Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[beanman12345]

I will side with Democrats more times than not because of what you said, but if a candidate is unworthy in my eyes then I'm not voting for them just because Trump is worst.



The main reason I didn't vote for Hillary is because of what she did after it was revealed the DNC was actively working against Sanders. When it came to light, the head of the DNC stepped down and Hillary hired her the next day and that was it for me. Is that not deplorable? I know Sanders wasn't a Democrat and didn't earn any loyalty from the party, but if what the DNC did wasn't wrong then why did the head step down? We know Hillary was pumping money into the DNC and then it's revealed they were actively working against her opponent. Is that not shady?



If a video game is designed for me to bang my head against a wall day in and day out just to get little reward, I'm not playing it. So why should I partake in this system when it's just as tedious? Why should I fight for change when a large part of this country makes us go in reverse?

When Obama got into office I felt things would go right. And they did for the most part. But the whole time I was hearing these future Trump supporters writhe with hate at him. And now these same people almost want to make Trump king. How do you fix that? By voting for a Democrat? By making this country better? They were given better health insurance, not great but better, and they damn near threw themselves to the floor in a fit. Our economy came back from a recession and they think Trump fixed everything! I'm tired of it. Let them rot.



When AOC stepped into the light, was the Democratic Party welcoming of her? No. This "status quo" philosophy needs to end for the Democrats to get ahead.



Which is why it needs to end. This "My team is better than your team!!!" is bullshit that has ruined us. It's why Trump is still in the office he should never have won in the first place.

Republicans don't want you to vote. you not voting is them winning. turnout always favors democrats. always. that is why they are so gung ho about voter supression. so you "choosing" not to vote is basically a win for them. you are making a conscious decision to help them win by not turning out to vote. So if you don't vote against trump, you are no better then the people who do. If trump win's the blame is partially on you.

[Templar 331]

Some were, some weren't. But you know damned well she was more welcome today than she would have been even 10 years ago. Give Trump another 4 years to brainwash the public, however, and it's going to be even more difficult to get candidates you personally want involved. Not necessarily because they believe his bullshit, but because--as I mentioned a long time ago about this election--after a period of sustained insanity nobody is going to want to experiment with "change". More people will WANT the "status quo" simply to get back to some measure of normalcy. This, I believe, is part of the reason Biden is so unduly popular right now. He himself isn't all that impressive, but he represents a return to the way things were before Trump pressed his fat ass up against the glass of the White House windows, and that appeal is hard to resist for people who have been, well, "resisting" the past 3 years.

If, in the end, you decide you're not going to vote for the Dem nom because "reasons", then fine. It's a democracy. It's your choice. But this isn't about "the lesser evil" as some people in here have been touting it. This is about "maybe a little progress" versus "reverting back to the 80's".

This is honestly one of the reasons I'm considering voting for Biden and I'm not to happy about it.

[Benggaul]

Since we're getting a good bit off topic I think we should just agree to disagree.

Fuck, you're right. I didn't notice which thread this was. All things Trump tend to blend together. My apologies, mods.

[Templar 331]

Republicans don't want you to vote. you not voting is them winning. turnout always favors democrats. always. that is why they are so gung ho about voter supression. so you "choosing" not to vote is basically a win for them. you are making a conscious decision to help them win by not turning out to vote. So if you don't vote against trump, you are no better then the people who do. If trump win's the blame is partially on you.

No, it's not. That's like blaming the Jews for not stopping the Nazis.

[beanman12345]

No, it's not. That's like blaming the Jews for not stopping the Nazis.

fucking ridiculous comparison.

[Stormspark]

Bullshit. Voting is within someone's power. Stopping the Nazis wasn't within the power of the Jewish German community.

Hopefully. The election this year will start the US on the path toward democracy, or it will be the last election.

[beanman12345]

No, it's not. That's like blaming the Jews for not stopping the Nazis.

No, it's more like blaming those germans who did nothing and allowed the nazi's to get in power in the first place.

You have 3 choices, actively support the dem nominee by voting them, actively support Trump by voting for him, or actively support Trump by not voting at all or voting third party. You are part of the solution or part of the problem. You're certainly not a victim.

[beanman12345]

I kind of have the same mentality as Templar, except in this rare instance of one of the candidates being Trump. I'm 45 and only voted twice for President. The first time I was 18, and I voted for Perot cause he used charts and...well, look, I was 18 and stupid.

Since then, I looked at the candidates on both sides, and felt either one was fine. Neither candidate would ruin our nation, barring unforeseen circumstances(re-9/11). I almost voted for Kerry in 2004 but had forgotten to register so didn't bother, because I thought Bush was doing a terrible job. I honestly believe that had 9/11 not occurred, Bush would have been a milquetoast standard President keeping the seat warm for the next guy.

But the age of Trump? No way I was sitting that one out. Hillary did not excite me one bit. She's not charismatic. She was truly the lesser of two evils. Or, as @Benggaul so eloquently put it, This is about "maybe a little progress" versus "reverting back to the 80's". Or in Trump's case, reverting back to cave-man times where civilization was a barrier to success.

I haven't voted in every single election either. I hate the clintons, but bit my lip and voted Hillary. It is fucking ridiculous of him having that signature and then choose not to vote however.

[Paranoid Android]

EXCLUSIVE: @SenAlexander says he thinks what the president did “was improper.” #MTP

Sen. Alexander: “The only question left is who decides what to do about that.”
@ChuckTodd: “Well, who decides what to do about that?”
Sen. Alexander: “The people."

https://t.co/e2zuGVVrTa https://t.co/EAkb08kJCx

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/sta...568752642?s=19

I mean WTF!

First the US Constitution gives Congress the right to impeach and remove the President. Second of course in this case Trump was intentionally trying to affect the upcoming election.

[Dontrike]

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/sta...568752642?s=19

I mean WTF!

First the US Constitution gives Congress the right to impeach and remove the President. Second of course in this case Trump was intentionally trying to affect the upcoming election.

Those fuckers just stopped doing their job and are now asking others to do it for them because they don't want Trump's base to turn on them. They are spineless cucks.

[eschatological]

But instead of that, she lost, and Trump installed a right-wing yesman to back his every whim.

TWO right wing yesmen. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Think, Hillary would have installed a liberal majority on the court for the next 40 years, cause RBJ would have retired too, and we would have had 3 liberals just from Hillary, Kagan, and Sotomayor, who are both still young. And until Stevens retired, they'd have a 6-3 super majority.

That......singlehandedly.......is the most earthshattering, fundamental legacy of Trump's win, and why I can have no sympathy for those fuckwits who would sit out an election because a candidate doesn't meet their insane purity tests.

[Fugus]

TWO right wing yesmen. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Think, Hillary would have installed a liberal majority on the court for the next 40 years, cause RBJ would have retired too, and we would have had 3 liberals just from Hillary, Kagan, and Sotomayor, who are both still young. And until Stevens retired, they'd have a 6-3 super majority.

That......singlehandedly.......is the most earthshattering, fundamental legacy of Trump's win, and why I can have no sympathy for those fuckwits who would sit out an election because a candidate doesn't meet their insane purity tests.

Hillary would not have installed a liberal anything. She would have installed a centrist at best, they would probably still lean right wing honestly.

That being said, we can still remove Kavanaugh anytime within the next 4 years as he committed perjury during his own hearings which has a statute of limitations of 5 years. And would be a major black eye for the Republicans to have that potential serial rapist removed after what they pulled with Garland, especially with how the Republicans can be called out for not holding him responsible for when they were in power.

Or we can go nuclear when the Democrats get back in power and expand and pack it.

But honestly, I would go ahead and fix it in a way that wastes all their effort and they can NEVER do again. And just have it setup where no president actually nominates them and they are instead rotated out,at random, from the lower courts every 6 to 12 months. And they can never see a case that hits the docket while they are in office and only gets to see cases that are pending when they are chosen (Emergencies are exceptions). After their cases are seen, they can step down at 6 months but stay in no longer than 12 months. If they have any pending cases at the end, they can still finish them in that capacity but no other cases.

This removes that political football of theirs and undoes all McConnells fuckery within a year that they can never do again.

Then I would also make it where the president doesn't nominate for state level either and they are not lifetime either, they are nominated by the Senators of the state that both Senators must agree on and the Senate must also confirm, theses only serve for 10 years with no chance of re-election.

I would also require that all nominations be rated and qualified by a non-partisan board.

That would destroy all of that.

But to say that the Supreme Court is lost at this point because people didn't vote for Clinton even after what she pulled is a bit much unless you are also admitting the Democrats don't have the ethics or balls to actually fix it.

And honestly, if you are blaming people for not voting Clinton, you might want to take a step a few months further back and blame the DNC and Clinton for all the events that happened prior to then, people not voting for Clinton didn't just happen in a vacuum.

[beanman12345]

Hillary would not have installed a liberal anything. She would have installed a centrist at best, they would probably still lean right wing honestly.

That being said, we can still remove Kavanaugh anytime within the next 4 years as he committed perjury during his own hearings which has a statute of limitations of 5 years. And would be a major black eye for the Republicans to have that potential serial rapist removed after what they pulled with Garland, especially with how the Republicans can be called out for not holding him responsible for when they were in power.

Or we can go nuclear when the Democrats get back in power and expand and pack it.

But honestly, I would go ahead and fix it in a way that wastes all their effort and they can NEVER do again. And just have it setup where no president actually nominates them and they are instead rotated out,at random, from the lower courts every 6 to 12 months. And they can never see a case that hits the docket while they are in office and only gets to see cases that are pending when they are chosen (Emergencies are exceptions). After their cases are seen, they can step down at 6 months but stay in no longer than 12 months. If they have any pending cases at the end, they can still finish them in that capacity but no other cases.

This removes that political football of theirs and undoes all McConnells fuckery within a year that they can never do again.

Then I would also make it where the president doesn't nominate for state level either and they are not lifetime either, they are nominated by the Senators of the state that both Senators must agree on and the Senate must also confirm, theses only serve for 10 years with no chance of re-election.

I would also require that all nominations be rated and qualified by a non-partisan board.

That would destroy all of that.

But to say that the Supreme Court is lost at this point because people didn't vote for Clinton even after what she pulled is a bit much unless you are also admitting the Democrats don't have the ethics or balls to actually fix it.

And honestly, if you are blaming people for not voting Clinton, you might want to take a step a few months further back and blame the DNC and Clinton for all the events that happened prior to then, people not voting for Clinton didn't just happen in a vacuum.

Does the president have the power to do all that?

And I'm not even blaming people who didn't vote clinton in 2016. I'm blaming people who don't vote want to 2020 after all this bullshit the last 3 years, and still want to claim the victim card.

[Fugus]

Does the president have the power to do all that?

And I'm not even blaming people who didn't vote clinton in 2016. I'm blaming people who don't vote want to 2020 after all this bullshit the last 3 years, and still want to claim the victim card.

Ah, understood. I thought it was about the 2016 stuff. I won't lie, I wrote in a name on that one rather than vote Clinton but that was entirely on Clinton, I was willing to vote for her till she turned around and put Debbie into her campaign right after she was forced to step down for her crap toward Bernie.

Even if someone tries to claim she didn't (Which she objectively did), just the optics of that was a huge slap in the face to the voters and the moment where I decided against voting for her. She didn't seem to understand that she wasn't owed votes and she needed to give the voters something to vote for and not just a big bad on the other side to go against.

As for your first sentence, the President is the one who nominates for the Supreme Court but also one the who nominates for the state level courts and why Trump was able to pack them so much after Moscow Mitch refused to approve any till the point the Judiciary broke down and under Trump has refused to even acknowledge the objections of that states Senators before he puts unqualified activist judges there against their will.

This would remove the President from both of them and put the part of choosing the state level judges on the Senates of that state while also forcing the requirement that they MUST pass a board qualification for it.

Edit:
Within 1 year, the damage to the Supreme Court would be fixed, within a decade, the entire lower courts would be dealt with.

And the entire political football removed so they can be held up like that again.

[eschatological]

You would need Constitutional Amendments to do the stuff you're talking about. How SCOTUS is set up is literally in Article III.

And if there's one thing more rare than Congressional Democratic supermajorities, it's Constitutional Amendments passing in this day and age.

[Elegiac]

You would need Constitutional Amendments to do the stuff you're talking about. How SCOTUS is set up is literally in Article III.

And if there's one thing more rare than Congressional Democratic supermajorities, it's Constitutional Amendments passing in this day and age.

The Constitution doesn't stipulate the number of justices; it's entirely possible to add more seats to the SCOTUS through legislation.

It's one of those things which, yet again, is a matter of tradition because of the assumption that neither party would dare do it because of the Pandora's Box it would open. Which will be true until it isn't.

So say RBG dies and gets replaced by a Democrat, there's nothing to stop the next Republican from simply adding more seats they can pack with the help of a facile Congress. Which is why "status quo ante" is insufficient, as Endus said.

[Adam Jensen]

You would need Constitutional Amendments to do the stuff you're talking about. How SCOTUS is set up is literally in Article III.

And if there's one thing more rare than Congressional Democratic supermajorities, it's Constitutional Amendments passing in this day and age.

Which is sad because we need A LOT of Constitutional Amendments.

- Formalize the impeachment process, ensure that it's run like a proper trial with things like "witnesses" and "evidence."
- Force a timely confirmation vote when the President appoints a new SCOTUS candidate
- Ensure electoral oversight and transparency, remove FTPT
- Integrating the popular vote with the electoral vote or maybe even just removing the electoral vote.
- Prohibit any one with the last name "Trump" from ever holding office anywhere in government

Okay so the last one wasn't serious but there are a number of overhauls the Constitution could use.

[Poopymonster]

I honestly don't even know what these mindless socialism attacks are even referring to at this point. Republicans have made the mistake over the past 12 years screaming socialism and communism at anything and everything. It holds no weight at this point. They're just yelling into the wind.

By all means. If Sanders is the nominee just keep yelling about socialism without actually putting forth any solutions for the actual problems we face.

You have a false premise. To the Republicans, those aren't "actual problems" that need fixing. They aren't a bug, it's ̶f̶u̶c̶k̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶o̶r̶ ̶f̶u̶c̶k̶ ̶b̶r̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ a feature.

[Breccia]

Once again, it's time for Guess the Speaker!

This is not about personal behavior, and, without witnesses, that doesn't come out. You can have three days of lawyers talking to each other on both sides, 16 hours of question, and basically bore everybody to death, talk everybody to death; but when you have a witness who was there, who was engaged in it, who was in the middle of it telling you about what they were doing and why, that's a totally different case, and it's the difference between getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Funny story, that's Lindsey Graham. Oh, he was talking about Clinton, true, but it sure sounds like he was saying you need witnesses to get the truth. And, well, gosh, guess what happened afterwards?

Wanna see the video?

[Stormspark]

Which is sad because we need A LOT of Constitutional Amendments.

- Formalize the impeachment process, ensure that it's run like a proper trial with things like "witnesses" and "evidence."
- Force a timely confirmation vote when the President appoints a new SCOTUS candidate
- Ensure electoral oversight and transparency, remove FTPT
- Integrating the popular vote with the electoral vote or maybe even just removing the electoral vote.
- Prohibit any one with the last name "Trump" from ever holding office anywhere in government

Okay so the last one wasn't serious but there are a number of overhauls the Constitution could use.

And that stuff only has a chance if the November election is fair enough to put the country on the path toward democracy. If the Republicans somehow "win" this (they wouldn't win an actual election but we don't know how much control Russia still has over the voting systems), then it will be the last election and the country will be a dictatorship.