Politics Thread

[Lloyd Braun]

to be the 10,000th post.

Burma Shave

I’m biased but I still think post #6969 is the greatest post in this thread (not a high bar).

[Strange Brew]

50 targets were attacked in Syria in 2020. Who was Pres?

Boots on the ground in Xiden’s Syria misadventure. No blood for oil! Peace over hate! Xiden is Darth Vader! Xiden only attacking because they’re minorities!

I’m sure I missed some of the oldie but goodie lefty slogans.

[bjf123]

The first 2 days of Biden tells us all about the next 4 years:
-A puppet marshmallow brained executive being spoon fed his agenda by his VP.
-Said executive being propped up at a desk in photo ops to sign EO’s prepared by his VP. Takes no questions.
-No public press conferences by said executive. Only his Press Secretary appears. On any tough questions she defers with no answers but says “I’ll have to get back to you on that” (She never does)
- Biden leaves all agenda work to his Congressional minions. Stays away from the fray, but is propped up in a chair to sign minion legislation. Takes no questions.
-Biden appears occasionally on TV with only pre-canned speeches in an empty room. Answers no questions.
Huh. Looks just like the campaign.
The definition of “Democracy Dying in Darkness”.

And the press will never press him on any of this. We’re going to see nothing but softball and hanging curve ball questions for the foreseeable future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Masterofreality]

to be the 10,000th post.

Burma Shave

I’ll give you that one.
Quality post.

[Strange Brew]

Schumer impeaching Trump because he incited an erection. I’m just going to stiffly not comment and let it hang out there.

[bjf123]

to be the 10,000th post.

Burma Shave

Nicely done! Congrats. Bonus points for the Burma Shave reference.


I’m biased but I still think post #6969 is the greatest post in this thread (not a high bar).

Public reps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noteggs]

Schumer impeaching Trump because he incited an erection. I’m just going to stiffly not comment and let it hang out there.

Think he inadvertently referenced Bill Clinton

[Masterofreality]

The Pravda type news spinning is here!!! Welcome to #BidensUSA . Not just censorship but total news control up here in the Cuyahoga Socialist State!
“ "The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer is now trying to remove problematic content even before someone petitions them to do so. Google awarded the paper a $200,000 grant in December to develop digital tools to help them identify those stories and photos."

[bobbiemcgee]

Schumer impeaching Trump because he incited an erection.

I'm sure Melania would disagree.

[paulxu]

The Pravda type news spinning is here!!! Welcome to #BidensUSA . Not just censorship but total news control up here in the Cuyahoga Socialist State!
“ "The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer is now trying to remove problematic content even before someone petitions them to do so. Google awarded the paper a $200,000 grant in December to develop digital tools to help them identify those stories and photos."

It sounds like there are at least some good reasons for their efforts...trying to remove damaging stories from decades ago when people have turned their lives around.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/12/our-right-to-be-forgotten-policy-is-about-to-help-a-whole-lot-more-people-thanks-to-google.html

[paulxu]

The Trump presidency began with a stupid lie: his inauguration crowd was larger, making his press secretary repeat it the first day despite photographic evidence to the contrary.
It proceeded through 25,000 documented lies, tearing apart the fabric of our country that needs truth and facts.
It ended with the biggest lie of all...that the election had been stolen; despite 60 court cases, countless re-counts, and his own justice department saying it was a free and fair election
In last ditch efforts he tried to get the DOJ and the GA Secretary of State to stop the Georgia certification, supported lawsuits in other venues, and the Supreme Court refused his pleas.
Desperate to hold on to power, he asked his Vice President to change the election as certified electoral votes were counted.
When Pence refused, he supported groups to organize a rally where he and other deluded supporters urged a march to the Capitol to stop the steal.
The presidential historian Michael Beschloss summed it up the best:

“This is the only president in American history who incited an insurrection against Congress that could have resulted in assassinations and hostage-taking and, conceivably, the cancellation of a free presidential election and the fracturing of a democracy,” Michael Beschloss, the presidential historian, told me. “That’s a fact, and it won’t change in 50 years. It’s very hard to think of a scenario under which someone might imagine some wonderful thing that Donald Trump did that will outshine that. He did, literally, the worst thing that an American president could ever do.”


No matter what comes next, the country will be better off than it could have been if he had been re-elected.
Now we'll see if the honest Republicans in the Senate can assure us of him not returning to cause more damage.
The people who were conned by him will heal over time.

[bobbiemcgee]

https://time.com/magazine/

[Masterofreality]

It sounds like there are at least some good reasons for their efforts...trying to remove damaging stories from decades ago when people have turned their lives around.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/12/our-right-to-be-forgotten-policy-is-about-to-help-a-whole-lot-more-people-thanks-to-google.html

Cleveland dot com is the Plain Dealer's on line nom de plume. Of course they would parrot their Parent. Insidious Censorship to silence and suppress stories. But Leftist Paul, of course sees something else.

[Masterofreality]

The Trump presidency began with a stupid lie: his inauguration crowd was larger, making his press secretary repeat it the first day despite photographic evidence to the contrary.
It proceeded through 25,000 documented lies, tearing apart the fabric of our country that needs truth and facts.
It ended with the biggest lie of all...that the election had been stolen; despite 60 court cases, countless re-counts, and his own justice department saying it was a free and fair election
In last ditch efforts he tried to get the DOJ and the GA Secretary of State to stop the Georgia certification, supported lawsuits in other venues, and the Supreme Court refused his pleas.
Desperate to hold on to power, he asked his Vice President to change the election as certified electoral votes were counted.
When Pence refused, he supported groups to organize a rally where he and other deluded supporters urged a march to the Capitol to stop the steal.
The presidential historian Michael Beschloss summed it up the best:


No matter what comes next, the country will be better off than it could have been if he had been re-elected.
Now we'll see if the honest Republicans in the Senate can assure us of him not returning to cause more damage.
The people who were conned by him will heal over time.

One Trick Paul returns. Time to retire, Paul...to the couch, for a nap, like your hero Sleepy Joe. Trump is gone, yet "He Persisted".
And Biden has already lied four times in his first day.
By the way. Constitutionally, you cannot Impeach a Private Citizen which is what Trump became at 1:00pm on January 20. That is why Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to make himself a part of this sham. This is performance art. By the way. There was no "incitement". Read the text of his speech. And read reports of how "various edge groups" planned on disrupting DC for days before the rally ever started. Wow, sounds a lot like people storming the Capitol when Bret Kavanaugh was being considered. #Preplanned

[Masterofreality]

https://time.com/magazine/

And he's already failed. Just couldn't stop with the Race Card, trying to resurrect division with Critical Race theory, talking about Vaccine "equity" not "equality" and favoring his favorite allegedly "oppressed" groups. Way to promote unity!!

[STL_XUfan]

Constitutionally, you cannot Impeach a Private Citizen which is what Trump became at 1:00pm on January 20. That is why Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to make himself a part of this sham. This is performance art. By the way.

Wherever you are getting your legal advice on impeachment, you should find a better source.

You are correct that you cannot impeach a private citizen, but the issue is that he was already impeached while he was still president.

Second the constitution provides that the impeachment trial of a sitting president will be presided over by the Chief Justice. Trump is no longer the sitting president so CJ Roberts is not required to preside over the trial.

Source Art. I Sec. 3.: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

[Strange Brew]

I'm sure Melania would disagree.

You have problems..

[Strange Brew]

Wherever you are getting your legal advice on impeachment, you should find a better source.

You are correct that you cannot impeach a private citizen, but the issue is that he was already impeached while he was still president.

Second the constitution provides that the impeachment trial of a sitting president will be presided over by the Chief Justice. Trump is no longer the sitting president so CJ Roberts is not required to preside over the trial.

Source Art. I Sec. 3.: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

He was impeached. Two time champ! Holla!

He can’t be tried by the Senate. It is theatre like most of the left except, you know the riots. Still happening btw.

[STL_XUfan]

He was impeached. Two time champ! Holla!

He can’t be tried by the Senate. It is theatre like most of the left except, you know the riots. Still happening btw.
He can be tried by the Senate. Senate has the right to bar him from holding any further office.

[paulxu]

Cleveland dot com is the Plain Dealer's on line nom de plume. Of course they would parrot their Parent. Insidious Censorship to silence and suppress stories. But Leftist Paul, of course sees something else.

I'm guessing you never read that article, or actually know what they are doing.
They are talking about retiring decades old news about people who have reformed their lives. Not censorship of someone saying something.
Read the article.

[bjf123]

I'm guessing you never read that article, or actually know what they are doing.
They are talking about retiring decades old news about people who have reformed their lives. Not censorship of someone saying something.
Read the article.

My question would be are they only retiring old news about people of a particular political persuasion who’ve reformed their lives, or everyone? I’m guessing it’s not a bipartisan purge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

He can be tried by the Senate. Senate has the right to bar him from holding any further office.

I’ll have to reread the Constitution but I don’t believe the Legislative branch was given that power by the States. Could be wrong. Hope not. It sets a dangerous and scary precedent for future office holders.

For example, a future Congress could decide to impeach and hold a trial for Obama’s execution of an American citizen (a total dirtbag) without due process.

[Strange Brew]

In case you missed it and judging by the media coverage you did. Research NGFS and I apologize for ruining your weekend in advance.

[Strange Brew]

In other news. Leftist riot in Ohio Catholic Church.

Anybody woking up to the problem yet?

[STL_XUfan]

I’ll have to reread the Constitution but I don’t believe the Legislative branch was given that power by the States. Could be wrong. Hope not. It sets a dangerous and scary precedent for future office holders.

For example, a future Congress could decide to impeach and hold a trial for Obama’s execution of an American citizen (a total dirtbag) without due process.

No need to reread as my post you quoted had the provision in it.

Here it is again: Art. I Sec. 3.: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

[bobbiemcgee]

SB has some reading comprehension problems for sure.

[bobbiemcgee]

In other news. Leftist riot in Ohio Catholic Church.

Anybody woking up to the problem yet?

Orthodox Church of America suspended him.

[Masterofreality]

No need to reread as my post you quoted had the provision in it.

Here it is again: Art. I Sec. 3.: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

In answer to your slam at me above, the boldened words in your post above prove my point. “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall extend no further than to removal from Office.... Trump is not in office. He cannot be removed. He’s already gone. Without a person in office to be removed there is nothing. Nothing after that matters. It’s all irrelevant and performative. That is why John Roberts wants nothing to do with this travesty.

[STL_XUfan]

In answer to your slam at me above, the boldened words in your post above prove my point. “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall extend no further than to removal from Office.... Trump is not in office. He cannot be removed. He’s already gone. Without a person in office to be removed there is nothing. Nothing after that matters. It’s all irrelevant and performative. That is why John Roberts wants nothing to do with this travesty.

You strangely choose to cut out the remainder of the sentence: “and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”

[bjf123]

You strangely choose to cut out the remainder of the sentence: “and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States”

Depends on what your definition of “and” is, and if the two options are linked as one result, or if they stand separate and unique. That’s something the attorneys on both sides will be arguing.

I think if it said or disqualification, you could make a case for the impeachment of a President no longer in office. I interpret it such that the “and” joins the two penalties as one that can’t be separated, or at least that you can’t add the second penalty without having also done the first. But then I’m not an attorney, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobbiemcgee]

In answer to your slam at me above, the boldened words in your post above prove my point. “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall extend no further than to removal from Office.... Trump is not in office. He cannot be removed. He’s already gone. Without a person in office to be removed there is nothing. Nothing after that matters. It’s all irrelevant and performative. That is why John Roberts wants nothing to do with this travesty.

Belknap wasn't in office either:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm#:~:text=This% 20failed%20to%20stop%20the,his%20lust%20for%20priv ate%20gain.%E2%80%9D

[Masterofreality]

I'm guessing you never read that article, or actually know what they are doing.
They are talking about retiring decades old news about people who have reformed their lives. Not censorship of someone saying something.
Read the article.

You guess wrong. I read it and vehemently disagree with it. People are responsible for their actions and that responsibility extends forever. No story of fact should ever be scrubbed. NEVER. How would you feel if Josef Goebbles was in Argentina 20 years after WW2 and has “reformed his life” and was feeding homeless people. Should the horrors of his time in Germany be “retired”? If Donald Trump, your favorite guy to rail on, “reformed his life” and donated millions of dollars to, say, Child Cancer Cures, and it succeeded, should all past stories about Trump be “retired” I would believe you would think not so your position is totally falsely premised and disingenuous.
And this is becoming a trend in “news” providers. For example:
Reason (which actually does real journalism) found that the Washington Post had scrubbed a story that painted Kamala Harris in an unfavorable light, but it was “updated” for later editions to make it more favorable to Harris even though the original story was factually true. It should be a scandal, just like scrubbing stories in the Plain Dealer is a scandal. Facts are facts and what people have done in the past don’t just disappear.
This whole movement is BS. Period. The “Right to be Forgotten” is not a “Right”. It’s a created crock of crap. I don’t think that felonies are “forgotten” on criminal records. It. Is. Trash.

Finally. Google is actually giving cash to newspapers to help fund this mess. The Boston Globe is involved with this too.
I don’t think you or anybody else wants Google being the arbiter of who or what stories are left in and what is “forgotten”.
Especially when Google are actively canceling and censoring free speech. That can play both ways.,

[Masterofreality]

Belknap wasn't in office either:
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/War_Secretarys_Impeachment_Trial.htm#:~:text=This% 20failed%20to%20stop%20the,his%20lust%20for%20priv ate%20gain.%E2%80%9D

“Belknap won acquittal” (Shoulder shrug)
As a result the case and the verdicts was never challenged in the Supreme Court. The Constitution provision stands.

[bobbiemcgee]

“Belknap won acquittal” (Shoulder shrug)
As a result the case and the verdicts was never challenged in the Supreme Court. The Constitution provision stands.

yes. He was acquitted as trump may be. The point being he was impeached after leaving office. it has happened. Precedent.

[Masterofreality]

yes. He was acquitted as trump may be. The point being he was impeached after leaving office. it has happened. Precedent.

There is no “precedent” because it was never adjudicated in front of a court. It was and this IS a partisan waste of time that does zero. But the Dems can’t move on. How’s that for moving on to “Unity”?
And you’ve never answered why John Roberts wants no part of this sham. It’s Unconstitutional and will be found so.
Stop this performance and actually do your job in the middle of a pandemic.

[bobbiemcgee]

The Constitution states that 'When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside.'

[tacopizza885]

https://youtu.be/rW8OKtSGjMg

Long live Justin Amash.

[Strange Brew]

No need to reread as my post you quoted had the provision in it.

Here it is again: Art. I Sec. 3.: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Tough to try the President who is no longer President. He’s a private citizen. There’s the issue. Also, the CJ has indicated he will not preside over/hear the case. And not likely to get 2/3 of Senate to convict.

So, again. Another waste of time by morons.

[Strange Brew]

Orthodox Church of America suspended him.

Talk about a reading comprehension problem.

[paulxu]

MOR, thanks for reading. Your examples make some sense.
But you are wrong about some crimes, even felonies.
They can be "sealed" records, whereby no public access is allowed to the records.
And, they (felonies in some instances, as well as juvenile records) can be "expunged" and completely erased. (after sentences are completed and some time certain has passed).
https://www.dfm-law.com/blog/2019/09/new-expungement-law-in-ohio-what-you-should-know/

It sounds to me on reading the article, they are endeavoring to apply the same approach, but I could be wrong.
Changing an old news article if facts are dropped, I would agree as in your example, would be wrong.

As to "impeachment," the former president has already been impeached. Noting the Senate does will change that.
Whether he will be tried/convicted/acquitted remains to be seen. The "and" wording would seem to be the sticking point.
For sure I hope he's held accountable for his actions.
Mitch having the trial delayed may work against him, as more information comes out about him trying to illegally change the election results.

[STL_XUfan]

Tough to try the President who is no longer President. He’s a private citizen. There’s the issue. Also, the CJ has indicated he will not preside over/hear the case. And not likely to get 2/3 of Senate to convict.

So, again. Another waste of time by morons.

You do realize that the President isn’t the only person that can be impeached right?

The President, while President, was impeached by the house. It is now up to the senate to hold the trial to decide if they should convict. One of the penalties they are allowed to impose is barring the person from holding further office, which makes sense since anyone that was impeached could avoid conviction by simply resigning and then being reappointed or running for election again.

As far as the CJ, he is only required to preside over the trial when the sitting president is on trial because the sitting VP would have a conflict of interest (Since a conviction would promote the VP to president). No such conflict exists for the current president of the senate (VP Harris) to preside over the trial.

[Strange Brew]

You do realize that the President isn’t the only person that can be impeached right?

The President, while President, was impeached by the house. It is now up to the senate to hold the trial to decide if they should convict. One of the penalties they are allowed to impose is barring the person from holding further office, which makes sense since anyone that was impeached could avoid conviction by simply resigning and then being reappointed or running for election again.

As far as the CJ, he is only required to preside over the trial when the sitting president is on trial because the sitting VP would have a conflict of interest (Since a conviction would promote the VP to president). No such conflict exists for the current president of the senate (VP Harris) to preside over the trial.

MOR already answered on the penalties and the CJ presides per the Constitution. But sounds like he’s not having it.

[XU '11]

One of the penalties they are allowed to impose is barring the person from holding further office, which makes sense since anyone that was impeached could avoid conviction by simply resigning and then being reappointed or running for election again.

Hm. I disagree with this. Impeachment is there so that if the president (or whoever) does something so egregious part-way through their term, the representatives of the people (Congressmen) can say this was a mistake and you need to leave. If the person can still win another election, banning them from running again clearly isn’t the will of the people. I’m not saying the will of the people is always correct, but taking that option away isn’t typically what free democracies do...

[Masterofreality]

MOR, thanks for reading. Your examples make some sense.
But you are wrong about some crimes, even felonies.
They can be "sealed" records, whereby no public access is allowed to the records.
And, they (felonies in some instances, as well as juvenile records) can be "expunged" and completely erased. (after sentences are completed and some time certain has passed).
https://www.dfm-law.com/blog/2019/09/new-expungement-law-in-ohio-what-you-should-know/

It sounds to me on reading the article, they are endeavoring to apply the same approach, but I could be wrong.
Changing an old news article if facts are dropped, I would agree as in your example, would be wrong.

As to "impeachment," the former president has already been impeached. Noting the Senate does will change that.
Whether he will be tried/convicted/acquitted remains to be seen. The "and" wording would seem to be the sticking point.
For sure I hope he's held accountable for his actions.
Mitch having the trial delayed may work against him, as more information comes out about him trying to illegally change the election results.

Can you be more wrong...on everything?
I'm not going back into everything you've said. My already made points stand.
But "Mitch" did not delay an impeachment HEARING, not trial. Not a Trial because John Roberts has already said he will NOT preside. He sees the sham.
Mitch and Schumer agreed to delay the hearing. And there is absolutely no evidence of McConnell trying to change election results.
Stop reading Vox and Buzzfeed

[paulxu]

I'm pretty sure I'm right about criminal records being expunged (note the article).
The former president has already been "impeached" while in office. That is a fact, and assumedly will stay as such.
What becomes in the trial is yet to be determined.
Apologize for my pronoun confusion; in noting "him" trying to change election results, I was referring to Trump, not McConnell.
There's ample evidence he tried to do just that. In, and of itself, a federal crime.
Perhaps he'll be called to account on those activities now that he has left office, and no longer protected by an OLC opinion.

ps. I don't read Buzzfeed or Vox. I note the following for reference on the trial:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-the-senate-can-try-trump-11611356881

[STL_XUfan]

But "Mitch" did not delay an impeachment HEARING, not trial. Not a Trial because John Roberts has already said he will NOT preside. He sees the sham.
Mitch and Schumer agreed to delay the hearing.

I am lost at your line or reasoning. If Roberts decides not to preside over the trial, that would mean that he agrees the term president is limited to the sitting president and therefore he is not required to preside over the trial. However, you seem to be arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has express veto power over all presidential impeachments? That if he simply refuses to show up, then the Senate has no power to impeach the President. This would pose a gigantic separation of powers issues (likely resolved with the impeachment and removal of the Chief Justice).

On the hearing vs. trial semantics, there is no difference. An impeachment trial is basically whatever the Senate decides is an impeachment trial. The constitution gives sole power over impeachment trials to the Senate and no other branch. This was the question before the court in Nixon v. United States (different Nixon) and it was the unanimous decision of the Court that the judiciary has no inherit right to review the hearing procedures established by the Senate as it would violate the separation of powers.

The more interesting question to me is whether or not the president being out of office renders the issue moot. I do not think it does, but I could see it being raised in good faith as an argument. If tested, I think the courts it would defer to majority decision of the Senate on the issue for the same reasons as provided in Nixon v. US.

As far as the question raised by XU '11, I agree that I feel queazy allowing congress to disqualify who the voters can vote for. However, the language of impeachment clause seems fairly clear on the issue that they hold that power. Further, this power to disqualify who can run for office was actually expanded by the 14th amendment.

[Strange Brew]

I am lost at your line or reasoning. If Roberts decides not to preside over the trial, that would mean that he agrees the term president is limited to the sitting president and therefore he is not required to preside over the trial. However, you seem to be arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has express veto power over all presidential impeachments? That if he simply refuses to show up, then the Senate has no power to impeach the President. This would pose a gigantic separation of powers issues (likely resolved with the impeachment and removal of the Chief Justice).

On the hearing vs. trial semantics, there is no difference. An impeachment trial is basically whatever the Senate decides is an impeachment trial. The constitution gives sole power over impeachment trials to the Senate and no other branch. This was the question before the court in Nixon v. United States (different Nixon) and it was the unanimous decision of the Court that the judiciary has no inherit right to review the hearing procedures established by the Senate as it would violate the separation of powers.

The more interesting question to me is whether or not the president being out of office renders the issue moot. I do not think it does, but I could see it being raised in good faith as an argument. If tested, I think the courts it would defer to majority decision of the Senate on the issue for the same reasons as provided in Nixon v. US.

As far as the question raised by XU '11, I agree that I feel queazy allowing congress to disqualify who the voters can vote for. However, the language of impeachment clause seems fairly clear on the issue that they hold that power. Further, this power to disqualify who can run for office was actually expanded by the 14th amendment.

It is why there is SOP among the branches. The Congress can overreach in this case and the Judicial can check and balance that overreach. Basics..

[Masterofreality]

I am lost at your line or reasoning. If Roberts decides not to preside over the trial, that would mean that he agrees the term president is limited to the sitting president and therefore he is not required to preside over the trial. However, you seem to be arguing that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has express veto power over all presidential impeachments? That if he simply refuses to show up, then the Senate has no power to impeach the President. This would pose a gigantic separation of powers issues (likely resolved with the impeachment and removal of the Chief Justice).

On the hearing vs. trial semantics, there is no difference. An impeachment trial is basically whatever the Senate decides is an impeachment trial. The constitution gives sole power over impeachment trials to the Senate and no other branch. This was the question before the court in Nixon v. United States (different Nixon) and it was the unanimous decision of the Court that the judiciary has no inherit right to review the hearing procedures established by the Senate as it would violate the separation of powers.

The more interesting question to me is whether or not the president being out of office renders the issue moot. I do not think it does...

Nixon & Trump are totally different situations. If you are “lost” it’s because you want to be and don’t want to see clearly.
Nixon was still in office. Then resigned and so there was no legal precedent. As Strange Brew said below the SOP is definitely designed to prevent overreach. Hence, as an example, the Presidential veto.
And you answered your own “lost” question. The Biased House can do anything they want, including performative, time wasting actions then foist it over on the Senate. A true Constitutionally compliant Impeachment hearing requires that the Chief Justice preside, not a politically biased actor like Harris. The Senate can do whatever they do, but the fact remains is that there is no “defendant” to be removed from office. Roberts sees this trash and wants no part of it. So even if Harris is a tie breaker vote. The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court, will be found to be invalid & unConstitutional and the High Court will override it.
-No valid defendant per the Constitution
-No valid presider per the Constitution

Actions are irrelevant and performative. All for political points.
Abhorrent for country unity.

[bobbiemcgee]

So Roberts on the SCOTUS will vote on his own wussiness?

[Masterofreality]

By the way. Sure glad Dementia Joe had that “We’ll immediately change the course of the Pandemic” definitive statements during the campaign. Then Friday Joe, who obviously can’t remember yesterday, says “There’s nothing we can do to change the course of the Pandemic during the next several months. “

Ha. Lies, begin. Keep Track Paul since you were so diligent with the last President’s alleged mistruths.

[bjf123]

By the way. Sure glad Dementia Joe had that “We’ll immediately change the course of the Pandemic” definitive statements during the campaign. Then Friday Joe, who obviously can’t remember yesterday, says “There’s nothing we can do to change the course of the Pandemic during the next several months. “

Ha. Lies, begin. Keep Track Paul since you were so diligent with the last President’s alleged mistruths.

I wonder if the media will challenge him on that? Oh, wait. That’s right. Joe doesn’t actually take tough questions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bobbiemcgee]

By the way. Sure glad Dementia Joe had that “We’ll immediately change the course of the Pandemic” definitive statements during the campaign. Then Friday Joe, who obviously can’t remember yesterday, says “There’s nothing we can do to change the course of the Pandemic during the next several months. “ .

I think he's doing what he can. He was left a big mess. Also said it would be a "dark winter" a few hundred times.Is it Winter? Palm tress on Lake Erie?

[paulxu]

Ha. Lies, begin. Keep Track Paul since you were so diligent with the last President’s alleged mistruths.

If he gets anywhere close to "the greatest of all presidents" at 25,000+, I'm all over it. No worries.

I note the Wall Street Journal article again in case you missed it:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-the-senate-can-try-trump-11611356881

Perhaps they've turned into a left wing opinion site?

[Masterofreality]

I think he's doing what he can. He was left a big mess. Also said it would be a "dark winter" a few hundred times.Is it Winter? Palm tress on Lake Erie?

"A big Mess".

Vaccine in record time. Already more than 1,000,000 vacs a day. Joe's "objective" was already in place before he ever was inaugurated.
Yeah. Glad we have that mess. We've already gotten our vaccs. No issues.

Where's the mess, other than the fake stories foisted by fake media?

[Masterofreality]

If he gets anywhere close to "the greatest of all presidents" at 25,000+, I'm all over it. No worries.

I note the Wall Street Journal article again in case you missed it:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/yes-the-senate-can-try-trump-11611356881

Perhaps they've turned into a left wing opinion site?

Anybody can do anything. Whittington assumes that it is a valid hearing presided by The Chief Justice. Roberts wants no part of it.
Alan Derschowitz says differently as to whether there can be a legit hearing. Any decision by the Senate after appeal would never stand.

Why don't you and your idols, move on and worry about the country going forward, and stop destroying jobs in a pandemic? Your Boogie Man Trump can't hurt you anymore, little boy.
Performative

[paulxu]

Yikes. He was the "greatest" ever. 30,573!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-fact-checker-tracked-trump-claims/2021/01/23/ad04b69a-5c1d-11eb-a976-bad6431e03e2_story.html

Joe's got his work cut out for him.

[STL_XUfan]

Nixon & Trump are totally different situations. If you are “lost” it’s because you want to be and don’t want to see clearly.
Nixon was still in office. Then resigned and so there was no legal precedent. As Strange Brew said below the SOP is definitely designed to prevent overreach. Hence, as an example, the Presidential veto.
And you answered your own “lost” question. The Biased House can do anything they want, including performative, time wasting actions then foist it over on the Senate. A true Constitutionally compliant Impeachment hearing requires that the Chief Justice preside, not a politically biased actor like Harris. The Senate can do whatever they do, but the fact remains is that there is no “defendant” to be removed from office. Roberts sees this trash and wants no part of it. So even if Harris is a tie breaker vote. The decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court, will be found to be invalid & unConstitutional and the High Court will override it.
-No valid defendant per the Constitution
-No valid presider per the Constitution

Actions are irrelevant and performative. All for political points.
Abhorrent for country unity.

Based on this rant it is clear that you do not understand the process.

First, not sure where President Nixon was raised. The case I was referring to was a 1993 case involving a Federal judge named Nixon, hence my parenthetical to make that clear.

Second, why do you think Harris gets a vote on impeachment? Her only involvement is that she might preside over the case. She would not have a vote on whether to convict or not.

Third, an impeachment hearing doesn’t require the Chief Justice to preside over it, only an impeachment involving a president. Whether that is sitting or not, I guess still has to be litigated. But if it is decided that it must be the Chief Justice, then he will preside over it as he is constitutionally required to do. If it is decided that it only applies to a sitting president, then someone else selected by the senate will preside over the trial (possibly Harris, but I doubt it)

Fourth, and this is where it does get confusing and wonky. There is no inherit right to an appeal an impeachment to the Supreme Court (or any other court). The reason being is that impeachment is the legislative check on the other branches of government. This is intended to be, and is, a political trial not a judicial trial. That isn’t to say you cannot try (hence the case law in Nixon vs. US). The court in Nixon (the federal judge) made it clear that they have the right as the ultimate interpreter of the constitution to decide something is unconstitutional but are unwilling to step in to interfere in the rights given solely to the senate in the constitution as it would interfere in the legislative branches check on the executive and judicial branches. So outside of a blatant violation (such as a rule to decide impeachment with a coin flip), they will not interfere as it is a political question and therefore non-justiciable.

[bobbiemcgee]

"A big Mess".

Vaccine in record time. Already more than 1,000,000 vacs a day. Joe's "objective" was already in place before he ever was inaugurated.
Yeah. Glad we have that mess. We've already gotten our vaccs. No issues.

Where's the mess, other than the fake stories foisted by fake media?

Thanks scientists. trump was rated 42nd in this survey which was before his 2 impeachments. Hahah, the guy who caught cold and died after his swearing in did better:
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Presidents-2018-Rank-by-Category.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/politics/trump-presidential-history.html

As the article states, he was a colossal failure @ Covid.

[Smails]

He was left a big mess.

Get ready to hear this over and over and over again for the next few years. Every time sleepy Joe steps on his dick or fails to deliver on his promises, this is what we'll get.

[xuwillie]

Yeah I mean people/media also said Obama left Trump with a big mess.

[GoMuskies]

Yeah I mean people/media also said Obama left Trump with a big mess.

Who said that? OAN?

[boozehound]

Yeah I mean people/media also said Obama left Trump with a big mess.

Exactly. It's what every incoming President does. It's a way of trying to lower expectations. Democrats said that Bush left Obama a complete mess (remember the financial crisis?). Republicans said that Obama left Trump a mess (Trump himself said it repeatedly for like 2 years). Now the Biden administration is going blame the Trump administration.

It's standard operating procedure.

[boozehound]

Who said that? OAN?

Trump did. Repeatedly. Not sure if any news outlets did, though. Unless they were just quoting him.

I certainly don't think CNN et al. gave that story much airtime.

[paulxu]

Your Boogie Man Trump can't hurt you anymore, little boy.
Performative

MOR, what's with the name calling? Certainly we can have discussions about issues without that.
Reserve the name calling for the politicians we don't like.

[GoMuskies]

Reserve the name calling for the politicians

And, of course, former Xavier coaches who are demonstrably assholes.

[bobbiemcgee]

Every time sleepy Joe steps on his dick or fails to deliver on his promises, this is what we'll get.

69% of Americans support his covid response after 5 days. Good start. trump had his head in the sand for 11 months. "Hoax".
Guess you ain't one of them.

[paulxu]

And, of course, former Xavier coaches who are demonstrably assholes.

Hah!

Regarding the great divide in our country, this is a lengthy article with a lot of research citing into where we find ourselves today.
Would recommend it if you have a few extra minutes. Especially with the emphasis on how difficult it will be to bridge the divide and the history driving our problems.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-radicalized-republic/#part1

[94GRAD]

69% of Americans support his covid response after 5 days. Good start. trump had his head in the sand for 11 months. "Hoax".
Guess you ain't one of them.

#Nice

[Smails]

69% of Americans support his covid response after 5 days. Good start. trump had his head in the sand for 11 months. "Hoax".
Guess you ain't one of them.

This is completely asinine but not surprising considering the source. What exactly has he done in 5 days that would illicit such a positive response, besides not being Donald Trump? I can't believe you actually think that a favorability score after a whopping 5 days in office has any real validity. I am no fan of our early response to the pandemic, so I'm not sure where you got that from but keep being you Bobbie.

[boozehound]

This is completely asinine but not surprising considering the source. What exactly has he done in 5 days that would illicit such a positive response, besides not being Donald Trump? I can't believe you actually think that a favorability score after a whopping 5 days in office has any real validity. I am no fan of our early response to the pandemic, so I'm not sure where you got that from but keep being you Bobbie.

Not being Donald Trump was pretty much the entire platform that he ran on.

[GoMuskies]

Not being Donald Trump was pretty much the entire platform that he ran on.

I mean, that's a good platform.

[Smails]

I mean, that's a good platform.

Couldn't agree more. It was a slam dunk strategy.

You could send an approval poll out pertaining to Biden's response to the Canadian invasion of northern Minnesota and it would receive a 70% rating.

[paulxu]

I'm reading that Leahy will preside the Senate trial.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me without knowing more info.
Would seem like since he would be voting that he couldn't preside.
Why not bring in someone from the outside?

[bobbiemcgee]

This is completely asinine but not surprising considering the source. What exactly has he done in 5 days that would illicit such a positive response, besides not being Donald Trump? I can't believe you actually think that a favorability score after a whopping 5 days in office has any real validity. I am no fan of our early response to the pandemic, so I'm not sure where you got that from but keep being you Bobbie.

What source - ABC/Ipsos? 69% support covid response, 81% support Mask mandate and 67% support transition so far. Maybe you should run your own poll with some family members lol. typical righty response. shoot the messenger. Sorry to interrupt your infowar re-runs.

[Mrs. Garrett]

I mean, that's a good platform.

Unless you're Hillary Clinton

[STL_XUfan]

I'm reading that Leahy will preside the Senate trial.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me without knowing more info.
Would seem like since he would be voting that he couldn't preside.
Why not bring in someone from the outside?

Everything I could find seems that the normal precedent is for the VP to preside over the impeachment trial (of non-presidents) in his/her role as president of the Senate. So I guess the thinking is that if the VP is not presiding over the Senate then Leahy would preside as the President Pro Tempore.

The only thing I could think of is that since impeachment is the business of the Senate, whoever presides over the trial is technically presiding over the Senate. While the Constitution gives that power to the CJ for presidential impeachments, Rule 1 of the Standing Senate rules do not permit the President Pro Tempore to appoint a non-senator to preside over the senate.

I think it would be better if they modified the Senate rules to permit the President Pro Tempore to appoint an outside person to preside over this particular impeachment. If for no other reason it would quell the bad faith arguments that the "judge" is biased, as if an impeachment trial is the same as a normal trial.

[GoMuskies]

Unless you're Hillary Clinton

Well, being Hillary Clinton is a pretty bad platform, too.

[Masterofreality]

https://apple.news/Au_fwqg0JTUeSSwiDdEL2QQ

“No longer in Office”

Sounds just like what will happen on appeal to the Supreme Court if an Impeachment hearings proceed.
“No Standing” AND no dissent.

[Masterofreality]

I'm reading that Leahy will preside the Senate trial.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me without knowing more info.
Would seem like since he would be voting that he couldn't preside.
Why not bring in someone from the outside?

It doesn’t make any sense to you because you cannot see the facts for what they are through your blue glasses.
CJ John Roberts wants nothing to do with this sham. He’s not gonna mucky up the court’s reputation over BS partisanship.
There is no case because there is no subject in office that can be Impeached.
Constitution 101.

[Masterofreality]

MOR, what's with the name calling? Certainly we can have discussions about issues without that.
Reserve the name calling for the politicians we don't like.

Just playing the game like you Leftists play it.
When will you stop Whining about your Boogie Man, grow up and move on?
Your selected President already has all kinds of screw ups and mis truths to answer for.

[Masterofreality]

Thanks scientists. trump was rated 42nd in this survey which was before his 2 impeachments. Hahah, the guy who caught cold and died after his swearing in did better:
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Presidents-2018-Rank-by-Category.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/us/politics/trump-presidential-history.html

As the article states, he was a colossal failure @ Covid.

And Dementia Joe’s “Plan” is exactly like Trumps-including, apparently, “Xenophobic” Travel Bans!
Huh.....

And why are all of a sudden all these Blue States opening up their economies again? When the case loads haven’t declined significantly or at all? Because a Democrat is in the White House all of a sudden. Period.
Seems like Florida’s approach worked closely pretty well-with Trump in the WH and a Republican Governor. Good to see that some of these Blue Dogs decided to get on the train. Probably too late for Newsome tho. He’s getting his lousy ass recalled in California.

[Smails]

What source - ABC/Ipsos? 69% support covid response, 81% support Mask mandate and 67% support transition so far. Maybe you should run your own poll with some family members lol. typical righty response. shoot the messenger. Sorry to interrupt your infowar re-runs.

Not shooting the messenger one bit kiddo. Just laughing as the completely asinine notion that any poll taken 5 days into a presidency means anything...it literally means nothing. And Infowars?? I'm not even sure what that means in the context of this discussion and I don't think you do either. Keep up the good work, Bobbie. iHerb.com is currently running a special on Prevagen. Check it out.

[STL_XUfan]

Constitution 101
MOR this is a class that I think you would do well to avail yourself of if you are going to continue spitting out various legal jargon that you heard somewhere but clearly do not understand.

In your prior post you stated "Sounds just like what will happen on appeal to the Supreme Court if an Impeachment hearings proceed. “No Standing” AND no dissent." What does that even mean in regards to impeachment.

[boozehound]

I mean, that's a good platform.

Got my vote.


Couldn't agree more. It was a slam dunk strategy.

You could send an approval poll out pertaining to Biden's response to the Canadian invasion of northern Minnesota and it would receive a 70% rating.

As long as you word it as a comparison to Trump: "Do you think Biden's response to the Canadian invasion of Northern Minnesota was better or worse than Trump's response?"

[paulxu]

Thanks for the info on why Leahy will preside.

The emoluments cases that the Supreme Court ruled as "moot" because Trump has left office makes no sense at all.
The clause in the Constitution is directed at all Federal employees.
What they have set precedent is if a federal employee violates the clause, and leaves office, it's OK, and he gets to keep his illegal gains.

That's just nuts.

[STL_XUfan]

Thanks for the info on why Leahy will preside.

The emoluments cases that the Supreme Court ruled as "moot" because Trump has left office makes no sense at all.
The clause in the Constitution is directed at all Federal employees.
What they have set precedent is if a federal employee violates the clause, and leaves office, it's OK, and he gets to keep his illegal gains.

That's just nuts.

I haven't looked at the cases, but the fact that no one dissented, makes me think that they were seeking some sort of injunctive relief that is now moot with Trump out of office.

[bobbiemcgee]

Not shooting the messenger one bit kiddo. Just laughing as the completely asinine notion that any poll taken 5 days into a presidency means anything...

Sure, unless it was a pro-trump poll.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/01/15/biden-begins-presidency-with-positive-ratings-trump-departs-with-lowest-ever-job-mark/

[Strange Brew]

MOR this is a class that I think you would do well to avail yourself of if you are going to continue spitting out various legal jargon that you heard somewhere but clearly do not understand.

In your prior post you stated "Sounds just like what will happen on appeal to the Supreme Court if an Impeachment hearings proceed. “No Standing” AND no dissent." What does that even mean in regards to impeachment.

Seriously. Why does anyone care if he runs again? Was it sooooo bad? Great economy. Record vaccine production. Energy independence. Unprecedented ME peace deals. Lower taxes. Etc, Etc, Etc. I get people thought he was mean but Wilson and FDR were awful people but the Left loves 'em.

[MADXSTER]

Trump will write a book, this we all know. I'm curious how politicians will respond.

[94GRAD]

Trump will write a book, this we all know. I'm curious how politicians will respond.

Just think of all the government secrets he knows

[Masterofreality]

And Dementia Joe’s “Plan” is exactly like Trumps-including, apparently, “Xenophobic” Travel Bans!
Huh.....

And why are all of a sudden all these Blue States opening up their economies again? When the case loads haven’t declined significantly or at all? Because a Democrat is in the White House all of a sudden. Period.
Seems like Florida’s approach worked closely pretty well-with Trump in the WH and a Republican Governor. Good to see that some of these Blue Dogs decided to get on the train. Probably too late for Newsome tho. He’s getting his lousy ass recalled in California.

Biden reiterates his plan to get to an average of 1 million vaccines distributed per day within the next three weeks. According to the Bloomberg tracker, as of last week, we are distributing an average of 1.16 million doses per day.

Some plan, Dementia Joe. Slowing Down the rate of distributions to 1 million per day!!!! Yay Plan!!!

[bobbiemcgee]

Fake news, he upped his plan to 1.5 million a day:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-ups-vaccine-goal-1-5-million-shots-day-says-n1255597

[bobbiemcgee]

Seriously. Why does anyone care if he runs again?

Why is there vaccine shortages then?
Maybe he'll run with the Boston Tea Party or the Surprise Party.

[Masterofreality]

MOR this is a class that I think you would do well to avail yourself of if you are going to continue spitting out various legal jargon that you heard somewhere but clearly do not understand.

In your prior post you stated "Sounds just like what will happen on appeal to the Supreme Court if an Impeachment hearings proceed. “No Standing” AND no dissent." What does that even mean in regards to impeachment.

Senator Rand Paul:
“ I object to this unconstitutional sham of an “impeachment” trial and I will force a vote on whether the Senate can hold a trial of a private citizen.”

That’s what it means.

[noteggs]

I'm reading that Leahy will preside the Senate trial.
That doesn't make a lot of sense to me without knowing more info.
Would seem like since he would be voting that he couldn't preside.
Why not bring in someone from the outside?

Completely agree. Why bring in a Democrat to oversee an impeachment hearing on a Republican. Know this is political, but talk about the fox guarding the hen house. This will not play well with the unity message were looking for.

[Masterofreality]

Fake news, he upped his plan to 1.5 million a day:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-ups-vaccine-goal-1-5-million-shots-day-says-n1255597

Ha!! Cleanup on Aisle 4!!!
Wasn’t “fake” on Friday. Your boy said it.
Biden F’s up because he has no clue of the pre-existing numbers and some minion comes up with a random 1.5 on Monday after many pointed out his stupid earlier statements. The fact that he already has had to revise his number upward sort of proves that his other statement that “They inherited a mess” was a damn bold faced lie. (Up the lie counter Paul)
Get ready for a lot of ass covering by Dementia Joe and the compliant media.

[noteggs]

Fake news, he upped his plan to 1.5 million a day:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-ups-vaccine-goal-1-5-million-shots-day-says-n1255597

Having hard time following. How is it fake news when he changed his own goal because he was challenged?

[bobbiemcgee]

1 million isn't 1.5? Why can't he change it? Hopefully we get 2 million when they up the production. Why argue about an potential increase in getting people well. dumb.

[bjf123]

Trump will write a book, this we all know. I'm curious how politicians will respond.

What publisher would be willing to take all the heat from the cancel culture?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[waggy]

Seriously. Why does anyone care if he runs again?

The impeachment is about political optics. Would "prove" the left correct about what a bad bad man Trump is.

[paulxu]

Senator Rand Paul:
“ I object to this unconstitutional sham of an “impeachment” trial and I will force a vote on whether the Senate can hold a trial of a private citizen.”

That’s what it means.

Precedent:
Nearly 150 years ago, a majority of senators voted that you could impeach and try a former officeholder — for high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/meet-other-american-who-was-impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516

[Strange Brew]

The impeachment is about political optics. Would "prove" the left correct about what a bad bad man Trump is.

Or they are idiots with no ideas so we’ll just talk about how mean the old boss was.

[Strange Brew]

Precedent:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/meet-other-american-who-was-impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516

That’s cute. Did the States ratify an Amendment? About that same time that government voted to make some people 3/5ths a person.

I’m sure your state and it’s former battle flag you love were all for it.

[STL_XUfan]

That’s cute. Did the States ratify an Amendment? About that same time that government voted to make some people 3/5ths a person.

I’m sure your state and it’s former battle flag you love were all for it.

What? About that time an amendment was passed to repeal the 3/5th clause, not institute it.

[Strange Brew]

You’re correct. The point was the Congress passes stupid, unconstitutional things so don’t use something from the 19th C. that is as meaningless and unconstitutional now as it was then.

[STL_XUfan]

You’re correct. The point was the Congress passes stupid, unconstitutional things so don’t use something from the 19th C. that is as meaningless and unconstitutional now as it was then.
I mean we are interpreting a couple of sentences from a document from the 18th century that has only been invoked 21 times in some 230 years. So any precedent is at least some guidance on how to interpret those sentences. Frankly I think this will play out the same way, Senate will vote they have the power to hear the case but not get the 2/3rds needed to convict. Regardless I don’t think the Supreme Court touches it with a 10 foot pole, instead finding it is a political question and therefore not justiciable.

[noteggs]

1 million isn't 1.5? Why can't he change it? Hopefully we get 2 million when they up the production. Why argue about an potential increase in getting people well. dumb.

No problem whatsoever to increase to 1.5 or 2 million because that would be great! Point is Biden got called out because we’re already at 1million per day and he got defensive on his plan being so bold. No fake news here and dumb (your words) if he or campaign didn’t know this.

[Strange Brew]

I mean we are interpreting a couple of sentences from a document from the 18th century that has only been invoked 21 times in some 230 years. So any precedent is at least some guidance on how to interpret those sentences. Frankly I think this will play out the same way, Senate will vote they have the power to hear the case but not get the 2/3rds needed to convict. Regardless I don’t think the Supreme Court touches it with a 10 foot pole, instead finding it is a political question and therefore not justiciable.

I agree and you articulated much better than I. It’s an exercise in futility but so is much these days.

[Masterofreality]

I mean we are interpreting a couple of sentences from a document from the 18th century that has only been invoked 21 times in some 230 years. So any precedent is at least some guidance on how to interpret those sentences. Frankly I think this will play out the same way, Senate will vote they have the power to hear the case but not get the 2/3rds needed to convict. Regardless I don’t think the Supreme Court touches it with a 10 foot pole, instead finding it is a political question and therefore not justiciable.

Identical to the Emoluments Clause today. (Shrugs Shoulders)

[Masterofreality]

Precedent:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/meet-other-american-who-was-impeached-tried-after-leaving-office-n1255516

Key phrase in the article- “Trying to convict”.
The case was never brought to its logical conclusion. Why? No office holder.
No conclusion. No need for a Supreme Court ruling. Same thing will happen here, if it even gets that far.
As shown when laws passed by the Congress are declared Unconstitutional. The Congress is not the final arbiter.
In this case, you won’t even have an appointed Judge presiding.
Any Body can “try” to do anything. Doesn’t make it Constitutional.
Performative.

[STL_XUfan]

Identical to the Emoluments Clause today. (Shrugs Shoulders)
It is in no conceivable way the same as the emoluments clause cases today. That is like saying a baseball is an orange because both are round. These issues cover very different areas of law.

[Masterofreality]

It is in no conceivable way the same as the emoluments clause cases today. That is like saying a baseball is an orange because both are round. These issues cover very different areas of law.

There is no office holder remaining to have a hearing on. Same principle in both cases.
I’m done debating with “there are none so blind, as those who will not see.

[Strange Brew]

There is no office holder remaining to have a hearing on. Same principle in both cases.
I’m done debating with “there are none so blind, as those who will not see.

I feel like we’ve reached a level of absurdity where we’re debating whether a home run was “too high”.

Who gives a shoot. It’s gone.

[bobbiemcgee]

No problem whatsoever to increase to 1.5 or 2 million because that would be great! Point is Biden got called out because we’re already at 1million per day and he got defensive on his plan being so bold. No fake news here and dumb (your words) if he or campaign didn’t know this.

MAGA media.

[STL_XUfan]

There is no office holder remaining to have a hearing on. Same principle in both cases.
I’m done debating with “there are none so blind, as those who will not see.
The emolument cases have been being litigated in federal courts, as they follow the normal federal courts process.

Impeachment is not a trial under the judicial branch of our government. It is an entirely legislative process reserved solely to the legislative branch to initiate and prosecute as a check on the other branches.

To butcher a sports metaphor, this is like thinking cricket and baseball have the same rules because they both have batters. (On a side note, I have been watching a lot of late night cricket on my side tv, that sport is just bizarre but somehow strangely intriguing).

[Masterofreality]

The emolument cases have been being litigated in federal courts, as they follow the normal federal courts process.

Impeachment is not a trial under the judicial branch of our government. It is an entirely legislative process reserved solely to the legislative branch to initiate and prosecute as a check on the other branches.

To butcher a sports metaphor, this is like thinking cricket and baseball have the same rules because they both have batters. (On a side note, I have been watching a lot of late night cricket on my side tv, that sport is just bizarre but somehow strangely intriguing).

Blah, blah blah. No office holder currently. No one legally to try. In either situation. Period.
If you really are this obtuse, I’m going to start questioning the value of a Xavier education. If you went elsewhere, I guess I could understand your problem here.

[xu82]

Blah, blah blah. No office holder currently. No one legally to try. In either situation. Period.
If you really are this obtuse, I’m going to start questioning the value of a Xavier education. If you went elsewhere, I guess I could understand your problem here.

So, then why do you care? Why the condescension? That’s a lazy attack.

I tend to lean right, but I also tend to lean away from clowns who incite this type of violent activity. That was inexcusable behavior on his part, and reasonable people on both sides know that, regardless of how they vote.

[noteggs]

MAGA media.

Can you please direct me towards this? My local news doesn’t seem to cover.

[Strange Brew]

The emolument cases have been being litigated in federal courts, as they follow the normal federal courts process.

Impeachment is not a trial under the judicial branch of our government. It is an entirely legislative process reserved solely to the legislative branch to initiate and prosecute as a check on the other branches.

To butcher a sports metaphor, this is like thinking cricket and baseball have the same rules because they both have batters. (On a side note, I have been watching a lot of late night cricket on my side tv, that sport is just bizarre but somehow strangely intriguing).

My high school English teacher was British and would take us outside to teach us cricket while discussing whatever we were assigned. Agree, odd game but strangely fun.

[bobbiemcgee]

Biden approval 63% -

[Strange Brew]

Biden approval 63% -

Of registered voting machines....

[bobbiemcgee]

Of registered voting machines....

Watch out, your buddy rudy got sued for 1.3 billion.

[bobbiemcgee]

Can you please direct me towards this? My local news doesn’t seem to cover.

Sure:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/01/16/fox-news-viewership-plummets-first-time-behind-cnn-and-msnbc-in-two-decades/?sh=47bb426c5342

[noteggs]

Sure:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2021/01/16/fox-news-viewership-plummets-first-time-behind-cnn-and-msnbc-in-two-decades/?sh=47bb426c5342

One of us needs to check our blood sugar because I’m completely lost in this discussion.

[boozehound]

Regardless of the constitutional standing: Does anybody actually think we should be bothering to impeach Trump at this point? If so, why?

The only way I could see it having any value is if Mitch wants Trump out of the picture and is willing to play ball on a speedy trial followed by conviction and barring from future office. That's pretty clearly not the case, which makes this all a waste of time and effort.

It would seem like there are much better things that Congress could be working on right now than a second impeachment. Pandemic response. Economic recovery plan. Confirming key government appointees. I understand that people want there to be consequences for the coup attempt, but if you have been following the news there kind of all ready have been. The Trump's are pariahs to most of civilized society. They are losing business partners left and right. Their brand is tremendously devalued. Let's just leave it at that and move on.

[STL_XUfan]

Regardless of the constitutional standing: Does anybody actually think we should be bothering to impeach Trump at this point? If so, why?

The only way I could see it having any value is if Mitch wants Trump out of the picture and is willing to play ball on a speedy trial followed by conviction and barring from future office. That's pretty clearly not the case, which makes this all a waste of time and effort.

It would seem like there are much better things that Congress could be working on right now than a second impeachment. Pandemic response. Economic recovery plan. Confirming key government appointees. I understand that people want there to be consequences for the coup attempt, but if you have been following the news there kind of all ready have been. The Trump's are pariahs to most of civilized society. They are losing business partners left and right. Their brand is tremendously devalued. Let's just leave it at that and move on.

I see two reasons that is should move forward, one pro-Trump one anti-trump.

First, despite what our resident constitutional scholar MoR has stated, Trump has already been impeached. So now we have an impeachment standing out there for all of time that was never tried. If I was on the Trump side I would want the trial as a chance to clear my name by being able to state that I was acquitted of the charges by the Senate. The only way that can happen is a trial. The bad analogy is if the DOJ charged Boozehound with treason and then just shelved the issue without ever giving Boozehound a right to a trial (in criminal court it would be dismissed for lack prosecution, hence the bad analogy) I am sure Boozehound would not be happy to wear that scarlet letter the rest of his life.

On the other side of the Aisle, there was an insurrection, allegedly fueled and encouraged by the president of the United States, that caused control of the capitol to be lost for the first time since 1812. This could be the greatest security breach in the history of the United States as a period of 3-4 hours insurgents had full access to the offices, network, computers, desks, and floor of both houses of US Capitol. If you believe that the President played a part in this, to now say, "no harm, no foul" would be a dereliction of duty. It would set a precedent that any losing President could attempt a coup against the US and the only two outcomes are: 1. It is successful and he remains in power or 2. it fails and there really is no penalty. An acknowledgement that this is not normal and should not be accepted by either party is needed, if for nothing more to show future generations that what happened on January 6 should never happen again. Or, if members of the Senate believe the action of the President leading up to the insurrection were fine, then they should be forced to put that vote on the record for all of history.



Finally, the Senate is more than capable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Mrs. Garrett]

Regardless of the constitutional standing: Does anybody actually think we should be bothering to impeach Trump at this point? If so, why?

The only way I could see it having any value is if Mitch wants Trump out of the picture and is willing to play ball on a speedy trial followed by conviction and barring from future office. That's pretty clearly not the case, which makes this all a waste of time and effort.

It would seem like there are much better things that Congress could be working on right now than a second impeachment. Pandemic response. Economic recovery plan. Confirming key government appointees. I understand that people want there to be consequences for the coup attempt, but if you have been following the news there kind of all ready have been. The Trump's are pariahs to most of civilized society. They are losing business partners left and right. Their brand is tremendously devalued. Let's just leave it at that and move on.

I think it's a waste of time. Most in the Senate have probably made up their mind without hearing any evidence. Unfortunately it is about party instead of country.

[GoMuskies]

Unfortunately it is about party instead of country.

Which party?

[Mrs. Garrett]

Which party?

Whig

[GoMuskies]

I prefer the Know-Nothings.

[94GRAD]

I prefer the Know-Nothings.

Is Sergeant Schultz their Party head?

[Strange Brew]

Is Sergeant Schultz their Party head?

We would have been aligned with the Socialist Left.

[bjf123]

Finally, the Senate is more than capable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

You have way more faith in them than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[94GRAD]

We would have been aligned with the Socialist Left.

Based on all his actions, he was more of a centrist.

[noteggs]

You have way more faith in them than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Always get a chuckle when either side uses that line. About 6 or 7 months ago, Democrats were blaming Republicans/Trump for not focusing on just covid. Response from Republicans, “we can walk...”

Agree with you, highly unlikely!

[boozehound]

I see two reasons that is should move forward, one pro-Trump one anti-trump.

First, despite what our resident constitutional scholar MoR has stated, Trump has already been impeached. So now we have an impeachment standing out there for all of time that was never tried. If I was on the Trump side I would want the trial as a chance to clear my name by being able to state that I was acquitted of the charges by the Senate. The only way that can happen is a trial. The bad analogy is if the DOJ charged Boozehound with treason and then just shelved the issue without ever giving Boozehound a right to a trial (in criminal court it would be dismissed for lack prosecution, hence the bad analogy) I am sure Boozehound would not be happy to wear that scarlet letter the rest of his life.

But nobody in Trump's camp seems to care about his good name being cleared, nor does anybody really think that him being acquitted in the Senate means he is innocent. I do agree that impeaching without even voting on conviction would be strange.



On the other side of the Aisle, there was an insurrection, allegedly fueled and encouraged by the president of the United States, that caused control of the capitol to be lost for the first time since 1812. This could be the greatest security breach in the history of the United States as a period of 3-4 hours insurgents had full access to the offices, network, computers, desks, and floor of both houses of US Capitol. If you believe that the President played a part in this, to now say, "no harm, no foul" would be a dereliction of duty. It would set a precedent that any losing President could attempt a coup against the US and the only two outcomes are: 1. It is successful and he remains in power or 2. it fails and there really is no penalty. An acknowledgement that this is not normal and should not be accepted by either party is needed, if for nothing more to show future generations that what happened on January 6 should never happen again. Or, if members of the Senate believe the action of the President leading up to the insurrection were fine, then they should be forced to put that vote on the record for all of history.


I understand the point here, but does it really accomplish anything? The Democrats will vote to convict, along with maybe a small handful of Republicans, and he will get acquitted again. I guess the Democrats can then use that against Republicans in future races, but will it have any effect? The only way I think it would make sense to pursue this is if Mitch wants Trump banished from Politics and has already committed to push them to vote to convict.

We've all seen the evidence in this case. It happened on twitter and that National Mall. It's not like the discovery process or presentation of evidence is going to change anyone's mind.

I'm all for barring Trump from future office, tarring and feathering him, or whatever else we want to do if we can actually make it happen. I just don't want to keep dragging this out when we have real problems fix.


Finally, the Senate is more than capable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

I'm not sure I agree here. There is a finite amount of time in the day for them to get things done. Unless they are going to work extra hours or something it's hard to see this not delaying 'real work' getting done.

[Masterofreality]

I see two reasons that is should move forward, one pro-Trump one anti-trump.

First, despite what our resident constitutional scholar MoR has stated, Trump has already been impeached. So now we have an impeachment standing out there for all of time that was never tried.

I never stated anything of the sort. Find it.
You do understand the difference in an "Impeachment" (which actually is Articles of Impeachment to be considered by the Senate, and an actual conviction right? Just submitting Articles, done by a bunch of partisan hacks, has zero consequence (just like the first one against Trump). The fact that the hearing won't even be presided over by the Chief Justice, makes it even more of a sham, and based upon the strict words of the Constitution, invalid.
US Constitution- Article1, Clause 6- Trial of Impeachment:
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that purpose they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the CHIEF JUSTICE shall preside. And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

How much more clear can it be? No Chief Justice to preside? No validity. Roberts has already said he's not in. For good reason.

Performative only.
"

[bobbiemcgee]

"The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents. When presiding over an impeachment trial, the president pro tempore takes an additional special oath to do impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws," Leahy said. "It is an oath that I take extraordinarily seriously."

[paulxu]

I fail to see the confusion you keep trying to introduce.
Trump has been impeached...while he was in office.
The Chief Justice presides over the activity when, as you note, the President of United States is tried in the Senate.
Trump is no longer president, so the Chief Justice is no longer required.
(He could however preside if he wanted, as was the case of William Belknap, who was impeached, tried, and not convicted all after he left office.)
There is precedent as I noted before for trying a federal officer holder, even after he's out of office.
Generally conservatives like constitutional precedence.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74226/history-shows-the-senate-can-hold-an-impeachment-trial-after-trump-leaves-office/

It's not "performative." It's precedence.

[Masterofreality]

Performative.
No chance of conviction.
Move on to real important business.

https://apple.news/AS4P6cD-zQLiikCTFhbpO6w

[Strange Brew]

Watch out, your buddy rudy got sued for 1.3 billion.

I’ve never met Rudy...
But the case will likely get tossed. More theatre.

[Masterofreality]

Fake news, he upped his plan to 1.5 million a day:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-ups-vaccine-goal-1-5-million-shots-day-says-n1255597

Ha!! Jen Psaki has already “walked that back”. Lyin’ Joe.

“The President didn’t actually say what the new goal is.” She (Psaki) said Tuesday. “He said that he hoped we could do even more than that”.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/every-american-not-eligible-spring-white-house-coronavirus-immunity-date

[Strange Brew]

Ha!! Jen Psaki has already “walked that back”. Lyin’ Joe.

“The President didn’t actually say what the new goal is.” She (Psaki) said Tuesday. “He said that he hoped we could do even more than that”.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/every-american-not-eligible-spring-white-house-coronavirus-immunity-date

Haha, of course. He doesn’t even know what year it is.

[paulxu]

Props for trying. Beats ingesting bleach.

[Masterofreality]

Props for trying. Beats ingesting bleach.

Doesn’t beat being vaccinated..with a vaccine..that was developed in record time under Trump’s watch.
Dementia Joe’s “Plan” < Trumps Plan. Props for trying to cover.

“20,000 people have died under Joe Biden’s watch. It’s only been 6 days. That’s equivalent to 50 747’s crashing”- CNN probably. (of course not)

[bobbiemcgee]

So a thousand under trump. Joe has a ways to go.

[bobbiemcgee]

I’ve never met Rudy...
But the case will likely get tossed. More theatre.

Where are you going to get your bogus info now that the "my pillow guy" has been suspended from twitter? haha.

[Strange Brew]

Where are you going to get your bogus info now that the "my pillow guy" has been suspended from twitter? haha.

He makes a good pillow I hear. Didn’t follow him on Twitter. You seem oddly preoccupied by those you feeeeeeel say bogus things.

[Strange Brew]

So a thousand under trump. Joe has a ways to go.

A few thousand? That’s more than showed up for a single Xiden campaign event.

[Masterofreality]

So a thousand under trump. Joe has a ways to go.

“Whatsboutism” at its best. I thought we weren’t doing that anymore after OBummer?
Oh......

[bobbiemcgee]

Ha!! Jen Psaki has already “walked that back”. Lyin’ Joe.

“The President didn’t actually say what the new goal is.” She (Psaki) said Tuesday. “He said that he hoped we could do even more than that”.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/every-american-not-eligible-spring-white-house-coronavirus-immunity-date

trump delivered 1 million vaccines in a day after 40 days. Joe had to order 200 million more, something trump should have done in June.

[bobbiemcgee]

He makes a good pillow I hear.

They go flat after a few uses. I think he did Melania's boob job.

[Strange Brew]

They go flat after a few uses. I think he did Melania's boob job.

I’m sure you have no first have knowledge of either.

[Masterofreality]

trump delivered 1 million vaccines in a day after 40 days. Joe had to order 200 million more, something trump should have done in June.

What is this misdirection sorcery?
There wasn’t a vaccine yet in June. In fact every mainstream news outlet proclaimed that Trump was lying when he said there would be a vaccine by years end. They all claimed that it couldn’t come until late 2021 at minimum. Result. Trump delivered the fastest vaccine development in history.

Your attempt at covering up for Dementia Joe’s lies are almost as pathetic as Jen Psaki’s usual press conference answer to pretty much any questions- “I’ll have to Circle Back on that”.

The public wants to know. When will Dementia Joe hold a press conference and actually answer tough questions? This evasion act ain’t gonna fly for very long.

[cutterX]

Maybe Sleepy Joe should just use his twitter. That seemed to work out pretty well for 4 years...............

[Strange Brew]

I’m laughing my face off at the Left’s overreaction to the riot at the Capitol.

They all have forgotten 11/7/83. For fun look into its connection to BLM and Clinton’s pardons.

[paulxu]

Aaah...the old 2 wrongs make a right stupidity.
That idiotic episode from a small group protesting military actions, who went to jail vs. thousands of people incited by a sitting President to storm the building killing 5 people, and injuring more.
Somehow I don't recall Reagan urging that action; I might have missed that part.

[Strange Brew]

Aaah...the old 2 wrongs make a right stupidity.
That idiotic episode from a small group protesting military actions, who went to jail vs. thousands of people incited by a sitting President to storm the building killing 5 people, and injuring more.
Somehow I don't recall Reagan urging that action; I might have missed that part.

Whatever Commie. Everybody on the Left should be barred from running for office for this event. Left wingers like John Kerry and likely Biden cheered the anti war movement. Kerry lied through his teeth and became a traitor to his uniform. Remove them all!

That was hyperbole before you or Bobbie blows a gasket.

[bobbiemcgee]

I’m laughing my face off at the Left’s overreaction to the riot at the Capitol.

They all have forgotten 11/7/83. For fun look into its connection to BLM and Clinton’s pardons.

Yep, 250,000 property damage @ 11 p.m. vs. 5 dead and thousands trying to kill members of Congress and hang the VP of the U.S. Same thing. Dumbass.

[Strange Brew]

Yep, 250,000 property damage @ 11 p.m. vs. 5 dead and thousands trying to kill members of Congress. Same thing. Dumbass.

5 dead and attempting to kill office holders doesn’t scratch the surface of Leftist violence you inarticulate human paraquat!

[bobbiemcgee]

5 dead and attempting to kill office holders doesn’t scratch the surface of Leftist violence you inarticulate human paraquat!

Save it for your Proud Boys speech.

[xuwillie]

No offense bobbie I don't think you should be calling anyone a dumbass.

[bobbiemcgee]

Call 'em as I see 'em. Anybody that thinks the deadly attack on our capital was the same as property damage is crazy. just plain nuts. Stupidly dumbass. Are you guys ok with murder, attempted murder, etc. It's friggin' nuts! Are you still supporting the "Big LIE". How else would you characterize what these loonies are doing. I know you all still worship at the altar of trump, but do you want your kids to? Grow up.

[Strange Brew]

Call 'em as I see 'em. Anybody that thinks the deadly attack on our capital was the same as property damage is crazy. just plain nuts. Stupidly dumbass.

You used an adverb to modify a noun...

[bobbiemcgee]

same thing

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/world-leaders-condemn-pro-trump-riot-us-capitol

[Masterofreality]

Prospective Impeachment Presider Leahy taken to a hospital. How convenient.
Even he doesn’t want any part of this Clown Show. Who they gonna try to tap next?
Just give this sham up already Dems and start working on things that affect Americans. There is zero chance that there is even a conviction. Rand Paul was correct. Performative and a waste of time & taxpayer money.
But I Do seriously hope that Leahy’s OK.

[bobbiemcgee]

https://twitter.com/the_krebscycle/status/1354257578394591234/photo/1

[Masterofreality]

Mario Cuomo is a trip.
One that I would never want to go on. #Liar

https://reason.com/2021/01/28/andrew-cuomo-covid-19-nursing-home-deaths-incompetent-government-kills-people/

[boozehound]

Mario Cuomo is a trip.
One that I would never want to go on. #Liar

https://reason.com/2021/01/28/andrew-cuomo-covid-19-nursing-home-deaths-incompetent-government-kills-people/

What kind of trip? A trip to the other side? Isn't Mario Cuomo dead?

[Masterofreality]

What kind of trip? A trip to the other side? Isn't Mario Cuomo dead?

Sorry *Andrew* . Can’t tell between the liars without a scorecard.
A trip to Politician land, where everyone lies and everything is a falsehood and deception.

[GoMuskies]

Did you know that Ted Cruz attempted to have AOC murdered three weeks ago? I read it on the Tweeter dot com, so it must be factual.

[Strange Brew]

Did you know that Ted Cruz attempted to have AOC murdered three weeks ago? I read it on the Tweeter dot com, so it must be factual.

I’m not surprised. His dad killed JFK... ;)

[Masterofreality]

Also, how comical is it that “Practicing Catholic” Biden directly signs EO’s to increase funding and access for abortions. Not legislative but with a stroke of his own pen. The guy who was celebrated by the MSM as bringing “morality and decency” back to the White House just directly decides to kill babies with his pen.
So moral, pious and decent.
Also, This is what 4 years will look like. A Biden 15 minute appearance propped up at a desk signing EO’s, not holding pressers then disappearing for the rest of the day. And no press will create an outrage.

[noteggs]

Also, how comical is it that “Practicing Catholic” Biden directly signs EO’s to increase funding and access for abortions. Not legislative but with a stroke of his own pen. The guy who was celebrated by the MSM as bringing “morality and decency” back to the White House just directly decides to kill babies with his pen.
So moral, pious and decent.
Also, This is what 4 years will look like. A Biden 15 minute appearance propped up at a desk signing EO’s, not holding pressers then disappearing for the rest of the day. And no press will create an outrage.

We all know because of covid, the job market has been turned upside with doubling unemployment. Yet on his first day in office, he decided to sign an executive order to send 10,000 more people with very good paying jobs to the unemployment line. Interesting start.

Speaking of executive orders, thought someone said this on the campaign trail “I have this strange notion, we are a democracy ... if you can’t get the votes ... you can’t legislate by executive order unless you’re a dictator. We’re a democracy. We need consensus.” Hmmm

Guess we don’t need a divided Congress or even a Congress at all after the executive orders. And yes Congress is still needed for some, but thought people didn’t like them when the last administration signed them. Honestly, does Joe wake up and walk out to his Chief of Staff and say, “what am I signing today?”

[bobbiemcgee]

Did you know that Ted Cruz attempted to have AOC murdered three weeks ago? I read it on the Tweeter dot com, so it must be factual.

I think that was Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert, the new righty stars who love Qanon, bring guns in the capitol, Pizzagate and harrassing Parkand survivors.

[paulxu]

We all know because of covid, the job market has been turned upside with doubling unemployment. Yet on his first day in office, he decided to sign an executive order to send 10,000 more people with very good paying jobs to the unemployment line. Interesting start.


Which one was that?

[noteggs]

Which one was that?

Keystone

[tacopizza885]

Which one was that?

Absent Green Energy Initiatives, The Keystone Pipeline.


Keystone

Correct.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

[paulxu]

When TC Energy said the pipeline would create nearly 119,000 jobs, a State Department report instead concluded the project would require fewer than 2,000 two-year construction jobs and that the number of jobs would hover around 35 after construction

From that link: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipeline

[Xville]

I'd be weary about trusting a source that is clearly biased. I'm guessing the truth lies somewhere in the middle of Trump's number and the number published on that site, or there is some type of semantics at play here with the numbers.

[paulxu]

From what I can discover, there were thousands of temporary jobs needed to construct the pipeline. Translating that number into full time equivalents seemed to indicate about 3,000.
As they worked their way down through the states, different people would be hired to do a section, than further down, more people would be hired.
Once the pipeline was completed, it looked to employ 35-50 full time people to run it. Lots of electronic monitoring involved.
Hopefully those folks can find the same work on different energy projects.

[cutterX]

Anyone else have friends or family spouting QAnon stuff? Pretty frightening how all in they are and really knocked me for a loop when I tried to reason with a friend who is firmly convinced on the Hollywood/ Democratic party child pedophile ring. Started watching a recent documentary on it and there are some incredibly disenfranchised strange people out there. I guess 4 years of a massive disinformation and misdirection campaign has helped fuel the Q fire. There are an estimated 30 Mil US believers of Q and I'm guessing there may be a few on this very thread who are also all in.

The storm is coming!!

[xuwillie]

What a friend and I where talking about last night. We where saying 20million crazies from the far left and and far right. Thats a lot of folks ruining our country. And the biggest problem is you have some politicians that continue to fuel the fire for both sides. Our issues as a country aren't going away any time soon.

[noteggs]

From what I can discover, there were thousands of temporary jobs needed to construct the pipeline. Translating that number into full time equivalents seemed to indicate about 3,000.
As they worked their way down through the states, different people would be hired to do a section, than further down, more people would be hired.
Once the pipeline was completed, it looked to employ 35-50 full time people to run it. Lots of electronic monitoring involved.
Hopefully those folks can find the same work on different energy projects.

Yeah, news sources are all over the board on this one - shocker. This is from Keystone pipeline’s website. It was projected they would have 11,000 workers in 2021 with 7,000 of them being union. Also, stated they were giving 1.6 billion in gross wages.

https://www.keystonexl.com/project-updates/updates-feed/2020/tc-energy-awards-american-contracts-to-build-keystone-xl/

Not sure how many are part time and earnings per employee, but if you do simple math 1.6 billion by 11,000, it comes out to be 145,000 per. Not sure how someone can find another job like that in the energy sector when those jobs are not yet available.

[Xavier]

Yep. As someone who has family on the far left and far right- it is crazy that they can't see that they are essentially the same person. It seems like each side is becoming more extreme. What is annoying is seeing the extremists only forming opinions on topics once they know what their sides position is. I still have hope the silent majority is all a lot closer to the middle, more sane, etc. etc....but as you pointed out, the extreme sides appear to be growing in numbers.

There are so many folks that never once cared much about politics that have all of a sudden jumped in and are extremists. It makes no sense to me, they really don't know what the hell they're talking about. Not sure if anyone else has experienced this. Either Trump is that polarizing or social media brings out the worst, or both.

[Xville]

Yep. As someone who has family on the far left and far right- it is crazy that they can't see that they are essentially the same person. It seems like each side is becoming more extreme. What is annoying is seeing the extremists only forming opinions on topics once they know what their sides position is. I still have hope the silent majority is all a lot closer to the middle, more sane, etc. etc....but as you pointed out, the extreme sides appear to be growing in numbers.

There are so many folks that never once cared much about politics that have all of a sudden jumped in and are extremists. It makes no sense to me, they really don't know what the hell they're talking about. Not sure if anyone else has experienced this. Either Trump is that polarizing or social media brings out the worst, or both.

I have a few friends who started to go left due to Trump, and are only getting more and more extreme. One of them sent the AOC tweet yesterday in our e-mail chain and most actually believe the craziness that she tweeted. Someone sane actually said that was a bit of a stretch, and I said bit of a stretch should be both Cruz and AOC's middle names since they are both nuts, and it was radio silence. For people to truly believe that neither or just one of them is nuts, is just frightening to me.

[boozehound]

Anyone else have friends or family spouting QAnon stuff? Pretty frightening how all in they are and really knocked me for a loop when I tried to reason with a friend who is firmly convinced on the Hollywood/ Democratic party child pedophile ring. Started watching a recent documentary on it and there are some incredibly disenfranchised strange people out there. I guess 4 years of a massive disinformation and misdirection campaign has helped fuel the Q fire. There are an estimated 30 Mil US believers of Q and I'm guessing there may be a few on this very thread who are also all in.

The storm is coming!!

Fortunately, no. I did have a buddy who was convinced that 911 was an inside job. I just kept refusing to even have a serious discussion about it, and I damn sure wasn't going to watch 'Loose Change'. Still haven't.

[boozehound]

I have a few friends who started to go left due to Trump, and are only getting more and more extreme. One of them sent the AOC tweet yesterday in our e-mail chain and most actually believe the craziness that she tweeted. Someone sane actually said that was a bit of a stretch, and I said bit of a stretch should be both Cruz and AOC's middle names since they are both nuts, and it was radio silence. For people to truly believe that neither or just one of them is nuts, is just frightening to me.

Are these former Right-leaning friends, or people who always leaned left but just moreso now because of Trump?

[Xville]

Are these former Right-leaning friends, or people who always leaned left but just moreso now because of Trump?

Both....some of them leaned right and began leaning left during Trump and have gotten more extreme. Others leaned left already but again have gotten more extreme.

I will say that some right leaning friends have gotten more extreme during the Trump years as well.

I think Trump is part of the issue, but i think an even bigger issue is cable news and social media.

[XU_Lou]

I have a few friends who started to go left due to Trump, and are only getting more and more extreme. One of them sent the AOC tweet yesterday in our e-mail chain and most actually believe the craziness that she tweeted. Someone sane actually said that was a bit of a stretch, and I said bit of a stretch should be both Cruz and AOC's middle names since they are both nuts, and it was radio silence. For people to truly believe that neither or just one of them is nuts, is just frightening to me.


Both....some of them leaned right and began leaning left during Trump and have gotten more extreme. Others leaned left already but again have gotten more extreme.

I will say that some right leaning friends have gotten more extreme during the Trump years as well.

I think Trump is part of the issue, but i think an even bigger issue is cable news and social media.

Translation: Anyone who disagrees with Xville is crazy.

[Strange Brew]

Translation: Anyone who disagrees with Xville is crazy.

Haha...

[Xville]

Translation: Anyone who disagrees with Xville is crazy.

I know you are probably a member of the Ted Cruz fan club and hurt by my comments, but no, i think extremism is crazy. Cruz and AOC fit that bill on each side of the aisle

[Strange Brew]

I know you are probably a member of the Ted Cruz fan club and hurt by my comments, but no, i think extremism is crazy. Cruz and AOC fit that bill on each side of the aisle

Wait! He has a fan club?

[XU_Lou]

I know you are probably a member of the Ted Cruz fan club and hurt by my comments, but no, i think extremism is crazy. Cruz and AOC fit that bill on each side of the aisle\

Of course, we all know it is YOU who gets to determine what we can discuss on this board, where we can pull/quote our news/information from, and what the definition of non-crazy political beliefs and thoughts are. We all thank you for this. You're the only one on this board that is rational and reasonable.

[Xville]

\

Of course, we all know it is YOU who gets to determine what we can discuss on this board, where we can pull/quote our news/information from, and what the definition of non-crazy political beliefs and thoughts are. We all thank you for this. You're the only one on this board that is rational and reasonable.

So, is it your position that one or neither of them is on the extreme side of their respective aisles?

[XU_Lou]

self-awareness

Ahh, the old stand-by....

[Xville]

\

Of course, we all know it is YOU who gets to determine what we can discuss on this board, where we can pull/quote our news/information from, and what the definition of non-crazy political beliefs and thoughts are. We all thank you for this. You're the only one on this board that is rational and reasonable.

This only applies to you

[X-man]

Yeah, news sources are all over the board on this one - shocker. This is from Keystone pipeline’s website. It was projected they would have 11,000 workers in 2021 with 7,000 of them being union. Also, stated they were giving 1.6 billion in gross wages.

https://www.keystonexl.com/project-updates/updates-feed/2020/tc-energy-awards-american-contracts-to-build-keystone-xl/

Not sure how many are part time and earnings per employee, but if you do simple math 1.6 billion by 11,000, it comes out to be 145,000 per. Not sure how someone can find another job like that in the energy sector when those jobs are not yet available.

It is pretty widely reported that only about 50 jobs will last more than about 8 months. And some of those 50 permanent jobs are in Canada. Here is a link to one such source: https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/keystone-pipeline-jobs-lost-joe-biden-executive-order-cancel-fact-check/6673822002/.

[xavierj]

It is pretty widely reported that only about 50 jobs will last more than about 8 months. And some of those 50 permanent jobs are in Canada. Here is a link to one such source: https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/2021/01/22/keystone-pipeline-jobs-lost-joe-biden-executive-order-cancel-fact-check/6673822002/.

Whatever it is it is still a loss of jobs and someone will struggle because of it. We have to stop making decisions to appease some people who yell really loud.

[Xville]

Whatever it is it is still a loss of jobs and someone will struggle because of it. We have to stop making decisions to appease some people who yell really loud.

Agreed and arguing the semantics of the numbers is what politicians do. The reality is that it is a loss of work, and good paying work at that. Hopefully all those workers find new opportunities quickly. Killing any kind of job right now in the middle of a pandemic to me just seems completely tone deaf.

[paulxu]

Subsidies and tax credits to the oil industry cost at least $4 billion annually.

https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA%20FFSR%20progress%20report%20to%20G20%202014%2 0Final.pdf

Maybe we should take some of those dollars and hire the 50 people to work on infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Could even rebuild the Brent Spence one.

[Strange Brew]

Subsidies and tax credits to the oil industry cost at least $4 billion annually.

https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA%20FFSR%20progress%20report%20to%20G20%202014%2 0Final.pdf

Maybe we should take some of those dollars and hire the 50 people to work on infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Could even rebuild the Brent Spence one.

Not buying the 50!jobs lost.

[X-man]

Whatever it is it is still a loss of jobs and someone will struggle because of it. We have to stop making decisions to appease some people who yell really loud.

Notice that I said nothing to denigrate the (temporary) jobs lost, but only responded to a question raised about the number of permanent jobs lost in a prior post.

[paulxu]

Interesting turn of events here in South Carolina.
A lot of the more prestigious law firms bailed on the nonsense suits on voter fraud (couldn't provide courts with evidence).
Campaign left with Rudy, and crazy Sydney Powell, etc.
Sekelow and others didn't want any part of the second impeachment, so Lindsey got a well respected lawyer here in South Carolina to lead the defensive effort named Butch Bowers.
He had defended Mark Sanford when he was in danger of being impeached.

Today Bowers and another attorney bowed out of the case.

[Masterofreality]

Interesting turn of events here in South Carolina.
A lot of the more prestigious law firms bailed on the nonsense suits on voter fraud (couldn't provide courts with evidence).
Campaign left with Rudy, and crazy Sydney Powell, etc.
Sekelow and others didn't want any part of the second impeachment, so Lindsey got a well respected lawyer here in South Carolina to lead the defensive effort named Butch Bowers.
He had defended Mark Sanford when he was in danger of being impeached.

Today Bowers and another attorney bowed out of the case.

No. Body. Cares.

Trump is out of office. Let your Boogeyman go Paul and worry about your baby killing, job killing and economy killing Puppet President.

[Masterofreality]

Subsidies and tax credits to the oil industry cost at least $4 billion annually.

https://www.treasury.gov/open/Documents/USA%20FFSR%20progress%20report%20to%20G20%202014%2 0Final.pdf

Maybe we should take some of those dollars and hire the 50 people to work on infrastructure, like roads and bridges. Could even rebuild the Brent Spence one.

Maybe energy independence and not relying on unreliable Middle Eastern sources is a good idea.
Maybe killing off energy jobs and potential supplies in this continent is a bad idea.

[boozehound]

Whatever it is it is still a loss of jobs and someone will struggle because of it. We have to stop making decisions to appease some people who yell really loud.

Couldn't you say a similar thing about the pro-Keystone XL crowd RE: the 'who will yell the loudest'? Honestly preserving a couple hundred (or even a couple thousand) jobs isn't really a reason to make a decision of this magnitude. I will say, that I don't really like the idea of this wild back and forth between policy - one President is all for the pipeline and another immediately kills it.

I don't really have a particularly strong opinion on the Keystone XL Pipeline as a single issue. I don't really care that much about the Caribou or whatever, but I do think we need to move away from a reactionary energy policy. Not even solely for the environmental reasons, but for long term economic ones.

1. Renewable / Sustainable Energy. This is the future direction for virtually the entire developed world, and I'd rather us try to lead in this space than deny the clear direction things are headed. I think there will always be a need for oil, but reducing that need would seem to be a good thing. Bonus: If Oil and Gas prices stay depressed countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran will have less money to spend on being a pain in the ass for the rest of the world.

2. Energy independence: Related to point 1 - more solar / wind / nuclear helps drive energy independence for the US. While we can get there for a while with domestic Oil, I'd rather see us do it with a mix of energy sources. Particularly since nobody really knows how much oil exists.

[paulxu]

No. Body. Cares.

Trump is out of office. Let your Boogeyman go Paul and worry about your baby killing, job killing and economy killing Puppet President.

Well, we need to care. He did tremendous damage to our country and millions (I hope not you) still believe the big lie about the election that led to the carnage at the Capitol. It'll take a lot of time and effort to correct that damage.

[Xville]

Couldn't you say a similar thing about the pro-Keystone XL crowd RE: the 'who will yell the loudest'? Honestly preserving a couple hundred (or even a couple thousand) jobs isn't really a reason to make a decision of this magnitude. I will say, that I don't really like the idea of this wild back and forth between policy - one President is all for the pipeline and another immediately kills it.

I don't really have a particularly strong opinion on the Keystone XL Pipeline as a single issue. I don't really care that much about the Caribou or whatever, but I do think we need to move away from a reactionary energy policy. Not even solely for the environmental reasons, but for long term economic ones.

1. Renewable / Sustainable Energy. This is the future direction for virtually the entire developed world, and I'd rather us try to lead in this space than deny the clear direction things are headed. I think there will always be a need for oil, but reducing that need would seem to be a good thing. Bonus: If Oil and Gas prices stay depressed countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran will have less money to spend on being a pain in the ass for the rest of the world.

2. Energy independence: Related to point 1 - more solar / wind / nuclear helps drive energy independence for the US. While we can get there for a while with domestic Oil, I'd rather see us do it with a mix of energy sources. Particularly since nobody really knows how much oil exists.

I agree with quite a bit of this, but my thought is that the Keystone Pipeline XL would have helped with 2, while we work on 1.

[boozehound]

I agree with quite a bit of this, but my thought is that the Keystone Pipeline XL would have helped with 2, while we work on 1.

Which is why I'm not necessarily against the Keystone pipeline, as part of a comprehensive Energy strategy. Unfortunately that doesn't really seem to be an option. The options appear to be:

1. We have all the oil we need. Oil is clean and does not pollute. We should never try to stop, or reduce, fossil fuel consumption. The mere concepts of any negative impacts from pollution are completely false.

2. Do you know what the pipeline does to the Caribou? We need to be fully independent from Oil by 2023. Within the next 20 years America will be a post-apocalyptic hellscape complete with lakes of fire and literal acid rain.

[bleedXblue]

Well, we need to care. He did tremendous damage to our country and millions (I hope not you) still believe the big lie about the election that led to the carnage at the Capitol. It'll take a lot of time and effort to correct that damage.

you mean the same lie about Russian interference 4 years ago?

[bleedXblue]

Well, we need to care. He did tremendous damage to our country and millions (I hope not you) still believe the big lie about the election that led to the carnage at the Capitol. It'll take a lot of time and effort to correct that damage.

Seriously? What about the damage the dems did to Kavanaugh and joke of a 1st impeachment of Trump. The list could go on and on.....

Carnage at the capitol? You are unbelievable.

[Smails]

Well, we need to care. He did tremendous damage to our country and millions (I hope not you) still believe the big lie about the election that led to the carnage at the Capitol. It'll take a lot of time and effort to correct that damage.

How will a trial do anything to unite us as a nation? After all that's the goal, right? The only thing a trial is going to do is drive the wedge deeper between people like yourself and those who believe the election was fraudulent. If you and your ilk truly want to move on an move forward, then this spectacle in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis is not the way to do it. It reeks of looking back...not forward. Anyone with a brain can see this is nothing more than a final "gotcha/i told you so moment." Don't you think our elected officials have more important things to focus their energy on? And what if he walks? Would you be willing to admit it was a colossal waste of time and our money?

[paulxu]

Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVUs4dS30c0&feature=youtu.be

Maybe we'll actually hold him accountable...Mister "I don't accept any responsibility." But I doubt it.

[paulxu]

you mean the same lie about Russian interference 4 years ago?

Recommend you read the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.

[XU_Lou]

Damn, this young girl couldn't have said it better:

https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1356014504543277058

[xubrew]

Remember when Rand Paul was beaten senseless by his neighbor? I never understood why the pursued charges. I mean, the beating was already over and the guy had left the property. It seemed like it was bad for healing and unity.

And what was the point of the Nuremberg Trials? I mean, the NAZIs had already left the countries they were occupying, and had pretty much been crushed out of power. Why have them? Why not just focus on healing and unity.

Anyone who breaks the law and then argues they shouldn't be tried on the basis of it not being conducive to healing and unity doesn't understand the point of a trial, and really doesn't have a concept of what healing and unity is. Saying there shouldn't be a trial because it isn't winnable, or the evidence is flimsy, or that there was no obvious wrongdoing is one thing. Saying there shouldn't be one because of unity is just stupid. If that's the case, then why try anyone ever? Justice is a big part of healing and unity.

[XU_Lou]

And what was the point of the Nuremberg Trials? I mean, the NAZIs had already left the countries they were occupying, and had pretty much been crushed out of power. Why have them? Why not just focus on healing and unity.

Just as a point of fact, only a handful of Nazis were tried during the Nuremberg Trials. The vast majority were allowed to "walk" because of unity. Well, it's a little more complicated than that, but the Allies wanted the German population to align with them against the Russians. After Nuremberg it was thought the German population was getting tired of taking all the blame for everything, so in order to "unite" Germany with the Allies, the Allies basically looked the other way for all the "rank and file" Nazis - in other words, those that weren't in leadership (for the most part).

[boozehound]

Remember when Rand Paul was beaten senseless by his neighbor? I never understood why the pursued charges. I mean, the beating was already over and the guy had left the property. It seemed like it was bad for healing and unity.

And what was the point of the Nuremberg Trials? I mean, the NAZIs had already left the countries they were occupying, and had pretty much been crushed out of power. Why have them? Why not just focus on healing and unity.

Anyone who breaks the law and then argues they shouldn't be tried on the basis of it not being conducive to healing and unity doesn't understand the point of a trial, and really doesn't have a concept of what healing and unity is. Saying there shouldn't be a trial because it isn't winnable, or the evidence is flimsy, or that there was no obvious wrongdoing is one thing. Saying there shouldn't be one because of unity is just stupid. If that's the case, then why try anyone ever? Justice is a big part of healing and unity.

I think this frames the issue up pretty well. I'm one who has struggled with whether we should bother impeaching him again, less from a unity angle and more from a practicality / waste of time angle, though.

[GoMuskies]

Impeachment is a purely political tool. That's how it was designed. Does it make sense to use that political tool on someone not in office?

The comparison to criminal law/trials is cute but wholly irrelevant.

[paulxu]

Impeachment is a purely political tool. That's how it was designed. Does it make sense to use that political tool on someone not in office?

The comparison to criminal law/trials is cute but wholly irrelevant.

It is a political tool, and he's been impeached while in office. He left before "removal".
The second part of the constitution notes "conviction" of the listed crimes.
In that manner the action before the Senate mirrors regular trials, deciding to convict or acquit.
The penalty if convicted is removal from office (he's already gone) but can also include barring from ever holding office again.

[GoMuskies]

Thanks for the recap. So does using the political tool make sense in these circumstances? I know your answer. If he'd died, you'd want to dig him up for impeachment.

[STL_XUfan]

Impeachment is a purely political tool. That's how it was designed. Does it make sense to use that political tool on someone not in office?

The comparison to criminal law/trials is cute but wholly irrelevant.

This discussion always makes me think of this scene from the West Wing. "Do we want to set a precedent that anyone can stage a coup and walk away if it doesn't work?"
https://twitter.com/twwgifs/status/1351187689282936833

[GoMuskies]

For the record, I'm not sure which way I'd go on impeachment now, but it makes 1000% more sense now than the last time when everyone knew there was a 0% chance of conviction and removal.

[xubrew]

For the record, I'm not sure which way I'd go on impeachment now, but it makes 1000% more sense now than the last time when everyone knew there was a 0% chance of conviction and removal.

I agree with this. The first one was stupid. MAYBE this one is too, but not because of the belief that it would be damaging to unity. Unwinnable? Maybe. Waste of time? Maybe. No proper evidence of wrongdoing? maybe. All of those are reasons tn not do it. But, damaging to unity? No. Not if he's guilty of it.

[xubrew]

This discussion always makes me think of this scene from the West Wing. "Do we want to set a precedent that anyone can stage a coup and walk away if it doesn't work?"
https://twitter.com/twwgifs/status/1351187689282936833

No. We don't.

[XU '11]

This discussion always makes me think of this scene from the West Wing. "Do we want to set a precedent that anyone can stage a coup and walk away if it doesn't work?"
https://twitter.com/twwgifs/status/1351187689282936833

If his Tweets and speeches amount to 'staging a coup' then half of the politicians in DC should also be impeached.

If there is evidence that there was coordination by people in the government to assist a violent insurrection that overtook the Capitol, the punishment shouldn't be impeachment, it should be treason. I'm ok with investigating that even though I don't think anybody legitimate (not AOC) accused anybody of that. Is using the word 'fight' in a political context ("fight for the future of our country") staging a coup? Is encouraging protest staging a coup? Is doing those things based on an untrue premise staging a coup? I think all of those answers are no. If there is evidence that the Trump administration supported insurrectionists breaking into the Capitol to physically prevent the votes for certification, it's treason. Trump should be thrown in prison. But there's no evidence of that.

[noteggs]

my thought is that the Keystone Pipeline XL would have helped with 2, while we work on 1.

Exactly! Until that happens, please don’t destroy jobs unnecessarily.

[boozehound]

Impeachment is a purely political tool. That's how it was designed. Does it make sense to use that political tool on someone not in office?

The comparison to criminal law/trials is cute but wholly irrelevant.

That's a fair point. I guess the answer to that would involve him being tried criminally for some type of treason/sedition related charge, which may be preferable. I'd be fine with that. I certainly agree with the people who think that there should be serious consequences for this.

[paulxu]

Thanks for the recap. So does using the political tool make sense in these circumstances? I know your answer. If he'd died, you'd want to dig him up for impeachment.

Yes, you know my answer. I don't want the chance of him being in office again.

The president is the chief law enforcement officer in the country. For him to say 2 months after the election, that it was a lie and it had been stolen from him (against all the evidence and court cases, including the SC) saying it was fair and he had lost...was the flame that lit the fire. It was nurtured through 2 months and he poured gasoline on it every day on line, in the press, and on January 6th.
Around the world people were amazed that what happen could occur in the United States.
He bears enormous responsibility for pushing that lie and inflaming those supporters to march on the Capitol. Lives were lost.

Yes, I hope he, and those involved, are held accountable.

[xubrew]

That's a fair point. I guess the answer to that would involve him being tried criminally for some type of treason/sedition related charge, which may be preferable. I'd be fine with that. I certainly agree with the people who think that there should be serious consequences for this.

I'd be fine with the latter as well. I ultimately think that for the long term health and healing and unity of the country, the person/people who created so much disunity, largely based on a totally bogus premise, need to face serious consequences. If you lie to people, and they believe the lie, and get pissed off and threaten to kidnap and murder people because of the lie...THAT'S A PROBLEM!!! He lost the election. It wasn't stolen from him.

And while we're at it, there is no giant laser in outer space that the Jews are controlling to start wildfires in California either. HOLY SHIT HOW ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING STUPID!!?? Nearly every person who believes that thinks that climate change is a hoax. Big giant Jewish laser is plausible, but climate change is not. GOOD GRIEF!!!!

[boozehound]

If his Tweets and speeches amount to 'staging a coup' then half of the politicians in DC should also be impeached.

If there is evidence that there was coordination by people in the government to assist a violent insurrection that overtook the Capitol, the punishment shouldn't be impeachment, it should be treason. I'm ok with investigating that even though I don't think anybody legitimate (not AOC) accused anybody of that. Is using the word 'fight' in a political context ("fight for the future of our country") staging a coup? Is encouraging protest staging a coup? Is doing those things based on an untrue premise staging a coup? I think all of those answers are no. If there is evidence that the Trump administration supported insurrectionists breaking into the Capitol to physically prevent the votes for certification, it's treason. Trump should be thrown in prison. But there's no evidence of that.

I think what many, myself included, struggle with is the fact that we had a sitting President spend two months calling his election loss fraudulent and repeatedly seeking to have it overturned by various methods, most of which were not legal. All the while presenting no evidence that was deemed admissible in a court of law that the election was actually, even possibly, 'stolen'. That culminated in him, for some reason, holding a rally while Congress was certifying the election results. That rally resulted in people storming the Capitol, shortly after the President gave yet another speech about how the election was 'stolen'.

If there are no consequences for doing that, what's to stop future Presidents from trying the same thing? What happens when one is successful? The opportunity existed to impeach him and bar him from holding future office. It seem's that's a bridge too far. He could potentially be tried criminally, but that would almost certainly be a years-long National nightmare and embarrassment. Maybe he will end up being sued in Civil Court by the families of the deceased?

To the people who say that it's over, and we should move on to the business of unifying, now it appears that he is still communicating with people in government (House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy for one) about how he can continue to get revenge on his political foes, so it's not like he has gone away.

I'm not really sure what the answer is, but no consequences for Trump doesn't seem like it would set a great precedent.

[boozehound]

I'd be fine with the latter as well. I ultimately think that for the long term health and healing and unity of the country, the person/people who created so much disunity, largely based on a totally bogus premise, need to face serious consequences. If you lie to people, and they believe the lie, and get pissed off and threaten to kidnap and murder people because of the lie...THAT'S A PROBLEM!!! He lost the election. It wasn't stolen from him.

And while we're at it, there is no giant laser in outer space that the Jews are controlling to start wildfires in California either. HOLY SHIT HOW ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING STUPID!!?? Nearly every person who believes that thinks that climate change is a hoax. Big giant Jewish laser is plausible, but climate change is not. GOOD GRIEF!!!!

I mean, you'd like to think that we can all unify around the fact that his actions were horrifying and that in hindsight he is a disaster of a human being, the likes of which we should endeavor to never elect to high office again. Instead half the country STILL thinks that the election was stolen despite a complete lack of evidence.

[chico]

And while we're at it, there is no giant laser in outer space that the Jews are controlling to start wildfires in California either. HOLY SHIT HOW ARE PEOPLE SO FUCKING STUPID!!?? Nearly every person who believes that thinks that climate change is a hoax. Big giant Jewish laser is plausible, but climate change is not. GOOD GRIEF!!!!

Mel Brooks already covered this. Still think it's not real???


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAZhtT-dUyo

[xubrew]

Tommy Tubberville seriously needs to have his house checked for lead. WHAT AN IDIOT!!!

https://www.businessinsider.com/tommy-tuberville-says-he-cant-comment-marjorie-taylor-greene-weather-2021-2

[bobbiemcgee]

He thinks the 3 branches of govt are the House, Senate and Executive,

[paulxu]

Maybe he was injured by the space laser.

[bjf123]

He thinks the 3 branches of govt are the House, Senate and Executive,

Didn’t AOC say the same thing a few years ago?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[boozehound]

Tommy Tubberville seriously needs to have his house checked for lead. WHAT AN IDIOT!!!

https://www.businessinsider.com/tommy-tuberville-says-he-cant-comment-marjorie-taylor-greene-weather-2021-2

This is a Senator, too. Not a member of the House. Senator. He won a statewide election. That state was Alabama, but still.

You do have to respect the staunch refusal of a lot of these crackpots shut the fuck up, even for a a couple of days/weeks. Usually when you stage a coup and it fails, you lay low for a while. Not these guys...

[xubrew]

Didn’t AOC say the same thing a few years ago?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If she did, I missed it. I get thinking that AOC is crazy. But...Tommy Tuberville is just plain stupid. It's as if he was repeatedly dropped on his head as a child. The guy did finish in the top 15 multiple times as a football coach, and you would assume that requires some level of intelligence, but....maybe not!!

[XU_Lou]

What's worse? Tommy Tuberville and Marjorie Taylor Greene saying stupid things - or an entire party that thinks there are more than two genders?

How about an entire party that thinks it's alright for biological males to take scholarships away from girls?

[xubrew]

What's worse? Tommy Tuberville and Marjorie Taylor Greene saying stupid things - or an entire party that thinks there are more than two genders?

How about an entire party that thinks it's alright for biological males to take scholarships away from girls?

The former is infinitely more stupid. While there are only two sexes, there are more than two genders because one is biological and the other is social and/or lingual.

As far as the entire party pushing for biological males to take scholarships away from females, yeah that is pretty dumb, but probably not for the reasons you think. Both the NCAA and the IOC were already allowing this and have been for some time. So, yes, I would agree that pushing for something that already exists is pretty dumb and is nothing more than a form of grandstanding. It's a big nothing burger, and it's so rare that no one has ever cared because there has never been a reason for them to.

I bet Tommy Tuberville didn't know that, despite the fact that he was a college coach for as long as he was. The guy stated he can't watch the news because of the weather. He really needs to stop eating paint chips.

[paulxu]

Give him this though...as an Auburn coach he got elected by Alabamians. Generally he would get whooped, unless he had Cam Newton.
He even coached at sUCks.

[MADXSTER]

As far as the entire party pushing for biological males to take scholarships away from females, yeah that is pretty dumb, but probably not for the reasons you think. Both the NCAA and the IOC were already allowing this and have been for some time. So, yes, I would agree that pushing for something that already exists is pretty dumb and is nothing more than a form of grandstanding. It's a big nothing burger, and it's so rare that no one has ever cared because there has never been a reason for them to.



https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/connecticut-transgender-athletes-face-federal-discrimination-complaint-from-females-over-title-ix-violations/

Well there are some teenage girls who feel differently

[XU_Lou]

The former is infinitely more stupid. While there are only two sexes, there are more than two genders because one is biological and the other is social and/or lingual.

As far as the entire party pushing for biological males to take scholarships away from females, yeah that is pretty dumb, but probably not for the reasons you think. Both the NCAA and the IOC were already allowing this and have been for some time. So, yes, I would agree that pushing for something that already exists is pretty dumb and is nothing more than a form of grandstanding. It's a big nothing burger, and it's so rare that no one has ever cared because there has never been a reason for them to.

I bet Tommy Tuberville didn't know that, despite the fact that he was a college coach for as long as he was. The guy stated he can't watch the news because of the weather. He really needs to stop eating paint chips.

This might be a bit of breaking news, but no, there are only 2 genders.

No matter what the number is, which is probably far more common than what you're admitting, it's fundamentally wrong for biological males to take scholarships and medals away from girls (PERIOD)

[xubrew]

This might be a bit of breaking news, but no, there are only 2 genders.

No matter what the number is, which is probably far more common than what you're admitting, it's fundamentally wrong for biological males to take scholarships and medals away from girls (PERIOD)

Okay, start citing examples. Like I said, that rule has been in place for a while, so if there are a lot more than what I'm admitting then they shouldn't be hard to find. List all the NCAA athletes you know of that are transgendered. Or...are there any? I mean, since you say there are only two I guess trans males and trans females aren't even really a thing.

[xubrew]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgender-teens-outrun-track-field-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/connecticut-transgender-athletes-face-federal-discrimination-complaint-from-females-over-title-ix-violations/

Well there are some teenage girls who feel differently

I agree this seems unfair. I have no idea what the rules are at the high school level. At the college level a trans female would have to undergo a full year of anti-testosterone and hormone therapy. I think it's the same for the Olympics, but I'm not sure. If that's not the case for the high school level, and it very well may not be, then yeah...that isn't fair.

[bobbiemcgee]

If you're worried about teenaged girls, how about getting MTG off the Education committee. She would be such an inspiration to Sandy Hook and Parkland parents.

[bobbiemcgee]

The guy stated he can't watch the news because of the weather. He really needs to stop eating paint chips.
The dog ate his newspaper.

[Xville]

Tt is saying stupid things; Greene has been caught saying completely psycho conspiracy theories that if people believe are true, is a detriment to our country. Two completely separate things.