|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 9, 2021 18:33:31 GMT -8
This is a question I can't find a definitive answer to. When Trump is not convicted in the Senate (it just isn't going to happen), what happens next? Will the fact that a majority of senators, but not a 2/3 majority, vote to convict the former President, will that alone be enough to prevent Trump from running for office again? No. If Trump isn't convicted then it is over. The Senate only goes on to a vote to bar from office if Trump is convicted. Then, another question. Can't the Senate vote to censure Trump and remove his ability to run for future office in that way? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 9, 2021 18:37:58 GMT -8
No. If Trump isn't convicted then it is over. The Senate only goes on to a vote to bar from office if Trump is convicted. Then, another question. Can't the Senate vote to censure Trump and remove his ability to run for future office in that way? Censure doesn't do that. It's a slap on the wrist, not an actual punishment. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 9, 2021 18:49:56 GMT -8
Then, another question. Can't the Senate vote to censure Trump and remove his ability to run for future office in that way? Censure doesn't do that. It's a slap on the wrist, not an actual punishment. Thanks for the response. With all that's been said recently, I wasn't sure if a censure alone would, or could, even do that. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 9, 2021 19:13:08 GMT -8
Censure doesn't do that. It's a slap on the wrist, not an actual punishment. Thanks for the response. With all that's been said recently, I wasn't sure if a censure alone would, or could, even do that. The Senate has only censured a president once : Andrew Jackson in 1834. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 9, 2021 19:41:09 GMT -8
Thanks for the response. With all that's been said recently, I wasn't sure if a censure alone would, or could, even do that. The Senate has only censured a president once : Andrew Jackson in 1834. I have read that the Senate can vote on an option, with a simple majority vote, that would prevent Trump from running for office again. Is that true only if Trump is convicted in the Senate trial? |
|
|
|
Post by Al-O-Meter on Feb 9, 2021 20:34:24 GMT -8
The Senate has only censured a president once : Andrew Jackson in 1834. I have read that the Senate can vote on an option, with a simple majority vote, that would prevent Trump from running for office again. Is that true only if Trump is convicted in the Senate trial? The vote to bar Trump from running for office is simple majority, but for that vote to be held requires that Trump first be convicted. You don't go to a sentencing hearing for someone who has been acquitted. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 9, 2021 20:43:46 GMT -8
The Senate has only censured a president once : Andrew Jackson in 1834. I have read that the Senate can vote on an option, with a simple majority vote, that would prevent Trump from running for office again. Is that true only if Trump is convicted in the Senate trial? Correct. And obviously we know that a guilty verdict isn't comimg, but the defense team today was a total circus and a pretty big embarrassment. Luckily, reports were that most of the Republican "jurors" weren't really paying attention anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 10, 2021 16:55:05 GMT -8
I don't get it. It's clear, more or less, that the goal of the Democrats in their second impeachment effort
is to prevent Trump from running in 2024. This makes no sense.
No doubt many millions would vote for him again if he got the nomination. On the other hand, that's just what the Dems should want to happen. He is NOT going to win in '24.
Biden will NOT run in '24, as everybody knows. Trump would just split the GOP as he did this last year, making it a near certainty that even a lousy Dem candidate will win. That means 3 straight Dem terms in the White House (re-election of an incumbent is not impossible but difficult), which should be enough time for the Left to stack the deck so heavily that the GOP will not win the Presidency until (if ever) after mid-century.
In any case, the Dems should be encouraging Trump to run in 2024.
I am not sure that he will even run. A lot can happen in four years. Trump will be 78 years old in 2024. His health may fail. Or his wife may rebel. Or one of his kids will run instead of Pop. Or the GOP may nominate someone else. (Which would have happened in '16 if such things were still decided in smoky backrooms by party insiders.)
By trying so hard to prevent Trump from running, the Democrats are signaling that they really fear him politically. As I have explained, that have no reason to fear Candidate Trump. Quite the contrary.
AzWmPS: I should also mention the obvious fact that the voters of America should decide who will run for the White House (i.e., primaries). By eliminating the possibility of Trump's running in '24, the Dems would be doing what is routinely done in very bad places, such as Iran. The spiritual leader of that nation gets to approve or bar candidates. Is that what we want? In case you doubt the legitimacy of what I said - Listen and watch Mike Lee's outburst today. He's so desperate to avoid looking like he betrayed the trust of Donald Trump that he leapt out of his seat and testified (when he's supposed to be an impartial juror) and is so concerned with being misquoted (his own spokesperson confirmed the story) rather than actually doing his job. The blind obedience to Das Führer is in full effect. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 13, 2021 1:42:42 GMT -8
I don't get it. It's clear, more or less, that the goal of the Democrats in their second impeachment effort
is to prevent Trump from running in 2024. This makes no sense.
No doubt many millions would vote for him again if he got the nomination. On the other hand, that's just what the Dems should want to happen. He is NOT going to win in '24.
Biden will NOT run in '24, as everybody knows. Trump would just split the GOP as he did this last year, making it a near certainty that even a lousy Dem candidate will win. That means 3 straight Dem terms in the White House (re-election of an incumbent is not impossible but difficult), which should be enough time for the Left to stack the deck so heavily that the GOP will not win the Presidency until (if ever) after mid-century.
In any case, the Dems should be encouraging Trump to run in 2024.
I am not sure that he will even run. A lot can happen in four years. Trump will be 78 years old in 2024. His health may fail. Or his wife may rebel. Or one of his kids will run instead of Pop. Or the GOP may nominate someone else. (Which would have happened in '16 if such things were still decided in smoky backrooms by party insiders.)
By trying so hard to prevent Trump from running, the Democrats are signaling that they really fear him politically. As I have explained, that have no reason to fear Candidate Trump. Quite the contrary.
AzWmPS: I should also mention the obvious fact that the voters of America should decide who will run for the White House (i.e., primaries). By eliminating the possibility of Trump's running in '24, the Dems would be doing what is routinely done in very bad places, such as Iran. The spiritual leader of that nation gets to approve or bar candidates. Is that what we want? Here's the thing. This isn't just about Trump. Yes, it IS about him, but it's also about precedent. If Donald Trump ISN'T convicted, then there is absolutely NO incentive for anyone else to ever respect the Constitution or Democracy. Don't like the outcome? Attempt a coup. You've got nothing to lose because there will be no consequences. The next President of questionable ethics and morals can just deny that he (or she) lost, and refuse to accept the results. Why not? The worst thing that will happen, with this precedent, is that you'll end up kicked out of office by force and go into political semi-retirement. The Republicans in this case are setting up the NEXT coup attempt. They are so afraid of Donald Trump (and his supporters) that they're willing to sell out our democratic system itself in order to save their own political careers. I don't like most of the Democrats in Washington, but they didn't attempt a coup - Trump did. The Democrats on the right side of history here, and the Republicans aren't. This SHOULDN'T be a political issue. This should be an issue of law and order, right and wrong, crime and punishment. There HAVE to be consequences for what Trump and his people did. Read my timeline. It's clear, it's obvious - you're a student of history. You've seen this kind of thing before when attempts like this have been successful. We're just lucky that Trump is incompetent (not to mention not very bright), and competent people don't want to work for him. If he were halfway competent we'd likely be living under martial law with, "President," Trump still in the White House (if the, "Rioters," who are heard on video looking to kill Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi and others had been able to do what they wanted to do - there would have been absolute chaos in Congress with all the leadership positions in a vacuum). Trump is an arrogant sociopath narcissist who was willing to do everything in his power to maintain his position as President. There was no election fraud. There was no, "Steal," to stop - but he worked his followers up knowing that a lot of them are military, ex military, and law enforcement. If not for that letter from the living former Secretaries of Defense he might have even had some support in the military on January 6th. He put his people in charge at the Pentagon, DHS, etc (firing anyone who wasn't an absolute loyalist in November - after the election). If there aren't consequences for his actions that will just embolden people to try it again in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 13, 2021 8:49:20 GMT -8
I don't get it. It's clear, more or less, that the goal of the Democrats in their second impeachment effort
is to prevent Trump from running in 2024. This makes no sense.
No doubt many millions would vote for him again if he got the nomination. On the other hand, that's just what the Dems should want to happen. He is NOT going to win in '24.
Biden will NOT run in '24, as everybody knows. Trump would just split the GOP as he did this last year, making it a near certainty that even a lousy Dem candidate will win. That means 3 straight Dem terms in the White House (re-election of an incumbent is not impossible but difficult), which should be enough time for the Left to stack the deck so heavily that the GOP will not win the Presidency until (if ever) after mid-century.
In any case, the Dems should be encouraging Trump to run in 2024.
I am not sure that he will even run. A lot can happen in four years. Trump will be 78 years old in 2024. His health may fail. Or his wife may rebel. Or one of his kids will run instead of Pop. Or the GOP may nominate someone else. (Which would have happened in '16 if such things were still decided in smoky backrooms by party insiders.)
By trying so hard to prevent Trump from running, the Democrats are signaling that they really fear him politically. As I have explained, that have no reason to fear Candidate Trump. Quite the contrary.
AzWmPS: I should also mention the obvious fact that the voters of America should decide who will run for the White House (i.e., primaries). By eliminating the possibility of Trump's running in '24, the Dems would be doing what is routinely done in very bad places, such as Iran. The spiritual leader of that nation gets to approve or bar candidates. Is that what we want? Here's the thing. This isn't just about Trump. Yes, it IS about him, but it's also about precedent. If Donald Trump ISN'T convicted, then there is absolutely NO incentive for anyone else to ever respect the Constitution or Democracy. Don't like the outcome? Attempt a coup. You've got nothing to lose because there will be no consequences. The next President of questionable ethics and morals can just deny that he (or she) lost, and refuse to accept the results. Why not? The worst thing that will happen, with this precedent, is that you'll end up kicked out of office by force and go into political semi-retirement. The Republicans in this case are setting up the NEXT coup attempt. They are so afraid of Donald Trump (and his supporters) that they're willing to sell out our democratic system itself in order to save their own political careers. I don't like most of the Democrats in Washington, but they didn't attempt a coup - Trump did. The Democrats on the right side of history here, and the Republicans aren't. This SHOULDN'T be a political issue. This should be an issue of law and order, right and wrong, crime and punishment. There HAVE to be consequences for what Trump and his people did. Read my timeline. It's clear, it's obvious - you're a student of history. You've seen this kind of thing before when attempts like this have been successful. We're just lucky that Trump is incompetent (not to mention not very bright), and competent people don't want to work for him. If he were halfway competent we'd likely be living under martial law with, "President," Trump still in the White House (if the, "Rioters," who are heard on video looking to kill Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi and others had been able to do what they wanted to do - there would have been absolute chaos in Congress with all the leadership positions in a vacuum). Trump is an arrogant sociopath narcissist who was willing to do everything in his power to maintain his position as President. There was no election fraud. There was no, "Steal," to stop - but he worked his followers up knowing that a lot of them are military, ex military, and law enforcement. If not for that letter from the living former Secretaries of Defense he might have even had some support in the military on January 6th. He put his people in charge at the Pentagon, DHS, etc (firing anyone who wasn't an absolute loyalist in November - after the election). If there aren't consequences for his actions that will just embolden people to try it again in the future. When the left breaks their arms trying to free criminals actually caught in the act of property crimes (See VP Harris and the bail funding) for example, you can't really take their crocodile tears about "consequences" seriously. The left says it was all about his "words" and those words included "peacefully". Every Pol uses hyperbole. Many Pols claimed they were robbed in an election (see Hillary, Abrams, for example). Many Pols encourage protesting (see Harris and her words "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not"). The Reichstag Fire started well before Trump's speech was over. The planning of the Reichstag Fire was apparently evident on Social media days before. The cause and effect argument against Trump is weak and flawed. The impeachment is unconstitutional and the action of spoiled, petulant power hungry children. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 13, 2021 9:53:28 GMT -8
Here's the thing. This isn't just about Trump. Yes, it IS about him, but it's also about precedent. If Donald Trump ISN'T convicted, then there is absolutely NO incentive for anyone else to ever respect the Constitution or Democracy. Don't like the outcome? Attempt a coup. You've got nothing to lose because there will be no consequences. The next President of questionable ethics and morals can just deny that he (or she) lost, and refuse to accept the results. Why not? The worst thing that will happen, with this precedent, is that you'll end up kicked out of office by force and go into political semi-retirement. The Republicans in this case are setting up the NEXT coup attempt. They are so afraid of Donald Trump (and his supporters) that they're willing to sell out our democratic system itself in order to save their own political careers. I don't like most of the Democrats in Washington, but they didn't attempt a coup - Trump did. The Democrats on the right side of history here, and the Republicans aren't. This SHOULDN'T be a political issue. This should be an issue of law and order, right and wrong, crime and punishment. There HAVE to be consequences for what Trump and his people did. Read my timeline. It's clear, it's obvious - you're a student of history. You've seen this kind of thing before when attempts like this have been successful. We're just lucky that Trump is incompetent (not to mention not very bright), and competent people don't want to work for him. If he were halfway competent we'd likely be living under martial law with, "President," Trump still in the White House (if the, "Rioters," who are heard on video looking to kill Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi and others had been able to do what they wanted to do - there would have been absolute chaos in Congress with all the leadership positions in a vacuum). Trump is an arrogant sociopath narcissist who was willing to do everything in his power to maintain his position as President. There was no election fraud. There was no, "Steal," to stop - but he worked his followers up knowing that a lot of them are military, ex military, and law enforcement. If not for that letter from the living former Secretaries of Defense he might have even had some support in the military on January 6th. He put his people in charge at the Pentagon, DHS, etc (firing anyone who wasn't an absolute loyalist in November - after the election). If there aren't consequences for his actions that will just embolden people to try it again in the future. When the left breaks their arms trying to free criminals actually caught in the act of property crimes (See VP Harris and the bail funding) for example, you can't really take their crocodile tears about "consequences" seriously. The left says it was all about his "words" and those words included "peacefully". Every Pol uses hyperbole. Many Pols claimed they were robbed in an election (see Hillary, Abrams, for example). Many Pols encourage protesting (see Harris and her words "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not"). The Reichstag Fire started well before Trump's speech was over. The planning of the Reichstag Fire was apparently evident on Social media days before. The cause and effect argument against Trump is weak and flawed. The impeachment is unconstitutional and the action of spoiled, petulant power hungry children. Trump was in on the planning of this thing. READ MY TIMELINE. Trump absolutely incited this insurrection - it was intentional. And, yeah CONSEQUENCES. Property damage and a freaking INSURRECTION in a coup attempt to overturn a valid election and effectively end our democracy are two COMPLETELY different things. If you can't see that then your partisan blinders are on too tight. I'm a Republican and I can see this for what it was, and I can see this attempt to sweep it under the rug for what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 13, 2021 10:10:32 GMT -8
When the left breaks their arms trying to free criminals actually caught in the act of property crimes (See VP Harris and the bail funding) for example, you can't really take their crocodile tears about "consequences" seriously. The left says it was all about his "words" and those words included "peacefully". Every Pol uses hyperbole. Many Pols claimed they were robbed in an election (see Hillary, Abrams, for example). Many Pols encourage protesting (see Harris and her words "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not"). The Reichstag Fire started well before Trump's speech was over. The planning of the Reichstag Fire was apparently evident on Social media days before. The cause and effect argument against Trump is weak and flawed. The impeachment is unconstitutional and the action of spoiled, petulant power hungry children. Trump was in on the planning of this thing. READ MY TIMELINE. Trump absolutely incited this insurrection - it was intentional. And, yeah CONSEQUENCES. Property damage and a freaking INSURRECTION in a coup attempt to overturn a valid election and effectively end our democracy are two COMPLETELY different things. If you can't see that then your partisan blinders are on too tight. I'm a Republican and I can see this for what it was, and I can see this attempt to sweep it under the rug for what it is. Save your breath, he's even worse than the other troll. Democrats got the witness vote and then folded like a cheap suit. No witnesses, vote to acquit will take place later today. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 13, 2021 11:40:57 GMT -8
When the left breaks their arms trying to free criminals actually caught in the act of property crimes (See VP Harris and the bail funding) for example, you can't really take their crocodile tears about "consequences" seriously. The left says it was all about his "words" and those words included "peacefully". Every Pol uses hyperbole. Many Pols claimed they were robbed in an election (see Hillary, Abrams, for example). Many Pols encourage protesting (see Harris and her words "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not"). The Reichstag Fire started well before Trump's speech was over. The planning of the Reichstag Fire was apparently evident on Social media days before. The cause and effect argument against Trump is weak and flawed. The impeachment is unconstitutional and the action of spoiled, petulant power hungry children. Trump was in on the planning of this thing. READ MY TIMELINE. Trump absolutely incited this insurrection - it was intentional. And, yeah CONSEQUENCES. Property damage and a freaking INSURRECTION in a coup attempt to overturn a valid election and effectively end our democracy are two COMPLETELY different things. If you can't see that then your partisan blinders are on too tight. I'm a Republican and I can see this for what it was, and I can see this attempt to sweep it under the rug for what it is. To begin with, the "Devil made me do it" is a very lame defense. Even lamer is the claim that Trump is the Devil that made Chewbaca man act violently. And to also say that without any proof of direct coordination is also lame. This is just political theater for true believers. The violence at the capital had more to do with the lawlessness that Democrats encouraged all summer long. Lincoln predicted as much in 1838 as the natural result when mob violence is tolerated. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Feb 13, 2021 11:46:08 GMT -8
Trump was in on the planning of this thing. READ MY TIMELINE. Trump absolutely incited this insurrection - it was intentional. And, yeah CONSEQUENCES. Property damage and a freaking INSURRECTION in a coup attempt to overturn a valid election and effectively end our democracy are two COMPLETELY different things. If you can't see that then your partisan blinders are on too tight. I'm a Republican and I can see this for what it was, and I can see this attempt to sweep it under the rug for what it is. To begin with, the "Devil made me do it" is a very lame defense. Even lamer is the claim that Trump is the Devil that made Chewbaca man act violently. And to also say that without any proof of direct coordination is also lame. This is just political theater for true believers. The violence at the capital had more to do with the lawlessness that Democrats encouraged all summer long. Lincoln predicted as much in 1838 as the natural result when mob violence is tolerated. Wow, you just made the case to convict Trump - inciting mob violence CANNOT be tolerated. Especially when the target of the mob is Congress, and the goal is to overturn a valid election and end democracy. Thank you. There, indeed, HAVE to be consequences for this, otherwise they're just inviting another attempt down the line. I don't give a rat's ass what party Trump is a part of. If it's Trump, or Clinton, or WHOEVER - if someone does what he did (coordinating the attack beforehand, which, if you read my timeline, he clearly did, and then inciting that crowd to go down to the Capitol and Fight Like Hell to Stop The Steal) that person should be in prison for life. Not just getting a slap on the wrist. Worse than that, though is the fact that Trump is going to skate scott free after attempting a coup to overturn a valid election and effectively end democracy in this country. If the shoe were on the other foot Republicans would be talking firing squad, not just preventing someone from running for office again. And you know it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 13, 2021 11:50:10 GMT -8
Trump was in on the planning of this thing. READ MY TIMELINE. Trump absolutely incited this insurrection - it was intentional. And, yeah CONSEQUENCES. Property damage and a freaking INSURRECTION in a coup attempt to overturn a valid election and effectively end our democracy are two COMPLETELY different things. If you can't see that then your partisan blinders are on too tight. I'm a Republican and I can see this for what it was, and I can see this attempt to sweep it under the rug for what it is. To begin with, the "Devil made me do it" is a very lame defense. Even lamer is the claim that Trump is the Devil that made Chewbaca man act violently. And to also say that without any proof of direct coordination is also lame. This is just political theater for true believers. The violence at the capital had more to do with the lawlessness that Democrats encouraged all summer long. Lincoln predicted as much in 1838 as the natural result when mob violence is tolerated. This post makes you look really, really silly. Direct proof of coordination? How about the Trump campaign paying 2.7 million dollars to event organizers? Sounds coordinated to me. The violence at the Capitol does not happen without the event being promoted and organized for weeks. If you really think these MAGA dopes thought "Oh man, Antifa did this all summer so we should, too"....then you're living up to your trolling reputation. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 13, 2021 13:06:31 GMT -8
To begin with, the "Devil made me do it" is a very lame defense. Even lamer is the claim that Trump is the Devil that made Chewbaca man act violently. And to also say that without any proof of direct coordination is also lame. This is just political theater for true believers. The violence at the capital had more to do with the lawlessness that Democrats encouraged all summer long. Lincoln predicted as much in 1838 as the natural result when mob violence is tolerated. This post makes you look really, really silly. Direct proof of coordination? How about the Trump campaign paying 2.7 million dollars to event organizers? Sounds coordinated to me. The violence at the Capitol does not happen without the event being promoted and organized for weeks. If you really think these MAGA dopes thought "Oh man, Antifa did this all summer so we should, too"....then you're living up to your trolling reputation. So Hillary, having paid for the dossier, is guilty of colluding with the Russians? How come Democrats never claimed that? And I'll stand with Lincoln on the other account. Monkey see, monkey do. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 13, 2021 13:28:13 GMT -8
This post makes you look really, really silly. Direct proof of coordination? How about the Trump campaign paying 2.7 million dollars to event organizers? Sounds coordinated to me. The violence at the Capitol does not happen without the event being promoted and organized for weeks. If you really think these MAGA dopes thought "Oh man, Antifa did this all summer so we should, too"....then you're living up to your trolling reputation. So Hillary, having paid for the dossier, is guilty of colluding with the Russians? How come Democrats never claimed that? And I'll stand with Lincoln on the other account. Monkey see, monkey do. Hillary's not being impeached, Donald Trump is. You can stand with whatever you want, you're wrong, as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 13, 2021 13:52:48 GMT -8
Trump is acquitted. Again. All the local DA's and state AG's will now start the race to see who will be the first to attempt to convict him.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Feb 13, 2021 14:00:29 GMT -8
Trump is acquitted. Again. All the local DA's and state AG's will now start the race to see who will be the first to attempt to convict him. It's a tough call, but I'd bet on New York. It's interesting how Mitch McConnell admitted that Trump was responsible, yet still voted to acquit based on constitutional defense, which was already removed when the Senate voted to make the trial constitutional. He's clearly trying to win back control of the party and distance himself from Trump, but he's in the minority there. Kevin McCarthy's call and subsequent visit to Florida to kiss the ring is troubling. |
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on Feb 13, 2021 14:10:43 GMT -8
Trump is acquitted. Again. All the local DA's and state AG's will now start the race to see who will be the first to attempt to convict him. It's a tough call, but I'd bet on New York. It's interesting how Mitch McConnell admitted that Trump was responsible, yet still voted to acquit based on constitutional defense, which was already removed when the Senate voted to make the trial constitutional. He's clearly trying to win back control of the party and distance himself from Trump, but he's in the minority there. Kevin McCarthy's call and subsequent visit to Florida to kiss the ring is troubling. Yep. Shocked at McConnell's comments, but with all of the DA's and AG's waiting in the wings, someone is bound to have success against Trump. That alone should keep Trump from attempting to run in 2024. We certainly don't need another 78 year-old President. Now, if something (term limits?) could be done about all of the other fossils in congress on both sides of the aisle. |
|
