Jump to content
IGNORED

The President of the US has been impeached


CodysGameRoom

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sumez said:

As someone who has no idea how USA's version of "democracy" works, I had to look up what this meant, and it seems like something that (probably) doesn't really have any consequences at all?

If i recall correctly, impeachment is only the first step in removing a president, hence why Bill Clinton wasn't removed when he was successfully impeached. Frankly, this just seems like the Dem's insurance in case he wins the next election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tbone3969 said:

I think it could help his chances of getting re-elected as this should rile up his base even more and could make the Democrats look bad.  Wasn't Clinton even more popular after he was impeached?

 

He was already popular before that. This is a different situation because only 1/3rd of people wanted Clinton impeached, and republicans went ahead with it anyway. Now, Trump is stuck in the low 40s for approval and 50% of people support this impeachment.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics is a farce. This is a joke on both sides. So much wasted resources and it will result in nothing of note. The government just spends its time trying to divide and accomplishes nothing for the people it governs. This will be crushed by the senate and Trump will likely win again in 2020 unless there is a strong voter turnout which I doubt. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RH said:

But, with that said, our government was designed so that it would be difficult.  Removing a president (regardless of party) is essentially going against the voting will of the people

Ah but electoral colleges (mind you we have our own version of that in Canada, I'm not judging) all but represent the popular vote. Presidents and Prime Ministeres are elected without the majority of the popular vote.

Edited by WhyNotZoidberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scaryice said:

 

He was already popular before that. This is a different situation because only 1/3rd of people wanted Clinton impeached, and republicans went ahead with it anyway. Now, Trump is stuck in the low 40s for approval and 50% of people support this impeachment.

 

What are the odds that these numbers are from the same people who had his chances of being elected in 2016 set astronomically low though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WhyNotZoidberg said:

Ah but electoral colleges (mind you we have our own version of that in Canada, I'm not judging) all but represent the popular vote. Presidents and Prime Ministeres are elected without the majority of the popular vote.

No, it means the entire country gets to have a say in  who runs our country, and not just the most populated parts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

What are the odds that these numbers are from the same people who had his chances of being elected in 2016 set astronomically low though.

 

The reason people were so surprised in 2016 is because they didn't pay enough attention to the polls. The actual polling wasn't that off.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Events Team · Posted
34 minutes ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

If i recall correctly, impeachment is only the first step in removing a president, hence why Bill Clinton wasn't removed when he was successfully impeached. Frankly, this just seems like the Dem's insurance in case he wins the next election.

President Clinton's impeachment was not successful.  Failing to garner the necessary 2/3 majority guilty vote, he was acquitted on both counts: perjury and obstruction of justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Editorials Team · Posted

Trump haters see this as a strike against a sexist, fascist, evil man

Trump supporters see this as a strike from the immoral, evil liberals

 

People made their allegiances in 2016 (and earlier), and will only entrench further.  Moderates hold 2020 in their hands (like usual)

I'll probably vote Libertarian.  Again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Democrats would need to come up with a viable candidate first. Biden won't win. Warren won't win. Bernie might have in 2016, I doubt he will now. 

It's been a while since I checked the polling, but I am pretty sure Bernie lead Trump by almost every poll ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

No, it means the entire country gets to have a say in  who runs our country, and not just the most populated parts.

That doesn't make sense. 

By definition you are saying the 2 people in Idaho's vote is worth more than 20 people in California. 

Therefore that law takes the vote away from people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scaryice said:

 

He was already popular before that. This is a different situation because only 1/3rd of people wanted Clinton impeached, and republicans went ahead with it anyway. Now, Trump is stuck in the low 40s for approval and 50% of people support this impeachment.

 

Agreed, also Clinton's charges were BS. The Republicans did tons of investigations for no reason until Clinton perjured himself. Trump commits crimes on the regular.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Californication said:

That doesn't make sense. 

By definition you are saying the 2 people in Idaho's vote is worth more than 20 people in California. 

Therefore that law takes the vote away from people.

That doesn't make sense either, as the electoral college is based on population. California easily had over 10 times the voting power of Idaho under the electoral college, at 55 votes vs Idaho's 4. In fact, California had more voting power than any single state in the united states, so their vote was still worth more than anyone else, just because they couldn't single-handedly elect a president doesn't mean their voice isn't being heard.

Edited by PineappleLawnchair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Californication said:

It's been a while since I checked the polling, but I am pretty sure Bernie lead Trump by almost every poll ever.

I don't doubt that. I simply predict that he won't be able to beat Trump this election cycle if he was somehow able to become the nominee. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

That doesn't make sense either. California easily had over 10 times the voting power of Idaho under the electoral college, at 55 votes vs Idaho's 4. In fact, California had more voting power than any single state in the united states, so their vote was still worth more than anyone else

Idaho has 4 votes and 1,754,000 people.

California 55 votes and 39,560,000 people. 

39,560/1,754 = 22.55

So, California should have 22.55 more votes than Idaho.

22.55 × 4 = 90.21 votes.

Therefore, just comparing to Idaho, California is being shorted (90.21 - 55)= 35.21 votes.

Edited by Californication
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

I don't doubt that. I simply predict that he won't be able to beat Trump this election cycle if he was somehow able to become the nominee. 

Bernie's problem is getting the nomination. He has all of the corporations putting money into opposition candidates and the media is fighting him by simply ignoring him by not putting him on tv, and either not calling on him in debates or asking him bad questions.

Despite all of the forces against him, Bernie has held a solid percentage of the population that want to vote for him because he offers americans real change. 

If he did get the nominee the only way he would lose to Trump is if the right third person ended up on the ticket or a brokered convention (which I don't completly understand).

Edited by Californication
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Editorials Team · Posted

It seems like there can't be more than 2 major parties unless we change the voting system. Especially since the two parties are already established. Can you imagine the rise (or formation) of a third major party that the whole country doesn't immediately categorize as "left" or "right"? That means it will be a splintering of an existing group, which people won't like because it feels like handing the majority to the "other" side. And even if the country worked out 3 equal-ish parties, can you imagine two of them wouldn't have rallied behind one candidate to, say, prevent Trump from taking office? Boom, two parties again. Insert Simpsons "throw your vote away" gif here.

My biggest complaint about the electoral college system is that there are millions of people in the US who absolutely know that their vote doesn't matter. Are you a Democrat in Wyoming? A Republican in New York? Your vote literally does not matter, and you know that it doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scaryice said:

Bottom line is, what Trump did was unacceptable. It doesn't matter if he's actually removed, it's important that he's rebuked for his terrible behavior. We can't have a president enlisting foreign leaders to make up conspiracy theories about his rivals.

This is just one more thing to add to his already abysmal record that will essentially have zero consequence. The votes for impeachment were 100% divided between the parties which is safe to assume the senate will follow which is majority Republican. McConnell is already firing back so I don't see when Pelosi is going to be able to submit these articles of impeachment and get her 'fair trial'. It's not gonna happen and Trump will continue on as per usual.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Splain said:

My biggest complaint about the electoral college system is that there are millions of people in the US who absolutely know that their vote doesn't matter. Are you a Democrat in Wyoming? A Republican in New York? Your vote literally does not matter, and you know that it doesn't.

Yeah, dividing up the votes based on what percentage of the population voted Red/Blue is something i could agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Californication said:

Idaho has 4 votes and 1,754,000 people.

California 55 votes and 39,560,000 people. 

39,560/1,754 = 22.55

So, California should have 22.55 more votes than Idaho.

22.55 × 4 = 90.21 votes.

Therefore, just comparing to Idaho, California is being shorted (90.21 - 55)= 35.21 votes.

First off, the 2010 census was used as the basis, which is a bit too outdated for the 2020 election, i know. Second, they're likely being capped anyways because a single state having three times the power of the runner up defeats the purpose of the electoral college to begin with..

Edited by PineappleLawnchair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reed Rothchild said:

People made their allegiances in 2016 (and earlier), and will only entrench further.  Moderates hold 2020 in their hands (like usual)

 

Not entirely true.

I didn't vote, but I would have voted Trump over Hillary at the time. I absolutely would have regretted my vote had I actually cast it.

There are still a very select few things I agree with him about though.

#1 is China. China absolutely is an enemy of the United States, and an enemy of the world. Having actual concentration/rape/reeducation/organ havesting camps for the Uighur muslims of western china is absolutely disgusting on its own. Also, the current news with Hong Kong and the South China Sea claim is ridiculous.

#2 is Immigration. I DISAGREE WITH HIS METHODS, but I agree that America has an overwhelming problem with illegal immigration. IMO, Immigration should be made easier, and current illegal residents should be given a path to become legal without being deported...it would be really nice to have them contribute their fair share in taxes on their wages. Also, I'm sick of hearing about so many uninsured drivers.

#3 Space Force. Why is he being bashed for creating the space force!? This is something that needs to be done. If private citizens can build space rockets then we're at the point that we need a space military. We already have long term astronauts living in the space station. The world is no longer a place of air, land, and sea....space is only 100 miles away from wherever you are.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...