American Politics Impeachment: 2 fast? No, we're 2 furious

[Flarbinia]

History nor the constitution does not agree with your assessment. Sorry bud, Trump is shit out of luck this time.

You can't Impeach a private citizen, which is what President Trump will be come the 20th. Also, only ten Republicans have voted in favor of Impeachment. Nancy Pelosi needs seventeen to avoid an acquittal.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ch-a-form/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1693 ... rial-trump

https://afr.net/podcasts/focal-point/20 ... e-citizen/

https://federalinquirer.com/democrats-c ... ershowitz/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats ... 50853.html

https://www.citizensjournal.us/democrat ... ershowitz/

[Kannap]

Telling a guy to shut up on Twitter for saying a $15 minimum wage will mean $38 burritos at Taco Bell, love this world.

Though, coincidentally it made me Google the price of a Taco Bell burrito - $3.99 pre-tax, which if you make minimum wage in my state is about 33 minutes of labor. Work for half an hour and you can buy one burrito. Fucking outrageous.

The price of a burrito at Taco Bell in places like NYC that have $15 minimum wage, in case your curious, is still $3.99 pre-tax.

[No State Here]

The spark that began the collapse of the liberal American state

It's been collapsing for a long time, Trump's just a symptom.

Auth-Lib unity?!

[Atheris]

History nor the constitution does not agree with your assessment. Sorry bud, Trump is shit out of luck this time.

You can't Impeach a private citizen, which is what President Trump will be come the 20th. Also, only ten Republicans have voted in favor of Impeachment. Nancy Pelosi needs seventeen to avoid an acquittal.

There is historical president (get it?) for members of government being impeached after being removed from office.

[Omniabstracta]

History nor the constitution does not agree with your assessment. Sorry bud, Trump is shit out of luck this time.

You can't Impeach a private citizen, which is what President Trump will be come the 20th. Also, only ten Republicans have voted in favor of Impeachment. Nancy Pelosi needs seventeen to avoid an acquittal.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ch-a-form/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1693 ... rial-trump

https://afr.net/podcasts/focal-point/20 ... e-citizen/

https://federalinquirer.com/democrats-c ... ershowitz/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats ... 50853.html

https://www.citizensjournal.us/democrat ... ershowitz/

The number of Republicans in the House who voted to impeach is irrelevant. 67 Senators are what are needed to convict, several Republican Senators have already concurred with conviction, and the Republican senate leadership so far has been very open to the proposition.

As for the impeachment proposition, I’ll take established precedent, the text of the Constitution, and the words of the Republican Senate Majority Leader as an indication of what’s going to happen in the Senate over the words of the Epoch Times, thanks.

[Picairn]

You can't Impeach a private citizen, which is what President Trump will be come the 20th. Also, only ten Republicans have voted in favor of Impeachment. Nancy Pelosi needs seventeen to avoid an acquittal.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ch-a-form/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1693 ... rial-trump

https://afr.net/podcasts/focal-point/20 ... e-citizen/

https://federalinquirer.com/democrats-c ... ershowitz/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats ... 50853.html

https://www.citizensjournal.us/democrat ... ershowitz/

Actually, history shows we can. https://www.justsecurity.org/74226/hist ... es-office/

[Senkaku]

Nancy Pelosi needs seventeen to avoid an acquittal.

pro tip: "bicameral" doesn't just mean Congress owns two cameras

[Myrensis]

History nor the constitution does not agree with your assessment. Sorry bud, Trump is shit out of luck this time.

You can't Impeach a private citizen, which is what President Trump will be come the 20th. Also, only ten Republicans have voted in favor of Impeachment. Nancy Pelosi needs seventeen to avoid an acquittal.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ch-a-form/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1693 ... rial-trump

https://afr.net/podcasts/focal-point/20 ... e-citizen/

https://federalinquirer.com/democrats-c ... ershowitz/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats ... 50853.html

https://www.citizensjournal.us/democrat ... ershowitz/

Ah yes, Alan "Nothing the President does can be an impeachable offense as long as he believes that he really deserves to be President" Dershowitz.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

The House has all ready impeached Trump, 17 votes are needed in the Senate for a conviction. It's probably still a long shot, but the math is a bit different because Senators have to win Statewide elections, not just gerrymandered districts chock full of deranged Trumpists, and Trump has all ready successfully turned two states that have been reliably Republican for decades blue.

[Flarbinia]

Ah yes, Alan "Nothing the President does can be an impeachable offense as long as he believes that he really deserves to be President" Dershowitz.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

The House has all ready impeached Trump, 17 votes are needed in the Senate for a conviction. It's probably still a long shot, but the math is a bit different because Senators have to win Statewide elections, not just gerrymandered districts chock full of deranged Trumpists, and Trump has all ready successfully turned two states that have been reliably Republican for decades blue.

No. Georgia and Arizona only turned blue because of Dominion Voting Machines. Trump got acquitted by four votes the last time they impeached him and I highly doubt that any Republican who doesn't want to get voted out come the Primaries is not going to vote in favor of conviction.

[Senkaku]

Giuliani says he's working on Trump's impeachment defense, would argue voter fraud claims

You can’t be sentenced to death during an impeachment trial can you? Because with Rudy as the defense lawyer, I feel like that’s a possibility.

[Senkaku]

No. Georgia and Arizona only turned blue because of Dominion Voting Machines.

u sure abt that chief

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Even if that were true, idiots can cause a lot of damage if they get lucky, which they periodically do. And if it weren't true, and there were some surprisingly sharp and dangerous people out there laying their own plots, then you'd be cavalierly dismissing a threat that is almost certain to go on to bite us in the ass somewhere down the road.

Case in point: some anti 5G nutter blew up an entire city bloc just last month. If he had a different goal he easily could have killed hundreds of people or knocked out power for millions of people.

It's a touchy subject for me now, because I lost TWO nations in that thread.

I don't think we should call the perp "anti 5G" because the building he seems to have targeted was AT&T and there was a link to that specific company through the man's father. It's probably fair to say he was influenced by an emerging conspiracy cult, anti-internet I would say, of which the anti-5G folks are forward and visible, not least because they still use the internet itself. They're probably reacting in particular to new rollout because they feel the internet has "gone far enough" and should stop permeating further into everyone's lives. Mind control, deliberate infection (or vaccination!) etc are all crazy, but maybe there's a nub of truth there. People feel the internet has influenced or "controlled" their whole world and all non-cultists, and it feels to them like their own bodies are the last line of defense. Give me liberty, at least in my own mind, or give me two weeks in prison for trying to set fire to a telephone pole!

Ranting aside, there is a very clear distinction between the motorhome bomber, and the regular terrorist. Clearly avoiding killing people, is way out of character for terrorism, and I'm sure it's part of the message. "Stop Skynet, but never kill people. Not even those who work for skynet are guilty, because they're people too". And robots? Maybe they can be liberated and join the people. Or maybe they're too hard-wired, we'll have to see.

If I'm right, we may see so much of this "terrorism" in the future, that it would serve us to coin a new name for it. Finally I'll point out that the guy's target wasn't all that comparable to a power substation, which one could also bomb without immediate casualties. It's remotely possible that taking out phones and internet could lead to a death, but certainly it will cost a lot of people money and really inconvenience them. Taking out power to a suburb is almost certain to kill some people.

Costing people money and really inconveniencing them, is a crime, and obviously destroying a bunch of shop fronts is a crime. But I am rather insistent that we not use "terrorism" to describe violent protests, though they be crimes or not, which don't pose a serious risk to life or risk of injury. This one did, but I'm speaking more generally.

Some of Greenpeace's protests succeed in delaying a ship loading and making its port window, or destroy small but critical parts of a company's equipment, but are carefully planned not to risk lives. Even the more militant Sea Shepherd, tried to make whaling uneconomical without risking lives, until the Ady Gil incident when I ceased supporting them at all. The motivation is different, and the method of avoiding casualties instead of trying for them, follows from that. If "destructive protest" with this focus on costing government or businesses money, becomes more prevalent in the future, it needs to be treated differently (in prevention, management, and punishment) than old style terrorism. Only people can feel terror, and neither corporations nor government, are people.

[Senkaku]

Case in point: some anti 5G nutter blew up an entire city bloc just last month. If he had a different goal he easily could have killed hundreds of people or knocked out power for millions of people.

It's a touchy subject for me now, because I lost TWO nations in that thread.

I don't think we should call the perp "anti 5G" because the building he seems to have targeted was AT&T and there was a link to that specific company through the man's father. It's probably fair to say he was influenced by an emerging conspiracy cult, anti-internet I would say, of which the anti-5G folks are forward and visible, not least because they still use the internet itself. They're probably reacting in particular to new rollout because they feel the internet has "gone far enough" and should stop permeating further into everyone's lives. Mind control, deliberate infection (or vaccination!) etc are all crazy, but maybe there's a nub of truth there. People feel the internet has influenced or "controlled" their whole world and all non-cultists, and it feels to them like their own bodies are the last line of defense. Give me liberty, at least in my own mind, or give me two weeks in prison for trying to set fire to a telephone pole!

Ranting aside, there is a very clear distinction between the motorhome bomber, and the regular terrorist. Clearly avoiding killing people, is way out of character for terrorism, and I'm sure it's part of the message. "Stop Skynet, but never kill people. Not even those who work for skynet are guilty, because they're people too". And robots? Maybe they can be liberated and join the people. Or maybe they're too hard-wired, we'll have to see.

If I'm right, we may see so much of this "terrorism" in the future, that it would serve us to coin a new name for it. Finally I'll point out that the guy's target wasn't all that comparable to a power substation, which one could also bomb without immediate casualties. It's remotely possible that taking out phones and internet could lead to a death, but certainly it will cost a lot of people money and really inconvenience them. Taking out power to a suburb is almost certain to kill some people.

Costing people money and really inconveniencing them, is a crime, and obviously destroying a bunch of shop fronts is a crime. But I am rather insistent that we not use "terrorism" to describe violent protests, though they be crimes or not, which don't pose a serious risk to life or risk of injury. This one did, but I'm speaking more generally.

Some of Greenpeace's protests succeed in delaying a ship loading and making its port window, or destroy small but critical parts of a company's equipment, but are carefully planned not to risk lives. Even the more militant Sea Shepherd, tried to make whaling uneconomical without risking lives, until the Ady Gil incident when I ceased supporting them at all. The motivation is different, and the method of avoiding casualties instead of trying for them, follows from that. If "destructive protest" with this focus on costing government or businesses money, becomes more prevalent in the future, it needs to be treated differently (in prevention, management, and punishment) than old style terrorism.

I feel like it is not that hard to say "truck bomb attacks in major cities are terrorist acts" but you do you ig

Only people can feel terror, and neither corporations nor government, are people.

and what are corporations and governments comprised of?

[Omniabstracta]

Giuliani says he's working on Trump's impeachment defense, would argue voter fraud claims

You can’t be sentenced to death during an impeachment trial can you? Because with Rudy as the defense lawyer, I feel like that’s a possibility.

Consider this meme stolen

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Ah yes, Alan "Nothing the President does can be an impeachable offense as long as he believes that he really deserves to be President" Dershowitz.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

The House has all ready impeached Trump, 17 votes are needed in the Senate for a conviction. It's probably still a long shot, but the math is a bit different because Senators have to win Statewide elections, not just gerrymandered districts chock full of deranged Trumpists, and Trump has all ready successfully turned two states that have been reliably Republican for decades blue.

No. Georgia and Arizona only turned blue because of Dominion Voting Machines. Trump got acquitted by four votes the last time they impeached him and I highly doubt that any Republican who doesn't want to get voted out come the Primaries is not going to vote in favor of conviction.

Trump got acquitted yes, by nineteen votes though. Everything else in your post is wrong.

[Galloism]

Giuliani says he's working on Trump's impeachment defense, would argue voter fraud claims

You can’t be sentenced to death during an impeachment trial can you? Because with Rudy as the defense lawyer, I feel like that’s a possibility.

Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking about when I said it (without the photoshop, but yes).

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

You can't Impeach a private citizen, which is what President Trump will be come the 20th. Also, only ten Republicans have voted in favor of Impeachment. Nancy Pelosi needs seventeen to avoid an acquittal.

There is historical president (get it?) for members of government being impeached after being removed from office.

You should just fix your typos, instead of pretending they're puns. That was horrible

[Senkaku]

Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking about when I said it (without the photoshop, but yes).

I mean couldn't they technically do that if they wanted to? Sort of an assassination of Caesar type situation? I'm struggling to think of who would stop them lol

[Galloism]

Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking about when I said it (without the photoshop, but yes).

I mean couldn't they technically do that if they wanted to? Sort of an assassination of Caesar type situation? I'm struggling to think of who would stop them lol

They might be charged for murder in court?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Yes, that was exactly what I was thinking about when I said it (without the photoshop, but yes).

Technically you can't be sentenced to death in an impeachment trial.

But what about Contempt of Court? The presiding officer is Roberts, who seems a very level headed man, but maybe he's quite different in a "court" where most of the others have never even passed the bar. Maybe he does have a Hulk Mode, we've just never seen it?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

There's a tipping point for timid anti-Trumpers in the Senate.

If they vote to convict, and it succeeds, that alone vastly reduces Trump's influence in future elections. If a vote to disqualify Trump succeeds, they have even less to fear from Trump venge.

If they vote to convict and it fails though, they will live in fear. 5-10 of them will have to defend their place in 2022, and about the same number in 2024. The small number is BAD, because Trump can focus his primary campaign vengeance on just those states.

17 Republicans to convict, assuming no Dems vote to acquit. Considering the above, those have to come from non-swing states, ie very Republican states. I really can't see them getting up to 10, and if they can't then there will be no timid followers. I think Impeachment 2 is a nothingburger.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Uncle Ho and Tito were the only good commies in the Cold War. I wish we helped Ho Chi Minh, honestly; he had a great deal of respect for the US and would've been a nice ally in SE Asia.

Tito was a Moscow stooge.

Maybe. But the best of the stooges, wouldn't you say?

[Comerciante]

Ahh ok, the US shouldn't stop terrorists until the terrorists attack the US, or anyone else for that matter. Guess the US shouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany.

No, honestly. There was no reason for American involvement in WWII, or World War I for that matter.

You may have a point for WW1 but WW2? Well, the Polish, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Jewish, the Homosexual Community, the Russians, the British, the Germans, all the Heads of State that voted for it might disagree with you.

[Omniabstracta]

Ahh ok, the US shouldn't stop terrorists until the terrorists attack the US, or anyone else for that matter. Guess the US shouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany.

No, honestly. There was no reason for American involvement in WWII, or World War I for that matter.

Because a direct attack by one nation and a declaration of war from another is no reason to get involved, obviously

[The Reformed American Republic]

History nor the constitution does not agree with your assessment. Sorry bud, Trump is shit out of luck this time.

You can't Impeach a private citizen, which is what President Trump will be come the 20th. Also, only ten Republicans have voted in favor of Impeachment. Nancy Pelosi needs seventeen to avoid an acquittal.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... ch-a-form/

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1693 ... rial-trump

https://afr.net/podcasts/focal-point/20 ... e-citizen/

https://federalinquirer.com/democrats-c ... ershowitz/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democrats ... 50853.html

https://www.citizensjournal.us/democrat ... ershowitz/

Trump propaganda.