The Impeachment of President Trump

[RainbowSingularity]

do what they swore to do

he swore to put up a wall
the republicans hold around 40% of the voting population
but hold around 55% of the electorial seats
the dems hold around 45% as a majority of total voters
but he didnt do it

so what does that say about the gerrymandering ?
hhmm...

meanwhile home of the free puts children in cages to live and call themselves leaders of the free world...

popular support is the key
that is why so much money has been invested in fighting crowd sourced civic action like climate change and womens rights.

the realisation that true democracy undermines their power structures where they get all their money from is a scary thing for tin pot dictators.
weather they are just playing the game for personal profit, or they want to live out their own dream as a modern day hitler in a picket fence morality.

Leaders that put the nation first at all times.

aging infrastructure resulting in houses exploding from leaking gas mains pipes
flint water
dakota pipe line
...
repeal of affordable care act

suing the makers of opioids...
will they build a hospital that is free for the citizens with the money they get from it ?
lol
unlikely

its just another war on drugs via a more complex blame game.
advertising standards do not over rule government health regulation
the reality that government health regulations failed to keep up with pharmacology is no excuse.
that is their job
and its a highly politicized one

the pretend cure ... suing the Saklers
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/politics/second-amendment-supreme-court.html

should the sacklers have withdrawn opioids from the market ?
should the FDA have done their job by putting medicine and patient care first ?
is that their job ?

i can not envisage a solution from this path of action
and ... it looks like some type of semi-political game a-foot
why is the FDA and its directors not being called up to answer questions to help build a better FDA ?
where is the government research institute that studys these type of things ?

i think
1st the govt needs to order an inquiry into the opioid process to quantify its basic mechanisms as a medication
then apply some medical reason to the total conception
then while at the same time having the FDA bring back all its Directors and top managers to collect as much information as possible to build a better FDA that can do the job they are supposed to be there for.

then once that process is in play and they have some real tangible asset answers
they can simply apply to the large corporates to seek some money to help fund it.

but i think the ideological problem is that profit is set in front of the process and the mentality is you need to buy in like a gambling table.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Down on two counts.... at least he is now restrained from soliciting election interference for 2020...if any thing that in it itself is a big win... imo

 

[Seattle]

Down on two counts.... at least he is now restrained from soliciting election interference for 2020...if any thing that in it itself is a big win... imo

Not really. I think the only important aspect is that at least what could be done was done. There is a mark in the history books. If it slows him down, that would be a plus but it's not something to count on.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What do we know about Chief Justice John Roberts?

 

[Seattle]

What do we know about Chief Justice John Roberts?

He will be neutral but it doesn't really matter who the "presider" is. The Senate is the jury and judge in this situation.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I hope this destroys Trump:

I hope this destroys Republicans that have their noses so far stuck up Trump's butt.

I believe former president Bush said "I'm a uniter not a divider." Trump is not Bush.

Maybe evangelicals aren't all stupid.

 

[Tiassa]

He will be neutral ….

That's not his record. In Safford, the Court carved out an ignorance is bliss exception for public school officials strip-searching young girls. In Ricci, the Court carved out a how-dare-you exception faulting a public agency for following the law. By the one, the Court favored traditional male supremacism, even explicitly voiced by one of the more liberal Justices during the course of oral arguments; by the other, the Court favored traditionalist racial-ethnic disparate impact because it would be unfair to the advantaged to take away the advantage. And I think it was in Windsor when the Chief Justice either lied from the bench or showed breathtaking ignorance when he recalled pro bono work, and did not remember any malice or animus toward gay people in the Nineties. His dissenting tantrum in Obergefell is the stuff of legend; Roberts and Scalia were amazing in that one.

If absolutely cornered within the impeachment framework, Roberts will simply defend the role and authority of the judiciary according to whatever Constitutional pretense necessity requires he should invent. But where he perceives openings, Chief Justice Roberts is known to abide political duty as if it is his true lodestar.

 

[Seattle]

That's not his record. In Safford, the Court carved out an ignorance is bliss exception for public school officials strip-searching young girls. In Ricci, the Court carved out a how-dare-you exception faulting a public agency for following the law. By the one, the Court favored traditional male supremacism, even explicitly voiced by one of the more liberal Justices during the course of oral arguments; by the other, the Court favored traditionalist racial-ethnic disparate impact because it would be unfair to the advantaged to take away the advantage. And I think it was in Windsor when the Chief Justice either lied from the bench or showed breathtaking ignorance when he recalled pro bono work, and did not remember any malice or animus toward gay people in the Nineties. His dissenting tantrum in Obergefell is the stuff of legend; Roberts and Scalia were amazing in that one.

If absolutely cornered within the impeachment framework, Roberts will simply defend the role and authority of the judiciary according to whatever Constitutional pretense necessity requires he should invent. But where he perceives openings, Chief Justice Roberts is known to abide political duty as if it is his true lodestar.

I'm not implying that he is a liberal judge. I'm implying that as the Presider he pretty much has no room to sway the outcome so that it's not particularly important to know much about Justice Roberts.

 

[wegs]

From what I've read, Trump's impeachment won't slow down his ''popularity'' and in some regards, it might increase his chances of being reelected. If the best that the Democrats have to offer is Biden, not sure how that would be an improvement. Biden is a quasi-closet racist, sexist and cut from pretty much the same cloth as Trump.

Gah, this is America's best.

 

[Tiassa]

I'm implying that as the Presider he pretty much has no room to sway the outcome so that it's not particularly important to know much about Justice Roberts.

The presiding judge of a trial isn't a mere figurehead. He rules on procedure, and even has a vote if the Senate deadlocks. Pretending Roberts "pretty much has no room to sway the outcome" in order to justify the continued ignorance of the assertion itself is pretty stupid.

 

[Seattle]

The presiding judge of a trial isn't a mere figurehead. He rules on procedure, and even has a vote if the Senate deadlocks. Pretending Roberts "pretty much has no room to sway the outcome" in order to justify the continued ignorance of the assertion itself is pretty stupid.

Not changing your avatar is stupid but so what?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The presiding judge of a trial isn't a mere figurehead. He rules on procedure, and even has a vote if the Senate deadlocks. Pretending Roberts "pretty much has no room to sway the outcome" in order to justify the continued ignorance of the assertion itself is pretty stupid.

thanks. You have answered my next obvious question...
He may indeed take on a pivotal role because as far as I can see the Democrats are effectively putting the entire Senate and Roberts on trial, along side with Trump.
The Dems are gong to make it a purely constitutional issue and force a constitutional crisis if necessary.
Delaying and conditional-izing the sending of the impeachment articles to the Senate is a very clever move IMO.

Using a more satirical approach:
The Dems are going to force the Republicans into declaring whether they are Russian agents or USA patriots.

• If they vote NOT to remove, they are Russian agents ( anti constitution)
• If they vote YES to remove, they are USA patriots ( pro-constitution)

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Dems only have to find evidence that Trump is instructing Mitch McConnell and corruption of the senate is exposed...

 

[James R]

From what I've read, Trump's impeachment won't slow down his ''popularity'' and in some regards, it might increase his chances of being reelected.

Trump supporters, if they understand the impeachment process at all, will wave it away as a political strategy rather than as a serious breach of constitutional principles. Politics in the United States is so polarised now that everything is viewed as a partisan issue. This is why all the Republicans voted against impeachment in the House and all but three Democrats voted for it. The merits of the arguments on both sides are beside the point for many, both in politics and outside it.

Moreover, Trump supporters have so far been willing to forgive or ignore his misogyny and xenophobia, his constant lies, his incompetence and his misuse of the office of President to promote his own interests. Impeachment won't affect the vote of rusted-on supporters next time around.

From this distance away (on the other side of the planet), none of the Democrat contenders for the Presidential nomination look particularly likely to win over many of the swinging voters, or to inspire those who do not vote to come out. It looks a lot like US voters are gearing up to give Trump another four years.

On the bright side though, I thought Hillary would win back in 2016*, so maybe I'll be wrong about the next election, too.

---
* To be fair, she did win the popular vote. But the US is rife with jerrymandering, and the electoral college system is an unfortunate anachronism that you appear to be stuck with.

 

[sculptor]

The two Democratic leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives are among hundreds of senators and representatives from both parties who refused to release their tax records. Just 17 out of the 535 members of Congress released their most recent tax forms or provided some similar documentation of their tax liabilities
so..........................................
?

 

[Vociferous]

Yes, it was. That was the specific and explicit reason it was passed.

Oh, we all know that unprecedented use of budget reconciliation was the ONLY reason Obamacare passed. That's how underhanded the Democrats are.

Passing legislation by lowering the vote threshold was the stated purpose of budget reconciliation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_and_Impoundment_Control_Act_of_1974

You might try citing a page about budget reconciliation:

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Congress that expedites the passage of certain budgetary legislation in the United States Senate. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)​

 

[Vociferous]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., dismissed the impeachment process against President Trump as a political proceeding rather than a judicial one.

"I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There's not anything judicial about it," McConnell told reporters on Tuesday. "The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I'm not impartial about this at all."
sc: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/17/788924966/mcconnell-i-m-not-impartial-about-impeachment​

So it appears that the leaders of the Republican Party are going to take the art of lying to the next level.
Of course it is out of necessity a political process BUT it is also primarily a constitutional one.

"Constitutional" isn't a synonym for "judicial". And the Constitution clearly separates the Judicial and Legislative branches of government. So you only have your own ignorance to blame for spouting such buffoonery.

 

[Vociferous]

I hope this destroys Trump:

Relatively few Christians, much less Republicans, listened to Billy Graham, even before he died.

That's not his record. In Safford, the Court carved out an ignorance is bliss exception for public school officials strip-searching young girls. In Ricci, the Court carved out a how-dare-you exception faulting a public agency for following the law. By the one, the Court favored traditional male supremacism, even explicitly voiced by one of the more liberal Justices during the course of oral arguments; by the other, the Court favored traditionalist racial-ethnic disparate impact because it would be unfair to the advantaged to take away the advantage. And I think it was in Windsor when the Chief Justice either lied from the bench or showed breathtaking ignorance when he recalled pro bono work, and did not remember any malice or animus toward gay people in the Nineties. His dissenting tantrum in Obergefell is the stuff of legend; Roberts and Scalia were amazing in that one.

If absolutely cornered within the impeachment framework, Roberts will simply defend the role and authority of the judiciary according to whatever Constitutional pretense necessity requires he should invent. But where he perceives openings, Chief Justice Roberts is known to abide political duty as if it is his true lodestar.

Since the he has no authority in the ruling of an impeachment trial in the Senate, it's hard to fathom how you imagine any of this applies. Ignorance?

The presiding judge of a trial isn't a mere figurehead. He rules on procedure, and even has a vote if the Senate deadlocks. Pretending Roberts "pretty much has no room to sway the outcome" in order to justify the continued ignorance of the assertion itself is pretty stupid.

No, he doesn't. There was a tie vote in the Senate for one of the articles of impeachment against Clinton. Rehnquist didn't get a tie-breaking vote. It just failed to carry. At this point, the ignorance is demonstrably your own.

thanks. You have answered my next obvious question...
He may indeed take on a pivotal role because as far as I can see the Democrats are effectively putting the entire Senate and Roberts on trial, along side with Trump.

Ah, the ignorant leading the ignorant. No wonder you understand so little about US government and its Constitution.

Trump supporters, if they understand the impeachment process at all, will wave it away as a political strategy rather than as a serious breach of constitutional principles. Politics in the United States is so polarised now that everything is viewed as a partisan issue. This is why all the Republicans voted against impeachment in the House and all but three Democrats voted for it. The merits of the arguments on both sides are beside the point for many, both in politics and outside it.

Moreover, Trump supporters have so far been willing to forgive or ignore his misogyny and xenophobia, his constant lies, his incompetence and his misuse of the office of President to promote his own interests. Impeachment won't affect the vote of rusted-on supporters next time around.

From this distance away (on the other side of the planet), none of the Democrat contenders for the Presidential nomination look particularly likely to win over many of the swinging voters, or to inspire those who do not vote to come out. It looks a lot like US voters are gearing up to give Trump another four years.

On the bright side though, I thought Hillary would win back in 2016*, so maybe I'll be wrong about the next election, too.

---
* To be fair, she did win the popular vote. But the US is rife with jerrymandering, and the electoral college system is an unfortunate anachronism that you appear to be stuck with.

Sure, the guy responsible for historical economic growth and low minority unemployment is incompetent. Whatever you need to tell yourself. Your "misogyny and xenophobia, his constant lies, his incompetence and his misuse of the office of President to promote his own interests" are leftist perceptions.

No, the electoral college is not anachronistic. It's a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. And no, gerrymandering didn't win Trump the election.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Down on two counts.... at least he is now restrained from soliciting election interference for 2020...if any thing that in it itself is a big win... imo

condemned by praise...

any country that may wish the usa to falter would see it as simple global politics to project an idea that destabilizes that country as much as possible.

for argument sake using the most touted russia

why did russia not promote berny sanders while all the right wing media were calling him a communist ?

logic dictates it far more plausible that if any promotion, russia would be promoting trump to undermine the country

if they knew his feelings and intentions toward nato
same about his intentions about over seas Aid.

by promoting tump to a win knowing he would fracture the usas' global partnerships and weaken the usa currency driving up national debt as they lost manufacturing.

is the usa stronger or weaker since trump took office ?
FBI
justice department
federal offices(department) federal shut down
etc etc ...

has trump taking office strengthened the nation and brought it closer together, or divided it and set it against many of its allies ?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Relatively few Christians, much less Republicans, listened to Billy Graham, even before he died.

Says who?