'We must end this uncivil war,' Biden says, taking over a U.S. in crisis

[impulse]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

Why shouldn't Trump be punished for splitting the USA and attempting to overthrow the incoming government? Is he a sacred person who should never be punished for anything that he has done for the past 4 years.

 

The USA has a process for that.  We call it an election.  We let the people decide who to cancel.  Not a bunch of partisan politicians.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

The USA has a process for that.  We call it an election.  We let the people decide who to cancel.  Not a bunch of partisan politicians.

Yes, and the impeachment charge against Mr. trump is that he incited a violent insurrection against congress to overturn the actual election. Not exactly a normal situation. If that isn't worthy of impeachment and CONVICTION, then nothing is. But really Mr. trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses, such as that corrupt phone call to the Georgia election official. 

 

I will add that normally it's customary to refer to ex-presidents as President and then their name. Well, in my view Mr. trump doesn't deserve the respect of that custom. He has so degraded that office, so abused his power in that office, that now (thankfully and finally!) that he is out of that office, still calling him "President" would be obscene. 

[impulse]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Yes, and the impeachment charge against Mr. trump is that he incited a violent insurrection against congress to overturn the actual election. Not exactly a normal situation. If that isn't worthy of impeachment and CONVICTION, then nothing is. But really Mr. trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses, such as that corrupt phone call the the Georgia election official. 

 

Sure.  If you listen to CNN and Democrats.  Listen to legal scholars and they'll tell you otherwise.  They'll also tell you The House violated about 6 clauses in the constitution when the voted to impeach him without due process.  But a lot of people are so happy to see the back end of The Donald, they'll ignore anything inconvenient to that end.

I'm as happy as most to see him go.  I never was a fan.  But not at the expense of constitutional protections.

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Sure.  If you listen to CNN and Democrats.  Listen to legal scholars and they'll tell you otherwise.  They'll also tell you The House violated about 6 clauses in the constitution when the voted to impeach him without due process.  But a lot of people are so happy to see the back end of The Donald, they'll ignore anything inconvenient to that end.

I'm as happy as most to see him go.  I never was a fan.  But not at the expense of constitutional protections.

 

 

I love to hear from all the "not a fans" that have constantly defended him. Doesn't pass the smell test, sorry. 

[sirineou]

Just now, impulse said:

 

Sure.  If you listen to CNN and Democrats.  Listen to legal scholars and they'll tell you otherwise.  They'll also tell you The House violated about 6 clauses in the constitution when the voted to impeach him without due process.  But a lot of people are so happy to see the back end of The Donald, they'll ignore anything inconvenient to that end.

I'm as happy as most to see him go.  I never was a fan.  But not at the expense of constitutional protections.

 

 

Wonderful, the republicans should  take the impeachment case to the supreme court and have it dismissed as unconstitutional. 

Please let us know how it went. 

[impulse]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I love to hear from all the "not a fans" that have constantly defended him. Doesn't pass the smell test, sorry. 

 

Even if I was a fan, which I'm not, how does that negate my argument?  Don't attack the person.  Attack my argument.  Then we can have a discussion.  Otherwise, it's just cancel culture.  Which has become a specialty of the left.

 

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Wonderful, the republicans should  take the impeachment case to the supreme court and have it dismissed as unconstitutional. 

Please let us know how it went. 

 

It will go to the Supreme Court if it goes against him.  But they'll never get 2/3.

[sirineou]

16 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

It will go to the Supreme Court if it goes against him.  But they'll never get 2/3.

An impeachment is an impeachment and stays on his record for ever ,Why not take it now? too long a walk? 

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

An impeachment is an impeachment and stays on his record for ever ,Why not take it now? too long a walk? 

 

You'd have to ask him.

[sirineou]

Just now, impulse said:

 

You'd have to ask him.

I will next time I see him. but I think I know the answer and I am sure you do too. He has as good a case as the other 61 he lost

[impulse]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I will next time I see him. but I think I know the answer and I am sure you do too. He has as good a case as the other 61 he lost

 

That second impeachment on his record has all the consequences of double secret probation.  Getting it tossed out in court wouldn't do a thing for his chances of a 2024 run.  So why bother- unless they get 2/3 and have some real consequences?

 

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That second impeachment on his record has all the consequences of double secret probation.  Getting it tossed out in court wouldn't do a thing for his chances of a 2024 run.  So why bother?

 

So that he would not have the distinction of being the only president in the history of  The United States of America  being impeached twice? and with its removal there will be no senate trial

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

Tweets are enabled and transmitted via Twitter, Bill.

Which are not permitted to be posted here.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, PattayaJames said:

 

You can't find them because they do not exist.

Biden has the same memory issues, forgot his own mask mandate hours after signing it.

Dont worry, trump is gone, you have 4 years to get used to it.

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

That second impeachment on his record has all the consequences of double secret probation.  Getting it tossed out in court wouldn't do a thing for his chances of a 2024 run.  So why bother- unless they get 2/3 and have some real consequences?

 

The court already have stated impeachment is a matter for congress and they wont get involved.

 

If he is convicted in the senate then it only needs a simple majority to ban him from politics.

 

His more pressing issues are the current legal cases against him. Anyone considering voting for him after the state he has left the US whilst golfing should never be let out on weekends.

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

The court already have stated impeachment is a matter for congress and they wont get involved.

 

If he is convicted in the senate then it only needs a simple majority to ban him from politics.

 

His more pressing issues are the current legal cases against him. Anyone considering voting for him after the state he has left the US whilst golfing should never be let out on weekends.

  

I haven't seen that, but I'm not doubting it.  But I suspect they just don't want to touch it while it's being decided.  If true, that's scary that the Supreme Court wouldn't get involved if there was an unconstitutional over-reach by congress. 

 

Whether congress violated the constitution is not something I'd want congress to decide.  That's why the framers built in checks and balances.

 

They have to convict him by 2/3 before they'd be able to ban him. 

 

I'd let the American people decide whether they want to vote for him.  I didn't vote for him, but I respect their right to their vote.  Why don't you?

 

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

 

You must be joking.

The above listed "credible sources" are full of left wing lies and misinformation. 

They will hype or bury a story based on their bias political narrative.

 

People see them doing it every day. They are no longer trusted.

 

Media trust hits new low: https://www.axios.com/media-trust-crisis-2bf0ec1c-00c0-4901-9069-e26b21c283a9.html

 

56% of Americans agree with the statement that "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."

 

58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public."

 

"58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public."

 

I suppose it's good the viewers of Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Breitbart, etc., understand this is what they're watching.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

Can you show us any of these tweets, Bill?

“I know your pain, I know your hurt,” Trump said in the video. “We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side.”  https://news.yahoo.com/trump-twitter-facebook-capitol-siege-video-removed-locked-005124684.html

 

"More than 80% of the top posts on TheDonald about the electoral college certification featured unmoderated calls for violence in the top five responses. Posts and comments explicitly called for violence included “WE WANT BLOOD” and called on supporters to murder House leader Nancy Pelosi."   https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot-twitter-parler-proud-boys-boogaloos-antifa-qanon/6570794002/

 

Numerous tweets and statements falsely calling the election stolen and using words such as "stop the steal" and "fight" are listed here:  https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-riot/

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

The USA has a process for that.  We call it an election.  We let the people decide who to cancel.  Not a bunch of partisan politicians.

The US has legal processes for punishing those who do not respect the results of an election.  Those processes need to be applied now.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Sure.  If you listen to CNN and Democrats.  Listen to legal scholars and they'll tell you otherwise.  They'll also tell you The House violated about 6 clauses in the constitution when the voted to impeach him without due process.  But a lot of people are so happy to see the back end of The Donald, they'll ignore anything inconvenient to that end.

I'm as happy as most to see him go.  I never was a fan.  But not at the expense of constitutional protections.

Which legal scholars are you referring to?

[candide]

42 minutes ago, heybruce said:

“I know your pain, I know your hurt,” Trump said in the video. “We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side.”  https://news.yahoo.com/trump-twitter-facebook-capitol-siege-video-removed-locked-005124684.html

 

"More than 80% of the top posts on TheDonald about the electoral college certification featured unmoderated calls for violence in the top five responses. Posts and comments explicitly called for violence included “WE WANT BLOOD” and called on supporters to murder House leader Nancy Pelosi."   https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot-twitter-parler-proud-boys-boogaloos-antifa-qanon/6570794002/

 

Numerous tweets and statements falsely calling the election stolen and using words such as "stop the steal" and "fight" are listed here:  https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-riot/

And the reply is.....crickets!

[Credo]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Even if I was a fan, which I'm not, how does that negate my argument?  Don't attack the person.  Attack my argument.  Then we can have a discussion.  Otherwise, it's just cancel culture.  Which has become a specialty of the left.

 

That's a rather suspect statement coming from someone who supports the side that tried to cancel the election.   I think you lost all credibility on criticizing cancel culture.

 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The US has legal processes for punishing those who do not respect the results of an election.  Those processes need to be applied now.

 

The guy's out of office.  He can do no more harm.  The only way he gets back into office is for the majority of American people to invite him back.  Basically, congress is giving the finger to the American voters and telling them they don't trust us with the vote.

 

Quick...   If you were a senator considering a run for the big office in 2024, what could you do right now that would guaranty you'll have less competition in 4 years?  You don't figure there's any conflict of interest?

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, Credo said:

That's a rather suspect statement coming from someone who supports the side that tried to cancel the election.   I think you lost all credibility on criticizing cancel culture.

 

One more... Attacking the person instead of refuting the message.  

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

 

It will go to the Supreme Court if it goes against him.  But they'll never get 2/3.

Its up to Mitch. They might. Stay tuned.

[Jingthing]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

  

I haven't seen that, but I'm not doubting it.  But I suspect they just don't want to touch it while it's being decided.  If true, that's scary that the Supreme Court wouldn't get involved if there was an unconstitutional over-reach by congress. 

 

Whether congress violated the constitution is not something I'd want congress to decide.  That's why the framers built in checks and balances.

 

They have to convict him by 2/3 before they'd be able to ban him. 

 

I'd let the American people decide whether they want to vote for him.  I didn't vote for him, but I respect their right to their vote.  Why don't you?

 

Insurrections have consequences.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

“I know your pain, I know your hurt,” Trump said in the video. “We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side.”  https://news.yahoo.com/trump-twitter-facebook-capitol-siege-video-removed-locked-005124684.html

 

"More than 80% of the top posts on TheDonald about the electoral college certification featured unmoderated calls for violence in the top five responses. Posts and comments explicitly called for violence included “WE WANT BLOOD” and called on supporters to murder House leader Nancy Pelosi."   https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/01/06/trump-riot-twitter-parler-proud-boys-boogaloos-antifa-qanon/6570794002/

 

Numerous tweets and statements falsely calling the election stolen and using words such as "stop the steal" and "fight" are listed here:  https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/11/timeline-what-trump-said-jan-6-capitol-riot/

 

So no tweets from Trump then. 

[placeholder]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

So no tweets from Trump then. 

No tweets from Trump condemning the tweets calling for violence that were made in response to his tweets. And no tweets from Trump telling Qanon supporters that their beliefs were baseless.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

The guy's out of office.  He can do no more harm.  The only way he gets back into office is for the majority of American people to invite him back.  Basically, congress is giving the finger to the American voters and telling them they don't trust us with the vote.

 

Quick...   If you were a senator considering a run for the big office in 2024, what could you do right now that would guaranty you'll have less competition in 4 years?  You don't figure there's any conflict of interest?

So long as tens of millions of followers believe Trump's lies, he can do harm.  Also, he wasn't elected with a majority the in 2016 and won't need one for an attempted comeback.  Congress, the US Constitution, and state laws already restrict who can run for office.

 

Quick...  If you were a Senator who knew Trump egged on an insurrection and deserved to be impeached, but was afraid of all the voters who believed Trump's lies, what would you do?  You don't figure there's any conflict of interest?

[placeholder]

Another case of I-don't-like-Trump-but...

5 hours ago, impulse said:

  

I haven't seen that, but I'm not doubting it.  But I suspect they just don't want to touch it while it's being decided.  If true, that's scary that the Supreme Court wouldn't get involved if there was an unconstitutional over-reach by congress. 

 

Whether congress violated the constitution is not something I'd want congress to decide.  That's why the framers built in checks and balances.

 

They have to convict him by 2/3 before they'd be able to ban him. 

 

I'd let the American people decide whether they want to vote for him.  I didn't vote for him, but I respect their right to their vote.  Why don't you?

 

You didn't vote for him? Really?