Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'National' started by MackeyDingo, Jul 13, 2017.
I predict a bright future for this thread.
I'm not so sure. Short of shooting someone on the corner of Fifth Avenue, I doubt there's anything he could do to get a majority of republicans to vote to impeach a republican president. Maybe if the dems took the house it could happen, but it would be a nasty, horrible fight. The Nixon days are over.
Giving President Pence a couple of years in office before the 2020 election might be enough incentive They could even time it so that Pence could potentially be in office for 10 straight years.
While I agree with your overall point, a majority of Republicans is not needed. Assuming all Democrats/independent vote in favor, 24 GOP votes (out of 241) would be needed in the House. To get to the 2/3rd majority in the Senate for conviction, 18 GOP votes (out of 52) would be needed.
I see this depending on the special prosecutor. I don't believe anything will happen before that investigation is complete. The Republicans won't start impeachment proceedings,and the orange fool surely won't resign on his own.
Help me, Obi-wan Mueller, you're my only hope.
Impeached for what? Name the crime that he's committed.
As I've said on here before: I don't support the guy, but you're all living in fantasyland.
According to CNN " The full House would authorize one of its committees, usually the judiciary committee, to investigate and consider impeachment, according to an overview from the Congressional Research Service." So already we know its a dead duck with republicans in control. Impeachment would be nasty and long and it isn't happening any time soon - CNNPolitics.com
The High Crimes and Misdemeanors part is suitable vague. One could argue that covering up attempted collusion (possibly actual collusion) could qualify. It definitely would if democrats were in charge. Impeachment isn't exactly a legal proceeding from what I understand.
Congress impeached a president for saying he didn't f**ck a woman he didn't, actually, f**k. I'm pretty certain that, by the time all is said and done here, trump will be in way deeper shit than that. (Sadly, though, it will probably have to wait until after 2018, and even more sadly, by then the country's palpable relief may give us Pence for 10. But we can always hope Pence will turn out to be another Ford).
In the House, a majority can go around a committee using a discharge petition.
I'm sure you're aware, despite the term "misdemeanor" in the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," there is no legal requirement of lawbreaking for impeachment. It is at the discretion of congress. I'm pretty sure this flexibility is part of the design.
I guess the thinking was that congress (the house initiates it) would respond and be accountable to the people every 2 years so it's relatively rapid.
Related article talks about this topic.
"The problem with dwelling too much on the covert forms of collaboration, which we have come to call “collusion,” is that doing so risks letting Trump at least a little bit off the hook for what is not meaningfully disputed: that the president publicly, knowingly, and repeatedly (if only tacitly) collaborated with a foreign power’s intelligence effort to interfere in the presidential election of the country he now leads."
Understood. And impeachment is simply the bringing of formal charges, not actual conviction. But good luck even accomplishing the first part of that without demonstration of a crime or being caught lying under oath or actually obstructing justice (the latter two is what Clinton was impeached for, to answer Shosh).
Now if those things happen, then great, I'll support the impeachment process (honestly I will). But right now it appears to be a witch hunt with zero proof being shown. So I'm tired of hearing about it ad nauseum from those that clearly have biases. I certainly have my feelings about Benghazi and Fast and Furious and the IRS shenanigans, but nobody has brought forward incontrovertible proof so I've let it all go.
If you don't like President Trump's policies, you *really* won't like a President Pence's policies. Trump is a RINO through-and-through. Pence is much closer to the religious right than you think.
Unless of course that's what you want. I'm guessing not though.
This is really an important distinction.
I would guess that a large majority of people are opposed to trump for reasons other than his "policy." Mostly because he simply doesn't have any.
No political beliefs whatsoever.
Here's another potential law he's broken.
Is It A Crime?: Russian Election Meddling and Accomplice Liability Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
I hate to belabor the point, but I've mentioned many times that the guy is an opportunist, not a political idealist. He has a few very specific points of view that's he's been consistent on, even if he hasn't gotten traction on them all. But most of his "ideals" are flexible depending on the realpolitik going on.
It aligns with a business exec way of thinking, so really none of this should even remotely be a surprise. He is what he is, and has always been this way.
All these hypotheticals about broken laws yet there's proof of HRC and Lynch and others breaking laws. Sometimes in the exact same situations that Trump is accused of. Yet nothing.
You want to know what motivates people to vote for someone like Trump? It's stuff like this. They don't actually care about his policies, they are supporting him as a rejection of the status quo.
Trumps president because of Russia.
There were a lot of other reasons that made it possible for Russia to swing the election, so we could also point to any of them as "the reason." But I'll point to Russia since that's the most outrageous reason and is driving the events that will bring him to heel.
I'd put it down to
1, Donald Trump speaking so much bs, that like a great song, it can mean whatever the listener wants it to mean. Even when he contradicted himself, one could believe that it was hyperbole and it wasn't what Trump really believed.
2. Hillary Clinton being a terrible candidate. She had 8 years to figure it out. And she should have known how to calculate electoral votes. Also every decision she made in her campaign was the wrong choice. Even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and again. How she managed to do the wrong thing at every juncture was pretty amazing.
I am, of course, highly aware of that. He is the religious right, not merely close to it. But if it is proven that Russia interfered with our elections in collusion with the trump campaign, then Pence should be out as well.
That being said, I'm really tired of your shilling for this administration. You preface everything by saying, "I don't like the guy but ..." or "I didn't vote for the guy but ..." when what you really mean is "he's my guy, so I'm here to tell you why he should stay in office."
I agree with these, especially #2. She ran a horrid campaign.
But don't underestimate the underlying motivation of the unwashed masses -- they are pissed and went with the contrarian candidate. In a normal cycle, that would have been Cruz...but Trump was Cruz x1000. And they love him for that.
I'm not shilling, I'm trying to look at it from an unbiased perspective. Devil's advocate.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
Thank closed primaries for bringing us the two worst presidential candidates in the history of the US. Closed primaries enable the radicals, and punish those that don't associate with our two terrible political parties (independent voters, who are a actually large chunk of our country).
If we had open primaries or top-two primaries, we would have much more moderate/independent/qualified candidates.
Open primaries make no sense. If you are a democrat, you vote for who should be the nominee for your party. if you are a republican, you should decide who should run as the nominee of your primary. Why the he** should a republicans decide who should be the democratic nominee or vice versa? If the Republicans want to run a right-wing evangelical anti-science nutjob, why should democrats be deciding otherwise?
It is more the "winner take all" system and lack of a viable third party that is the real issue here.
This is a good quote, however I'm not quite sure what point you are directing it towards.
Also sadly, sometimes facts don't matter. Optics and public opinion are just as important if not more so...whether they align with the facts is somewhat irrelevant. That's one reason we need a free and unbiased media -- to make sure public opinion aligns with facts. It is certainly free but it is most certainly not unbiased. That isn't new though...Vietnam and the Tet Offensive is an example that comes to mind here. The Tet Offensive was a clear military defeat for the NVA. But biased reporting swayed public opinion, and that was more important than the fact that we were winning.
I'm not sure, but this comes pretty close "All these hypotheticals about broken laws yet there's proof of HRC and Lynch and others breaking laws. Sometimes in the exact same situations that Trump is accused of. Yet nothing."
I know you are a reflexive believer in whataboutism/ both sides do it to-isms, but do you have any examples? Like, what laws did Lynch break, or do you feel, for balance, she must have broken some?
I wouldn't call it reflexive belief in "both sides do it", because that implies excusing the behavior. That isn't at all what I am implying...instead, I am a believer in holding everyone accountable to the same level.
But your ask for examples is a reasonable one. Off the top of my head, HRC sent and received classified emails on her personal email server. Lynch obstructed the FBI investigation into this server by telling Comey to call it a "matter" instead of an "investigation" This is far worse than what Trump has been accused of in the Flynn situation.