The Second tRump Impeachment.

[St. Phatty]

in 2020, the US gov took in about 3 Trill in taxes and spent $6 Trill, a little extra for Covid relief.

But when Biden wants to spend big but not quite as much as Trump ... it's a problem for the GOP ?

 

[GOT_BUD?]

in 2020, the US gov took in about 3 Trill in taxes and spent $6 Trill, a little extra for Covid relief.

But when Biden wants to spend big but not quite as much as Trump ... it's a problem for the GOP ?

Of course it is. Never mind the 5.7 trillion dollars Jerome Powell dumped into the market to make sure the millionaires stayed safe and content during these trying times.

 

[armedoldhippy]

in 2020, the US gov took in about 3 Trill in taxes and spent $6 Trill, a little extra for Covid relief.

But when Biden wants to spend big but not quite as much as Trump ... it's a problem for the GOP ?

anything a D POTUS wants to do is a problem for the Rs. even if it is something the last R POTUS wanted to do. God forbid anyone do something that they might get credit for...can't be having THAT shit happen.

 

[imiubu]

A large portion of that can be directly traced to not knowing how to critically think. Even though there is apparently a large swath of Americans that think they do. They can't tell they're being led to a pre determined outcome because they're not directly being told what's happening. They believe they are "discovering" the truth, which in turns leads to them being fiercely passionate about defending that "truth" that only they can see because they've "woken up".

The exact same thing happens in a game of Dungeons and Dragons or any other roleplaying type tabletop game. The Dungeon Master leaves little clues for the party to find that help move the story along and end at the pre-determined boss fight where they win the day/save the town/girl, and get the loot. Except in this real world scenario, the "loot" is the "Dungeon Master's" completely made up narrative dreamed up in some Chinese/Russia/Iranian bunker.

The quandary however still remains as to which "side" the emboldened text ^^ actually relates to.
The presented premise is just as easily stated for the "other side".

Which is the "right/ correct" scenario?
Well... the one in which we as individuals personally think/ opine, of course.

This lends to my thoughts that folks really shouldn't be all that smug about being on the "right" side of 'things'
and that those who think differently are... all "wrong".

After all... we the minions (the "99%"), each and every one of us... are under the thumb of the
dungeon masters and can only guess at the end game.

Since we are all stuck in this power play; how is it that there are those that hold themselves above others?
Folks simply assuming to be more informed/ smarter than the rest so; it must be those 'others' (they/ them) whom
are unable to discern any "truths" due to having disagreeing opinions/ thoughts.

We are all in the 'pits' together. Not one is better/ more worthy than any other.
Thinking otherwise... well, then the dungeon masters continue to win; keeping chaos/ control/ division alive and well.

A majority does not automatically and magically make that particular majority "right" or the only ones who have discovered the real "truth".
The majority may rule as it's said but... that still does not automatically and magically make the minority "wrong/ stupid/ conspirator theorists" etc.

JM02


We (humans) still remain more alike than we are unalike.

 

[GOT_BUD?]

The quandary however still remains as to which "side" the emboldened text ^^ actually relates to.
The presented premise is just as easily stated for the "other side".

Which is the "right/ correct" scenario?
Well... the one in which we as individuals personally think/ opine, of course.

This lends to my thoughts that folks really shouldn't be all that smug about being on the "right" side of 'things'
and that those who think differently are... all "wrong".

After all... we the minions (the "99%"), each and every one of us... are under the thumb of the
dungeon masters and can only guess at the end game.

Since we are all stuck in this power play; how is it that there are those that hold themselves above others?
Folks simply assuming to be more informed/ smarter than the rest so; it must be those 'others' (they/ them) whom
are unable to discern any "truths" due to having disagreeing opinions/ thoughts.

We are all in the 'pits' together. Not one is better/ more worthy than any other.
Thinking otherwise... well, then the dungeon masters continue to win; keeping chaos/ control/ division alive and well.

A majority does not automatically and magically make that particular majority "right" or the only ones who have discovered the real "truth".
The majority may rule as it's said but... that still does not automatically and magically make the minority "wrong/ stupid/ conspirator theorists" etc.

JM02


We (humans) still remain more alike than we are unalike.

That's a wonderful "both sides" argument you've crafted.

Unfortunately, one group of the 99% lives in verifiable fact checked world. And another who lives and breathes on the word of a narcissistic conman.

How do you propose we reconcile this massive rift that has been caused by a bunch of lies and nonsense? The only way I know how is to present credible evidence. And in 60 court cases across 50 states, a grand total of 150 votes were found to be fraudulent. All cast for Donald Trump I might add.

If there were any truth to "massive fraud" taking place, why is there zero evidence? The only thing found so far has been a bunch of first time poll watchers seeing things they didn't understand, so their only conclusion must be fraud because that's what they want it to be. Or a truck driver who recanted his story when he told it to the FBI.

There is this little thing called the Rule of Numbers. It goes into great detail why when something secret involves more than 2 people, the chances of it remaining a secret fall exponentially the more people that know about it.

And right on brand, the $76 million Trump raised for "election fraud investigations"? Trump pocketed it.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trum...Hxp2PM6L8c75zf48CMy7kEctD_-V0GBelxXD47FQc9Ot5

 

[EsterEssence]

How can the republicans be saying they won’t vote to convict before they hear the case. I though jurors are not allowed to discuss the case until they hear all the evidence...

 

[med4u]

How can the republicans be saying they won’t vote to convict before they hear the case. I though jurors are not allowed to discuss the case until they hear all the evidence...

The vote that has been taken was on the trials constitutionality which was correctly determined
Not to be...impeachment hearings are political
And not bound by the same guidelines as a criminal
Or civil court case...the clue to its unconstitutionality
Was foreshadowed when justice Robert's refused to preside over the trial....he knows it would not pass
A challenge in the supreme court....the purpose of an impeachment hearing is to remove a sitting president....trump is no longer the sitting president
Making a trial moot
Impeachment protocol also requires the chief justice preside over the Senate trial....without this would also make the trial moot
The whole idea of a of a trial for impeachment of an ex government official who is now a citizen is a perilous undertaking setting a precedence that will
Reverberate disastrously..
It will now allow any ex official to be tried regardless
Of their being no longer in an official capacity ..
Whose next Obama? Clinton? Justice of the supreme court? The list is endless

 

[redlaser]

The whole idea of a of a trial for impeachment of an ex government official who is now a citizen is a perilous undertaking setting a precedence that will
Reverberate disastrously..
It will now allow any ex official to be tried regardless
Of their being no longer in an official capacity ..
Whose next Obama? Clinton? Justice of the supreme court? The list is endless

*Precedence exists minus the disastrous reverberation hyperbole... .. .

March 2, 1876 House of Representatives votes unanimously to impeach Secretary of war William Belknap, hours after Grant accepted his resignation.

The senate fully debated every aspect of the late impeachment issue and then voted to allow it in a 37-29 vote.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_600f3681c5b600a279622b39

 

[armedoldhippy]

*Precedence exists minus the disastrous reverberation hyperbole... .. .

March 2, 1876 House of Representatives votes unanimously to impeach Secretary of war William Belknap, hours after Grant accepted his resignation.

The senate fully debated every aspect of the late impeachment issue and then voted to allow it in a 37-29 vote.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_600f3681c5b600a279622b39

there you go again, using facts against folks that aint got any to fire back with...

 

[med4u]

there you go again, using facts against folks that aint got any to fire back with...

How will you impeach if the chief justice who is bound by constitution that he "shall" preside
,refuses ?
No chief justice...no impeachment
Your shooting blanks...unarmedoldhippy

 

[med4u]

*Precedence exists minus the disastrous reverberation hyperbole... .. .

March 2, 1876 House of Representatives votes unanimously to impeach Secretary of war William Belknap, hours after Grant accepted his resignation.

The senate fully debated every aspect of the late impeachment issue and then voted to allow it in a 37-29 vote.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_600f3681c5b600a279622b39

They used to lynch negros back in the 1800s...
Wasn't constitutional or legally correct,yet had precedence..and they certainly
Carried this action out as a means of justice

 

[redlaser]

How will you impeach if the chief justice who is bound by constitution that he "shall" preside
,refuses ?
No chief justice...no impeachment
Your shooting blanks...unarmedoldhippy

The constitution requires the involvement of the Chief Justice only when the president is on trial. Since trump is no longer President, there is no requirement for the Chief Justice to be involved.

The Chief Justice is required to preside over impeachment trials involving only sitting presidents.

There is no evidence Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any obligation to do so.

 

[redlaser]

They used to lynch negros back in the 1800s...
Wasn't constitutional or legally correct,yet had precedence..and they certainly
Carried this action out as a means of justice

The burden of proof is on the accuser, if you are alleging the impeachment of Mr. Belknap wasn’t constitutional or legally correct.

 

[med4u]

The constitution requires the involvement of the Chief Justice only when the president is on trial. Since trump is no longer President, there is no requirement for the Chief Justice to be involved.

The Chief Justice is required to preside over impeachment trials involving only sitting presidents.

There is no evidence Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any obligation to do so.

The only objective of an impeachment is the removal from office.....your logic runs in circles
And yes Sen Schumer did ask and Robert's
declined

 

[3snowboards]

The only objective of an impeachment is the removal from office.....your logic runs in circles
And yes Sen Schumer did ask and Robert's
declined

And your right wing news source told you thats the "objective"?
Let me enlighten you then...
They are trying to bar him from ever holding public office again
And it appears to me
Your logic will take you off a cliff.

 

[redlaser]

The only objective of an impeachment is the removal from office.....your logic runs in circles
And yes Sen Schumer did ask and Robert's
declined

Ok, I’m wrong in that Roberts was asked.

He isn’t required however to preside.

Removal of office isn’t the only objective, accountability is important, less the next turd down the chute will think he isn’t accountable at all like trump

 

[GOT_BUD?]

*Precedence exists minus the disastrous reverberation hyperbole... .. .

March 2, 1876 House of Representatives votes unanimously to impeach Secretary of war William Belknap, hours after Grant accepted his resignation.

The senate fully debated every aspect of the late impeachment issue and then voted to allow it in a 37-29 vote.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_600f3681c5b600a279622b39

How dare you use facts! This is a case of feels, dammit!

 

[med4u]

And your right wing news source told you thats the "objective"?
Let me enlighten you then...
They are trying to bar him from ever holding public office again
And it appears to me
Your logic will take you off a cliff.

Unlike you apparently...I have no need for any news sources to explain constitutional law..
Pulling one's head out of their ass would prove
Helpful for the less informed...there will be no conviction in the senate
We will see next week who is over the cliff
Wish in one hand and shit in the other.....
You end up wishing you didn't shit in your hand

 

[minds_I]

And your right wing news source told you thats the "objective"?
Let me enlighten you then...
They are trying to bar him from ever holding public office again
And it appears to me
Your logic will take you off a cliff.

Hello all,

Hey, Darwinism has its place, ay?

minds_I

 

[armedoldhippy]

The constitution requires the involvement of the Chief Justice only when the president is on trial. Since trump is no longer President, there is no requirement for the Chief Justice to be involved.

The Chief Justice is required to preside over impeachment trials involving only sitting presidents.

There is no evidence Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any obligation to do so.

STILL with the facts! have you no shame, beating that poor boy about the head & shoulders like that & him utterly defenseless? oh, and med4u? it is "you're". as in "you're welcome, think nothing of it".