Explainer: Impeachment or the 14th Amendment: -Can Trump be barred from future office?

[pedro01]

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Another attempt at false equivalency...

 

This week was about an attempt to block the duly elected president of the United States from being able to take office, and instead illegally substitute the incumbent and clear loser of the election -- thru armed/mob force and the sacking of the Capitol and Congress. The attempt to subvert democracy failed, but that doesn't mean that wasn't their clear intent and purpose.

 

 

No it wasn't.

 

There was no path to blocking the transfer of power with the invasion of the Capitol. You get that right? It was literally impossible to achieve that outcome with the storming of a building.

 

You would need to have a lot of people that hold power (police & military leaders) on your side to do this. In fact, to achieve the transfer of power, you would NOT need to storm the Capitol at all. 

 

It was a symbolic protest. Just like those on the left earlier in the year. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by pedro01

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

No it wasn't.

 

Yes, it was.. Congress has to certify the various state Electoral College votes in order for the new president to take office. The attempt of the insurrection was to have sympathetic Republicans in Congress, with the help of the insurrectionists, deny Biden enough certified Electoral College votes to become president and instead substitute results favoring Trump. The attempt failed, but it was an attempt nonetheless.

 

If there were more Trump followers in Congress and the insurrectionists had gotten their way, the original Electoral College results and the popular vote for president of Americans would have been negated by Congress, I believe, for the first time in U.S. history. That would have been probably the darkest stain in history on the U.S. system of democracy, and might well have ended it.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[pedro01]

8 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Yes, it was.. Congress has to certify the various state Electoral College votes in order for the new president to take office. The attempt of the insurrection was to have sympathetic Republicans in Congress, with the help of the insurrectionists, deny Biden enough certified Electoral College votes to become president and instead substitute results favoring Trump. The attempt failed, but it was an attempt nonetheless.

 

If there were more Trump followers in Congress and the insurrectionists had gotten their way, the original Electoral College results and the popular vote for president of Americans would have been negated by Congress, I believe, for the first time in U.S. history. That would have been probably the darkest stain in history on the U.S. system of democracy, and might well have ended it.

 

 

 

I understand your opinion.

 

But the reigns of power do not exist in that building. It's far more complex than that. 

 

You think there's a little flag there, which if captures, puts you in charge for 4 years? Of course not. No matter what happened that day, there is no way it would have put the police and military on the side of the protestors OR stopped the inauguration. Of course a "Chop" like "Autonomous Zone" would have likely moved the inauguration to a new place but it's laughable that people think this was a path to stopping transfer of power. 

[Walker88]

58 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

It's too late to do anything about this set of riots.

 

By ignoring the riots from the left earlier in the year, a precedent was set. Do something against only 1 set of rioters, you embolden the victim narrative of the right.

 

As for insurrection - that's a misnomer. For a Coup D'état to take place, you need to take the reigns of power. That means taking control of the apparatus of government. There was no path to achieve that with this riot. It was simply an attack on a building. There was no path to gaining control of the military, the civil service, the police etc.  It was simply an attack on a prominent building. 

 

We had the same in April 2010 in Thailand. Protestors stormed parliament - but there was no way this could lead to control as the building itself isn't the government. 

 

The best thing that could happen in US right now would be a blanket pardon of protestors on the right and left (who were encouraged by Democrat and Republican politicians) and an agreement from the powers that be to not keep pushing the "lines that will not be crossed" each political cycle. It's getting very dangerous. 

No.  Not even close.

 

The protests in Portland were pillow fights compared to the terror attack on the 6th, and Portland was almost exclusively peaceful. on 6 Jan, thousands broke into the Capitol. They were violent, and according to one Capitol police, 'frothing at the mouth, literally'.

 

Just because the US has a trifurcated form of govt doesn't mean an attack on one branch isn't a putsch.  These terrorists intended to kill the VP, the Speaker, and as many Dems as they could. Just because they couldn't have fully taken over the govt doesn't mean they shouldn't be eradicated.

 

No mercy. Hunt them down like the scum that they are and throw the book at them.

 

Next time, give them 5 minutes warning to clear out, then bring in the Apache gunships and A-10 Warthogs.  The US does not negotiate with terrorists.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Walker88

[GrandPapillon]

19 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

No it wasn't.

 

There was no path to blocking the transfer of power with the invasion of the Capitol. You get that right? It was literally impossible to achieve that outcome with the storming of a building.

 

You would need to have a lot of people that hold power (police & military leaders) on your side to do this. In fact, to achieve the transfer of power, you would NOT need to storm the Capitol at all. 

 

It was a symbolic protest. Just like those on the left earlier in the year. 

 

it's not clear exactly how many people from "inside" were into the "insurrection"

 

Right after that, the Pentagon sent a memo to their officers to remind them where the constitution was, so it's possible some "military" insiders were looking for a political "coup" with the storming of the building. A pipe dream, but enough to worry the higher ups in the chain of command. This means that a lot of people are angry at this election, even in the ranks of the military, and that's not a good thing. Pentagon is starting to <deleted> itself that it might not contain its own men.

 

We could see another surprise on January 20th,

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Insurrection supporter Sen. Hawley's home state newspaper recognizes what the attempted insurrection was, and what its goal was...

 

Missouri senator's home-state paper: Hawley has 'blood on his hands'

(Reuters) -U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican at the forefront of a bid to block congressional certification of the Electoral College vote, is largely to blame for “inspiring one of the most heartbreaking days in modern American history,” his home-state newspaper’s editorial board wrote.

 

The scathing editorial here was published on Wednesday on the home page of the Kansas City Star under the headline: "Assault on democracy: Sen. Josh Hawley has blood on his hands in Capitol coup attempt."

 

The editorial went on to say: “No one other than President Donald Trump himself is more responsible” for the violence that ensued when a “mob” of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building demanding his re-election defeat in November be overturned. Four people died, including a women shot to death, during the pandemonium.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-hawley/missouri-senators-home-state-paper-hawley-has-blood-on-his-hands-idUSKBN29C0IU

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

13 minutes ago, GrandPapillon said:

Right after that, the Pentagon sent a memo to their officers to remind them where the constitution was, so it's possible some "military" insiders were looking for a political "coup" with the storming of the building. A pipe dream, but enough to worry the higher ups in the chain of command. This means that a lot of people are angry at this election, even in the ranks of the military, and that's not a good thing. Pentagon is starting to <deleted> itself that it might not contain its own men.

 

 

Perhaps you mean like this guy:

 

‘He means to kidnap...perhaps execute members of the U.S. government’: Air Force veteran charged in U.S. Capitol siege

 

A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel brought zip-tie handcuffs into the halls of Congress last week “to take hostages” and “perhaps execute members of the U.S. government,” a federal prosecutor said in a Texas court on Thursday.

 

Retired Lt. Col. Larry Rendall Brock Jr., 53, was arrested on Sunday in Texas after being identified as the man photographed on the Senate floor wearing a helmet and vest, and carrying the plastic cuffs. Brock was charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on U.S. Capitol grounds.

...

“He means to take hostages. He means to kidnap, restrain, perhaps try, perhaps execute members of the U.S. government,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Weimer said of Brock’s intentions during the deadly riot.
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-means-to-kidnapperhaps-execute-members-of-the-us-government-air-force-veteran-charged-in-us-capitol-siege/ar-BB1cN670

 

No doubt, Trump and Co. have inspired a mass lunacy out there with their years of blatant, proven lies about election fraud and everything else, amplified by the right-wing news media and social media that perpetuated and spread those lies, along with all other manner of conspiracy theories and alternate "facts".

 

And now, it seems from the news reports in the past couple days, many of those Trump followers who have been arrested by Trump's own Justice Department and FBI following the attempted insurrection are showing up in court with their lawyers now claiming they're mentally ill, mentally disturbed, on serious medications, etc etc...  Who would have guessed???

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Walker88]

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

Perhaps you mean like this guy:

 

‘He means to kidnap...perhaps execute members of the U.S. government’: Air Force veteran charged in U.S. Capitol siege

 

A retired Air Force lieutenant colonel brought zip-tie handcuffs into the halls of Congress last week “to take hostages” and “perhaps execute members of the U.S. government,” a federal prosecutor said in a Texas court on Thursday.

 

Retired Lt. Col. Larry Rendall Brock Jr., 53, was arrested on Sunday in Texas after being identified as the man photographed on the Senate floor wearing a helmet and vest, and carrying the plastic cuffs. Brock was charged with knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and violent entry and disorderly conduct on U.S. Capitol grounds.

...

“He means to take hostages. He means to kidnap, restrain, perhaps try, perhaps execute members of the U.S. government,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Weimer said of Brock’s intentions during the deadly riot.
 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/he-means-to-kidnapperhaps-execute-members-of-the-us-government-air-force-veteran-charged-in-us-capitol-siege/ar-BB1cN670

 

No doubt, Trump and Co. have inspired a mass lunacy out there with their years of blatant, proven lies about election fraud and everything else, amplified by the right-wing news media and social media that perpetuated and spread those lies, along with all other manner of conspiracy theories and alternate "facts".

 

And now, it seems from the news reports in the past couple days, many of those Trump followers who have been arrested by Trump's own Justice Department and FBI following the attempted insurrection are showing up in court with their lawyers now claiming they're mentally ill, mentally disturbed, on serious medications, etc etc...  Who would have guessed???

 

 

Officers can be called back into service up to age 65 in some instances and 85 in others. This guy will likely be recalled, then court martialed.

 

He will lose his pension and be dishonorably discharged. He also will lose the right to own a gun.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Officers can be called back into service up to age 65 in some instances and 85 in others. This guy will likely be recalled, then court martialed.

 

He will lose his pension and be dishonorably discharged. He also will lose the right to own a gun.

 

The same thing should happen to Trump's former NSA Flynn, age 62.... Just waiting.

 

Longtime Trump advisers connected to groups behind rally that led to Capitol attack

Roger Stone, Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn all promoted the Jan. 6 rally.

...

The two [Flynn and Sidney Powell] even met with Trump in the Oval Office, not long after Flynn appeared on the conservative network Newsmax to advocate that Trump impose martial law and command the military to "rerun" the election. At a Dec. 12 rally Flynn falsely told followers "there are paths that are still in play" for Trump to remain in office for a second term. "There's a lot of activity that's still playing out," he said before Trump flew over the crowd in Marine One.

 

Mary McCord, a former federal prosecutor and expert in homegrown terror groups, said Flynn emerged as a hero among extremists. She said Flynn "riled up" the groups ahead of the Jan. 6 election protest, and "incited the most extreme among the crowd to do something about it."

 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/longtime-trump-advisers-connected-groups-rally-led-capitol/story?id=75261028

 

 

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

 

I highlighted the key points here. 

 

He is a loser now, making him a martyr would be a massive error. 

He will always be a martyr to the most deluded of his supporters, who are actually anarchists under the soubriquet of patriot.

You may have a point; however, permitting him to walk away from the crimes he has committed against the nation, his creditors, women and minority groups could be a massive error too. In jail, he is powerless. Avoiding jail, the leopard won't change his spots. He will keep on stirring up division and hate.

It's a damn shame COVID didn't nail him, it would have been poetic justice.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

 

This Washington Post article quoted above says that Brock, the retired Air Force officer insurrectionist, isn't eligible to be recalled and disciplined by the military:

 

"Service members who retire as reservists, such as Brock, are not subject to this recall practice, VanLandingham said. Reservists serving also cannot be summoned in this manner unless they committed a crime while in uniform."

 

How the military could bring retirees back to face charges after the Capitol riot

...

Certain military retirees can be brought back and tried in the military justice system, but it matters when and how they left the service, said Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney, and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.

 

Any veteran who retired after 20 or more years of active duty service can be recalled and put in the military justice system, even for crimes committed after they hung up their uniform, she said. It rarely occurs and is up to the service secretaries to pursue, but it has been used more frequently in recent years, she said. About 2 million retirees are subject to this rule, she previously said.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/01/11/military-retirees-capitol-brock/

 

In Flynn's case, however, he appears to have had 30+ years in the Army, meaning he could be subject to the recall provisions explained above.

 

Quote

Flynn retired from the U.S. Army with 33 years of service on August 7, 2014.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn#Military_career

Edited January 16, 2021 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[pedro01]

44 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

He will always be a martyr to the most deluded of his supporters, who are actually anarchists under the soubriquet of patriot.

You may have a point; however, permitting him to walk away from the crimes he has committed against the nation, his creditors, women and minority groups could be a massive error too. In jail, he is powerless. Avoiding jail, the leopard won't change his spots. He will keep on stirring up division and hate.

It's a damn shame COVID didn't nail him, it would have been poetic justice.

 

I would agree on that at this point in time. Over time, his star will stop shining even in the most ardent of supporters. 

 

4 years is a long time. If he's kept in the news cycle for those 4 years - with him seen to be battling attacks on all fronts, that feeling of "Trump The Martyr" will fester.

 

On the other hand - if he's left to run off at the mouth, his base will dwindle and people will move on. 

 

He's simply not that charismatic. Also - anyone observing for the past 4 years must have noticed his pattern of turning on people close to him. Those that became part of his inner circle ended up being stabbed in the back - but they became part of his inner circle because he was president. Now he is a nobody. What is the benefit of joining "Team Trump" now he's not in power? I don't see it.

 

Best to let him burn out naturally. But people aren't like that, so they will attack him for 4 years and ensure his seat at the table again.

 

Plus - and it is a bit morbid - let's remember he's no spring chicken. There's a fair chance he won't be around in 4 years. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by pedro01

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

I would agree on that at this point in time. Over time, his star will stop shining even in the most ardent of supporters. 

 

4 years is a long time. If he's kept in the news cycle for those 4 years - with him seen to be battling attacks on all fronts, that feeling of "Trump The Martyr" will fester.

 

On the other hand - if he's left to run off at the mouth, his base will dwindle and people will move on. 

 

He's simply not that charismatic. Also - anyone observing for the past 4 years must have noticed his pattern of turning on people close to him. Those that became part of his inner circle ended up being stabbed in the back - but they became part of his inner circle because he was president. Now he is a nobody. What is the benefit of joining "Team Trump" now he's not in power? I don't see it.

 

Best to let him burn out naturally. But people aren't like that, so they will attack him for 4 years and ensure his seat at the table again.

You may be right, prison food might be healthier for him than his current diet. It's a miracle that hasn't killed him already.

Permit me to doubt he'll get a seat at the table again if his creditors have anything to do with it. The funds he has garnered from gullible supporters will be melting away like ice cubes in the Mojave Desert with the legal bills that are coming. Knowing his reputation, no lawyer is going to work for him without payment up front.

Apparently he does have some aides accompanying him to Mar-al- Lago when he leaves Washington, perhaps they think there's a bit more wine in the bottle.

[Walker88]

According to former DoJ Prosecutor Glenn Kirschner, among the many legal offices assigned to investigating the 6 January terrorist attack is the Public Corruption Section of the DC US Attorney's Office, which suggests they are looking at complicity by sitting members of Congress, as that office's job is to go after public officials only.

 

If the investigation indicates any aid or cooperation between certain (R) House Reps and the terrorists, not only with the Reps be expelled, but prosecuted and if found guilty, jailed.

[billd766]

3 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

No it wasn't.

 

There was no path to blocking the transfer of power with the invasion of the Capitol. You get that right? It was literally impossible to achieve that outcome with the storming of a building.

 

You would need to have a lot of people that hold power (police & military leaders) on your side to do this. In fact, to achieve the transfer of power, you would NOT need to storm the Capitol at all. 

 

It was a symbolic protest. Just like those on the left earlier in the year. 

Just suppose that the protestors actually did manage to capture Mike Pence and hang him to stop the declaration being made. Perhaps they would have caught Pelosi and a few more senior Democrats and killed them too. 

 

Would your argument still stand?

 

Because from the news reports that I have seen that is precisely what they had planned to do, egged on in the beginning by Trump himself in one video, and another video shows Trump's family cheering the rioters on. 

 

 

Who would be left with any power? Why that would be Trump himself.

[Phoenix Rising]

3 hours ago, pedro01 said:

 

No it wasn't.

 

There was no path to blocking the transfer of power with the invasion of the Capitol. You get that right? It was literally impossible to achieve that outcome with the storming of a building.

 

You would need to have a lot of people that hold power (police & military leaders) on your side to do this. In fact, to achieve the transfer of power, you would NOT need to storm the Capitol at all. 

 

It was a symbolic protest. Just like those on the left earlier in the year. 

What was symbolic about it, the dead people???

 

PS. Sometime I worry about you ever-trumpers, I really do....

[Phoenix Rising]

2 hours ago, GrandPapillon said:

 

This means that a lot of people are angry at this election, even in the ranks of the military, and that's not a good thing.

Correct, and the responsibility resides with trump since this whole "stop the steal" b*****t is his idea and he knows very well how uncritical and excitable the ever-trumper lemmings are.

Charge him, try him, convict him and incarcerate him. Lock him up! 

[KhaoYai]

On 1/14/2021 at 4:54 AM, trainman34014 said:

he has been stoking the fires of dicontent since the Election

No, he started that a couple of months before the election when he said if he lost, it would only be because of fraud - probably because he was well down in the polls and was setting the stage for what he would eventually claim.

[impulse]

On 1/14/2021 at 1:04 AM, 1Gringo said:

On 1/13/2021 at 11:42 PM, pegman said:

Don't be so sure. I saw a poll where 2/3 of republican supporters stated they would vote for him in the 2024 primary 

that doesn't mean he can win and I don't think he will be able to.  but disqualification can make this a moot point and I hope the Senate goes that way.

 

So you'd have the senate subvert the will of the people?  I hope he doesn't run.  And if he does, I hope he loses bigly.  But I never want to see the senate dictate who we're allowed to vote for.  That's a slippery slope.

 

[impulse]

3 hours ago, pedro01 said:

No it wasn't.

 

There was no path to blocking the transfer of power with the invasion of the Capitol. You get that right? It was literally impossible to achieve that outcome with the storming of a building.

 

You would need to have a lot of people that hold power (police & military leaders) on your side to do this. In fact, to achieve the transfer of power, you would NOT need to storm the Capitol at all. 

 

It was a symbolic protest. Just like those on the left earlier in the year. 

 

The biggest difference was the lack of burning and no chance to score a big screen TV.

 

[sirineou]

5 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

So you'd have the senate subvert the will of the people?  I hope he doesn't run.  And if he does, I hope he loses bigly.  But I never want to see the senate dictate who we're allowed to vote for.  That's a slippery slope.

 

The Senate  can't. and does not dictate who you are allowed to vote but does have  the constitutional to determine who is allowed to compete for your vote. You are not suggesting that everyone in the world should be allowed to run for US political office with no restrictions , are you? 

[impulse]

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The Senate  can't. and does not dictate who you are allowed to vote but does have  the constitutional to determine who is allowed to compete for your vote. You are not suggesting that everyone in the world should be allowed to run for US political office with no restrictions , are you? 

 

The qualifications are set out in the constitution.  Beyond those, it's a decision of the governed.  Or at least it should be.

 

What's to stop the senate from disqualifying a perfectly good candidate because they're not in one of the 2 parties?    As I said, slippery slope.  If you went over every online post we've ever made, I'm sure they could dig up some reason to disqualify all of us.

 

Edit:  Look at the results of the impeachment votes in history, which are usually divided along party lines, with some outliers on one side or the other.  If it was really a decision based on high crimes and misdemeanors, you'd figure the votes wouldn't be so aisle splitting.  But it's a political power play.  Just like the freshman Repub who's already trying to impeach Biden.  Slippery- like the whole cancel culture...

Edited January 16, 2021 by impulse

[sirineou]

31 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The qualifications are set out in the constitution.  Beyond those, it's a decision of the governed.  Or at least it should be.

 

What's to stop the senate from disqualifying a perfectly good candidate because they're not in one of the 2 parties?    As I said, slippery slope.  If you went over every online post we've ever made, I'm sure they could dig up some reason to disqualify all of us.

 

I mean no disrespect to you, but in this instance I think you are a little bit confused. 

The Senate will not disqualify trump from running for future Federal office, The senate will hold a trial and determine if he was involved in inserection, it is the Constitution and more specifically the 14th Amendment Section 3 that states  , ( I took the liberty of underlining the pertinent section. ) that will disqualify him .

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  " 

Without trump being convicted of insurrection, by tho thirds of the voting Senate , thump can not be disqualified from running for office under that provision,  unless he is tried and found guilty by another legal entity, or other disqualifying factors emerge, 

Edited January 16, 2021 by sirineou

[impulse]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

I mean no disrespect to you, but in this instance I think you are a little bit confused. 

The Senate will not disqualify trump from running for future Federal office, The senate will hold a trial and determine if he was involved in inserection, it is the Constitution and more specifically the 14th Amendment Section 3 that states  , ( I took the liberty of underlining the pertinent section. )

"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  " 

Without trump being convicted of insurrection, by tho thirds of the voting Senate , thump can not be disqualified from running for office under that provision,  unless he is tried and found guilty by another legal entity, ot other disqualifying factors amerge, 

 

You're splitting hairs.  I don't think anyone believes the end goal isn't to disqualify him from running in 2024.   And for 46% of Americans, this whole fiasco looks suspiciously like a planned attempt to defund any investigation into the election. 

 

They may be wrong, but optics and confidence in the vote are pillars of our republic.  With 46% of Americans doubting the cleanliness of the election, bad things are on the horizon.

 

[sirineou]

7 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You're splitting hairs.  I don't think anyone believes the end goal isn't to disqualify him from running in 2024.   And for 46% of Americans, this whole fiasco looks suspiciously like a planned attempt to defund any investigation into the election. 

 

They may be wrong, but optics and confidence in the vote are pillars of our republic.  With 46% of Americans doubting the cleanliness of the election, bad things are on the horizon.

 

I am not splitting hair at all , what I said is exactly  what it is, no ifs  and or Buts about it. 

The Senate is not disqualifying him , it is his actions that if proven true will disqualify him. When there is a trial and someone is send to jail , it is not the court that send him to jail it is his actions, all that the court does is prove his guilt or innocence. 

After all that trump has done, after hearing the recordings and his own voice, after all the lies , you are not seriously worrying that  the '"optics" of trying him will damage our confidence in the vote and our democracy? 

    PS: it is time you abandon the 46% number. Since then trump has revealed his true colors even to them, if the election was held today the only thing he would get from most  rational people in the US would be tar and feathers 

"In a new poll from the Pew Research Center, only 29% of Americans said they approve of how Trump is handling his job  ":

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/15/donald-trump-leaves-white-house-lowest-ever-approval-rating/4173571001/

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am not splitting hair at all , what I said is exactly  what it is, no ifs  and or Buts about it. 

The Senate is not disqualifying him , it is his actions that if proven true will disqualify him. When there is a trial and someone is send to jail , it is not the court that send him to jail it is his actions, all that the court does is prove his guilt or innocence. 

After all that trump has done, after hearing the recordings and his own voice, after all the lies , you are not seriously worrying that  the '"optics" of trying him will damage our confidence in the vote and our democracy? 

    PS: it is time you abandon the 46% number. Since then trump has revealed his true colors even to them, if the election was held today the only thing he would get from most  rational people in the US would be tar and feathers 

"In a new poll from the Pew Research Center, only 29% of Americans said they approve of how Trump is handling his job  ":

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/15/donald-trump-leaves-white-house-lowest-ever-approval-rating/4173571001/

 

 

1)  If the senate dropped the proceedings, he won't be disqualified.  QED.

 

2) You're confusing his approval rating with the percentage of people who believe the election was tainted.  I despise the man, and still, I'm not convinced it was a clean election.

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

 

1)  If the senate dropped the proceedings, he won't be disqualified.  QED.

 

2) You're confusing his approval rating with the percentage of people who believe the election was tainted.  I despise the man, and still, I'm not convinced it was a clean election.

If my Grandmother had a Penus they would call her Grandpa. 

In view of late developments If the Senate dropped its proceedings  it would  be abdicating its responsibilities as prescribed in the Constitution.

As far a your confusion towards the results of the election, if all the court challenges, tha faile 60-1 , many of them by republicans appointed by trump,if all the recounds also most of them by Republicans , if the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing that would change the outcome, and if the bipartisan certification of the results do not convince you, I am afraid there is nothing I , or reason can say to you that will convince you otherwise. 

[impulse]

14 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If my Grandmother had a Penus they would call her Grandpa. 

In view of late developments If the Senate dropped its proceedings  it would  be abdicating its responsibilities as prescribed in the Constitution.

As far a your confusion towards the results of the election, if all the court challenges, tha faile 60-1 , many of them by republicans appointed by trump,if all the recounds also most of them by Republicans , if the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing that would change the outcome, and if the bipartisan certification of the results do not convince you, I am afraid there is nothing I , or reason can say to you that will convince you otherwise. 

 

 

That would be me, 80% of Repub voters, 17% of Dem voters, and 35% of Independents.  At least, that was the most recent poll I saw who questioned the integrity of the election.  If they're like me, I haven't formed an opinion one way or the other.  There are too many open questions.

 

I still think the American people should decide who gets to run.   And who gets to serve.

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by impulse

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

 

That would be me, 80% of Repub voters, 17% of Dem voters, and 35% of Independents.  At least, that was the most recent poll I saw who questioned the integrity of the election.

 

I still think the American people should decide who gets to run.   And who gets to serve.

 

Then why have institutions, why not but everything to a popular vote and let the majority decide.

Personally I think we have taken this conversation as far as it can go, I appreciate and thank you for engaging with me in it.  ????

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Then why have institutions, why not but everything to a popular vote and let the majority decide.

Personally I think we have taken this conversation as far as it can go, I appreciate and thank you for engaging with me in it.  ????

 

The basis of a republic is that we vote for the leaders and they decide the issues, theoretically in our best interest.  They don't decide for us who we can and can't nominate and elect to be leaders.

 

Over and out.

Edited January 16, 2021 by impulse