politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It was a hypothetical.
Yeah. I guess he hypothetically decided to tear down the West Wing of the Whitehouse, without permission, where he was just a tennant. Hypothetically speaking.
Dude. You tear down a part of my house where you are a temporary guest and we'll see how that goes.
Hypothetically speaking.
This isn't a statement from the Trump admin, it's a lawyer who was presented with a hypothetical by the courts, asking if their logic would hypothetically extend to the Statue of Liberty. You have to do some incredible leaps of logic to get from there to thinking that the Trump admin has any intention of tearing down the Statue of Liberty.
It's not "your house," lol. The government doesn't represent the people.
No, that was not hypothetical. That actually happened.
No it didn't happen.
But you've got to nip this guy in the bud, because he will do some crazy ass shit before you know it. Before he tells you.
Iran war, west wing, no audits, 1.776 billion dollar slush fund... kind of come to mind.
You cannot "nip in the bud" random hypothetical situations all day. Its a waste of time. There are too many actual problems to be freaking out over something no one expressed any intention of doing.
Like hypothetically taking over Greenland? The dude is off his rocker. If he, or his cabinet even hints at doing something, you can bet he's already discussed it, and probably had someone draw up plans for it.
That was not a hypothetical. It was not even a suggestion. He said that many times in the affirmative.
You are right. I misread the order of the responses. He did completely demolish the East Wing (i mistakenly said West Wing) as a temporary tenant of the Whitehouse, without permission. That is a fact. His lawyers (DOJ) spuriously argued that he could pretty much destroy whatever he wanted to, provided he did it quickly enough and without notice, regardless of its legality. Therein lies the danger with this man.
He just does illegal shit without permission, before anyone is even aware of it.
The DOJ defends his illegal actions as though they were his personal lawyers, by offering specious arguments.
The point is, that we can't discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it. Those attorneys at the DOJ who argued for this on behalf of the the Whitehouse should be disbarred with prejudice.
It wasn't an idea and no one "argued for this". It was a hypothetical, used for demonstrative purposes. No one expressed any intent or made any suggestion.
I won't "argue with you" but Roth did argue the point under the theory of "non- redressability". While some make think it's purely speculative, I say no it's not.
It is just as preposterous for the president to destroy the East Wing of the Whitehouse (a national monument (landmark) that he doesn't own or have legal authority to damage) as it is to raze the Statue of Liberty. Both are kept in the trust of the National Park service, which he controls.
Damaging the Whitehouse is equal to damaging any other national monument. He did it in a rush so no one could/would stop him. It is absolutely no different than blowing up mount Rushmore so he could put his face there.
It's not his to destroy!
I'm done arguing.
Right, that is the point that the SoL was being used as an instrument to argue. It was not a suggestion that it was something they were considering doing, as the title suggests.