What's next after impeachment?

[Draco-Onis]

You can't jail us just for disagreeing on politics.

So all these people in jail for doing crimes on behalf or to help Trump are just there for politics? it's amazing how much the right has come to embrace criminal behavior and so much hatred for law enforcement and the rule of law. Perhaps you can join the next rally and cheer as the dear leader calls law enforcement scum.

[Elegiac]

I'm reflecting a viewpoint that this matter doesn't come anywhere close to being an impeachable offense.

Which is, guess what, objectively wrong.

[Draco-Onis]

I'm reflecting a viewpoint that this matter doesn't come anywhere close to being an impeachable offense.

When the next president is a democrat I expect you to fully support him or her when they call on other countries to ensure an electoral victory.

[Mayhem]

He does, he's just claiming it doesn't matter because a lot of people have been radicalized.

It's appeal to popularity, basically. Bigass logical fallacy.

So he understands that his comic is showing the difference in perception but chooses to paint it as something entirely different? Yeah, judging by hist posting history that checks out.

[DocSavageFan]

Which is, guess what, objectively wrong.

Objectively wrong? Like thinking Trump is being impeached for bribery? You're a hoot!

[Skroe]

Firstly, "bad faith" is a motive attack therefor it is ad hominem, so let's avoid that.

No. It's not. It's descriptive of your approach.

Secondly, I supported Trump since 5 month before the election and never once since that point did I ever say that I'm not a Trump supporter overall. Also, I've literally never once said the "I'm an independant libertarian" shtick who happened to vote for Trump.

Fair point; it's hard to keep track with you people. You all kind of blend in. I'll make a note of this because it's good to know who is most culpable for this shambolic Presidency.

I believe that 90% of societal progress should come from the private sector and that government should scale based on the private sector. So I really don't care about legislative change. Except obviously when it comes to fixing errors and loopholes and things of that nature.

You see like, that's a nice thought, but also irrelevant. And a dodge too. The phrase "legislative agenda" is political shorthand to "what President plans to do as President". Which isn't much.

Take de-regulation. I was a big time proponent of deregulation in the pre-Trump era. When topical, I still am. Now people like you, and unless I'm mistaken you yourself have defended your support of Trump on his de-regulatory agenda. Except for the fact it is basically non-existent. We have again, gone into detail as to why. He loses in the courts 93% of the time. Under our model of regulation, the President cannot change a regulation without arguing why the new one should replace the old one, coupled with a body of evidence and a format that presumes the existing regulation should be upheld. This is easier than it sounds, because what it really asks is the current President to simply issue reports to justify the change. This is to prevent wild swings of regulation administration to administration. But most Administrations get what they want.

Not this one. Because they don't do the reports. They don't have the people to do them. And the judges involved don't give their non-work the time of day.

Trump's deregulatory agenda is a fiction. It exists only in theory. The Democrats get all fired up about about proposals that get blocked by courts or never implimented. The Trumphadis pretend that attempts and PR statements translate into actual changes, which isn't a thing.

The regulatory environment we are living in three years on is Obama's, almost entirely because Trump contrary to what the true believers want to believe, has not been a deregulator at all.

So what's the goddamn point?

Why is Trump President? What does he seek to do? Just appoint judges? McConnnell's 50 judges, most of them fine, are not the end all be all, and in any event, every other President, Republicans included, appointed judges on top of a robust political agenda, of which Trump has none.

He stages his rallies.
He does silly little stunts like sign executive orders about Israel.

But he's basically just a squater, not advancing conservative priorities whatsoever. And neither is he denying liberal ones either - witness how Democrats just rolled him twice on one week, first on NAFTA Service Pack 1 which is Union approved, and then again on trading the Space Force for parental Leave for Federal Workers.

Actually three times, because next week he gets to sign his fourth budget, which will last until September 30th 2020, with no wall many and is again the bipartisan compromise budget bill.

Oh and the wall? Us opponents have blocked that at every turn.

So what's the fuck is the point? Where are your wins? Slamming the door on refugees? That's what you want out of the Presidency. This is objectively a joke.

You can't jail us just for disagreeing on politics.

Correct, and also not what I was talking about. "Trump and his people" refers to his administration and associated figures in his regime. Not Trump supporters. And I was referring to their actual criminal actions.

No, see my last post. Democracy is about a process of incremental policy change, feedback, criticism, party change, repeat. Between the left and right. That's all there is to it. Dull and boring, the way it should be.

And not at all what the main thrust of the next Presidency will be, which will to clean up Trump's legacy in a legal sense.

It's bizarre you're dodging this. It is coming. The next President will have a very thing legislative agenda too, due in no small part because Congress has exactly one budget that can get through it. This will leave his priorities largely in terms of cleaning up Trump's mess internationally, and domestically in the form of deploying the DoJ against Trump-era figures in a way Obama eschewed doing so in 2009 and 2010 against Bush-era figures.

That was widely regarded as a mistake. Cheney and Rumsfeld probably should have seen war crimes charges. The next Democratic President, because of that precedent, will absolutely go after Trump-era figures.

So yes, be afraid. Be very afraid. Because their indictment is in effect, your indictment.

[DocSavageFan]

When the next president is a democrat I expect you to fully support him or her when they call on other countries to ensure an electoral victory.

Don't get me wrong here...I don't support what Trump did in any way. But to impeach him for it? I don't think so.

[Karrotlord]

Objectively wrong? Like thinking Trump is being impeached for bribery? You're a hoot!

I already showed you the bribery part of the Articles of Impeachment after you claimed it wasn't in there. Why did you ignore it?

[Draco-Onis]

Not from my experience... *shrug*... not even from Obama's own experience... who has been saying pretty much the same thing.

We should totally listen to the wisdom of the person whose lack of leadership lead to Donald Trump if he wasn't so focused on his legacy as the first black president we wouldn't be in this shit show.

[cubby]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hannit...ump-is-removed

Last night, Mitch McConnell came out and said "The case is so darn weak coming over from the House. We all know how it's going to end. There is no chance the president is going to be removed from office." What’s next for the democrats when impeachment fails in the senate? Will they stop trying to find ways to impede and obstruct this administration, or will they move on to some new accusation to yodel until November 2020? Do the house democrats have any legislation they will be focusing on for the coming year? With the news cycle being completely dominated by Russian collusion / Ukranian Quid pro Quo since the President took office, the public doesn’t really have any idea what Congress has actually been working on, and if anything will come from this congress before the next election.

It's amazing how much you can lie in one single paragraph. Let us know when the GOP gives you your next set of talking points.

FYI: you know that the House has passed more than 200 bills this year, right? And they are all just sitting on McConnell's desk, because he isn't doing anything.

[Draco-Onis]

Don't get me wrong here...I don't support what Trump did in any way. But to impeach him for it? I don't think so.

Again I fully expect you to say the same thing if a democrat commits the same acts aka not impeachable to ask for foreign help.

[Masark]

Trump has crossover with people that support the old style Democratic policies

Yeah, that's what the Southern Strategy was all about.

[cubby]

Investigated and jailed for what? Having political beliefs that don't align with yours? This practice is relatively common in third world countries. God help us.

Trump will face criminal charges when he's out of office. They are working now to make sure the SOL doesn't expire if he steals a second term.

- - - Updated - - -

Lock 'em up! Lock 'em all up! /s

Our country is so fucking screwed.

Yep - the GOP has fucked this country three ways from Sunday. It will take a generation of Democratic Presidents to fix the harm Trump and his GOP sycophants have done to this country.

[Machismo]

Don't get me wrong here...I don't support what Trump did in any way. But to impeach him for it? I don't think so.

So, bribery, obstruction of justice, and election fraud isn't enough for you.

Exactly what would it take for you to support impeachment?

[cubby]

This post reminds me of a different poster a while back, during the 2016 election, that kept using "Real Americans" when talking about the people that supported Trump...

So here we are, one side is cheering on the "Real Americans" sentiment, and the other "you people".

To paraphrase Lincoln: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."

There aren't two sides to this impeachment of the criminal Trump. There's just one side, and then those denying reality. The Americans are those paying attention, reading the documents/transcripts/etc, and listening to evidence. Everyone else is trying to deflect or deny reality.

[DocSavageFan]

Again I fully expect you to say the same thing if a democrat commits the same acts aka not impeachable to ask for foreign help.

Expect what you want...I'm sure your stereotype of me is much more convincing to you than anything I can say.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump will have a increased chance of being reelected.

It's certainly beginning to look that way.

[Skroe]

Again I fully expect you to say the same thing if a democrat commits the same acts aka not impeachable to ask for foreign help.

If the Senate acquits Trump, next Democratic Nominee should ask for the European Union to intervene on their behalf.

It's only fair!

[DocSavageFan]

I already showed you the bribery part of the Articles of Impeachment after you claimed it wasn't in there. Why did you ignore it?

I must have missed that. Please repost with the word "bribery" bolded.

I won't hold my breath.

[Karrotlord]

I must have missed that. Please repost with the word "bribery" bolded.

So it's the semantic game with you?

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

Tell me, what do you think "soliciting interference" is?

[Draco-Onis]

If the Senate acquits Trump, next Democratic Nominee should ask for the European Union to intervene on their behalf.

It's only fair!

agreed since foreign interference is totally okay for Trumpist now.