important records with CBP and ICE. These records are necessary to verify the traveler is low risk. These records show things like DUI and if an individual was arrested for a sexual offense.
Ms. Swift said if New York granted the agency access to the database, the suspension would be lifted. “This is not about granting licenses to illegal aliens,” she said.
Ahead of the planned meeting between Trump and Cuomo to discuss lifting the GE ban, Trump tweeted this:
I’m seeing Governor Cuomo today at The White House. He must understand that National Security far exceeds politics. New York must stop all of its unnecessary lawsuits & harrassment, start cleaning itself up, and lowering taxes. Build relationships, but don’t bring Fredo!
Translation: that’s a nice State you’ve got there. I’d be a shame if I continued to do bad things to it.
1 Like
Gotcha, thanks Limey
So, now he says he has a legal right to intervene in criminal cases, and the public will likely shrug.
It’s a very clear and established pattern by now:
- I didn’t do it.
- I didn’t do it, but I have the right to do it.
- I have the right to do it.
- I did it.
The problem is, his corrupt activities are overlapping, so the outrage and denial of the newest crime drown out the admissions of earlier crimes. Trump has figured out that he can get away with everything as long as there’s always a new thing to distract from the things about which the truth is coming out. It’s a corruption treadmill.
1 Like
That’s rich coming from the side that presented no admissable evidence in the impeachment hearings, save some exculpatory evidence that I’ll address in a minute. Nothing was first hand. It consisted of a unconvincing parade of assumptions, presumptions and hearsay, all of which would have been subject to successful objections in a real court, not the Kangaroo court that the ship of fools ran in the House.
Since you’re dying for facts though your side, who were the prosecutors, brought none, consider that the only admissable evidence was exculpatory of the President and came from Ambassador Sondland. Ambassador Sondland directly asked the President what he wanted from Ukraine, and the President said something to the effect of I want nothing. I want the president to do what’s right and what he campaigned on. At the end of the day, this should have prevailed, and, thankfully, the Senate got it right.
Removing a president is unprecented in our over 230 year history, epecially because you despise him and are scared that he’s going to win reelection, especially since the frontrunners are Senator Sanders and Mayor Buttigieg. Frankly, I don’t see either of them beating the President. The Mayor is the preferable of the two, but his positions make him as dangerous as Senator Sanders, whom the Mayor has idolized. Senator Sanders is running a two front campaign, first, the field of challengers and, second, the Democrat National Committee, which seems that it’ll make (and perhaps has already made) a Faustian bargain so that the Senator not be the candidate of the party.
You guys are so ravenous of the President that you’ve been resisting him since he was elected and even before he got sworn in. You haven’t tried to work with him, except in a few rare cases, even with his penchant for dealmaking. In so doing, and in opposing a President who puts America first, you’re coming off as anti-American, and that’s why the President will be reelected, by a wider margin than his first election, why the Republicans will hold onto the Senate and why the Republicans will take back the House and wrest the speaker’s gavel away from Madame Pelosi. Hell, when you’ve lost Jim Carville, you’re in deep shit.
1 Like
This is wild. Even many republicans accepted that the house managers conclusively proved their case, even if they voted to acquit. And that was without allowing witnesses or documents at the trial.
It also appears that you don’t understand how the hearsay rule works or the word “ravenous.”