Bill O'Reilly says Joe Biden should be impeached as soon as he becomes president

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
So much about conservatives not wanting to use impeachment to overturn an election...



.... But I'm not sure even conservatives believed that lie
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ch33zw1z

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
So much about conservatives not wanting to use impeachment to overturn an election...



.... But I'm not sure even conservatives believed that lie
kind of figured that lips service is all they have, they talk a good game but when push come to shove their true colors comes through.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
So much about conservatives not wanting to use impeachment to overturn an election...



.... But I'm not sure even conservatives believed that lie

It never made sense anyway as that’s literally the entire point of impeachment.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
14,939
7,459
136
So the creepy crawler abuser of women comes crawling out from the dungeons of the Halfway House to Hell, rears his ugly head and spews forth the same 'ol bullshit right wing propaganda he was so famous for.

Well go back to your hell hole Bill, your time has past, you humiliatingly disgraced sexual predator. Your presence in the world of the living only reminds us in disgusting fashion how you, FOX, Trump and the FYGM Party of America are splitting the nation at its seams in order for you to pull off a fascist style coup in order to "Make America Great Again"?

You know, like how fractured, corrupted, aimless and impotent America is on the world stage right at this very moment? Is that what that dog whistle catch phrase is referring to?

Asshole jerks like you need to know when it's time to stay hidden out of sight so as not to remind us how bad things can get when vermin like you have a means to spread your filth nation-wide.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
It never made sense anyway as that’s literally the entire point of impeachment.

Actually I disagree. After a president is removed, their VP takes office. The runner up doesn't, and there is no new election. The purpose is wholly about removing a president for disqualifying actions.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
Actually I disagree. After a president is removed, their VP takes office. The runner up doesn't, and there is no new election. The purpose is wholly about removing a president for disqualifying actions.

I guess it’s semantics. The election says person X should be president and impeachment says they shouldn’t.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,285
13,582
146
I guess it’s semantics. The election says person X should be president and impeachment says they shouldn’t.
It's not semantics though. Your original argument was that the point of impeachment was to overturn an election; it's not and never has been.

By that same logic, being born says a person should be free and a court proceeding says that a person should be in jail. It's a peculiar way to even posit an argument, much less defend.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Bill O. should be committed to an insane asylum. nothing he says is ever grounded in reality.

It doesn't need to be grounded in reality. It just needs to sell to the semi-delusional Fox News audience. Crap sells, and nobody knows it better than O'Reilly & Hannity.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
It's not semantics though. Your original argument was that the point of impeachment was to overturn an election; it's not and never has been.

By that same logic, being born says a person should be free and a court proceeding says that a person should be in jail. It's a peculiar way to even posit an argument, much less defend.

It is definitely the point of impeachment when it comes to the president, yes.

I mean it’s pretty weird to claim a process whose sole result is to remove a person from the office an election said they should occupy is not intended to overturn the results of that election.

The idea that because Pence would then become the president so it wasn’t intended to overturn the election doesn’t make sense either as when impeachment was written into the constitution the Vice President was the person with the second most electoral votes, presumably the president’s chief political rival. It literally put the president’s enemies into power!

Regardless, it’s semantics. You say it’s to remove someone unfit, I say it’s to nullify the election of someone unfit.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,285
13,582
146
It is definitely the point of impeachment when it comes to the president, yes.

I mean it’s pretty weird to claim a process whose sole result is to remove a person from the office an election said they should occupy is not intended to overturn the results of that election.

The idea that because Pence would then become the president so it wasn’t intended to overturn the election doesn’t make sense either as when impeachment was written into the constitution the Vice President was the person with the second most electoral votes, presumably the president’s chief political rival. It literally put the president’s enemies into power!

Regardless, it’s semantics. You say it’s to remove someone unfit, I say it’s to nullify the election of someone unfit.
But whether a person is unfit isn't resolved until they perform an act that makes them unfit, otherwise you're predetermining their fitness based on your personal judgement (and all the bias and feeling that comes along with that). Likewise a person isn't imprisoned for a crime because they are a criminal and have been from birth, they're just imprisoned because they committed a criminal act.

For Trump himself, per my personal opinion he was unfit for office before he even took it, both due to what we witnessed as well as what he was obviously doing running up to it. I cannot imagine anyone claiming the same about either Nixon or Clinton though, given that they weren't really doing anything 'unbecoming' until they actually committed an impeachable act (your morality depending re: Clinton's BJ). For Nixon/Clinton it would make zero sense to call for their impeachment for being 'unfit' for office prior to actually doing something that made them unfit.

Removing from office isn't the same as claiming they were never fit to begin with, that's identical to claiming that people are born criminals.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
But whether a person is unfit isn't resolved until they perform an act that makes them unfit, otherwise you're predetermining their fitness based on your personal judgement (and all the bias and feeling that comes along with that). Likewise a person isn't imprisoned for a crime because they are a criminal and have been from birth, they're just imprisoned because they committed a criminal act.

Yeah but the president doesn’t actually need to do anything wrong to be impeached.

For Trump himself, per my personal opinion he was unfit for office before he even took it, both due to what we witnessed as well as what he was obviously doing running up to it. I cannot imagine anyone claiming the same about either Nixon or Clinton though, given that they weren't really doing anything 'unbecoming' until they actually committed an impeachable act (your morality depending re: Clinton's BJ).

Removing from office isn't the same as claiming they were never fit to begin with, that's identical to claiming that people are born criminals.

I mean the actual standard for impeachment and removal is whatever the House says it is and whatever the Senate will convict. There’s no actual necessity for the president to demonstrate this unfitness. Frankly I suspect if Republicans ever have a house majority and 67 senate votes they would strongly consider impeaching and removing a Democratic president simply for being a Democrat.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,285
13,582
146
Yeah but the president doesn’t actually need to do anything wrong to be impeached.
Well yes, but any congress calling for impeachment without wrongdoing would literally be calling for the democratic election to be un-done, and that would be madness. I feel like you're grasping in order to be 'right' in this argument.

Frankly I suspect if Republicans ever have a house majority and 67 senate votes they would strongly consider impeaching and removing a Democratic president simply for being a Democrat.
I don't disagree, but that's because to many Republicans, being a Democrat is in fact a crime. Dementia does that to a person apparently.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
Well yes, but any congress calling for impeachment without wrongdoing would literally be calling for the democratic election to be un-done, and that would be madness. I feel like you're grasping in order to be 'right' in this argument.

I'm not grasping at anything, what I said is plainly accurate that impeachment would overturn the results of the last election. The person elected to the office would involuntarily be removed from it. What you seem to be saying here is that impeachment is SOMETIMES overturning the results of the last election? To me it either is or it isn't.

I'm not even sure why this is an argument as I have repeatedly said it's semantics.

I don't disagree, but that's because to many Republicans, being a Democrat is in fact a crime. Dementia does that to a person apparently.

I think it's more that they have lost interest in liberal democracy.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Yeah but the president doesn’t actually need to do anything wrong to be impeached.

Not true at all. There must be treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. There must indeed be an act they try him for. Whether that act also needs to violate a specific law or is severe enough to warrant impeachment/removal is at Congress' discretion.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
Not true at all. There must be treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. There must indeed be an act they try him for. Whether that act also needs to violate a specific law or is severe enough to warrant impeachment/removal is at Congress' discretion.

All of those things are whatever the House says they are as they have the sole, unreviewable power of impeachment. There might be political constraints on what Congress thinks it can get away with but there are no constitutional constraints.

No joke, one of the articles of impeachment the House passed for Andrew Johnson was that he said mean things about Congress.


Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,285
13,582
146
I'm not grasping at anything, what I said is plainly accurate that impeachment would overturn the results of the last election.
No, Trump would still be a president, an impeached president but president nonetheless. I feel like you need to look up the definition of 'overturned' because you seem confused by what that term means.

It's an argument because words have meaning, and every time you say 'overturn the election' it lends credence to the bumbling idiots that keep parroting this talking point from the right wing media, the Democrats are trying to overturn the election.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,644
50,881
136
No, Trump would still be a president, an impeached president but president nonetheless. I feel like you need to look up the definition of 'overturned' because you seem confused by what that term means.

It's an argument because words have meaning, and every time you say 'overturn the election' it lends credence to the bumbling idiots that keep parroting this talking point from the right wing media, the Democrats are trying to overturn the election.

Yes, words have meaning and I've clearly explained why they apply here. If you disagree that's okay by me!

As I've said before I don't find this semantics discussion interesting or valuable so I guess I'll just leave it at that.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
No, Trump would still be a president, an impeached president but president nonetheless. I feel like you need to look up the definition of 'overturned' because you seem confused by what that term means.

It's an argument because words have meaning, and every time you say 'overturn the election' it lends credence to the bumbling idiots that keep parroting this talking point from the right wing media, the Democrats are trying to overturn the election.

Agreed. I prefer to look at it the way Lindsay Graham put it 20 years ago- impeachment & removal are designed to cleanse the office. It's kinda like the Voters got too drunk after a big meal & barfed up Trump on the carpet.