Earl (04-11-2019)
Members banned from this thread: Nomad |
Earl (04-11-2019)
I've never said a thing about helping communists.
Communists are irrelevant today, but not socialists (lower case s)and I'm a socialist myself.
I'm a Social Democrat.
Republicans are what I hate, not Communists.
Trump's buddy Putin may have been a pretend-communist once but he's certainly a crooked capitalist oligarch now.
I don't see his other buddy in North Korea yelling "Power to the people" either.
Places like New York, Massachusetts, and California--especially Northern California-- are what's known as the "civilized world," rare in America, and sadly, I can't see you cutting it in a place like that.
Also, DiBlasio is Mayor of New York City, not Governor of New York. Andy Cuomo, who's a Democrat well to the right of me, is Governor.
Plus Communist Russia never had a czar, for whatever that's worth. They assassinated the entire Romanoff family as I recall.
Earl (04-11-2019)
The real hypocrisy is the democrat party crying over losing their SALT deduction loophole where blue states were having the rest of the country subsidize their low taxes.
Earl (04-11-2019)
Yes, and the point is those rules don't override the Constitution. Constitutionally, a House member can't be prosecuted for anything said on the House floor. Period. The House can, if it wants, censure a member for violating its rules, the same way it could censure someone for calling a colleague a jackass. But just as the first amendment means you can't be prosecuted for calling someone a jackass, you also can't be prosecuted for anything that falls under speech and debate. They can, perhaps, be expelled, but it's not going to happen in this scenario, since a Democratic majority isn't going to expel a Democrat for making good on Trump's promise that he'd disclose his tax returns after the election.
Earl (04-11-2019)
Earl (04-11-2019)
Earl (04-11-2019)
One reason the Democrats should force the issue is to get precedent. It's entirely possible the arch-conservatives on the Supreme Court will defy the intent of the Founders and clear interpretation of law, in order to protect Trump. But, by forcing them to commit that to paper, there will be a precedent that will likewise protect a future Democratic president (or, say, Secretary of State) from the usual wingnut witch-hunts. The correct interpretation of law is that Congress can compel this disclosure, but at least if the Republican activists on the high court interpret the law incorrectly, that becomes something that cuts both ways. And given the much greater historical eagerness of the Republican party to use investigations as a way to try to derail Democratic administrations, that new precedent actually would tend to help the left more than the right.
Bookmarks