Politics Thread

[xubrew]

I always kinda liked Deadspin, but there were a couple things that they didn't get quite right. Granted, they were far from the only ones...

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/do...RFoNP1JiAqwg_o

[GoMuskies]

I always kinda liked Deadspin, but there were a couple things that they didn't get quite right. Granted, they were far from the only ones...

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/do...RFoNP1JiAqwg_o

That's a great article on sports from a sports website.

[Juice]

I always kinda liked Deadspin, but there were a couple things that they didn't get quite right. Granted, they were far from the only ones...

https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/do...RFoNP1JiAqwg_o

Drew Magary used to be really funny. Trump broke his brain.

[chico]

Well that makes sense.....NOT.

How does that not make sense? You asked Go to answer your question, he did by using the same standard Justice Stewart did in regards to porn in the Jacobellis case. You obviously didn't/still don't get the reference.

Or perhaps you were simply being obtuse and trying to get an answer you wanted instead of the one given, yet you claim it was Go who was obtuse. In any case, Go gave you a perfectly valid response.

[XU 87]

Or perhaps you were simply being obtuse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA8HT324wro

[X-man]

How does that not make sense? You asked Go to answer your question, he did by using the same standard Justice Stewart did in regards to porn in the Jacobellis case. You obviously didn't/still don't get the reference.

Or perhaps you were simply being obtuse and trying to get an answer you wanted instead of the one given, yet you claim it was Go who was obtuse. In any case, Go gave you a perfectly valid response.

You miss my point. I am aware of the pornography argument, and how it might apply to the impeachment argument. But my earlier question was asking a poster here for HIS ideas on what is impeachable. An answer that says different people have different ideas doesn't answer the question.

[XU 87]

You miss my point. I am aware of the pornography argument, and how it might apply to the impeachment argument. But my earlier question was asking a poster here for HIS ideas on what is impeachable. An answer that says different people have different ideas doesn't answer the question.

Per Justice Stewart- "I can't specifically define what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense is. I know it when I see it."

[xubrew]

This is REALLY stupid. It's Alabama, though, so I guess that is redundant.

https://www.al.com/news/2019/11/alab...mpression=true

Yeah, had they not done this, then this probably wouldn't be happening....

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...qSuKZEwnczEXBc

[X-man]

Per Justice Stewart- "I can't specifically define what exactly constitutes an impeachable offense is. I know it when I see it."

So let's throw out some hypotheticals. (1) the President directs that Congressionally authorized funds be held up, against clear policy goals, until a foreign government provides help for the President's re-election effort (where such help is contrary to federal election law). (2) the President lies about it, repeatedly. (3) the President oversees a cover-up of his actions by directing Executive branch employees to lie about it.

How's that for starters?

[chico]

You miss my point. I am aware of the pornography argument, and how it might apply to the impeachment argument. But my earlier question was asking a poster here for HIS ideas on what is impeachable. An answer that says different people have different ideas doesn't answer the question.

And his answer was HE'D know it when HE saw it, i.e. it's like porn. There was no point missed. Go wasn't speaking for anyone else but him when he said he'd know it when he saw it. That's an inference you made.