|
As others have already stated, there is a high level of correlation between general market interest and forum activity. This has happened before in past bear markets, perhaps not to the same degree, but the trend is clear.
|
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/mExzuhn.png - NSFW The ass is flat. It is all a conspiracy of big cushion. Change my mind. [mod note - removed embeded NSFW image, added notice beside the link and in the title]
|
|
|
|
The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply.
This point isn't being debated by me, and you didn't need to bring up an irrelevant case to back it up. You could have simply pointed to the text in the constitution that says the same thing. Its quite possible that the impeachment won't be tried, however, I believe that it will, and when it does it will render this entire debate moot. Regardless, Trump has been impeached. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/textResolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate... Your personal opinion doesn't weigh more than a passed, simple resolution by the house. Sorry, it just doesn't. Yet you are debating it by claiming the precedent doesn't apply. Your entire argument is essentially "no you're wrong I'm right." with no other supporting argument. Once again, this is not my personal opinion, it is the opinion of many including well respected legal scholars who served as a witness for the Democrat party for these hearings. I simply agree with his assessment. Speaking of high crimes and misdemeanors, what is the crime exactly he is being accused of? The house can pass a resolution declaring turds as candy canes, it doesn't magically transform a pile of dog shit into peppermint. |
|
|
|
So far in this thread we've seen socialist supporters claim France is socialist because of nationalized healthcare, military, education, trains and energy but National Socialist Germany which had nationalized healthcare, military, education, trains, energy and the car industry isn't. They claim France is socialist because of unions although every single capitalist country has unions and those unions are voluntary organizations with consenting individuals. How many times can you shift definitions in order to make it fit your narrative  Socialism and communism require capitalism to exist. Capitalism does not require socialism or communism to exist. Socialism and communism can only exist parasitically within capitalism. |
|
|
|
How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon?
OK, so its for a judge, not a president. That's why it doesn't preside over anything revolving around this matter. If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president.
Its an entirely different position, therefore it has no bearing on Trump's impeachment. The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional.
What does any of this have to with Trump being impeached? As you know I already answered this question, which you of course conveniently edited out of your quote of my reply. This is in fact an applicable precedent. How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon? If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president. The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional.
|
|
|
|
Cool story bro.
Tell me Nutilduuuh, how long did you spend reading the case law I linked? I know, I just want to see you try to lie about it first.
Well?
I spent zero minutes. OK, so its for an entirely different Nixon. Obsolutely. No. Precedent. You were wrong yesterday, you're wrong today, and you'll be wrong tomorrow. How would you know if it applies if you didn't even bother reviewing it long enough to see it was the impeachment of judge Nixon and not president Nixon? If anything it makes my argument stronger if the case revolved around a judge, because if those standards apply to a lower level office, they most certainly should apply to the president. The Constitution gives The Senate the sole power to try all impeachments, not just presidential impeachments, so the precedent does in fact apply. Nancy Pelosi is trying to impose additional requirements on The Senate before she will transmit the articles of impeachment. This case showed The Supreme Court ruled that these additional requirements were not constitutional. |
|
|
|
Cool story bro. Tell me Nutilduuuh, how long did you spend reading the case law I linked? I know, I just want to see you try to lie about it first.
Well? |
|
|
|
Correlation does not equal causation. Wow. You referenced yourself. Very convincing. Care to explain what any of this has to do with the op or are you just here because your jimmies are rustled in general?
And *Wow* back at you - very convincing explanation for the distrust you have there. Lemming.Perhaps if you refrained from lashing out at others (such as your outburst towards Vod) you might be able to think for yourself. (The title of the thread is " More trust system abuse by Lauda" you by extension are part of that trust abuse - don't start a thread if you can't handle the responses you receive) You got me Timelord, you are just too much for me to handle! You mean like you handle responses you receive? |
|
|
|
That is a nice appeal to authority you have there. It would be a shame if some one were to point out it was a logical fallacy. Just following in your footsteps, when you asked me if I knew more than a Harvard law professor. Then unironically, you went and argued with a Harvard law professor of a more senior ranking. My quoted section infers just as much of my personal conclusion as your quoted section does to yours, but of course you REALLY want to be right so, reality bends to your will.
How can The Senate try an impeachment that didn't happen? Exactly my point. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either it did happen and The Senate must be allowed to move it to trial, or it didn't happen and the articles haven't yet been transmitted to The Senate. Good job proving yourself wrong there Nutilduuuhhhh.
None of this has anything to do with anything. It's not a logical argument, just more barking worm tactics. Just for fun, have some precedent: "(b) The language and structure of Art. I, 3, cl. 6, demonstrate a textual commitment of impeachment to the Senate. Nixon's argument that the use of the word "try" in the Clause's first sentence impliedly requires a judicial-style trial by the full Senate that is subject to judicial review is rejected. The conclusion that "try" lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review is compelled by older and modern dictionary definitions, and is fortified by the existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause's second and third sentences do impose - that the Senate's Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and [506 U.S. 224, 225] that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried - the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings. The Clause's first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word "sole" indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone." https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/506/224.htmlNot a precedent. As the house never voted on Nixon's articles of impeachment, no precedent could have possibly been set. From House Resolution 755: Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.htmlJonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole scholar invited by Republicans to testify against impeachment at that hearing, also disagreed with Professor Feldman.
Mr. Trump was impeached on Wednesday, Professor Turley said. “Article I, Section 2 says that the House ‘shall have the sole power of impeachment.’ It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/jonathan-turley.htmlWho Is Jonathan Turley? Republicans’ Lone Expert on Impeachment The thought of resting your argument on an academic exercise will be finally laid to rest early next year. You're wrong now, and you'll be wrong then, too. No, a Harvard law professor made an argument and I agree with him. Your entire argument rests on the premise that the man you agree with being more senior automatically makes him more correct, which is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority, one that most children understand isn't a legitimate argument. How can a senate try an impeachment if it didn't happen? We're not talking about a conviction by the senate -- that's not even part of what is being debated. I know having a knob for a head makes thinking difficult, but this is a bit much. My logic is sound and this is the premise of the entire argument, you just turned it on its side and claimed it was something different. You claim he was impeached. If that is true then The Senate should have been transmitted the articles of impeachment to meet the constitutional standard of The Senate having sole authority to try impeachments. If the articles have not been transmitted then legally he is still not impeached. You can't have it both ways, these are exclusive concepts. Tell me Nutilduuuh, how long did you spend reading the case law I linked? I know, I just want to see you try to lie about it first. |
|
|
|
As did you, for criticizing you no less. I was happy to just ignore you for a long time but you insisted on involving yourself with me. Me distrusting your judgement is in no way abuse, and judging by the collection of exclusions you have, I am not the only one who thinks so.
So you're admitting you're just a lemming jumping off someone else's cliff because they did it? More Irony. Let's look at this:  Lemming. Correlation does not equal causation. Wow. You referenced yourself. Very convincing. Care to explain what any of this has to do with the op or are you just here because your jimmies are rustled in general? |
|
|
|
If theymos really forced OG to remove Laudas tagg
He did not. Remember this deflection? OG was threatened with DT1 blacklist if he did not remove the trust abuse he left for Lauda. So, he was not actually forced, but he had no choice if wanted to continue scamming. (I'm just going over old posts for the SEC to document a long pattern of misdirection and dishonesty.) Quoting to preserve a record of Vod using the power of the state to fight his petty interpersonal battles yet again. I am clueless as to why this community continues to tolerate you when your remorse for your pattern of going too far with your malignant behavior is completely feigned. |
|
|
|
|
I have almost a full page of unhandled reports, some of them weeks old. This is the kind of thing that suggests to me staff pick and choose who they want to enforce the rules for. This is consistently an issue as these reports simply fall off the page before being handled. Does anyone else get so many reports left unhandled?
|
|
|
|
just don't abuse the systems designed to prevent fraud to fight your petty interpersonal battles. That is where I draw the line.
Me too.  I almost pissed myself. Thanks for the laugh. just don't abuse the systems designed to prevent fraud to fight your petty interpersonal battles. That is where I draw the line.
...and yet you just put me on distrust - Irony. As did you, for criticizing you no less. I was happy to just ignore you for a long time but you insisted on involving yourself with me. Me distrusting your judgement is in no way abuse, and judging by the collection of exclusions you have, I am not the only one who thinks so. |
|
|
|
AQUATIC LEVOFLOXACIN 500mg 20 TABLET - 0.22BTC
I purchased some Levofloxacin 500mg from Walmart. The price for 10 pills was a little under $150 USD. 0.02095 BTC With insurance, it was $1. Just go to the doctor... I don't understand paying .22 BTC for something you can get easily through a professional at a cheaper rate. (no offense OP) No insurance route: Doctor visit: $100 + Test for something +$350 + Pills $150 ________________ $600 through a doc with no insurance at least in my area of 'Murica (0.08373 BTC) Well for one, the OP is from 2015, it was necro bumped by a spam bot linking an online pharmacy, who's post was since deleted. Many of these fish antibiotics are literally the same pills as prescribed to humans. Of course some people are too retarded to operate heavy machinery let alone figure out what kind of antibiotics they need, but I can personally see the appeal of skipping all of that bullshit if I already know what my problem is and the doctor is just going to tell me what I already know. It is not that hard to tell the difference between a bacterial and a viral infection after all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
