Question/Poll: Executive Privilege vs Formalized Impeachment Inquiry Subpoena

[tinkle]

The President has executive powers while they are President. They don't protect against impeachment, due to a process known as checks and balances. End of issue.

FTFY cutie

 

[Xzi]

Sorry, the issue is whether he should give up his powers.

Executive privilege is the issue we're talking about here. That's not the same as the whole of his presidential powers. If you don't understand the difference, that's all the more reason you never should've involved yourself in this discussion.

One gun is too many. You'll have to pry mine out of my cold dead hands. Good luck.

It's obvious you didn't read a single word of what you replied to there. Bernie Sanders, the biggest socialist boogeyman among Democrats, is pro-gun and pro-second amendment. Meanwhile, Trump is the only president in history to actually suggest taking away guns without due process. Like I said before, it's clear you've lost your ability to view or think objectively, every issue is black or white according to you, and every candidates' stances are determined entirely along party lines.

 

[cots]

Executive privilege is the issue we're talking about here. That's not the same as the whole of his presidential powers. If you don't understand the difference, that's all the more reason you never should've involved yourself in this discussion.

It's obvious you didn't read a single word of what you replied to there. Bernie Sanders, the biggest socialist boogeyman among Democrats, is pro-gun and pro-second amendment. Meanwhile, Trump is the only president in history to actually suggest taking away guns without due process. Like I said before, it's clear you've lost your ability to view or think objectively, every issue is black or white according to you, and every candidates' stances are determined entirely along party lines.

Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches. I would suggest if you want to buy a gun to join a gun club or a shooting range and purchase them from private citizens and pay with cash. There's no background check, no registration on some fucked up Government watch list and no money trail. You can also make your own guns if you learn how to to (by either buying the separate components or forging them yourself). This is all completely legal. There's no reason to buy one from a gun shop and contrary to the Liberal bullshit there's no reason you need permission to to do so.

FTFY cutie

You misquoted me, but you're probably the type of person that wouldn't allow your boyfriend to speak for himself. You are correct. The President can't use his executive powers to stop the impeachment, but he can use his legal rights to not comply with any of the Liberal Democrats requests nor is he required to cooperate in the process in any way shape or form. If he's called to testify then he's required to do so, other than that he doesn't have to legally comply with anything the Democrats that are trying to make him due. If a court orders him to turn over the documents that Congress is requesting then he will have to do that, but Congress is in no legal position to demand Trump hand over anything. In this case I support the law and I also support Trump's decisions. Especially considering this isn't the first impeachment attempt and the entire thing has been planned since before he took office. If after some psycho ex-girlfriend of mine got dumped and then she planned on destroying my life and used the courts to do so and lost previously do you think I'd just hand over whatever the dumb bitch wanted me to in her latest attempt? Also, seeings as Congress is also denying requests from the White House I think the "checks and balances" are working out just fine. Oh, wait, it's okay for Congress to not go along with the White House right? But it's not okay for the White House to not go along with Congress? Your approval of apparent double standards are pathetic.

 

[Deleted User]

Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches.

all I can do is shake my head at this point.

 

[cots]

all I can do is shake my head at this point.

I just amended the post. What do you think about what I added?

Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches. I would suggest if you want to buy a gun to join a gun club or a shooting range and purchase them from private citizens and pay with cash. There's no background check, no registration on some fucked up Government watch list and no money trail. You can also make your own guns if you learn how to to (by either buying the separate components or forging them yourself). This is all completely legal. There's no reason to buy one from a gun shop and contrary to the Liberal bullshit there's no reason you need permission to to do so.

 

[Deleted User]

I just amended the post. What do you think about what I added?

slippery slope fallacy

 

[cots]

slippery slope fallacy

Well, if you ever need to obtain a gun to protect yourself, your property of your family you now know you don't need the Governments permission. It's a constitutional right. Unless, you're ever in that position and don't mind being hurt, robbed and/or your family raped and possibly murdered. In that case you chose not to protect yourself and your family and then I'd just feel sorry for you having to live with that. I do understand the Liberals need to control everyone else, but I'l let you in on a little secret. You can't control me. The Government is scared of me because of this fact and that's how it should be. The Government are my servants. I'm not their bitch. They're my bitch.

 

[Deleted User]

Well, if you ever need to obtain a gun to protect yourself, your property of your family you now know you don't need the Governments permission. It's a constitutional right. Unless, you're ever in that position and don't mind being hurt, robbed and/or your family murdered. In that case you chose not to protect yourself and your family and then I'd just feel sorry for you having to live with that.

Now your using a strawman. Never said my argument, other than shaking my head, which that was due to you using even more fallacies. rendering the argument above null.

 

[cots]

Now your using a strawman. Never said my argument, other than shaking my head, which that was due to you using even more fallacies. rendering the argument above null.

Who mentioned anything about your argument. You're shaking your head and I'm telling you if you ever need to defend yourself that you don't need the Governments permission. I'm trying to help you. It's nice and all you're able to identify basic thought patterns used in debating. Though, simply stating you identify one doesn't invalidate my point. "That's a stereotype. End of discussion." Yeah, doesn't work like that. Oh, I'm not legally allowed to use straws in the Communist State of Mexifornia.

 

[Xzi]

Advocating to take a single firearm away from any citizen is not pro-gun, let alone trying to take millions. To partake in your second amendment rights doesn't require you to register you gun nor requires permission to obtain it in the first place. "We're just going to take your assault rifles". Yeah right. How about "ghost guns"? Then whatever else they come up with next. The Liberal agenda is to disarm the American public. You can't hide your own party's recruitment speeches. I would suggest if you want to buy a gun to join a gun club or a shooting range and purchase them from private citizens and pay with cash. There's no background check, no registration on some fucked up Government watch list and no money trail. You can also make your own guns if you learn how to to (by either buying the separate components or forging them yourself). This is all completely legal. There's no reason to buy one from a gun shop and contrary to the Liberal bullshit there's no reason you need permission to to do so.

This is a fairly extremist stance to take on gun issues, and it still doesn't address a single thing about the statement you were replying to. The vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree that we need some common sense reforms such as universal background checks. Myself included, and I am a gun owner. We can't be handing out firearms like candy to every person out there with a history of inciting violence and/or domestic abuse. That's just insane.

 

[cots]

This is a fairly extremist stance to take on gun issues, and it still doesn't address a single thing about the statement you were replying to. The vast majority of both Republicans and Democrats agree that we need some common sense reforms such as universal background checks. Myself included, and I am a gun owner.

I replied to @tinkle about the executive power issue as I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. You've lost that benefit. Then I replied to you about how current and future laws regarding taking away certain guns or restricting people from purchasing them is unconstitutional. I'm sorry you think it's extreme to try to protect our rights and that's it's completely acceptable to try to get rid of them. I find the situation and labeling used to be in the reverse order. Liberals don't have common sense and the only red flags that should be going off in peoples mind are when any Liberal tries to limit our rights.

 

[Xzi]

I replied to @tinkle about the executive power issue as I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. You've lost that benefit. Then I replied to you about how current and future laws regarding taking away certain guns or restricting people from purchasing them is unconstitutional. I'm sorry you think it's extreme to try to protect our rights and that's it's completely acceptable to try to get rid of them. I find the situation and labeling used to be in the reverse order.

You repeatedly associated socialism with taking away guns, when the hard-line socialist stance is that the proletariat should be armed to the teeth in order to fight back against the advances of fascism. As usual, you're completely lacking in both historical context and common sense.

Background checks have never been and will never be ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps you're viewing this from the lens of being someone that cannot pass a background check, and therefore you think of yourself as some sort of victim, but that's largely irrelevant. Senseless gun violence is already enough of a problem in the US as-is without giving firearms to every individual who has proven themselves to have zero impulse control.

 

[chrisrlink]

@cots doubt you have a law degree other than that read law books because some of your claims are dead wrong

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

and i rather not cherry pick but it's common sense you are a hypocrite cause assume the president was Democrat you would reverse whatever you just said

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

btw you'r definition of Liberalism is WAY OFF @cots

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

also

Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that incorporates liberal principles.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of completely abolishing capitalism and replacing it with socialism,[2] but it instead supports a mixed economy that includes both private property and social ownership in capital goods.[3][4] Although liberal socialism unequivocally favours a market-based economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1]


(note the bold cots) should i enlarge it too?

 

[cots]

Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that incorporates liberal principles.[1] Liberal socialism does not have the goal of completely abolishing capitalism and replacing it with socialism,[2] but it instead supports a mixed economy that includes both private property and social ownership in capital goods.[3][4] Although liberal socialism unequivocally favours a market-based economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism[5] and opposes an entirely unregulated economy.[6] It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.[1]

I understand the textbook definition of Liberalism and those who strived to stick the definition died decades ago. American Liberals used to be nice people, but I'm talking about the current American Liberal Democratic Party. They could learn a thing or two from the Liberal Democrats party in the EU. Modern day Liberals embrace hatred, sinning, lying, cheating, stealing and mostly everything else that is considered wrong. They'll openly admit there is no right vs wrong, but only what makes you feel good or feel bad. They put their feelings above fact, assumptions before reality and they are racist, sexist and show ageism, especially against old white males. They are intolerant against faith. They are obsessive and will try to ruin your life and force to you comply with the way they want to you live. Outlawing words or discriminating against you for who you vote for is common. They expect you to express your hatred for others just to be part of their group. They twist and use science to justify all of this, including killing babies. They want to legalize deadly addicting drugs and have no problem giving them to children. They refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. Everything is everyone else's fault. They want to freeload and expect everyone else to pay their way with no intention on lifting a finger to help society. They're agenda is to rip up the USA Constitution and replace our way of Government with socialism, abolish our right to free speech and our right to bare arms (well, fuck, no constitution = no rights anyway). They force their way of life and thinking on school children and try to scare them by claiming the world is about to end and that's it's our fault. The school children aren't given facts or taught how to think for themselves. They'll then give you a definition of Liberalism and tell you to "trust them", "that we care" or "we mean you no harm". This is only a short overview. They are much more sinister then I can ever explain. They embrace evil. They represent the worse in humanity. Sorry, I'm not falling for their shit. So like, the definition you brought up doesn't apply to them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

and i rather not cherry pick but it's common sense you are a hypocrite cause assume the president was Democrat you would reverse whatever you just said

Actually, Trump used to be a Democrat. Luckily for society he woke up. Unlike the hoards of Liberals that have to express their hatred for the President I also supported Obama. I'm sorry that I don't belong to a cult that has to express their hatred for the current President. I'll respect the President regardless of who they are as that is the patriotic thing to do. I didn't get all pissy when Obama won and conspired with my party to impeach him for any possible reason before he was even sworn into office, which is exactly what's going on right now. Yeah, fuck Liberals. Trump is going to beat them again at their own game, the sad thing is that they won't admit defeat and will probably try to oust him some other way. Trump however is more than I man that I would be in this situation. I would have had half of of them jailed long after their initial attempt. Seeings as this the not the first impeachment attempt and it's taking place by the same people who tried to ruin him with a public investigation for two years based on lies because they refused to accept he won the Presidential election I think he's being quite the professional by not having the fucking traitors hung to death on Fox News.

 

[Xzi]

Actually, Trump used to be a Democrat. Luckily for society he woke up. Unlike the hoards of Liberals that have to express their hatred for the President I also supported Obama.

So you supported a liberal president, and then you supported the guy who pushed the racist birther conspiracy theory against him? I call bullshit. You know exactly who and what the modern Republican party represents, which is why you're using every opportunity in an attempt to accuse the Democratic party of representing those things instead. Sorry, but nobody's buying your smoke and mirrors act. Nobody's gonna join your make-believe club where the president endorsed by David Duke is also somehow an open-minded champion of the masses. After three years in office, the only people left in support of Trump are racists, fascists, and those that have no issue associating themselves with those two groups. Any level-headed conservative has long since moved on.

 

[Taleweaver]

@OP: a very fair and tough dilemma. The reason is so hard is IMHO because of the two party politics you guys have. As such, every action can be defended from criticism with 'the other part just wants to undermine us' rather than having a debate on whether the action was justified or not (when having three or more active parties, actions can be blocked if the parties that represent the majority of citizens criticize it, meaning that politics become more about reaching an agreement rather than the current 'I do whatever I want' style).

... But that's for a different topic. In the current situation, we've got to think about how it'll affect the polarized system. It's not the intention that the president can use (abuse) his powers, but it's not the intention that congress can abuse the impeachment process to neuter the president (I see republicans joyfully start an impeachment process for the heck of it, just so they can restrict a democratic president's ability to get anything done).

So I went with the "Exec. Privilege can only cover direct conversations with the president during a formalized inquiry." option. I know that a guy like Trump would abuse it to cover his as, but that's beside the issue. For all the bullshit @cots spews in this thread, he is right that you can't go change the current rules because we don't like Trump. And honestly : I doubt Republicans will be dumb enough to nominate such a motion for president again. For all the backing and defending they do, they are well aware that their influence is shrinking in politics (as far as local selections go, a blessing from Trump now seems like an extra reason to vote for the democratic candidate).

 

[Xzi]

For all the bullshit cots spews in this thread, he is right that you can't go change the current rules because we don't like Trump.

It's not only about Trump. The rules need to be changed for all presidents henceforth, Democrat and Republican alike. As it sits now it's clear the system was woefully under-prepared for a bad faith actor winning the presidency and slowly chipping away at all the processes and institutions which prevent corruption from overtaking government entirely.

And honestly : I doubt Republicans will be dumb enough to nominate such a moron for president again.

That's not something I can accept on the basis of faith alone. For the longest time people believed it couldn't possibly get worse than GWB. Well, the Obama administration refused to prosecute him or Cheney, and eight years later it did get worse. Every wealthy criminal POS is gonna be gunning for the presidency if we continue allowing the office to be viewed as a 'get out of jail free' card.

 

[Taleweaver]

That's not something I can accept on the basis of faith alone. For the longest time people believed it couldn't possibly get worse than GWB. Well, the Obama administration refused to prosecute him or Cheney, and eight years later it did get worse. Every wealthy criminal POS is gonna be gunning for the presidency if we continue allowing the office to be viewed as a 'get out of jail free' card.

I hate to be cynical, but Bush was worse on a global level. Trump is 'just' reducing USA to a banana Republic. As much as I can see how you don't like that, as a foreigner I prefer it over the USA invading innocent countries because they have oil.
(if it wasn't for that sellout war, there wouldn't be a power vacuum that got filled with IS, IS 's influence and - in the end - the bombings in Zaventem - pretty much my workplace - wouldn't have happened)

There's merit in your last sentence, but let's be honest : that risk' s always there. Limiting powers or increasing transparency are at best patches on the wound. The problem you're facing is why those guys can get a(Tactical) majority in the voting process. Change the rules to much and your hindering future honest presidents while future crooks will just avoid whatever rules are there.

 

[Xzi]

I hate to be cynical, but Bush was worse on a global level. Trump is 'just' reducing USA to a banana Republic. As much as I can see how you don't like that, as a foreigner I prefer it over the USA invading innocent countries because they have oil.
(if it wasn't for that sellout war, there wouldn't be a power vacuum that got filled with IS, IS 's influence and - in the end - the bombings in Zaventem - pretty much my workplace - wouldn't have happened)

That's fair, but at the same time, Trump's foreign policy failings have caused a lot of negative effects on the world in their own right. The US has ceded it's leadership role on the world stage to countries like China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. There are genocides happening in both China and India. In South America, there's been a coup in Bolivia, likely helped along by the CIA, while large portions of the Amazon rainforest are consumed by man-made fire. In the Middle-East our Kurdish allies were betrayed and killed just so we could retreat to protect the oil, while hundreds of ISIS militants were freed. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point: any semi-moral president would have prevented these things or at the very least spoken out about them. Bad shit happens on a worldwide scale when there is no morality within the US' leadership.

There's merit in your last sentence, but let's be honest : that risk' s always there. Limiting powers or increasing transparency are at best patches on the wound. The problem you're facing is why those guys can get a(Tactical) majority in the voting process. Change the rules to much and your hindering future honest presidents while future crooks will just avoid whatever rules are there.

A lot of the issue does simply boil down to problems with our electoral systems I suppose, so better to address those than put a band-aid over one of the symptoms. Citizens United is bullshit, along with the billions of dollars involved in our elections. As long as crony capitalist interests supersede our democracy and our right to fair elections, presidential candidates can only continue to get more corrupt.

 

[cots]

So you supported a liberal president, and then you supported the guy who pushed the racist birther conspiracy theory against him? I call bullshit. You know exactly who and what the modern Republican party represents, which is why you're using every opportunity in an attempt to accuse the Democratic party of representing those things instead. Sorry, but nobody's buying your smoke and mirrors act. Nobody's gonna join your make-believe club where the president endorsed by David Duke is also somehow an open-minded champion of the masses. After three years in office, the only people left in support of Trump are racists, fascists, and those that have no issue associating themselves with those two groups. Any level-headed conservative has long since moved on.

Yet you voted for a nasty bitch that brought the birther scandal into the public eye many years before Trump ran for President. I respected Obama for being the President. I didn't agree with everything he did. He's also far less Liberal than the current batch of morons the DNC pushed up. You know their candidates whom none, including Biden are Trump's current political opponent. Hard to dig up dirt on an opponent when you don't have one. So everyone that voted for Trmup is a racist. Typical Liberal intolerance that has nothing to do with race.

It's not only about Trump. The rules need to be changed for all presidents henceforth, Democrat and Republican alike. As it sits now it's clear the system was woefully under-prepared for a bad faith actor winning the presidency and slowly chipping away at all the processes and institutions which prevent corruption from overtaking government entirely.


That's not something I can accept on the basis of faith alone. For the longest time people believed it couldn't possibly get worse than GWB. Well, the Obama administration refused to prosecute him or Cheney, and eight years later it did get worse. Every wealthy criminal POS is gonna be gunning for the presidency if we continue allowing the office to be viewed as a 'get out of jail free' card.

Liar. It's got everything to do with Trump. You know the person you refuse to admit is President. The same person you planned to impeach regardless of any wrongdoing. Now you want to change the rules because your attempt is hopeless and failing. You do realize everything Liberals touch turns to shit? You're a lying cheater. Trump shouldn't be required to give up any powers based on being accused of a crime. Congress is also refusing Trump's requests. Seems like those checks and balances are working just fine. You can't control both branches bud. You can't control everything as you can't even control yourself. I understand that Liberals are control freaks, but luckily we don't have to do anything you demand of us let alone listen to you and other than some drug addicts, the mentally ill or kids you indoctrinated who haven't grown up yet no one takes you or your party seriously.