George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon • Hacker News Board

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#171

Post by klocksib » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:48 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #146

beloch wrote: post #17

I must admit, I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S.. Clinton was impeached for perjury and abuse of power because he took advantage of his position (and a political intern) and then lied about it. Now we have a president who is not giving up his business interests while in office and who has already told some absolute whoppers, including the release of official press releases that were nothing but…

Trump has been in office for 4 days. Conflict of interest laws do not apply to US Presidents, so the business interest argument is moot. We don't impeach Presidents because a loud group of people dislikes the fact that they lost an election. We impeach Presidents when they commit crimes, which he has not done and hasn't even been in office long enough to do.

"We impeach Presidents when they commit crimes, which he has not done and hasn't even been in office long enough to do."

Can you clarify how long one must be in public office to commit a crime?

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#172

Post by jeffgreco » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:50 AM UTC

xname2 wrote: post #111

dllthomas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S. Impeachment requires a crime. Lying isn't usually a crime, and as best I can tell hasn't been one any of the times Trump has done it (.. yet?). It also hasn't been a crime any of the times Obama has done it. Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal. When we come up with somethin…

I can't believe there are so many people here suggest DJT should totally give up his business. This is basically the same as saying no business person should run for the president, so just leave it only to career politicians. Gets lots of downvotes for no reason. The hates toward DJT are crazy.

There's this crazy thing called "money" he can exchange it for. If he does his job right, that alone should be a worthwhile investment!

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#173

Post by rabboRubble » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:50 AM UTC

knz wrote: post #57

dllthomas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S. Impeachment requires a crime. Lying isn't usually a crime, and as best I can tell hasn't been one any of the times Trump has done it (.. yet?). It also hasn't been a crime any of the times Obama has done it. Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal. When we come up with somethin…

We've probably all seen the emoluments clause raised as one way he may be breaking the law. I'm not a legal expert but I would assume, if it's true, that breaking the Constitution would be illegal? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause "The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that ... restricts members of the government from r…

I did a spot of research on the emoluments clause and found three instances where specific events were evaluated for breaching this clause:

1 - Theodore Roosevelt. Nobel Peace Prize. He accept both the cash award and the medal.

2 - Barack Obama. Nobel Peace Prize. He accepted only the medal.

... and most interestingly ...

3 - Ronald Reagan. Receipt of pension payments from the state of California as a former Governor and California pension plan participant.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/198...

The way I read the analysis of Ronald Reagan's situation, any benefit from a domestic state, city, or county could potentially fall afoul of the emoluments clause. Think here of any local property tax rebate from a city to entice a Trump business to build a hotel or set up shop. Maybe even a tax rebate / waiver from prior business development agreement could fall afoul. Who knows how deep this particular rabbit hole could go.

I also was puzzling over Hobby Lobby the other day and I realized that Trump's situation vis-a-vie the emoluments clause could be parallel to Hobby Lobby versus the ACA. Hobby Lobby wanted out of the mandate for birth control and the Supreme Court sided with them because Hobby Lobby was a closely held corporation; close enough where the owners' religious beliefs could be infringed upon by ACA birth control mandates on the corporation they controlled.

I believe the Trump empire is a closely held corporation like Hobby Lobby. Per the Supreme Court a closely held corporation like Hobby Lobby has a personal connection unlike widely held corporation. Simply saying payments made to Trump's corporation is a sufficient separation from the person to avoid the emoluments clause may not be a strong argument for those arguing Trump's side.

Edit: IANAL, but rather a politics major.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#174

Post by jeffgreco » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:50 AM UTC

flukus wrote: post #141

sigmar wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I meant that the election of the first black president was a much bigger deal then the 40 somethingth white old dude But that (and many of the questions in that link) are not relevant to the specific question of how many people were at the inauguration. Which is the topic at hand. Those questions would be more relevant in a discussion of drawing other conclusions from the attendance numbers

I'm just trying to work out why it became a thing in the first place. Was Trump trying to play up attendance numbers or was someone trying play up the lack of them to be something meaningful?

The media mentioned it a bit on Friday, even more on Saturday due to the Womens March outdrawing the Inauguration itself, and Trump couldn't handle the coverage.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#175

Post by refurb » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:51 AM UTC

hueving wrote: post #73

skylan_q wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why everyone assumes that you can only be a female if you have a vagina

Most people associate female/male with sexual organs. You can see this any many metaphors (e.g. google "female electrical outlet" and "male electrical outlet").

Oh you did it now!

2017 headline "Electrical standards commission will no longer refer to "male" and "female" outlets but rather "hole" and "prong".

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#176

Post by mrebus » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:51 AM UTC

g00gler wrote: post #100

knz wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've probably all seen the emoluments clause raised as one way he may be breaking the law. I'm not a legal expert but I would assume, if it's true, that breaking the Constitution would be illegal? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause "The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that ... restricts members of the government from r…

So, wasn't Hillary Clinton breaking the Constitution when she was accepting donations from Saudi Arabia at the Clinton Foundation while secretary of state?

I am willing to put money that this is being brought up so no one can set up another clinton foundation again. trumps press conference a while back he spent a considerable amount of time talking about his company and the legalities. he knew what he was talking about and they had spent some time working on it.(then he called cnn fake news). Now all this talk about nobility... This gets ruled on and he is totally inside the rules... but the real message is don't set up "Clinton Global Inititave" as it wound be outside the rules.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#177

Post by emiliobumachar » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:51 AM UTC

sfeng wrote: post #113

caseysoftware wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Congress already consented decades ago: > The financial conflict statute prohibits federal employees from participating in matters where they could enrich themselves. It applies to everyone in the executive branch, from the lowliest file clerk up to the White House chief of staff – except for the president and vice president. Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/12/07/can-congress... You could try to…

Sure, but the courts enforce the constitution, not congress.

Courts interpret the constitution. I'm no lawyer, but "without the consent of the United States Congress" seems very clear-cut to me. It's up to congress, as per the constitution.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#178

Post by loafa » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:51 AM UTC

oculusthrift wrote: post #161

downandout wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump has been in office for 4 days. Conflict of interest laws do not apply to US Presidents, so the business interest argument is moot. We don't impeach Presidents because a loud group of people dislikes the fact that they lost an election. We impeach Presidents when they commit crimes, which he has not done and hasn't even been in office long enough to do.

Yeah I guess to you breaking the Foreign Emoluments Clause in the Constitution is nothing. And its funny you say that when that is exactly why they impeached Clinton.

The argument that Trump is breaking the emoluments clause by (for instance) having foreign governments paying market rents as tenants in his building is ridiculously thin.

Here's the real trouble with these ridiculously exaggerated criticisms of everything Trump: there's nowhere to go from here. By the time Trump actually does something bad, everyone will be totally immune to the constant wailing, it will be impossible to cut through the noise and say "oh wait, this is actually bad".

It's similar to how we got the Iraq War: the left had been complaining about everything that Bush did from day one, so by the time he had a genuinely bad idea everyone just sorta ignored the criticism of it.

When everybody is Hitler all the time, nobody is Hitler.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#179

Post by e40 » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:51 AM UTC

downandout wrote: post #146

beloch wrote: post #17

I must admit, I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S.. Clinton was impeached for perjury and abuse of power because he took advantage of his position (and a political intern) and then lied about it. Now we have a president who is not giving up his business interests while in office and who has already told some absolute whoppers, including the release of official press releases that were nothing but…

Trump has been in office for 4 days. Conflict of interest laws do not apply to US Presidents, so the business interest argument is moot. We don't impeach Presidents because a loud group of people dislikes the fact that they lost an election. We impeach Presidents when they commit crimes, which he has not done and hasn't even been in office long enough to do.

Conflict of interest laws do not apply to US Presidents

That is Trump-level spin. Wow.

Re: George Orwell’s 1984 is currently the top selling book on Amazon

#180

Post by azernik » Wed, Jan 25, 2017, 6:52 AM UTC

jupiter90000 wrote: post #72

dllthomas wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm really confused by how impeachment works in the U.S. Impeachment requires a crime. Lying isn't usually a crime, and as best I can tell hasn't been one any of the times Trump has done it (.. yet?). It also hasn't been a crime any of the times Obama has done it. Failure to give up business interests is breaking precedent and confounding ethicists, but also doesn't seem to be illegal. When we come up with somethin…

Do people really want him to get impeached and convicted, with Pence being the successor? Seems like a terrible idea...

From my (quite far-left) perspective, I would be very okay with that outcome. The Presidency's most unchecked power is in foreign policy, where Trump truly scares me. Pence as President would not change the balance of power in Congress, which is where most of the social and economic decisions (where I really have problems with Pence) would be made.

Putting on my non-partisan hat, though, I am nervous about the precedent of removing a president from office iff it is seen as a partisan move. The removal of Trump without widespread Republican support (as opposed to a small defecting faction) might be seen as precedent for a higher frequency of partisan impeachments - a danger to be weighed against (in my not-very-objective opinion) the dangers of a Trump presidency.