The Impeachment of President Trump

[(Q)]

And, now, we come to the problem.
Many who would claim what you have have not read nor understood the constitution.
I rather like the document, and advise many to read it, and then to contemplate what they read.

It seems most likely that the current 2 party system is anathema to the good of most of my fellow countrymen.
(and, also ---Not in the constitution.)

Rather than answering the question you arrogantly tell me what I have or have not read. This, in light of the fact I provided the rules of impeachment which obviously went right over your head or perhaps you didn't bother to read it. I won't pompously tell you that you didn't read it because that's something I wouldn't know for a fact. But, somehow you do know if others have or have not read something.

That's the kind of statement one puts forth when they have no argument and can't answer simple questions. They just troll, instead.

 

[CptBork]

It seems most likely that the current 2 party system is anathema to the good of most of my fellow countrymen.
(and, also ---Not in the constitution.)

But the way your constitution and elections are set up, adding a third party in just siphons votes from the other two parties and you end up with politicians having full control while winning less than 40% of the total vote.

 

[billvon]

And, now, we come to the problem.
Many who would claim what you have have not read nor understood the constitution.
I rather like the document, and advise many to read it, and then to contemplate what they read.

Sorry, Trump has explained that parts of the Constitution are phony. What gullible fool would seriously contemplate a phony document?

 

[LaurieAG]

Wasn't their case that that applied so long as he thought his own reelection benefited the country (and his particular actions advanced that cause)?

Or were they saying he had the right to break any law so long as the balance of benefit ,to the country and in his head was "positive"?

I don't know about that but I do know why they give people Lt Colonel positions on retirement so that's a good enough reason not to believe in mediocrity.

 

[Sarkus]

But the way your constitution and elections are set up, adding a third party in just siphons votes from the other two parties and you end up with politicians having full control while winning less than 40% of the total vote.

In the UK at the moment we have a Conservative party that has an 80-seat majority (largest conservative majority since ww2 at least) and they polled just 43.6% of the popular vote, due to our first-past-the-post system. In the previous election they polled c.42% of the popular vote and could only form a minority government (I.e. they had no majority, and relied on the DUP for support), leading to 3+ years of chaos.

In the UK too many people see the 80-seat majority and say that the country has clearly spoken with regard to Brexit, yet the pro-Brexit parties only polled c.48% of the popular vote, and those supporting as a minimum a second referendum polled 52%. Yet the 80-seat majority gave the Conservatives effectively free rein to do what they want (aka hard Brexit).

So if you want to see what 3+ party politics does to a country with a FPTP system, look no further than the UK. You at least usually end up with a government that is able to get things done. If you have proportional representation, as you tend to get on the European continent, you tend to end up with coalitions running the country. Some countries might have coalitions of many broadly like-minded parties, but others end up having to rerun the elections again when no government can be formed.

Personally I’d like a system with some greater proportional representation, and feel that no party should have a majority in government unless they poll a majority of the popular vote. But we’re a long way from that, alas.

 

[sculptor]

Don't they take an oath of office ?
Are they to be trusted to not lie when taking that oath of office?
As an Aussie I find it hard to understand how you can pledge loyalty to the constitution then ignore it so easily...
Please explain?

Perhaps, it would be of help to any conversation on the subject of you were to be a bit more specific.

 

[sculptor]

Sorry, Trump has explained that parts of the Constitution are phony. ...

Do you have a specific quote for that?

 

[(Q)]

Do you have a specific quote for that?

“You people with this phony emoluments clause” - do you not remember this, when Trump tried to profit from the G-7 summit by hosting it at his resort in Miami?

 

[(Q)]

Perhaps, it would be of help to any conversation on the subject of you were to be a bit more specific.

That was already presented to you, but you either didn't read the article or didn't understand it. Trump supporters sure have short memories.

 

[sculptor]

“You people with this phony emoluments clause” - do you not remember this, when Trump tried to profit from the G-7 summit by hosting it at his resort in Miami?

Which G7 are you referencing?

 

[sculptor]

That was already presented to you, but you either didn't read the article or didn't understand it. Trump supporters sure have short memories.

OH
"The article"
the one with the crazy summation?
read it
not impressed.

 

[(Q)]

OH
"The article"
the one with the crazy summation?
read it
not impressed.

You, along with all the Senators who voted to acquit Trump were not impressed. Criminals never are impressed by the law. One wonders how you all manage to look at yourselves in the mirror.

 

[CptBork]

In the UK at the moment we have a Conservative party that has an 80-seat majority (largest conservative majority since ww2 at least) and they polled just 43.6% of the popular vote, due to our first-past-the-post system. In the previous election they polled c.42% of the popular vote and could only form a minority government (I.e. they had no majority, and relied on the DUP for support), leading to 3+ years of chaos.

In the UK too many people see the 80-seat majority and say that the country has clearly spoken with regard to Brexit, yet the pro-Brexit parties only polled c.48% of the popular vote, and those supporting as a minimum a second referendum polled 52%. Yet the 80-seat majority gave the Conservatives effectively free rein to do what they want (aka hard Brexit).

So if you want to see what 3+ party politics does to a country with a FPTP system, look no further than the UK. You at least usually end up with a government that is able to get things done. If you have proportional representation, as you tend to get on the European continent, you tend to end up with coalitions running the country. Some countries might have coalitions of many broadly like-minded parties, but others end up having to rerun the elections again when no government can be formed.

Personally I’d like a system with some greater proportional representation, and feel that no party should have a majority in government unless they poll a majority of the popular vote. But we’re a long way from that, alas.

We have the same issues in Canada. The only reason I think our system hasn't completely broken down yet is because the vote splitting has traditionally been relatively limited. We'll generally have two mainstream parties commanding most of the vote, while the next biggest party is usually in the running to replace one of the top two and therefore doesn't receive many votes until voters are ready en masse to make that swap. Insofar as other parties receive substantial votes without becoming mainstream, they tend to compete only in a select few regions such as is the case with the Bloc Quebecois, thus limiting the number of votes siphoned from national parties.

We also have a comically rusty constitution that badly needs updating in many areas, but can't be updated without violating the constitution itself because a small numbered of privileged communities along the eastern coast have an effective veto on any changes. It's similar to how a small minority of politically privileged Americans such as Sculptor refuse to consider the nationwide benefits that would come from updating the US constitution with properly equal, democratic political representation and a sensible means for clear majorities to make changes as needed.

 

[Quantum Quack]

We have the same issues in Canada. The only reason I think our system hasn't completely broken down yet is because the vote splitting has traditionally been relatively limited. We'll generally have two mainstream parties commanding most of the vote, while the next biggest party is usually in the running to replace one of the top two and therefore doesn't receive many votes until voters are ready en masse to make that swap. Insofar as other parties receive substantial votes without becoming mainstream, they tend to compete only in a select few regions such as is the case with the Bloc Quebecois, thus limiting the number of votes siphoned from national parties.

We also have a comically rusty constitution that badly needs updating in many areas, but can't be updated without violating the constitution itself because a small numbered of privileged communities along the eastern coast have an effective veto on any changes. It's similar to how a small minority of politically privileged Americans such as Sculptor refuse to consider the nationwide benefits that would come from updating the US constitution with properly equal, democratic political representation and a sensible means for clear majorities to make changes as needed.

the minor parties might not win government but they can win parliamentary voting rights... ( seats)
I tend to think that it is only when the parliamentary governments try to emulate the USA Congress/Presidential system, we end up with problems...but I really have no idea what I am talking about.... so excuse me..

 

[sculptor]

You, along with all the Senators who voted to acquit Trump were not impressed. Criminals never are impressed by the law. One wonders how you all manage to look at yourselves in the mirror.

Are you forgetting the 4 democrats in the house who did their constitutional duty as they saw it by not voting for impeachment?

The thing started out as an exercise in divisive partisan politics with scant regard (only lip service) to the constitution.
What did you expect that it would end as?

 

[(Q)]

Are you forgetting the 4 democrats in the house who did their constitutional duty as they saw it by not voting for impeachment?

Did you see the one Republican Senator who knew for a fact Trump was guilty and voted accordingly?

The thing started out as an exercise in divisive partisan politics with scant regard (only lip service) to the constitution.
What did you expect that it would end as?

It started out with Trump committing high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, he's going on a childish rampage of revenge. Soon, he will do something so horrendous that no one in the country will accept as sane, then what will you be saying? How can you possibly believe he isn't an insane lunatic?

 

[pjdude1219]

Are you forgetting the 4 democrats in the house who did their constitutional duty as they saw it by not voting for impeachment?

The thing started out as an exercise in divisive partisan politics with scant regard (only lip service) to the constitution.
What did you expect that it would end as?

you mean failed their constitutional duty. no one in the history of the us deserved to be impeached more than trump. that you can't see that says alot about how partisan you are.

 

[James R]

Soon, he will do something so horrendous that no one in the country will accept as sane, then what will you be saying?

Do you really think so? Trump's supporters seem happy to acquiescence to anything that Trump does. Any further flouting of the rule of law by him is unlikely to change their minds. They're already in the habit of tolerating - even applauding, in some cases - his illegal activities.

 

[Vociferous]

^^ Well Trump did say he could walk down a busy New York street, shoot someone dead and get away with it no problem, so here's the proof if anyone wasn't taking him seriously.

How is it that some people still stubbornly refuse to understand that Trump often "just says stuff". He exaggerates and pushes rhetoric to the hilt. His target audience understands rhetoric, but others just lose their simple, ever-loving literal minds.

So no Republican senators voted to impeach?

Wow, you are a perfect Trump supporter - completely divorced from reality. What else did FOX News tell you about the impeachment?

Straw man. No one said "no Republican senators voted to impeach".
And since I don't watch Fox News, any correlation is just reality.
Too bad you couldn't refute any point, and had to rely solely on a straw man and a genetic fallacy.

Four sentences, and not a single one is accurate.

Yet, you refute none of them.

every word of that is a flat out lie. but what are we to expect from a republican partisan

Liar! Lair!

Meh, not much of an argument.

 

[Vociferous]

Do you really think so? Trump's supporters seem happy to acquiescence to anything that Trump does. Any further flouting of the rule of law by him is unlikely to change their minds. They're already in the habit of tolerating - even applauding, in some cases - his illegal activities.

Please. Aside from parroting leftists, you couldn't articulate and support these claims of supposed "illegal activities". And when asked to, you beg off, claiming you have no horse in the race. If so, quit rooting for a team in a sport of which you've yet to demonstrate any understanding. Either learn enough about US law, politics, Constitution, etc. to present an informed argument, or quit pretending you have any clue. Because such rooting just comes off as a "leftists of the world unite" power grab, without any underlying principles whatsoever.