Trump

Bentleyspop

vaggar99 said:

somebody just sent me a warning about creating threads relating to ESP. The person claims that mods will shut me down. Mods if you see this: go ahead. shut down my threads. show the PJ community that you and the band are fascists just like ESP. Do it. As if that $40 a year for the right to use this board and a shirt that never fits is so awesome.

Up until this post you probably would have gotten away with a warning.
Now you'll probably be banned.

JC29856

vaggar99 said:

somebody just sent me a warning about creating threads relating to ESP. The person claims that mods will shut me down. Mods if you see this: go ahead. shut down my threads. show the PJ community that you and the band are fascists just like ESP. Do it. As if that $40 a year for the right to use this board and a shirt that never fits is so awesome.

If you get banned you should continue to lurk since you're so interested in ESPs. There will be allot of info on the subject in the coming weeks.

vaggar99

^^^i wont answer to those. i spoken my peace on the subject.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

Steps for ESP extraction
1. Decide we want to get rid of him
2. Decide how to get rid of him
3. Decide what to do after we get rid of him

1. You don't have consensus on that. Two million voters shy of 50% of eligible voters disagree with you at this point: how will you backtrack on the election process in existence since the birth of your nation and seen as the foundation of a democracy or federal republic?
2. You haven't provided any semblance of a solution to this. Grounds for dismissal must not be "he disgusts me", they must be rooted in a legal/constitutional objection. To assuage his supporters, it must be an undisputedly objective objection.
3. You certainly haven't provided a solution to this. If, somehow, you manage to come up with reasonable answers to your first two points in your unrealistic plan, you haven't spoken to why Clinton or Pence would be a better candidate. You also haven't spoken to how to get the acceptance of the People. Or how not to fan the flames of anarchy (since you'll need to refute election results and therefore refute the foundation of a democracy). Or how to fight the social rhetoric of Trump's which has already been disseminated and tolerated (and thus seen as acceptable).

As much as I am disturbed by Trump as President (which I'd bet might be as much as you are), you have thus far provided unrealistic steps for Trump's removal, and no valid reason why it should be pursued.

i agree. don't have consensus.
i do think i've provided some leads on how to get rid of him mostly based on the new information thats come in the last 24 hours. its all still very fresh. let's see how it pans out.
if you look through some of my posts, you'll see that I do have a compromise. Mike Pence. I don't agree with the guy, but he seems pretty sane to me. So I'm good with a conservative for the next four years so long as he's not a lunatic.

If you'd like to learn about the Emoluments Clause in writing, Vox has a great article about it (linked below). Ultimately, if Trump could sell his holdings and assets to his children and have it considered a blind trust (which is arguably possible for some reason and he's mentioned in the past), this would be a viable way out. A true blind trust is another option. Finally, there's the possibility that the Emoluments Clause wouldn't have validity, as these are not necessarily gifts to Trump, but rather gifts to a corporation which Trump is a stakeholder in. Do you have any irrefutably (or nearly irrefutably) valid just causes for Trump not to take office? You're going to need at least one if you want to prevent him from occupying that seat. Your opinion that he is insane and/or a lunatic is just opinion, and meaningless in the court of law without substantial evidence.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/23/13715150/donald-trump-emoluments-clause-constitution

rgambs

vaggar99 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:

somebody just sent me a warning about creating threads relating to ESP. The person claims that mods will shut me down. Mods if you see this: go ahead. shut down my threads. show the PJ community that you and the band are fascists just like ESP. Do it. As if that $40 a year for the right to use this board and a shirt that never fits is so awesome.

doubtful they'll shut you down. they may shut down some of your threads as they are all essentially about the same thing. and depending on language used. you may get a warning. that's about it.

but I would advise against publicly challenging the mods/band and calling them potential fascists.

they will only be that if they try to shut down a single one of these threads. They are all valid to me as they are my attempt to organize the multiple paths that I see to getting rid of this sick fuck.

I think I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree. I can see why just putting all this info and speculation in the Trump thread is not ideal, but 1 thread about impeachment, removal, electoral college, etc would be enough and would highlight the conversation you're trying to have.
Try to be patient with these boards and the posters here, we have a rhythm that facilitates an excellent dialogue if you work within it. Civil discourse, evidence and citation, and understanding takes us all in a better direction than insults, harsh ultimatums and dichotomies, and closed minds, both here and out in the world.

Keeping this place civil and organized is not fascism, it is what makes the difference between this open salon and the chaotic cesspool that is so common across the web.

vaggar99

^^^^i feel strongly about this and until someone can prove to me that the jury on this guy is wrong. than yeah, he's convicted in my world. bring on the bullets!!!

benjs

vaggar99 said:

^^^^i feel strongly about this and until someone can prove to me that the jury on this guy is wrong. than yeah, he's convicted in my world. bring on the bullets!!!

Do you always convict people in your world without substantial and irrefutable evidence? This way of thinking disagrees with the American legal system: innocent until proven guilty - and opinion is not proof unless nearly irrefutable (i.e. 99.9% DNA match, unambiguous admission of guilt, etc).

vaggar99

^^^all i need to watch is the primary debate hosted by Megan Kelly. Either he's a psychopath or i'm insane. That's the question isn't?

benjs

vaggar99 said:

^^^all i need to watch is the primary debate hosted by Megan Kelly. Either he's a psychopath or i'm insane. That's the question isn't?

Not at all the question. What qualifies your opinion as factual? Until you have any form of empirical evidence, you can not make this conclusion, and this conclusion is your grounds for dismissal. I don't understand what's hard to understand about that.

vaggar99

^^^the man has the cadence and fury of only one other person I have seen in modern history. His name is Adolf Hitler. That's what I see. I don't know what you see.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

^^^the man has the cadence and fury of only one other person I have seen in modern history. His name is Adolf Hitler. That's what I see. I don't know what you see.

I see that cadence and fury are not grounds for dismissal. The Emoluments Clause is arguably grounds for dismissal - meaning it will be argued, and because it can reasonably be argued against, it likely will not be sufficient to impeach on. Let me ask again. On what legal or constitutional grounds do you call for Trump's removal?

vaggar99

^^ i understand your point. but i feel theres a correlation there you cannot ignore. much like how many criminals are convicted based solely on mountains of circumstantial evidence. the circumstantial evidence with this guy spans 30 years of lewd and inhuman like behavior.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

^^ i understand your point. but i feel theres a correlation there you cannot ignore. much like how many criminals are convicted based solely on mountains of circumstantial evidence. the circumstantial evidence with this guy spans 30 years of lewd and inhuman like behavior.

You haven't even come close to presenting "mountains of circumstantial evidence". "Lewd and inhuman like behaviour" are subjective and refutable, and therefore pretty useless in the court of law. Being seen by the populace as a jerk is not grounds to say Trump cannot be President.

vaggar99

^^^i suppose not. Its out there though. You really just have to get on youtube and watch debates, new segments etc and you'll see that there is next to zero evidence that this man has ever tried to do good for anyone or anything but himself.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

^^^i suppose not. Its out there though. You really just have to get on youtube and watch debates, new segments etc and you'll see that there is next to zero evidence that this man has ever tried to do good for anyone or anything but himself.

You're repeating yourself and not answering my question. On what legal basis do you not allow Trump to become President? Until you answer that question, nothing changes.

vaggar99

^^the legal reasons are out there and they will come. i think you know what i'm talking about. the strongest and most compelling argument for removing him will come not from his actions but from the actions of the American people. If we decide he's out. He's out.

benjs

vaggar99 said:

^^the legal reasons are out there and they will come. i think you know what i'm talking about. the strongest and most compelling argument for removing him will come not from his actions but from the actions of the American people. If we decide he's out. He's out.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, actually. Care to share?

Go Beavers

JC29856 said:

Go Beavers said:

JC29856 said:

If basis of calling trump racist is that trump at 27 along with his father settled a lawsuit about not renting to blacks, then that is a really really really bigly bigly bigly weak argument!
Serious, is there anything else? Like more concrete or more recent?

Why don't you lay out your requirements for determining if someone's racist, first?

Circular logic?

I don't think asking a question that clarifies the subject of discussion is cirular logic, but I do appreciate you tracking my posts to others and following up in them.

vaggar99

benjs said:

vaggar99 said:

^^the legal reasons are out there and they will come. i think you know what i'm talking about. the strongest and most compelling argument for removing him will come not from his actions but from the actions of the American people. If we decide he's out. He's out.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about, actually. Care to share?

Three broad areas come to mind:
-sexual misconduct
-fraudulent business dealings
-constitutionally prohibited conflicts of interest that may have already occurred within the last two weeks

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

there shouldn't be quotas on elected officials. that makes no sense. "ok, mr smith, you won, but we need a black dude, so mr johnson, the seat is yours".

that GOP picture just goes to show, though, how few minority members/supporters they most likely have if they have no representatives.

but I believe, if officials are appointed by those elected, the appointees should have varying backgrounds/genders/ethnicities. to me it just makes sense.

But that isn't how better equality is reached in government and you know it. I found it insanely insulting when people tried to suggest this was happening when Trudeau made sure more women were in his cabinet. As though men who were better than the women were left out just because they were men. Total bullshit, because those women were clearly just as or more qualified than any male candidates that were available. The ASSUMPTION that more qualified people would be left out if you don't go with white men is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to suppose that more equal representation of different groups in government isn't a positive thing. We're not talking about affirmative action here. We're talking about making sure that the diverse citizens are well-represented. Why some seem to think those two things are the same is beyond me. (this has strayed from who are the elected officials for the GOP to cabinet selection though, as you mentioned). That the voted officials are all white in the GOP just shows that the GOP only serves white people. If that weren't true, then there would be more non-white people running for the GOP, and more non-white people voting for them.

um, did you read my last sentence?

you can't disquality an ELECTED official because of the colour of his skin or their ethnicity *EDIT* or gender. if that's you are saying, I completely disagree with that. But you CAN appoint people of varying backgrounds.

Um, notice my comment in the brackets about straying from the topic of elected officials to cabinet selection - I acknowledged that you were talking about the latter.