rommelrommel
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2002
- 4,410
- 3,183
- 146
That would be socialism. Perhaps we have a spare ice floe for him.Bill O. should be committed to an insane asylum. nothing he says is ever grounded in reality.
That would be socialism. Perhaps we have a spare ice floe for him.Bill O. should be committed to an insane asylum. nothing he says is ever grounded in reality.
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.So much about conservatives not wanting to use impeachment to overturn an election...
.... But I'm not sure even conservatives believed that lie
So much about conservatives not wanting to use impeachment to overturn an election...
.... But I'm not sure even conservatives believed that lie
Bill O. should be committed to an insane asylum. nothing he says is ever grounded in reality.
All GOP candidates should make their political platform strictly: "reelect me so when the next Democrat is elected President, we can impeach the MFer."
This has been my opinion since way before Trump. I mean, everyone not in Trump's circle are saints, right?
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.
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.I guess it’s semantics. The election says person X should be president and impeachment says they shouldn’t.
Bill O. should be committed to an insane asylum. nothing he says is ever grounded in reality.
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.
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.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).
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.
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.Yeah but the president doesn’t actually need to do anything wrong to be impeached.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
