Jump to content
IGNORED

The President of the US has been impeached


CodysGameRoom

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Californication said:

So you think we should use the 2000 census? The census is every 10 , elections fall in between the census.

The point is you were using a much more recent population estimate, and not the one the electoral college was based on. Though, far as i can tell, the 2020 election is still using the 2010, which ideally shouldn't be the case.

 

Quote

#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.

Man it's just a crazy thing for someone to come out and say that you're going to make Space Marines a reality. He already seems a bit senile too, so that can't possibly help.

Edited by PineappleLawnchair
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has plainly been corrupt and unfit for office going back to the election. 

Impeachment was a necessity because the opposite stance is tacit acceptance the president is free to do as he pleases regardless of law or rules of governance.

The idea that this hurts the Democrats with anyone other that Trump's diehard base is right wing propaganda. On the contrary failing to hold the president accountable would be a bad look for the Democrats. 

Trump will not resign, he's a narcissist so his ego won't let him. Plus he's staring down indictment by SDNY for actual crimes as soon as he's out of office.

I also don't see him being removed by the Senate as McConnell and company have openly admitted they are willing to violate their oaths in service of Trump. What's interesting is pelosi might just sit on the articles now they've passed. This prevents Republicans from running a sham trial and Trump from being "exonerated". That's probably the most damaging thing that can happen until the election. 

As for the election I don't see Trump winning again. Too many on the left are fired up the idea of him being reelected and too many in the middle realize they made a mistake voting for him last time. Sanders and Warren would be great for the people, but Warren is losing steam and Sanders is fighting a media blackout. Biden would be better than Trump but he's not going to improve anything for anyone. Stopping the bleeding would be good enough though. Buttigeig probably closer to Biden than the first 2. I'm libertarian voting D no matter what but I live in California so it doesn't matter. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PineappleLawnchair said:

The point is you were using a much more recent population estimate, and not the one the electoral college was based on. Though, far as i can tell, the 2020 election is still using the 2010, which ideally shouldn't be the case.

Yeah, we really need to do a census before every election. It'd be a pain in the ass, but more fair. Michigan lost people since 2010, and a few other states gained people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Yeah, we really need to do a census before every election. It'd be a pain in the ass, but more fair. Michigan lost people since 2010, and a few other states gained people.

Are electoral college votes redistributed after every census? Without that it won't matter much.

The electoral college is a fair idea in concept but at this point it pretty safe to say it's broken. With bush you could reasonably make.the argument for it, but Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million plus. That is terribly skewed against the will of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

Yeah, we really need to do a census before every election. It'd be a pain in the ass, but more fair. Michigan lost people since 2010, and a few other states gained people.

But adjusting the census more often would be a waste because a. The electoral college could still elect someone who doesn't win the popular vote and b. even if you adjust the population to the right amount the votes will only really matter in 5 or 6 states, c. It is super expensive.

Money would better be spent allowing every person to vote who is eligible. Conservatives have literally only won several districts because they have cut elible voters off the voting roles and cut out voting booths or polling stations entirely in democratic areas. 

 

Edited by Californication
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Strangest said:

On a more serious note, everyone knows he won’t be removed. No president has ever been removed after being impeached. This still was a necessary action.

That being said, I did read that the proceedings are being held until there’s proof of a fair trial from the Senate. That’s a smart move. The Senate outright saying it won’t be a fair trial and that they’ll defend the President regardless is disgusting, to say the least.

 

But I mean was it really a fair impeachment process in the house though? Alot of shady political shit and outright trying to silence opposition. So republicans talking about dismissing this in the senate is just playing the game like the democrats already did in the house. This whole thing is ridiculous. Just arguing over semantics of words and intent. When in all honesty I dont think trump is even nuanced enough to set up some scheme in the first place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quest4Nes said:

 

But I mean was it really a fair impeachment process in the house though?

They used the rules the Republicans set up. And the Republicans didn't really challenge any of the evidence, they just hemmed and hawed over Trump getting impeached in the first place.

Edited by Tulpa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lincoln said:

Trump has plainly been corrupt and unfit for office going back to the election. 

Impeachment was a necessity because the opposite stance is tacit acceptance the president is free to do as he pleases regardless of law or rules of governance.

The idea that this hurts the Democrats with anyone other that Trump's diehard base is right wing propaganda. On the contrary failing to hold the president accountable would be a bad look for the Democrats. 

Trump will not resign, he's a narcissist so his ego won't let him. Plus he's staring down indictment by SDNY for actual crimes as soon as he's out of office.

I also don't see him being removed by the Senate as McConnell and company have openly admitted they are willing to violate their oaths in service of Trump. What's interesting is pelosi might just sit on the articles now they've passed. This prevents Republicans from running a sham trial and Trump from being "exonerated". That's probably the most damaging thing that can happen until the election. 

As for the election I don't see Trump winning again. Too many on the left are fired up the idea of him being reelected and too many in the middle realize they made a mistake voting for him last time. Sanders and Warren would be great for the people, but Warren is losing steam and Sanders is fighting a media blackout. Biden would be better than Trump but he's not going to improve anything for anyone. Stopping the bleeding would be good enough though. Buttigeig probably closer to Biden than the first 2. I'm libertarian voting D no matter what but I live in California so it doesn't matter. 

A Libertarian siding with todays Democratic Party? 

 

Thats like a diehard nintendo kid buying a genesis. It goes against nearly everything. You dont have to side with a republican but jesus.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impeachment process has been a busy box for the resistance libs. Something to fill the hole now that the Mueller report is in the rearview. Everyone with a shred of realism has always known that he will never be removed from office while Republicans control the senate. This doesn't mean I think he shouldn't have been impeached, just that we should only invest the bare minimum of energy to formalize the process and leave the stain on his record. I do think having it all come down so firmly to a party line vote sends a dangerous message going forward: that any president who's party has the majority in congress is above the law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the republican talking point for the charge of “obstruction of justice”?

 

”abuse of power“ is debatable.  But not allowing people to testify, is 100% prove-able AND impeachable. What is the spin on that?  I never hear any actual conversation from republicans on that, just how this impeachment is a sham. 
 

I guess that says a lot about where they stand on the matter, dont actually argue the facts, just attack the process. 
 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Quest4Nes said:

A Libertarian siding with todays Democratic Party? 

 

Thats like a diehard nintendo kid buying a genesis. It goes against nearly everything. You dont have to side with a republican but jesus.

 

 

I mean i grew up in a red state and was registered R for a long time. And I still side with them on certain issue like gun rights.

But today's Republican party is so obviously corrupt from the top down I cant in good conscience support them. Combined with the fact they constantly vote for the interests of the rich regardless of what they say to the public, they are doing basically nothing to justify me voting for them. 

I did vote for Gary Johnson last election. But again, California, so it doesn't matter. This time around I think the Dem primary is the real race, and rules here do allow me to vote in that race even being registered L. 

Edited by Lincoln
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lincoln said:

 

The electoral college is a fair idea in concept but at this point it pretty safe to say it's broken. With bush you could reasonably make.the argument for it, but Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million plus. That is terribly skewed against the will of the people.

It does what it was designed to do.  The framers of the Constitution had to play a balancing act to keep all 13 original colonies willing to sign on - they had to balance the large states (population wise) with the smaller ones so the smaller ones wouldn't be totally shunted aside.  This is were the idea of a Senate and a House of Represetnatives comes in. The disparity of the small states versus the larger in the electoral college stems more from the fact that each states' electoral college tally comes from the sum of the Senate seats and the House seats rather than whatever shift is occurring in the populations (which is addressed by the census every 10 years).   People need to get over the way that  that system works unless they want to get off their collective duffs and change the constitution through the means provided therein.

They  also had to balance out regional concerns - especially where the south was concerned vis a vis slavery.  (Which is where the often maligned (and usually misunderstood 3/5 compromise came in)).

Another thing that is overlooked is that we are a representative democracy rather than a simple democracy,  So by and large, our processes/laws are not determined by a direct vote.  (Do we really want to to turn over social policy, for example, to simple majorities?)   And while Trump didn't get the most votes neither  did Hillary  win even the simplest of a simple majority.   Do we want an electoral system where we could have 4 major contenders (or more) (which happened in 1824 and the election was thrown into the House of Representatives) and the most popular candidate  gets say 26% or 27% of the vote and is therefore the winner?  It must also be remembered that every candidate goes into a presidential election fully well knows how the system works.  If they don't like it perhaps they shouldn't have run in the first place rather than cry over results that were provided by a system they perforce agreed to operate under by the mere fact they ran for office.

 

Edited by Wandering Tellurian
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrWunderful said:

What is the republican talking point for the charge of “obstruction of justice”?

 

”abuse of power“ is debatable.  But not allowing people to testify, is 100% prove-able AND impeachable. What is the spin on that?  I never hear any actual conversation from republicans on that, just how this impeachment is a sham. 
 

I guess that says a lot about where they stand on the matter, dont actually argue the facts, just attack the process. 
 

 

 I believe the actual wording was Obstruction of Congress? To my knowledge Trump claimed executive privilege over his conversations with one (or a few, I haven't been keeping track) of the witnesses Democrats wanted to interrogate. That point SHOULD have gone to the courts to decide, because one of their functions is to settle disputes between the branches, but apparently the Democrats didn't want to wait and rushed to accuse "Obstruction of Congress", which is not a thing.

  Question for all: Where do you get the majority of your knowledge of the proceedings and background information from? What news outlet? How much talking time do they show from each side? I ask because I'm struggling to understand some of the sentiments in this thread. From what I've seen a few of the more verbose Republicans have addressed, if not completely debunked, each of the Democratic talking points.

  Full disclosure: I've been listening to Scott Adams alot lately, who is a self described HUGE lefty, and he has been breaking down every single point the Democrats have brought up to a sobering degree. To say that he is absolutely disgusted with his own party would be an understatement. After watching the impeachment proceedings he stated that he "F#@%ing HATES" the democrats who are leading the investigation. I always thought he was just "the Dilbert guy", but have been surprised by his level of analysis on this subject and his full disclosure of his political leanings.  If you have the time I would recommend giving him a chance. You can find him on Youtube at Real Coffee with Scott Adams.

Looking at his youtube posts you could probably get his entire deconstruction of the affair by listening to about the last week or two.

Edited by m308gunner
More info:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  Question for all: Where do you get the majority of your knowledge of the proceedings and background information from? What news outlet? How much talking time do they show from each side? I ask because I'm struggling to understand some of the sentiments in this thread. From what I've seen a few of the more verbose Republicans have addressed, if not completely debunked, each of the Democratic talking points.

 

I watched the proceedings on C-SPAN, all of them. So I saw the whole thing firsthand, no filter.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Reddit. So, lots of reputable sources, with many insightful comments from the crowd to provide context.

Most of the talking points from the right are misdirection or willful misinterpretation of facts. They do not argue in good faith. 

Without getting into minutia, the president strong arming an ally country to damage his personal political opponent is pretty clearly abuse of power. 

Obstruction of Congress comes out Trump directing basically everyone loyal to him to ignore lawfully issued subpoenas. 

I haven't seen any convincing defenses against either of those. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lincoln said:

Also Reddit. So, lots of reputable sources, with many insightful comments from the crowd to provide context.

Most of the talking points from the right are misdirection or willful misinterpretation of facts. They do not argue in good faith. 

Without getting into minutia, the president strong arming an ally country to damage his personal political opponent is pretty clearly abuse of power. 

Obstruction of Congress comes out Trump directing basically everyone loyal to him to ignore lawfully issued subpoenas. 

I haven't seen any convincing defenses against either of those. 

Interesting! I implore you to check out Scott Adam's deconstruction of all these points. If you would like I can take the time to pick out videos and time stamps. Barring that I can write up a comprehensive point by point report of the allegations and responses (after the kids go to bed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Administrator · Posted
1 minute ago, m308gunner said:

Sorry, after Lincoln also referenced Reddit I realize you were not making a joke. I personally have no experience of Reddit other than it being a western style free for all. 

Lol don't worry about it. It's serious, but also kinda funny. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Editorials Team · Posted

Yep, "knowing how the system works" is how we get presidential campaigns that focus on certain states, ignore others, and win the electoral college votes, regardless of the popular vote. If it were a popular vote from the start, everyone would campaign very differently. There would be lots of opposing votes to be gained from states that are dominantly red or blue. We wouldn't be asking ridiculous questions like "why didn't so-and-so go to that state during their campaign?" So while it's interesting to look at the popular vote in an electoral college election, we can't pretend that's what the outcome of a popular vote would have been.

And again, shoe-horning everyone into one of two parties makes us assume all kinds of false garbage about everyone, and switching to popular vote wouldn't solve the real problems. Voter turnout in 2016 was abysmal. If people could have voted for who they actually wanted in office, instead of having to vote against Trump or Hillary, turnout obviously would have been better. Bernie would have done great. Why does the media hate Bernie? Because he doesn't play ball with the DNC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

Interesting! I implore you to check out Scott Adam's deconstruction of all these points. If you would like I can take the time to pick out videos and time stamps. Barring that I can write up a comprehensive point by point report of the allegations and responses (after the kids go to bed).

I'll check into it if I remember. From what I know of him, he has some pretty out there ideas on various topics.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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