Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (68442)	4/26/2018 12:26:20 AM
From: puborectalis	3 Recommendations Recommended By abuelita Ivan Inkling Lane3 Respond to of 364683

I don’t believe in open borders, and immigration policy is complex and difficult. Yet Trump isn’t making hard decisions but unconscionable ones. I am the son of a refugee myself, a beneficiary of America’s magnanimity, and today’s policies leave me ashamed. When immigration officials pry a crying young child away from a parent and send that child to foster care, that is not “immigration policy.” That is “barbarism.” N.Kristoff

To: i-node who wrote (68442)	4/26/2018 7:42:56 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364683

But surely, the last outcome the Framers would have wanted is for a runaway congress to oust a president based on popularity. You jumped right to popularity. I didn't say or suggest anything about popularity. Even if it were just a matter of popularity, which it isn't, of course there would have to be at least a reasonable pretext of crimes and misdemeanors, something with at least plausible deniability. No matter how dumb or venal you think the D's might be... I started to say that nobody would be that dumb or careless with the country, but then I thought of Trump and reconsidered. :/ So, then, say they came up with something more substantive than spitting on the sidewalk. There are plenty of options. Do you see SCOTUS intervening to assert that the crime wasn't a high enough crime or that the crime hadn't been proven within a reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence or whatever standard they thought applied? The issue here is whether a high crime or misdemeanor is whatever the Congress says it is, as I and others have said, or whether there is a check on that other than the next election. If there's a check, what's the mechanism for it?