Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Mar 28 07:44:45 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Dems impeach Trump
superdude
Member
Wed Dec 11 11:26:28
I honestly didn't think pelsoi would be this stupid. This outrage will be punished.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 11 12:57:33
SD
Do you think Trump should be impeached if he decided to run for a third term?

Or is that another thing that should just be decided at the polls?

I ask because I am trying to establish exactly where you think the limits of his powers goes.
hood
Member
Wed Dec 11 13:08:20
Limits are for rinos and Democraps!
swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Dec 11 13:12:17
"I ask because I am trying to establish exactly where you think the limits of his powers goes."

to infinity and beyond!!!!!!!!!!
Paramount
Member
Wed Dec 11 13:19:35
Has the war begun now?
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 11 13:31:25
I can just see it in my mind's eye now:

"Tsk, jergul. There is nothing unconstitutional about running for a third terms as president. Scholars disagree on if the electorate could constitutionally choose him, but that is ultimately up to the each individual elector to decide. Either way, you cannot prove Trump is doing something wrong"
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Dec 11 15:45:16
Trump has put up no witnesses or docs to provide a legitimate reason for his hold on aid (or WH meeting 'drug deal')

instead he has blanketly ignored all subpoenas of witnesses & docs (& w/ a made-up legal argument)*

so yeah, he's getting impeached for what there is evidence of him doing & for his obvious obstruction

(*& obviously R's would not remotely accept that behavior if roles reversed... yeah, D's would change positions on things too... doesn't make it right, does it?)
kargen
Member
Wed Dec 11 17:29:33
"Do you think Trump should be impeached if he decided to run for a third term?"

He wouldn't be allowed to run for a third term. He could announce he wants to run for a third term all he wants and it isn't going to happen. Ya see we have this thing called the constitution and as much as some on the left would like to see us get rid of it the thing is still law. The part that applies here is the twenty-second amendment.

You are comparing a fundamental law of our country to a difference of opinion on what a persons intentions were. You are the one that said an impeachment isn't a legal proceeding.
kargen
Member
Wed Dec 11 17:34:21
"Trump has put up no witnesses or docs to provide a legitimate reason for his hold on aid (or WH meeting 'drug deal')"

He doesn't have to. The burden is on the accusers to prove guilt not the other way around.

He is getting impeached because he isn't Hillary. They said before the inauguration they would impeach him and have said when this one fails to be prosecuted (thus admitting they don't think they have proven guilt) they can impeach again. If President Trump wins in 2020 they will impeach again. As jergul pointed out they don't have to have a good reason.
They want to impeach President Trump so they are using any excuse to do so. It all comes down to they don't like him.
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 11 20:14:53
So what...the Senate will end this.

On a side note a Georgian woman started a petition to impeach pelosi...last I read it had 285k signatures.
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 11 20:28:57
This was an epic failure for the dems. Here is why

1. It hasn't changed any opinions one way or the other.

2. Its seen as a partisan smear campaign.

3.Cry wolf syndrome. The Dems have literally had a campaign to attack Trump from day one with nothing really panning out so ppl see this as just another attempt and partisan smears.

4. This vote is no consensus its literally on party lines.

5.Even the dems admit this was just a ploy knowing that the Senate would shoot it down.
CrownRoyal
Member
Wed Dec 11 20:47:03
"On a side note a Georgian woman started a petition to impeach pelosi...last I read it had 285k signatures."

How do you impeach a member of Congress, wtf?
Rugian
Member
Wed Dec 11 20:47:06
superdude
Member Wed Dec 11 11:26:28
I honestly didn't think pelsoi would be this stupid. This outrage will be punished.

At some point Pelosi realized that the leftwing press would keep kissing her ass no matter how extreme she went. She probably figured that out after the media let Schifty Schiff completely off the hook for flat out lying about a Trump-Russian collusion fiction for a two full years.

But all the fake news and internet censorship in the world can't stop the people from voting against the establishment. As a certain now-nonperson used to say, 1776 will commence again.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 11 20:57:30
Kargen
"The part that applies here is the twenty-second amendment."

Where in the Constitution does it say he cannot run for president a third term?

It is in no manner unconstitutional for him to run, nor is it unconstitutional to vote for him.

It may be unconstitutional for the electorate to actually elect him. So after a constitutional ruling he might have to swap with his vice president.

Then they can swap back again after a cup of coffee.

They probably should have worded the 1947 ammendment better.

http://en....ge_under_the_Twelfth_Amendment

Habebe
There is always the principle of the matter. Since Trump obviously is guilty of the Articles.

It will undoubtably play better than the ploy with Clinton. Remind me how many GOP folk had to resign for the blatant hypocracy of infidelity after hounding Clinton?
kargen
Member
Wed Dec 11 21:00:34
"How do you impeach a member of Congress, wtf?"

You can't. With a two thirds vote in the respective chamber of congress you can kick their butt out though.
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 11 21:19:40
http://pet...ch-nancy-pelosi-crimes-treason
obaminated
Member
Wed Dec 11 21:22:25
This will be as successful as lees decision to march on DC.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 11 21:22:37
Kargen
Would you vote for Trump if he ran for a third term?
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 11 21:34:54
Jergul, when they knowingly impeach him admitting it will legally go nowhere the "PRINCIPLE" argument is nonsense.

As for Clinton I agree it was b.s.

But again ifmyour going to argue "Principle" he ACTUALLY broke the law without dispute....

Do I think it was impeachment worthy ? no, but it was a different time with different standards.

The Clinton impeachment at least swayed opinion cause ppl cared at the time...no one even takes this seriously.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Dec 11 22:03:44
i take it seriously... asking Zelensky about Crowdstrike at all is crazy unfit behavior, then if you think about why he's asking it's even more disturbing (still trying to prove Russia innocent)

and i absolutely believe he's willing to hold up aid for his personal goals, it's clear the WH meeting was held up for that (texts prove it)... Pence's visit cancelled almost certainly about that... & his desire for a public announcement about Biden is obviously not just legit concern (& if R's find it so critical suddenly after years of not caring, then has corrupt AG Barr opened that investigation yet?)

plus consider the 2nd time Fox News got disturbed enough by Trump to criticize him (1st being Helsinki): it was the Stephanopolous interview when Trump was fine w/ the idea of seeking foreign help in elections

the reason for urgency is clear
hood
Member
Wed Dec 11 22:32:10
"he ACTUALLY broke the law without dispute."

Trump hasn't disputed the accusations against him in any legal manner. He also actually broke the law, else there wouldn't have been an impeachment process.


"Its seen as a partisan smear campaign."

Vs. the 7 Benghazi investigations that turned up precisely... nothing? Those weren't smear campaigns?


"Cry wolf syndrome."

If this mattered even the slightest, republicans would be unelectable. It turns out voters aren't that bothered over the constant wolf-crying.


"He is getting impeached because he isn't Hillary."

He's getting impeached for acting like a street gangster while serving as president.
Dukhat
Member
Wed Dec 11 23:10:18
McConnell to try and push for full acquittal. Not even a censure. LoL. All in for Trump huh?
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 11 23:12:13
1. Well it is disputed...

2. Bengazi was partisan b.s....i agree.

3. Both parties cry wolf yes...but that doesn't discount as to why this impeachment was a failure.

It swayed no opinions nor will he be found guilty of anything...so

I think Trump has angered more of the left than any potus in recent history and as such they have taken a " show me the man and I'll show you the crime" attitude...even more so than the reps.led agaunst Obama...and I expect it to just get worse who ever wins in 2020.
smart dude
Member
Wed Dec 11 23:27:14
"Do you think Trump should be impeached if he decided to run for a third term?"

Not even going to scroll up to see if this was addressed, but this is the stupidest question I've ever heard. He is constitionally barred from being elected to a third term. How can you be impeached from an office you don't even hold anymore? "Durrrr my 12-year-old nephew is running for president. Can he be impeached?!!"
smart dude
Member
Wed Dec 11 23:30:07
Point is, running for president isn't a crime or "impeachable" or whatever you want to call it. All his moron fans can write in his name or whatever if he decides to run for a third term. Fine with me if all those white trash, hillbilly high school drop-outs want to throw their votes away.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 00:02:12
"they have taken a " show me the man and I'll show you the crime" attitude...even more so than the reps.led agaunst Obama"

there is absolutely no comparison between Trump & Obama (or Trump & any president, or Trump & any adult)

if Obama had accused someone of treason (or any crime), it would have meant something... Trump can say it & it's barely noticed & there's no expectation anything will happen

just a small example of Trump's total & complete unfitness
kargen
Member
Thu Dec 12 01:01:21
"Would you vote for Trump if he ran for a third term?"

He can't run for a third term. Even if he announced he wouldn't be allowed.

I didn't vote for President Trump this term. I don't know who I will vote for in 2020. I need to see who all makes it on the ballot in Colorado then I will choose. I usually pick three or four issues important to me I think the president can influence then choose the candidate that best represents what I believe on those issues.

jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 04:35:06
Kargen
Trump can run for a third term. You can vote for him. The electoral college can elect him.

What happens then you may ask.

Well, State electors fall under State jurisdiction. I suppose there may be legal challenge in every State where electors chose to cast their ballot for Trump.

What happens then is unclear. But worst case? Trump's VP takes over the presidency. That VP as president can resign at any time. His VP can in turn take over the office without being elected.

You might think the GOP would never nominate a Trump running for third term.

But Trump would have the nuclear option of running as an independent as ensuring a democratic president if the GOP tried to be contrary like that.

Do you see any indication at all that the GOP would be willing to abandon Trump and hand the presidency over to the Democrats?
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 10:58:31
If Biden was a member in this niche he would endlessly be harassed as Pedo Joe.

That statement it closer to truth than a Trump 3rd term.

No malarkey...
obaminated
Member
Thu Dec 12 10:59:06
I like how the Russian bots along with the idiot leftists actually think this will lead to anything. Also, Russian bots, I know you probably get executed for voicing desenting opinion but you should tell your superior officers that you should say nothing. Also, jergul if you aren't being paid to be a Russian asset but still say the same propaganda, that's pretty hilarious.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 12 11:13:01
"Hillary Clinton passed the 22nd Amendment to stop Trump from winning a third term" - AOC
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 11:28:27
Obam
For Russian asset: See Trump.

You are projecting, bro.

================

TJ
Are you saying that you trust Trump will chose not run for a third term? Because nothing in the Constitution bars him from doing so.

My point being: Anything can happen when you normalize the outragous.

I outlined a path for a third term. We will have to talk a lot more about the possibility if Trump does win in 2020.

A lot of people underestimate how transactional and proprietary Trump is. In his mind, he has won the white house and can do what he wants with it.

Perhaps he will merely try to bequeth it to one of his children. He has been known to hand over business opportunities to some of them.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 11:41:42
A President can't bequeath the office of the President constitutionally.

His sons are entitled to run for the Presidency if they meet the Constitutional requirements.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 11:51:55
why are we acting like Trump cares about the constitution?

everything is opinion now, facts don't exist

Trump can cancel elections (they are rigged & packed w/ fraud as we will soon be told again) so his supporters will be fine w/ whatever dictatorial moves he makes
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 12:01:53
TJ
Any particular reason his daughters cannot?

A president willing to do anything he wants to do can certainly try to bequeath the presidency to one of his offspring (though of course following procedures that lead to the electorate electing his chosen one).

Trump has a considerable personal following that can be leveraged in lots of neat ways.

Or did you think Trump is above using leverage to get what he wants?

Habebe
Member
Thu Dec 12 12:11:03
Jergul, I think he has already started that with Ivanka who generally is more popular and way less hated than he is.

In yhe earlyndays of his presidency she seemed to even play a role similar to that of a first lady at times and at other times meeting with officials etc. It seems imho he wants to groom her for the role as first female potus.

And come on its Trump, one of the fee things he loves more than himself is his kids/ legacy. ( well maybe not the ugo daughter)
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 12:17:00
"TJ
Are you saying that you trust Trump will chose not run for a third term? Because nothing in the Constitution bars him from doing so."

No, I haven't come near stating something that is phenomenally ludicrous.

The 22nd Amendment is Constitutional.

Trump is clearly not electable for more than two terms unless the 22nd Amendment is repealed.

Is it possible? Sure, but it is extremely improbable because of the astronomical odds against.

You are wasting your energy and money on a Mega Lottery.

Do you believe that the Democratic Party isn't willing to uphold the Constitution?

The Republicans would need to win 3/4th's of the House and Senate to repeal the 22nd Amendment.

That is factual...
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 12 12:30:30
Ivanka isn't running, she doesn't need her getting railroaded by Michael Steele being any more public
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 12:35:36
TJ
Trump does not elect himself. The electorate does. And the electorate has their own constitutional instructions that they must follow.

This is the 12th Ammendment.

Feel free to illuminate me on the exact juncture where a third term president is disqualified.

The 22nd Amendment looks to me to be poorly implemented.

An administration willing to ignore Congressional authority (the subpeonas) should be considered willing to do anything.

Perhaps the solution for the third term presidency is the same as for the subpeonas. A process must be followed so that the coequal judicary can have their say a year or two into the third term.
Habebe
Member
Thu Dec 12 12:36:36
Forwyn, Idk of she ever will. My point is Donald at times seemed to be putting her in such a light.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 12:40:00
All you have is your opinions. Zero facts.

"Looks to me" to be a poorly implemented

"should be considered willing to do anything"

"Perhaps the solution"

jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 12:59:27
TJ
And that differs from you how exactly?
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 13:00:42
If you don't realize the differences it would be lunacy for me to continue responding.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 13:01:48
Habebe
One variant is son by proxy. Or the son in law. With the daughter being groomed as madam president.

Trump is sort of a bigot.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 13:07:12
TJ
You have your opinions. I have mine. Fair enough.

You should entertain the possibility that the 22nd amendment is actually poorly anchored to the rest of the Constitution.

Feel free to point out exactly when a 3rd term president would be disqualified.

If you cannot find that point, then perhaps entertain the possibility that a coequal ruling would have to be made at some point down the road.

In the same way you entertain that a coequal ruling is needed for contempt of congress.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 13:18:24
Feel free to point out to me exactly how a president can run for a third term according to the current Constitutional Amendment.

I've presented you with those factual points.

The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. When you can do that I'll return to the thread.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 13:25:06
According to the Constitution, treaties are actually the Supreme Law of the Land.

The UN threaty for example. The problem of course is that treaty protection as the Supreme Law of the Land is poorly integrated with the rest of the constitution.

So you get to invade and bomb countries instead of refraining from "the use of force or threat of force" as your treaty obligations say.

Here is how a president can run:

He announces his candidancy and either wins the party primary or runs as an independent.

Is that forbidden by your Constitution?
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 13:27:51
Yes it is forbidden by the Constitution unless the 22nd Amendment is repealed. He an announce all he wants, but won't be allowed. He wouldn't be allowed in a primary.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 13:30:22
When and if that would become a reality I'll join back into such a discussion.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 13:31:29
he can run, he can be voted for

the 22nd just says he can't be elected

jergul has some point, there's no clear stopping point... i assume it would go to courts if electoral college also voted for him

(i see nothing preventing any of those preliminary things in the constitution)

maybe some/all states have provisions that wouldn't let him on the ballot, i dunno
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 13:32:14
...although even if not on the ballot he could be written in
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 14:02:28
I was actually checking into that.

Ballot access is registered at state level and is regulated by "Article 2, Section 1" of the Constitution.

States are not free to set their own ballot access rules.

===============

This is a recap of the birther stuff really. People wanted Obama to prove he was qualified. Turns out he did not have to prove it.

jAs a birther, Trump is quite familiar with the difficulties with actually enforcing Constitutional wording.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 14:15:47
TJ
The GOP could refuse Trump entry into the primary. Possibly. I am not sure how they have worded the qualifications required.

But Trumps base would assure a democratic president if Trump chose to run as an independent.

The question then is if you trust the GOP would prefer a democratic president to a third term trump.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 14:16:02
"According to the Constitution, treaties are actually the Supreme Law of the Land."

It is a law not the supreme law of the land. See what I did there?
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 14:19:07
Legally he can not run for President in any party as an independent, democrat,republican, socialist or any other title he would choose to label himself.

This isn't a matter of trust.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 14:28:09
TJ
Legally, he cannot be elected.

Words, even words in the Constitution, mean something.

Also re Supreme law of the land. Treaties are called exactly that in your Constitution in the same sentence as the Constitution even:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

This underlines most of all that the Constitution is not religious scripture. It is a legal document.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 14:35:09
Great, then why are you disagreeing with the Constitution in this instance?

If a treaty is contested it will go to the Supreme Court(just like every other law)and if unconstitutional will be struck down as simply as any other law. Treaties are no different than any other law.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 14:53:58
I once said that elections do have enormous consequences.

By the way, what we have inserted into the discussion is highly contested and why the Supreme Court is so important when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.
patom
Member
Thu Dec 12 15:22:35
Unless Trump manages to come up with a National Emergency and declares Martial Law with himself as the sole arbiter of justice.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 15:40:29
relevant:

"
I'll be on @seanhannity 2nite @FoxNews at 9pm ET and will explain how @realDonaldTrump will be eligible for a 3rd term due to the illegal attempts by Comey, Dems, and media , et al attempting to oust him as @POTUS so that's why I was named to head up the 2024 re-election.
"
~ Gov. Mike Huckabee
(governor & R presidential candidate who had a show on Fox News, & whose daughter was the 2nd piece of shit Press Sec & is now on Fox News)

http://twi...bee/status/1205211276005101568

could be a joke... would be a weird one though as Trump has repeatedly hinted at the same idea...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 15:41:57
(there have been no illegal attempts by Comey, Dems or the media to out Trump by the way...

just Trump's contagious bullshit)
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 16:06:06
Constitutionally the House and Senate can strike down a call for martial law which is a term not mentioned in the Constitution. A writ of Habeas Corpus is often expressed as Martial Law. If Trump did, which is dramatic statement he does not become the sole arbiter of justice.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 17:14:41
TJ
That was quite a novel movement of goal posts. It is unconstitutional to break treaty provisions according to the wording of your Constitution. That was the point I was trying to make.

So an executive order to attack someone would be unconstitutional. A declaration of war to attack someone would probably be constitutional as it has equal standing with treaty.

So the Supreme Court gets to decide on the third term after the electorate votes in a manner that is probably unconstitutional.

How long does that process take? A year?

If indeed it decides to rule on a clearly political matter.

Patom
Martial law would be called something like "Protection of the 2nd Amendment"

Who better to protect the rights of gun owners than active serving military folk?



TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 17:46:01
Like I said:

Below is information supporting my statement. How they rule doesn't change my statement.

http://www...ixed-signals-international-law



TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 18:07:02
"So the Supreme Court gets to decide on the third term after the electorate votes in a manner that is probably unconstitutional."

The electorate would need an Amendment to repeal the 22nd.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Dec 12 19:23:39
The biggest take away (not that it's any kind of a surprise) is that all of these people, on both sides, are pretty much worthless piles.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 20:33:05
especially Trumps allies :p

the Rs definitely will have a problem with a D exerting supreme awesomeness and blanket ignoring congress

whereas there's no definite assumption a D would use this nonsense claim that the Rs are oddly fighting for

in addition to the bullshit total obstruction on Ukraine, Trump admin also were obstructing with Mueller witnesses... Hope Hicks told by not to answer any questions about her time in the White House and she didn't (no privelege claimed)... dickbag Lewandowski was told by WH to only repeat what he said in the Mueller report which he smugly stuck to (again no actually privilege claimed)

just straight obstruction
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Dec 12 20:37:48
No, they're all equally worthless. It's just grandstanding and political maneuvering on both sides. The same circular arguments, the same twisting of words, the same manufactured outrage, etc.

It's actually pretty much like most of the people on this board.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 20:40:25
update to Huckabee... I guess claiming a joke... even though Trump repeatedly suggests that concepts (and Huck is still falsely smearing people with the 'illegal' allegation which again doesn't work as a joke... if he even meant it as a joke... as Trump claims that repeatedly with no joke at all implied

Also google "beach thief" with relation to Huckabee for more hypocrisy (he's suing a lawyer for joke tweets about him)
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 12 21:15:40
"the Rs definitely will have a problem with a D exerting supreme awesomeness and blanket ignoring congress"

Yes, they indeed had a problem with Obama/Holder refusing Congressional subpoenas.

So they held Holder in contempt, which Pelosi and Co. called a witch hunt, and Obama DoJ refused to prosecute
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 12 21:19:09
"Also google "beach thief" with relation to Huckabee for more hypocrisy"

Yes...retarded, for the lawyer

“This is not a case in which an attorney is generally commenting about some public matter,” Huckabee’s complaint said. “Rather, Mr. Uhlfelder is directly targeting me for harassment while I am an adverse party during ongoing litigation. He has accused me of being a thief, disparaged me and my family, and continued to harass me even when I blocked his account. Mr. Uhlfelder’s conduct is an embarrassment to the reputation of the Florida Bar.”
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 21:32:05
the lawyer suggested "beach thief" as Huckabee's secret service code name to which Huckabee claims "He accused me of theft, a crime of moral turpitude"... a bit dramatic I'd say

Plus here he is accusing Comey, Dems and the media of criminal activity to remove Trump (same as Trump claims, so not even a joke)

And the lawsuits are about Huckabee building a mansion along a public beach, then wanting it to be his private beach so "beach thief" seems appropriate even not as a joke
Forwyn
Member
Thu Dec 12 21:37:05
Huckabee is not a party in impeachment proceedings.

Somehow I doubt we'd even need to have this conversation if the joke were about the judge, it would have been instantly settled in the courtroom.
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 21:38:18
TJ
My point can be boiled down to the fact that the Constitution is not a self-enforcing document.

The electors do not need a constitutional amendment to cast their vote for for a third term Trump.

The Constitution provides a rigid procedure for counting the votes.

"The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President"

The 12th and 22nd amendment conflict.

Article 2, section 1 sets out eligibility criteria. A person is eligible, or he is not. Checking this is done at the state level to see if someone can be on the ballot.

The 22nd amendment attempts to forbid someone from electing a president for a third term. I have no idea who that someone is.

It is not unconstitutional to fail to elect him. Say the democrat that cycle got the most votes, followed by Trump the independent, then finally the GOP candidate.

Trump was not elected. The wording of the Constitution was followed.

What happens if instead the 12nd Amendment clashes with the 22nd Amendment? Who knows.

No wonder Trump and proxies are cautiously exploring the idea.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 21:42:16
jergul and TJ were having the discussion about 3rd term and Huckabee happened to post that at the same time so I tossed it in here, but yeah, no longer on topic :p

...other than Huckabee being one of the brain parasite-infected Retrumplicants who find Trump to be a fit President (and model Christian) who could never possibly do anything impeachable
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 12 22:03:58
jergul:

We must agree to disagree. I'm done with repeating myself. Time settles all disputes and unless the world ends time will be the decider where we disagree.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Dec 12 22:25:25
lol, they didn't even vote on that shit tonight.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Dec 12 22:36:15
Rs probably had more shenanigans to roll out if they had voted

One optimistic R offered an amendment to remove all of the 2nd article of impeachment... so they then discussed for an hour or whatever... spoiler alert, it didn't pass
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 12 22:53:49
Heh, my initial question to SD was if he would vote for Trump if he ran for a third term.

The scary thing is - I think a lot of people would, never mind that running for a third term is clear perversion of the intent behind the 22. amendment.

But I was curious about it simply because it was the most outragous thing I could imagine Trump doing.

The question was sidetracked into a discussion on if running for a third term is even possible.

Turns out. It probably is.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 13 04:53:30
Jergul, If it was legal im sure ppl would vote for him.

These only came about because of FDR ( now you want to talk about a power hungry egomaniac)

Ive actually thought for years that terms should be extended or term limits removed. Id probably lean toward two 6 year terms...idk.

It just seems that our officials spend too much time running for office rather than running the office.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 13 07:35:20
The thing is, it does not even matter. Any president, including Trump, could just run on a vice-presidential ticket every election.

Then take over the presidency when his running mate steps down.

The 22nd amendment simply does not bar multiple terms. I don't even think it does so directly as there is no self-enforcing cut-off point that keeps a candidate from running for a third term.

Even if the SC did rule that electing a president was unconstitutional, all it would do is trigger a game of musical chairs. VP becomes President. President becomes VP. Then VP becomes President and President becomes VP.

I have no idea how the SC would rule when the practical outcome is null. I rather suspect it might just call it political and refrain from ruling (remember also that the 12. and 22. conflict in this scenario).

They should have paid more attention to the wording in 1947.

Putin did something similar, though not as blatant (he stepped down and did a term as PM to honour the wording of the Russian Constitution).
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 13 10:49:32
Jergul, No they can not run as the VP. You can not run for VP if anything would disqualify you from being president.

Also "The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947, and was ratified by the states on February 27, 1951. The Twenty-Second Amendment says a person can only be elected to be president two times for a total of eight years. It does make it possible for a person to serve up to ten years as president."

Im lazy, this is wiki....

The 10 yr bit is because if someone were to step down then they ran..
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 13 11:44:36
Habebe
You are focusing on the intent more than on the actual wording.

Who is not allowed to elect the president? Whoever that is constitutionally bared from electing him.

Thing is, the word elect does not occur in the wording of the procedure. Electors vote. Senate head count votes.

The 22. amendment is poorly integrated with the rest of the constitution.

It usually does not matter. Presidents honour the intent...but if someone willing to test boundaries has a lot of support...

Well...does Trump seem like the kind of guy that honours intent if the alternative is getting what he wants?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 13 12:04:42
i don't think Trump would want a 3rd term... it would be after 4 more years of deterioration of his brain & impressive collection of mental disorders

plus the country would be in shambles
TJ
Member
Fri Dec 13 12:19:39
He needs to win a 2nd term before a miracle third term. I guess it is a fear that he will win that 2nd from reading this thread and media articles.

A mouse is squealing behind a baseboard of a condemned house.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 13 12:32:49
everyone in existence should have fear of him winning a 2nd term
(except our traditional enemies, whatever Saudis are, & Israel)
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 13 13:31:00
The problem with Trump winning a 2nd term is that it solidifies his approach to politics as a winning formula.

So this Donald Trump, or some other Donald Trump, will take the lead in the 2023/24 GOP primaries,
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 13 20:47:32
Jergul, He technically could be votes in I suppose ( it would be an issue before that happened in reality)

But he would be barred by the Scot is.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 13 20:48:55
I will say this, I would put money on him being re elected.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 13 21:03:31
turnout will be large, hopefully all the D voters will be willing to stand in the hours-long lines that keep happening in blue areas...
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 13 21:54:55
As of now dems don't appear to excited or motivated but Republicans are...however this is a long ways until the election.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 13 22:01:30
The real problem as I see it is lack of democratic talent. Not one candidate has the draw Obama had.

The only one who seems to get people excited or is even likeable is Bernie but he lacks mass appeal.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 13 22:43:36
i'm relying on Trump exhaustion... plus Trump's awfulness has gotten people interested in politics, i'm hoping for high turnout by young people for a change

midterm turnout was way up
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share