Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For 2016 I would have much rather voted for Mitt than Trump, but the powers that be decided to run Trump against Hilary. Just like the powers that be (DNC) decided to run Hilary instead of someone that was reasonable, the RNC decided the only person that could beat her was Trump. If we keep having these polar fringy candidates, it will attract the polar fringy candidates on the other side. The only reason Biden was chosen is because, demographically speaking, he was the only one that DNC thought could beat Trump.
Same thing happens on State level, just look at that spoiled rich brat conspiracy bro Josh Hawley claiming to be everyman's candidate in MO. The disaffected rednecks just ate it up because he spouted nonsense that sounded good to them.
Personally I supported Cruz over Trump-he is smarter and a better public speaker and debater. But you're delusional if you thing "the powers that be" or RNC selected him. They did everything they could to sabotage him and his campaign. It was the American people that rejected the Republican establishment he ran against-not any established power center. For better or worse.
It's pretty American to break into the capitol building while it's in session, injuring cops who are trying to ensure safety,
killing one, poop in the hallways, steal stuff and break stuff and scatter files, while running through the halls trying to kick in office doors to zip tie lawmakers.
Yeah, the American way.
These clowns also think trump puts America first. If the last week doesn’t convince the blind that’s not true they’re hopeless.
I think everyone can agree it only makes sense that if the Democrats can convince 16 Republican senators to join them in convicting him they won’t hesitate to disqualify him from future office even if it means 50 (D) + VP Harris for and 50 (R) against. And, ahem, it won’t be 50 (R) against - Romney, at minimum, will join them.
I think it makes sense even if it doesn't get the desired result the Democrats are hoping for. It forces every member of Congress to go on record and say whether they believe sedition and inciting insurrection by the president of the United States should be punished or we should simply let it pass. And I think many angry and disgusted Americans are going to be watching very carefully to see what they decide on that question.
I remember McConnell being upset by the electoral vote objections because it would put the GOP in an untenable position of having to vote against Trump. But my guess is that this vote will be even more fraught with peril for the Republicans. What side of history do they want to be on?
Yes, the voters should be able to decide. Yes, the Congress should have done their job, and did an audit that would prove one way or the other where the election was free and fair.
Also, Trump did not incite a riot, as it appears more and more that it was Antifa that was responsible for the violence.
Look what a BLM member has said regarding being on the inside and what he saw:
"Protesters weren’t really, like, trying to burn anything down, they weren’t really trying to break anything, their main motive was to make it into the chambers," Sullivan told KUTV.
Yes, the voters should be able to decide. Yes, the Congress should have done their job, and did an audit that would prove one way or the other where the election was free and fair.
Also, Trump did not incite a riot, as it appears more and more that it was Antifa that was responsible for the violence.
Look what a BLM member has said regarding being on the inside and what he saw:
"Protesters weren’t really, like, trying to burn anything down, they weren’t really trying to break anything, their main motive was to make it into the chambers," Sullivan told KUTV.
Nancy Pelosi has said that one of the main reasons she wants to impeach Trump, even with only 11 more days remaining in his presidency, is that he then cannot run in 2024. Now I seriously doubt he will choose to do that, but if he does, shouldn’t voters be able to say whether they want him or not?
There isn't a ban on someone who has been impeached being banned from running for office.
There isn't a ban on someone who has been impeached being banned from running for office.
In fact, check out Alcee Hastings.
Its an option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
It has to do with the wording of the associated Impeachment Clauses. So, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states that the president, vice president and all civil officers "shall be removed from office" if they are impeached and convicted. Article I, section 3, clause 7, on the other hand says “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”
What this means is that because of the word “shall”, if convicted they must be removed from office - no options. However, the other clause doesn’t have such definitive wording, meaning there is no requirement that they be disqualified to hold office again but that is an option that can be considered.
Additionally the constitution stipulates that it take 2/3 of the Senate to convict but since there is no constitutional stipulation of the required vote to disqualify that has been interpreted as only needing a simple majority.
I think everyone can agree it only makes sense that if the Democrats can convince 16 Republican senators to join them in convicting him they won’t hesitate to disqualify him from future office even if it means 50 (D) + VP Harris for and 50 (R) against. And, ahem, it won’t be 50 (R) against - Romney, at minimum, will join them.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
It has to do with the wording of the associated Impeachment Clauses. So, Article II, section 4 of the Constitution states that the president, vice president and all civil officers "shall be removed from office" if they are impeached and convicted. Article I, section 3, clause 7, on the other hand says “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”
What this means is that because of the word “shall”, if convicted they must be removed from office - no options. However, the other clause doesn’t have such definitive wording, meaning there is no requirement that they be disqualified to hold office again but that is an option that can be considered.
Additionally the constitution stipulates that it take 2/3 of the Senate to convict but since there is no constitutional stipulation of the required vote to disqualify that has been interpreted as only needing a simple majority.
I think everyone can agree it only makes sense that if the Democrats can convince 16 Republican senators to join them in convicting him they won’t hesitate to disqualify him from future office even if it means 50 (D) + VP Harris for and 50 (R) against. And, ahem, it won’t be 50 (R) against - Romney, at minimum, will join them.
Problem is, how are you going to justify this when we have had Alcee Hastings?
Nope, he broke his oath too many times, especially this last one.
Trump is an enemy of democracy and can never be allowed to rise again. Political death penalty is appropriate in this case.
You're free to advocate for whatever you want politically, within the confines of our laws and Constitution, and Trump has now displayed his utter contempt for the Constitution.
Severing Trump permanently will also make the R party viable again, especially if it includes making Trump finally tell the truth.
This is your opinion only. If the majority don't share your opinion, oh well. Since I have never heard anyone exhibit much concern for making the Republican viable, why is everyone suddenly so concerned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
