Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    12 Jan '17 04:51
    Hahahahaha

    God damn, 2017 is gonna be hilarious... hilleryless.... funny...

    Sorry, can't be arsed spell checking.
    Hell, it's 2017... no need to fact-check, never mind care about bloody spelling.

    Let the good times roll!!!!
  2. Standard member checkbaiter
    By God's Grace
    12 Jan '17 05:47
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Hahahahaha

    God damn, 2017 is gonna be hilarious... hilleryless.... funny...

    Sorry, can't be arsed spell checking.
    Hell, it's 2017... no need to fact-check, never mind care about bloody spelling.

    Let the good times roll!!!!
    Best press conference ever!
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Jan '17 06:17
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    Best press conference ever!
    Trump's impeachment trial for grossly violating the Enoulments Clause of the Constitution will be even better.
  4. 12 Jan '17 07:38 / 1 edit
    "CNN? Lügenpresse! Lügenpresse! Yes, what was your question, Völkischer Beobachter?"
  5. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    12 Jan '17 10:04
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Trump's impeachment trial for grossly violating the Enoulments Clause of the Constitution will be even better.
    I had to look this up and found I couldn't. Enoulment isn't in the dictionary I looked at (Oxford online). Article 2 provides for impeachment on the grounds of bribery and treason amongst others. Unless one regards Russian intelligence on the Democrats as a bribe then because he specifically turned down some real estate deals concerning the Russian hosting of the World Cup I don't think it would be easy to demonstrate bribery, besides as a billionaire he's going to be expensive to bribe. A conciliatory attitude to Putin may be not be in America's interests but hardly crosses the threshold into treason, so unless Monica Lewinski can be persuaded to get onto the case I'm wondering what grounds for impeachment you have in mind?
  6. 12 Jan '17 10:24
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    I had to look this up and found I couldn't.
    If you had used Google it would have fixed the spelling for you and also given some helpful links. My guess is no1marauder was playing on the fact that facts and spelling don't matter anymore in our post-fact society.

    Unless one regards Russian intelligence on the Democrats as a bribe then because he specifically turned down some real estate deals concerning the Russian hosting of the World Cup I don't think it would be easy to demonstrate bribery, besides as a billionaire he's going to be expensive to bribe.
    If Trump were to continue to run his businesses, and a foreign head of state, or even a delegation paid for by a foreign state were to stay at one of his hotels, or do any business deal with him of any kind, he would be dangerously close to violating the clause.
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Jan '17 10:38
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    If you had used Google it would have fixed the spelling for you and also given some helpful links. My guess is no1marauder was playing on the fact that facts and spelling don't matter anymore in our post-fact society.

    [b]Unless one regards Russian intelligence on the Democrats as a bribe then because he specifically turned down some real estate deals c ...[text shortened]... o any business deal with him of any kind, he would be dangerously close to violating the clause.
    Actually I sent it from my phone which has a subpar.spell checker.

    A short answer to DT's post is that violating a Constitutional clause would certainly be a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
  8. 12 Jan '17 10:56
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Unless one regards Russian intelligence on the Democrats as a bribe then because he specifically turned down some real estate deals concerning the Russian hosting of the World Cup I don't think it would be easy to demonstrate bribery, besides as a billionaire he's going to be expensive to bribe.
    The emoluments clause specifically applies to someone holding office so I doubt it would apply to anything Trump has done prior to being inaugurated.
    I think there may be a question as to exactly what 'emolument' means, but the emoluments clause could easily be interpreted as saying that if a king were to buy a box of smarties at a Trump owned business, that would be in violation of the clause. Most likely there would only be a real violation if it could be shown that the box of smarties was bought by the king with full knowledge that it was Trumps business and bought it because Trump is president ie his office was a factor in the purchase.
  9. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    12 Jan '17 11:00
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The emoluments clause specifically applies to someone holding office so I doubt it would apply to anything Trump has done prior to being inaugurated.
    I think there may be a question as to exactly what 'emolument' means, but the emoluments clause could easily be interpreted as saying that if a king were to buy a box of smarties at a Trump owned business, ...[text shortened]... ps business and bought it because Trump is president ie his office was a factor in the purchase.
    Keeping his hotel in DC with the knowledge that foreign leaders (who might be looking to curry favor) might be staying there would be good enough.
  10. 12 Jan '17 11:03
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Actually I sent it from my phone which has a subpar.spell checker.

    A short answer to DT's post is that violating a Constitutional clause would certainly be a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
    Trump really should consult with Obama on how to violate laws lawfully.
  11. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    12 Jan '17 11:09
    Originally posted by whodey
    Trump really should consult with Obama on how to violate laws lawfully.
    That sentence is self-contradictory, if an action is lawful then no law has been violated.
  12. 12 Jan '17 11:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    That sentence is self-contradictory, if an action is lawful then no law has been violated.
    You mean by Obama not notifying Congress after so many days that he had gone to war in Libya, thus violating the War Powers Act? Obama just smiled and said it was not really a war.

    You mean like Obama making personal exemptions for Obamacare, a law he shoved down our throats that we have no means of making exemptions for ourselves?

    You mean like creating Executive Orders that violate laws on illegal immigration?

    I could go on, but I have a life to lead.

    Face it, Obama paved the way for lawlessness and Trump is your reward.
  13. Standard member DeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    12 Jan '17 11:20
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Actually I sent it from my phone which has a subpar.spell checker.

    A short answer to DT's post is that violating a Constitutional clause would certainly be a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
    Yes, but which clause has he violated?
  14. 12 Jan '17 12:31
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Yes, but which clause has he violated?
    Who cares, he is a racist!
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    12 Jan '17 12:41
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Yes, but which clause has he violated?
    Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 when his businesses, which he insists on maintaining an ownership stake in, receive payments from foreign States.