[Second Impeachment] of the 45th President of the United States | Trial: 1pm 02/08/2021

1232426282936

Posts

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Greene is probably going to say she wants to impeach Hilary too

    monikerFencingsaxJaysonFour
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Greene is probably going to say she wants to impeach Hilary too

    Well if she includes Obama she'd get some of that vaunted "attacking dems from the left" that idiots like to tout. But again they're in the minority and much like Obama, Biden hasn't done anything impeachable.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Greene is probably going to say she wants to impeach Hilary too

    Well if she includes Obama she'd get some of that vaunted "attacking dems from the left" that idiots like to tout. But again they're in the minority and much like Obama, Biden hasn't done anything impeachable.

    I think he ordered a hamburger with dijon mustard while wearing a tan suit. Which is an impeachable offense.

    joshgotroMild ConfusionCantidoTetraNitroCubaneTuminJaysonFourchrono_travellerAbsoluteZeroshrykeNo-QuarterouchiesBlackDragon480Man in the MistsNetscapeZilla360LeeksAegeriEinzel
  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy he/him Gorman 2036Registered User regular
    Gyral wrote: »
    Fuck the talking heads. Joe Biden can say he had a stronger military presence at his inauguration than Trump. I'm sure that'll burn the orange moron right into his soul.

    Joe Biden gets the military "parade" that Trump never did?

    CelestialBadgerBullheadElvenshaewebguy20Sorce
  • StarZapperStarZapper Vermont, Bizzaro world.Registered User regular
    So, do I have this right? All it takes to prevent someone fron holding public office is majority votes in the house and senate?

    Seems like that could be misused.

    Eh, it's been around for a couple hundred years without being misused, seems fine. Plus in order to disqualify them you still need to impeach someone, which is not a simple procedure.

  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    The "you don't need 2/3rds for disqualification" thing seemed like internet speculativeness but it's actually legit:

    https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html#fn-856

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    So, do I have this right? All it takes to prevent someone fron holding public office is majority votes in the house and senate?

    Seems like that could be misused.

    Anything can be misused if you have a nihilistic enough party.

    Netscape
  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    So, do I have this right? All it takes to prevent someone fron holding public office is majority votes in the house and senate?

    Seems like that could be misused.

    Anything can be misused if you have a nihilistic enough party.


    Yeah, at the end of the day, you can't protect a democracy from a 51% bad faith attack.

    TuminJazzCommander ZoomOrcamonikerJaysonFourElvenshaeDarkPrimusIncenjucarDonnictonZonugalAbsoluteZeroshrykewebguy20ArdolCalicaDoodmannNo-QuarterReynoldsBlackDragon480Man in the MistsRhesus PositiveNetscapeSorceZilla360GiantGeek2020TofystedethKoopahTroopahCantideSummaryJudgmentkimeAegeriEinzelWinky
  • JokermanJokerman Registered User regular
    Greene is probably going to say she wants to impeach Hilary too

    Goddammit.....

    When I thought it couldn't get any worse then Saxby Chambliss.

    valhalla130
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    The "you don't need 2/3rds for disqualification" thing seemed like internet speculativeness but it's actually legit:

    https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html#fn-856

    Good, I hope they do that then.

    Never want to see this bastard anywhere near government ever again. I don't want to see him ever again in general but particularly in relation to having any real government authority.

    Lord_Asmodeus.gifLord_Asmodeus2.gifz1i30sg.png
    monikerNetscapeKoopahTroopah
  • JazzJazz Fuck cancer. Un-UKRegistered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    So, do I have this right? All it takes to prevent someone fron holding public office is majority votes in the house and senate?

    Seems like that could be misused.

    Anything can be misused if you have a nihilistic enough party.


    Yeah, at the end of the day, you can't protect a democracy from a 51% bad faith attack.

    Us Brits know that as well as anybody.

    zagdrobCommander ZoomzepherinAntinumericSporkAndrewRhesus PositivealtidZilla360SnicketysnickGiantGeek2020Captain InertiaKoopahTroopah
  • GnizmoGnizmo Registered User regular
    StarZapper wrote: »
    So, do I have this right? All it takes to prevent someone fron holding public office is majority votes in the house and senate?

    Seems like that could be misused.

    Eh, it's been around for a couple hundred years without being misused, seems fine. Plus in order to disqualify them you still need to impeach someone, which is not a simple procedure.

    Plus you would first need to be in office, impeached, and arguably convicted before they can enact it. When you get over that hump though then yeah enough bad faith actors can wreak havoc. Another reason to use time travel to beat some specificity out of the original authors.

  • VeagleVeagle Registered User regular
    Chanus wrote: »
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Mitch McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader, for another week:


    it's precious he considers what he did for Trump last time a trial

    I mean, he's not wrong in that statement.

    Given precedent, there is no chance of a fair or serious trial before next week when there'll be a new majority leader running the trial.

    steam_sig.png
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    So, do I have this right? All it takes to prevent someone fron holding public office is majority votes in the house and senate?

    Seems like that could be misused.

    Anything can be misused if you have a nihilistic enough party.


    Yeah, at the end of the day, you can't protect a democracy from a 51% bad faith attack.

    Us Brits know that as well as anybody.

    Well... technically 51.89% bad faith attack...

    Too soon?

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    monikerzepherinevilmrhenryArdolElvenshaeBlackDragon480BigJoeMZilla360CelestialBadgerSmurphBloodsheedJazzKoopahTroopahCantideBrody
  • Stabbity StyleStabbity Style Warning: Mothership Reporting Kennewick, WARegistered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    And yet a two-party system was inevitable the way American governance was designed.

    SijLqhH.png
    Steam: stabbitystyle | uPlay: stabbitystyle | b.net: Stabbity#1528 | XBL: Stabbity Style | PSN: Stabbity_Style | Twitch: stabbitystyle
    monikerzepherinMild ConfusionaugustCommander ZoomJragghenDonnictonMunkus BeaverOremLKLord_AsmodeusShadowfirewebguy20ArdolCalicaMarty81joshofalltradesOrcaMvrckAistanMan in the MistsEncvalhalla130NetscapeBigJoeMKreutzZilla360CelestialBadgerCouscousNobodyDoctor DetroitGiantGeek2020iTunesIsEvilBandableSleepEddyDisruptedCapitalistBloodsheedJazzbrynhrtmnTofystedethCidTheSquidFoolOnTheHillMartini_PhilosopherKoopahTroopahCaptain CarrotCantideLeekskimeHahnsoo1AegeriEinzel
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    And yet a two-party system was inevitable the way American governance was designed.

    And also was a two party system immediately.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    monikerCaptain InertiaFencingsaxshrykeArdolZonugalCalicaElvenshaeAistanMan in the MistsEncvalhalla130NetscapeBigJoeMSorceCelestialBadgerCouscousDoctor DetroitGiantGeek2020jmcdonaldiTunesIsEvilBullheadDisruptedCapitalistJazzTofystedethFoolOnTheHillMartini_PhilosopherKoopahTroopahCaptain CarrotCantideHahnsoo1Jebus314Nobeard
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    And yet a two-party system was inevitable the way American governance was designed.

    And also was a two party system immediately.

    Political parties happen because organization is the force multiplier. Trying to prevent political parties is like trying to prevent the rain.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
    monikerFencingsaxMild Confusionshrykemanwiththemachinegunwebguy20ArdolCalicaCimmeriiCommander Zoomdestroyah87BlackDragon480Man in the MistsEncvalhalla130NetscapeBigJoeMZilla360CelestialBadgerGiantGeek2020JazzTofystedethMartini_PhilosopherKoopahTroopahRozCaptain CarrotCantideLeekskimeStabbity StyleHahnsoo1EinzelNobeard
  • CptHamiltonCptHamilton Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    And yet a two-party system was inevitable the way American governance was designed.

    And also was a two party system immediately.

    Political parties happen because organization is the force multiplier. Trying to prevent political parties is like trying to prevent the rain.

    I don't mind parties. I just dislike them following Sith rules.

    PSN,Steam,Live | CptHamiltonian
    DarkPrimuschrono_travellerwebguy20CalicaElvenshaeFoolOnTheHillKoopahTroopahBrodyEcho
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    So because the House sent articles immediately, does this mean the trial starts with McConnell setting the rules and schedule just before losing power? And then to what degree are dems stuck with that setup?

    McConnell could very well want to get Trump good with this, but I'm pretty sure he's love even more to stop the Biden admin in its tracks, consuming all the Senate's days with a trial for at least a month. Offering Trump as a sacrifice would be more than worth it to him.

    CelestialBadger
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    edited January 14
    There’s not going to be a trial until after inauguration day.

    The Senate is not in session until the 19th and McConnell has already ruled out bringing them back early.

    Also each Congress sets its own rules and can’t be bound by the rules of a previous Congress unless they adopt those rules themselves.

    knitdan on
    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
    zepherin
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    And yet a two-party system was inevitable the way American governance was designed.

    And also was a two party system immediately.

    Political parties happen because organization is the force multiplier. Trying to prevent political parties is like trying to prevent the rain.

    The cause of two party system though (as opposed to a three, four, or twelve party system) is caused entirely by the math of FPTP. There are several systems we could switch to that would allow multiple parties to thrive instead of just two. Two parties only causes a whole variety of things to suck.

    DoodmannCalicaElvenshaeCommander ZoomOrcaBlackDragon480AistanMan in the MistsBhowLord_AsmodeusSmurphMorganVAbsoluteZeroboogedybooBloodsheedJazzDarkPrimusCaptain CarrotStabbity Style
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    And yet a two-party system was inevitable the way American governance was designed.

    And also was a two party system immediately.

    Political parties happen because organization is the force multiplier. Trying to prevent political parties is like trying to prevent the rain.

    The cause of two party system though (as opposed to a three, four, or twelve party system) is caused entirely by the math of FPTP. There are several systems we could switch to that would allow multiple parties to thrive instead of just two. Two parties only causes a whole variety of things to suck.

    No, it’s not. The two party system is caused by the math of 50%+1 to pass a bill. Proportional parliaments still have two parties, they just form after voting. And FPTP legislatures still have “multiple parties” they just call themselves caucuses and develop after voting.

    wbBv3fj.png
    CelestialBadgerjmcdonaldmonikerCaptain CarrotAngelHedgieEinzel
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    And yet a two-party system was inevitable the way American governance was designed.

    And also was a two party system immediately.

    Political parties happen because organization is the force multiplier. Trying to prevent political parties is like trying to prevent the rain.

    The cause of two party system though (as opposed to a three, four, or twelve party system) is caused entirely by the math of FPTP. There are several systems we could switch to that would allow multiple parties to thrive instead of just two. Two parties only causes a whole variety of things to suck.

    No, it’s not. The two party system is caused by the math of 50%+1 to pass a bill. Proportional parliaments still have two parties, they just form after voting. And FPTP legislatures still have “multiple parties” they just call themselves caucuses and develop after voting.

    FPTP:

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    ElvenshaemanwiththemachinegunDisruptedCapitalistCambiata
  • DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    edited January 14
    Goumindong wrote: »

    No, it’s not. The two party system is caused by the math of 50%+1 to pass a bill. Proportional parliaments still have two parties, they just form after voting.

    Yes, exactly, resulting in multiple stakeholders within each coalition with different voters and different priorities, ensuring a party needs to consider a wide range of policies and not just whatever their fanatics want.

    For example, the alliance between the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor parties resulted in Labor being dragged significantly to the left on environmental issues, while the coalition between the Australian Liberals and Australian Nationals forced the former to take rural Australia far more into account.

    Dhalphir on
    CalicaelectricitylikesmeMorganVrahkeesh2000
  • [Expletive deleted][Expletive deleted] The mediocre doctor NorwayRegistered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    American governance was not designed for a two-party system.

    And yet a two-party system was inevitable the way American governance was designed.

    And also was a two party system immediately.

    Political parties happen because organization is the force multiplier. Trying to prevent political parties is like trying to prevent the rain.

    The cause of two party system though (as opposed to a three, four, or twelve party system) is caused entirely by the math of FPTP. There are several systems we could switch to that would allow multiple parties to thrive instead of just two. Two parties only causes a whole variety of things to suck.

    No, it’s not. The two party system is caused by the math of 50%+1 to pass a bill. Proportional parliaments still have two parties, they just form after voting. And FPTP legislatures still have “multiple parties” they just call themselves caucuses and develop after voting.

    Kind of but not really? Here in Norway we have had mostly minority governments since the War, who have sought approval from Pariliament on a case-by-case basis when it comes to passing laws/budgets. Plus, I only have to vote once. If the Labour Party are dicks I just vote Socialist Leftist Party (real name!) or any of the 3 other left-ish parties on election day. In the US, I'd have to register as a party member, engage in the party selection process, vote in the primary, and then vote in the general to even be allowed to have any real choice.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.
    SiskaCornucopiistCelestialBadgershrykeCambiata
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    There’s not going to be a trial until after inauguration day.

    The Senate is not in session until the 19th and McConnell has already ruled out bringing them back early.

    Also each Congress sets its own rules and can’t be bound by the rules of a previous Congress unless they adopt those rules themselves.

    I could be wrong but my understanding is that if the House says the trial begins on 1/15/2021 then it doesn't matter what the Senate wants to do, they're required to take up the matter.

  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    Since most of what happens is during my night, I haven't kept up with the thread. Just so I understand correctly. House voted to impeach, send articles of impeachment to the Senate, but McConnell is just "Nah, not in the final days. Lets just sit this one out"? Correct?

  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited January 14
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Since most of what happens is during my night, I haven't kept up with the thread. Just so I understand correctly. House voted to impeach, send articles of impeachment to the Senate, but McConnell is just "Nah, not in the final days. Lets just sit this one out"? Correct?

    Not as I understand it, no.

    McConnell said "Oh gee, it'd be a shame if I decided that the rules for the trial took us X number of days/weeks/months"

    But since saying that it's been reported that he may actually be willing to convict in order to ensure Trump can't hold office again.

    None of which really matters until things actually happen.

    HappylilElf on
    FencingsaxthatassemblyguyzepherinTicaldfjamCambiataMan in the Mists
  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    But he was already impeached before, but then the Senate acquitted him. So surely the Senate has to agree to impeach this time in order to prevent him running again?

    I wanted to bring this back because I'm not sure yet if it's been answered.

    Impeachment is the act of the House of Representatives deciding that the president has done something to warrant a trial in the Senate. It is not the act of the Senate holding that trial.

    The media and popular culture has conflated the two with the name impeachment.

    Whether the Senate convicts or not, Trump has still been impeached twice, because the House decided to send the matter to the Senate for trial.

  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    Veagle wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Mitch McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader, for another week:


    it's precious he considers what he did for Trump last time a trial

    I mean, he's not wrong in that statement.

    Given precedent, there is no chance of a fair or serious trial before next week when there'll be a new majority leader running the trial.

    As much as I despise McConnell, this is actually a pretty good statement and his reasoning seems sound to me.

  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    Veagle wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Mitch McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader, for another week:


    it's precious he considers what he did for Trump last time a trial

    I mean, he's not wrong in that statement.

    Given precedent, there is no chance of a fair or serious trial before next week when there'll be a new majority leader running the trial.

    As much as I despise McConnell, this is actually a pretty good statement and his reasoning seems sound to me.

    there isn't any reason the trial needs to be in depth or even fair. it's not a criminal trial, it's a political act

    he didn't have any problem rushing to get his Supreme Court Justice appointed when he thought it would improve Republican chances at the polls

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    electricitylikesmeRhesus PositiveFencingsaxNetscapeSorceGONG-00thatassemblyguyLord_AsmodeusElvenshaeDoctor DetroitBullheadEmerlmaster999Mild Confusionchrono_travellerXaquinshrykeCaptain InertiamonikerAbsoluteZeroboogedybooTofystedethTicaldfjamFoolOnTheHillDarkPrimusMartini_PhilosopherVeaglePhoenix-DCantidePreacherThegreatcowAistanCommander ZoomLeeksMunkus BeaverMillArdolStabbity StyleKnight_KlytusSkeithCambiataMan in the MistsMr FuzzbuttEinzel
  • valhalla130valhalla130 13 Dark Shield Perceives the GodsRegistered User regular
    And I agree with those things, but I would also be more comfortable with Dems in charge of the trial.

  • ChanusChanus I've seen things... Registered User regular
    And I agree with those things, but I would also be more comfortable with Dems in charge of the trial.

    i don't disagree there

    if removal isn't an option, i see no reason to let McConnell control things

    Allegedly a voice of reason.
    PreacherKlytusvalhalla130
  • silence1186silence1186 Character shields down! As a wingmanRegistered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    The "you don't need 2/3rds for disqualification" thing seemed like internet speculativeness but it's actually legit:

    https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html#fn-856

    This would mean the only non-moot outcome of the Senate Trial, being barred from office, might actually come to pass on Trump.

    That would be a huge win for democracy, the country, and the world.

    V wrote:
    Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.

    Rhesus PositiveStarZapperGiantGeek2020monikerAbsoluteZeroJazzArdolCambiatavalhalla130
  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Inkstain82 wrote: »
    The "you don't need 2/3rds for disqualification" thing seemed like internet speculativeness but it's actually legit:

    https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/49-judgment-removal-and-disqualification.html#fn-856

    This would mean the only non-moot outcome of the Senate Trial, being barred from office, might actually come to pass on Trump.

    That would be a huge win for democracy, the country, and the world.

    I mean, until the Republicans inevitably use this whenever they have a majority to ban all Democrats from office 24/7. Which they will do anyway, so there isn't any point in worrying about it.

    But expect it.

    NetscapeRhesus PositiveCelestialBadgerEddyAbsoluteZeroJazzJaysonFourAistan
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    I thought the disqualification still required conviction first.

  • syndalissyndalis Getting Classy On the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Products regular
    I thought the disqualification still required conviction first.

    Impeachment, not conviction, was my understanding.

    SW-4158-3990-6116
    Let's play Mario Kart or something...
    ChanusthatassemblyguyBlackDragon480
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Disqualification is a result of conviction which requires 2/3. Being a majority vote is only relevant if 2/3 vote to convict but some portion don't want to disqualify

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    zepherin
  • TomantaTomanta Registered User regular
    Veagle wrote: »
    Chanus wrote: »
    Piotyr wrote: »
    Mitch McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader, for another week:


    it's precious he considers what he did for Trump last time a trial

    I mean, he's not wrong in that statement.

    Given precedent, there is no chance of a fair or serious trial before next week when there'll be a new majority leader running the trial.

    As much as I despise McConnell, this is actually a pretty good statement and his reasoning seems sound to me.

    His actual statement had good reasoning. Or it would be good if the Senate was actually focusing on the transition instead of doing nothing.

    ElvenshaezagdrobshrykemonikerTofystedethJazzShadowfireCommander ZoomArdolMan in the Mistsvalhalla130
Sign In or Register to comment.