Would you like to make a guess at the potential fallout of this debacle? I know I have asked many times and no one seems to want to play this game.
There’s usually no way to prove you didn’t do something sleazy you’ve been falsely accused of. The onus is on the accuser.
But apparently that is what just happened. He was more or less cleared after an investigation.
Maybe I am moving the goalposts
but the investigation and confirmation seemed rushed.
Also his demeanor was (imo rightfullly) questioned.
Plus the withheld documents thing.
Not sure I have the skills to play that game, tbh.
Of course you do, you have a brain. The worst case scenario for impugning an incoming Supreme Court Justice is civil war.
Yeah, thats not a good game to play.
the EU commission has the executive and legislative power and can enforce it to all EU members. And there’s no election process by EU citizens; the commission decides what to do “for the greater good” and if you don’t like it tough luck. It’s garbage.
A US president that has to be elected and possibly re-confirmed after 4 years seems a lot more reasonable for me. Just because you don’t like the guy and decided to buy into any Russia/#believeher bullshit doesn’t change the fact that the system works.
I’m still laughing at this.
You can’t even put a coherent paragraph together.
I thought that might be where you were going. Hopefully a worst case scenario is avoidable- but both sides must act rationally, and I can’t say that is true for either this time because they were both up in arms.
I’ve heard about this latent threat of a civil war for some years now. It’s truly terrifying, but you can’t let that be a deterrence.
And also learn to shoot guns.
Two ways in the US.
The body of the Constitution says the the House has the sole power of impeachment and the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. A bit like a court case in that the House brings charges (impeaches) that are tried in the Senate, where the President is either convicted or found innocent of the articles or charge(s) of impeachment. It takes a simple majority in the House to bring charges (articles) and a two-thirds majority in the Senate (67 votes) to convict.
It’s happened twice, but no President has ever been convicted by the Senate. A Republican president, Nixon, was about to be brought up in the House on impeachment charges (Watergate break-in) when he resigned from office in 1974. Bill Clinton was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate, and he finished his second term. A President in the 19th century was also impeached, but not convicted by the Senate.
The Constitution was amended in 1967 to allow for an orderly transition of power in case the President dies or becomes incapacitated (in reaction to Kennedy’s assassination in 1963), or is judged to have become incapacitated. This is the second way the President can be removed. Last phrase, “judged to be incapacitated,” is yet another way in which the President can be removed. Obviously open to political hijinks, and it’s been discussed by Democrats more or less continuously since Trump’s first tweet in office.
Both ways are a high bar to overcome, but they are viable paths. By viable I mean it’s doable in theory, although neither path has ever been taken (but Nixon did resign before being taken down).
Fake news lol.
Vote for the other candidate.
It is the Commission that currently holds executive powers over the [European Union]
The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has [legislative initiative]
Good, now we all know why you are clueless about the EU.
I feel a four year term with a max of 2 terms is pretty reasonable. Any shorter makes it hard for them to get things done long term because they’re so worried about re-election and short term perceptions. Any longer feels too powerful.
You’re aren’t wrong about problems with a 2 party system. But it’s not like a multip party system is without issues. Look at Italy.
National govenrnents supersede the commission in most aspects of policy.
Besides the commission has representatives from each state.
The president of the commission is more like a figurehead.
If there are better candidates than trump, I’d vote for them. But so far the Democrats have been crying so much and putting up ridiculous names to play trumps game that I think they’re just shooting themselves in the foot. I don’t understand why they aren’t changing their strategy. They’ve essentially doubled downed on their strategy that game them the loss.
You can’t vote for ‘them’, you could only really vote for one other candidate.
They pretend like there’s a choice.
And that’s the whole problem .
There is a choice.
Also, there is no problem. It’s just not what you are used to.
Looks like there’s a problem to me…
Tweedle dumb and tweedle dee are rolled out.
What do you means I’m not used to it lol.
Whaf do I get used to ?
There are always problems in the US. That problems exist in the US does not mean that there is no choice. It also does not mean that things are broken or need to be changed.
I think you are used to faster change in government, and that is what I meant. I may be wrong about that, and if so apologies.
You can write in a candidate. Protest votes are popular.
micky mouse is a popular candidate.