6 ms·

So you'd be fine with the president being assassinated by a foreign government?

by rfrank 9y ago

moomin 9y ago
Plenty of people seem to be fine with foreign governments interfering with US elections. What is OK with people is a mystery that only continues to deepen.
- rfrank 9y ago
  And with the US interfering in foreign elections. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obam... http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses-macron-zw-orig.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses... EDIT because I'm rate limited by this joke of a site again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
  - hackuser 9y ago
    An open endorsement is not at all comparable to breaking the law, stealing information, turning it into misinformation, and leaking it anonymously. You also could say that Muhammad Ali and I both have thrown punches and that Linus Torvalds and I both have contributed to FOSS projects, but what would it mean?
anigbrowl 9y ago
Why don't you try being constructive instead of nitpicking and reaching straight for the edge cases? Like, try offering more moderated but credible alternatives to achieve the implicit end of having governance be informed by science.
- rfrank 9y ago
  I think that encouraging people to think about how silly the things they say during political discussions is productive. I've still yet to see someone propose a rational mechanism with which to impeach the current president.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    It isn't. Constructive is when you point out a problem and suggest a better alternative. If you just point out problems (especially by taking a narrow legalistic approach to casual conversation) then you're just being a pedant and undermining their substantive argument (in this case, that finding a way to derail the administration is a matter of urgent necessity). You are of course welcome to disagree with that substantive claim, but if so then it's better to do so openly than under cover of fault-finding, which is regarded by many as concern trolling.
    - rfrank 9y ago
      I'm not going to write out a comment that makes sense for the "any tbh" guy, so that I actually have something substantive to reply to. A non-answer gets dismissed, which is what happened. What piece of legislation would you choose to remove President Trump from office? If you want to have a conversation, that question from my first comment is still unanswered. "Liberals don't like him," isn't an impeachable offense, believe it or not. ANOTHER EDIT because this website's moderation team hates political dissent. If all you need to do is make an argument and ignore legislation, then MAKE THE ARGUMENT. I truly don't understand how that's so complicated. Here's an example reply, "The 25th Amendment." The first two people I replied to are arguing to remove the president for office but providing absolutely 0 suggestion as to how to actually do that? Is this supposed to be the level of discourse on HN? Holy shit.
      - mikeash 9y ago
        Legislation is irrelevant. All that matters is Congress. "An impeachable offense" is anything Congress wants it to be. The Constitution is powerfully vague on this point, and in any case no court has jurisdiction to overturn a conviction. All that matters is getting enough of Congress to think that something is impeachable. Of course, since you need a lot of Republicans to be part of it, and they're loyal to their own, it's a big hurdle. But it's a different hurdle.

So you'd be fine with the president being assassinated by a foreign government?

by rfrank 9y ago

So you'd be fine with the president being assassinated by a foreign government?

Plenty of people seem to be fine with foreign governments interfering with US elections. What is OK with people is a mystery that only continues to deepen.

rfrank 9y ago
And with the US interfering in foreign elections. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obam... http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses-macron-zw-orig.cnn http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses... EDIT because I'm rate limited by this joke of a site again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
- hackuser 9y ago
  An open endorsement is not at all comparable to breaking the law, stealing information, turning it into misinformation, and leaking it anonymously. You also could say that Muhammad Ali and I both have thrown punches and that Linus Torvalds and I both have contributed to FOSS projects, but what would it mean?

anigbrowl 9y ago

Why don't you try being constructive instead of nitpicking and reaching straight for the edge cases? Like, try offering more moderated but credible alternatives to achieve the implicit end of having governance be informed by science.

rfrank 9y ago
I think that encouraging people to think about how silly the things they say during political discussions is productive. I've still yet to see someone propose a rational mechanism with which to impeach the current president.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  It isn't. Constructive is when you point out a problem and suggest a better alternative. If you just point out problems (especially by taking a narrow legalistic approach to casual conversation) then you're just being a pedant and undermining their substantive argument (in this case, that finding a way to derail the administration is a matter of urgent necessity). You are of course welcome to disagree with that substantive claim, but if so then it's better to do so openly than under cover of fault-finding, which is regarded by many as concern trolling.
  - rfrank 9y ago
    I'm not going to write out a comment that makes sense for the "any tbh" guy, so that I actually have something substantive to reply to. A non-answer gets dismissed, which is what happened. What piece of legislation would you choose to remove President Trump from office? If you want to have a conversation, that question from my first comment is still unanswered. "Liberals don't like him," isn't an impeachable offense, believe it or not. ANOTHER EDIT because this website's moderation team hates political dissent. If all you need to do is make an argument and ignore legislation, then MAKE THE ARGUMENT. I truly don't understand how that's so complicated. Here's an example reply, "The 25th Amendment." The first two people I replied to are arguing to remove the president for office but providing absolutely 0 suggestion as to how to actually do that? Is this supposed to be the level of discourse on HN? Holy shit.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      Legislation is irrelevant. All that matters is Congress. "An impeachable offense" is anything Congress wants it to be. The Constitution is powerfully vague on this point, and in any case no court has jurisdiction to overturn a conviction. All that matters is getting enough of Congress to think that something is impeachable. Of course, since you need a lot of Republicans to be part of it, and they're loyal to their own, it's a big hurdle. But it's a different hurdle.