:eek:
Doesn’t his monologue/blather in that link show he’s actually insulting the Border Patrol?
<nitpick>I know this is pissing uphill, but pet peeves never cease to peeve so FWIW this old canard is, well, a canard. Louis XIV’s dying words were, reportedly, “I die, but the State remains” - which conveys the exact opposite of the oft seen “quote”. Sunny Lou was demonstrably an ego of Trumpian proportions re:many things, but he did seem to have seen himself as a slave to the State/the bigger purpose that was France.</nitpick>
What’s interesting to me here is that he actually believes impeachment proceedings might actually happen. Which, considering the consensus here and elsewhere seems to be “never gonna happen because Senate”, might mean there’s noise and grumbling he’s heard behind Republican doors and we haven’t ?
I did say “(may have)” — I’m admittedly no expert on Louis Quatorze, but last I looked there was a possibility that he did utter the quote I mangled, perhaps in response to something Mazarin said to him. In any case, I am aware of his deathbed statement, which seems in keeping with how you described him.
We now return you to the regularly scheduled clusterfuck.
No worries :). I merely have grown a little fond of the guy after studying him in uni. For all his foibles, he seems to me to have been (or perhaps become, as the years went by) a witty and principled guy. And probably insufferable, sure - but I’d still have a beer with him !
Doffs usurped professor’s cap he’s actually supposed to have said it to the parliament of Paris in 1665, but there is no record of it whatsoever, not in the minutes of said parliament nor in the autobios of the contemporaries who were there.
The parliament was technically the highest court of justice, but in ages past had also acquired the role of publishing & archiving the laws (as edicted by the King) as well as check them against older laws in case of conflicts. As part of this job they had been granted a “right of reproof”, that is to say they could delay making a law effective that they thought conflicted with another, or was wrong (or hurt their own privileges… they weren’t exactly the most principled bunch) until the King edicted the law again, and they could keep stonewalling like this all the way until the King himself came to Parliament to exercise his final veto.
Which is exactly what happened in 1665 : Louis was only 17, fresh out of quashing an uprising of half of his nobility, his power still seemed shaky so the parliament kept testing him and obstructing at every turn. At which point Louis came to parliament, without any of the traditional regalia but clothed in dark grey and wielding a horsewhip that he used as a prop while speaking - ostensibly this is because he was going hunting right after, but y’know. It’s not like anybody ordered him to - it’s quite clear he intended it all for dramatic, intimidating effect. But anyway he was pretty terse with the esteemed assembly, yet the closest he seems to have come to say the famous words attributed to him was his opening statement : “Everyone knows how you have stirred up trouble in *my State, *and what dangerous effects that has produced” (emphasis mine, he was talking about the aforementioned uprising).
He kept talking down at them for a few minutes, ordered them officially to cut the shit, then left before anybody could reply. Some years later he would just do away with the right of reproof altogether, restricting it to an advisory statement (to be replied with “duly noted, fuck off”, mostly) ; prompting his minister Colbert to quip that “the noises of parliaments have fallen out of fashion”.
TL;DR: a young Louis XIV *did *tell the parliament to sit down and shut up ; and he was indeed abrupt about it. It was another act in the century-old tug-of-war between King and nobility, or another brick in establishing absolute monarchy if one prefers. But he never said what everybody knows he said ! 
Interesting story. Thanks. I’m woefully ill-informed when it comes to Urpeen history.
Did I miss anything?
Just the cluster.
Maybe. But Trump is notorious for being affected by what he’s seen on TV and the last thing he’s heard.
Simply to be impeached, only the House matters. They can bring up articles of impeachment. But any actual trial portion is under the sole power of the Senate, which is still controlled by Republicans. Further, any conviction on impeachment articles requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
So, it’s quite possible there will be enough of a clamor for the House to impeach Donald Trump. But that doesn’t necessarily mean anything will happen. The 2/3 requirement means well over a dozen Senate Republicans (plus every single Democrat plus Bernie Sanders as an Independent) would have to vote in favor of conviction. That’s why many commenters think any impeachment proceedings would be more about the sound and the fury, signifying very little. Though the political fallout could swing either way (for the Dems for making Trump’s dealing more public and getting it out there - or against the Dems since impeachment is not favored by a majority of the country at the moment).
Conviction on any impeachment articles would be exceedingly unlikely. Though Donald Trump may not realize that - just as he doesn’t know appealing to the Supreme Court displays a shocking lack of understanding of basic primary school civics. I’m more of the opinion that he realizes any impeachment proceedings would mean a public airing of a lot of his business and personal behavior and he’s taken great pains to avoid that sort of thing. Though it’s also possible he doesn’t realize (though there was one within his lifetime) that an impeachment by itself doesn’t lead to any legal consequences until/unless the Senate convicts. It’s really easy to overestimate his intelligence and knowledge when it comes to basic knowledge of the federal government.
Someone accidentally left a TV on MSNBC.
Or, didn’t I hear once that CNN and MSNBC can’t even be tuned in on White House TV’s?
Actually, I bet (not willing to risk my brain by confirming) that there is more impeachment talk on Fox than on the real news networks. Lindsay Graham was on Hannity the other day, saying that he warned Trump that impeachment looms because the Democrats have been taking over by shrieking left-wing socialist commie pinkos.
Trump’s re-election strategy is to paint all Democrats as extremists. He hopes for an impeachment (but not a conviction, of course) and if he can’t get one, he’ll keep trying to gin up impeachment-hysteria in its place.
“Gin up impeachment hysteria”? Like, how would that be different from what he already does?
All of these hypocritical traitors need to go.
He’d be doing it on purpose.
The parental lock-out has been engaged; the staffers are tired of the incessant whining.
This is how I see it as well: in an ideal world, Trump would be able to put Mueller behind him, but if the Democrats are determined to impeach him, he’d rather they jump the gun and do it while the public is still undecided about it.
As you say, one strategy could be to characterize the Democrats as fervently partisan, obsessed with impeachment at a time when the country is much more lukewarm about it. If something bad happens, like if the economy falters or if there’s a national security incident, then Trump could make Democrats pay for their partisanship.
In any case, it’s clear that Republicans overwhelmingly still support this president and are all too willing to buy into the notion that Trump is a victim of a partisan witch hunt. It’s a matter of whether independents would support removing him from office, and I just doubt we’re there yet.
It’s much much better for progressives and for the country if the Democrats can impeach Trump on November 3, 2020.
Trump to send $2 million to North Korea for it’s “care” of Otto Warmbier.
All I can say is “what the fuck???”
That article is kind of strange. It doesn’t say the US actually PAID anything, just that we were given a bill from North Korea.
Did you miss this?
That’s more than just being “given a bill”. It’s like giving North Korea the US’s credit card in response to a bill.
It says we agreed to pay it, on instructions from Trump. True, it’s possible the money didn’t actually change hands, but I’d like to think a rational president would have tossed the bill directly into the shredder.