First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply can trump, when he gets in office, immediately get impeached?
50326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 21 days ago
"whitelashing" turning your eyelashes white ? No its a word that was made up by a bigot who is apparently allowed to say what ever he wants.
17077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 21 days ago , edited 21 days ago

AnimeKami wrote:

"whitelashing" is a new word now.



That was said by a black biggot who throws around the "racist" bomb because either he doesn't know the difference between racisium and biggotry or he is deliberately calling all white people racists as a racist slur against them.

Simple Definition of bigot
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)


Definition of racism
1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2
a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Having watched the video of his outburst he came real close if not past the definition of:
racism 3: racial prjudice or discrimination. When he assumed all those "uneducated white male voters were racist". Not having a collage degree and being uneducated are completely different things. After all would you call a tradesman " uneducated?
8453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 21 days ago

Thameatman wrote:


Bowie-Sensei wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

No you would have to commit some major crime and lie to congress to it. Something like the Hillary e-mails.



I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not.

Hm... using a private email server (on not part of the white house), which is something most members of government do, or someone who will destroy the economy. This email thing is bollocks.



Idk what your talking about. A president cant be impeached due to his economic policies not panning out. Jesus what has happened to our youths brains. We have college kids that don't know left from right. Don't belittle the importance of those emails though. Every email can be a life in her situation.


My fucking god. If you actually bothered to read the entire thread, as opposed to looking at that one post, you would see that I said that one cannot simply impeach the president. After an impeachment is called you need a 2/3 majority from the congress for a conviction.

About the emails. She was absolved of guilt every single time, and you are making it sound like she is the only one who is doing it. A fair number of congress people do the same thing. Why do they go after Hillary specifically? Because they need a reason to hate her. Is what she did irresponsible? Yes. IS it criminal? The FBI declared several times no. She is also not the only one doing it.
8453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 21 days ago

Punk_Mela wrote:


Bowie-Sensei wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:


Bowie-Sensei wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

Who cares, it doesn't even matter if he does, this train has left the station. It really isn't about Trump in the wider sense, the right wing populist movements are gaining traction world wide and are recognized on the biggest stage with this win. If he were to get impeached it would only add fuel to the fire and a similar candidate would appear in due time with an even more energized movement. What people should be watching now is how this affects Marine Le Pen, the German AFD, and Austria's upcoming election. I think a lot of people like myself who felt they were accurate with the current state of affairs but not entirely sure just had some real confirmation come through with this vote.


This is a false equivalency. Are people crying about Trump for the wrong reason? Yes. But Trump will destroy not only the U.S. economy, but the world economy. If you want a preview of what a Trump preview will be like, move to Kansas. Unfortunately, Brownback is a potential Trump cabinet member, so may god help us all.


It's not a false equivalency, I get so tired of people learning speech 101 phrases like "strawman argument" and "false equivalency" and wanting to neatly and perfectly throw people's entire opinions under the umbrella of one. You have no idea whether trump will or won't help the economy, no one does, economists are improbable theorists on their best day. We do know he just lambasted Clinton campaign with a fraction of the budget or media collusion. How did that happen? Was it the PC hating right wing movements that are an observable trend, did he just simply and utterly outplay the Clinton campaign and conglomerates, or is America just as racist and misogynistic as the liberal media say and are so keen to pin his success on? I know which one I and many others think, and it is not the third option.


Edited to delete duplicated sentence.


Yes it is a false equivalency. Obama has proven to help the terrible economy he inherited, Trump will destroy it. You want to know how Trump will affect the economy? Look at Kansas. Sam Brownback has been governor and has absolutely destroyed the economy, and he isn't talking about defaulting on U.S. debts.

If it comes to believing every economic projection on a Trump presidency, or you, I'll go with the economists thank you very much.


You keep saying it is a false equivalency, I don't think you know what that means at this point if you don't see how it is not. Obama hasn't helped the economy, Unemployment rate only went down as work force participation went down, average house hold income is also down more than $2,000 from his tenure. And, really? "Every economist", that is a blatantly absurd statement, not even every economist on the propaganda machine that is CNN agrees with that. In terms of logical arguments, both your posts are fringing on secondary aspects of my point. What my opinion was primarily expressing is that there is a global trend that favors right wing ideology gaining traction that has been verified on a large political battle field by how this election proceeded and that it would be empowered by a Trump impeachment. I really don't want to continue this conversation past that because when you say ridiculous things like "every economist agrees that Trump is bad" it means we can't agree on grounded facts and the conversation is pointless.


I am well aware of what a false equivalency is, as I understand basic English.

Here are the facts. The economy has thrived under Obama. Unemployment went down, while I admit, which it would be intellectually dishonest not to, that a fair amount of people are underemployed.

I am also not calling for a Trump impeachment, as I am aware that the only thing that will stop Trump is when people finally see him for what he is. What irks me is that people only look at the sexist/misogynistic sound bites, and make it sound like that is the issue with Trump.
I understand that most of the country is like that, so telling people he will be bad because of that is missing the point.

My issue with Trump is that he will destroy us economically if he acts on his statements on the campaign trail.
8453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 21 days ago

RaisedInACult wrote:


Bowie-Sensei wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

No you would have to commit some major crime and lie to congress to it. Something like the Hillary e-mails.



I can't tell if you're taking the piss or not.

Hm... using a private email server (on not part of the white house), which is something most members of government do, or someone who will destroy the economy. This email thing is bollocks.


FOIA is on people, not devices.

She had classified information beyond her level of clearance - found on a server in benghazi - if you forget where this all started.

JAILABLE. PERIOD. Automatic loss of security clearances and disqualification from running for any office that qualifies for classified levels of clearance.

Anyone who even thinks Hillary should have been in the Presidential race is intellectually dishonest about this.



I'd love to see someone attempt to qualify "Obama helped the economy" LOL



If you think that Obama didn't help the economy you're either living in a bubble. or too young to remember the final years of the Bush administration. Obama inherited a failing economy. Unemployment was in double digits. Stockmarkets were crashing.

You seem to be under a sort of misapprehension. When the economy is good it doesn't meaning that everyone is middle class or well off. There is even a good chance that you wouldn't recognize any change at all. A better economy is one at the federal level. If there is a problem with your state economy, the president has less to do with that the the governor. For Kansas see Brownback.
29277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 21 days ago

Oxymoon wrote:

They could immediately impeach him based upon some of the current lawsuits, if the lawsuits didn't go his way. If he were found guilty of fraud (the Trump University lawsuit), he could be impeached by Congress. If the rape lawsuit hadn't been dropped and he were found guilty of raping a 13 year old, he could (and I imagine would!) have been impeached by Congress. Certain impeachable offenses don't have to occur during the time in office to be considered suitable for Congress to impeach.
Whether or not they would choose to impeach him is another matter.


Trump University is a civil case, not criminal. They could never impeach him over it even if he loses.

The 13-year-old thing was, to the best of my knowledge, proven to be a false charge. Even if it went to court, he wouldn't have been convicted.
Posted 21 days ago , edited 21 days ago

Bowie-Sensei wrote:

If you think that Obama didn't help the economy you're either living in a bubble. or too young to remember the final years of the Bush administration. Obama inherited a failing economy. Unemployment was in double digits. Stockmarkets were crashing.

You seem to be under a sort of misapprehension. When the economy is good it doesn't meaning that everyone is middle class or well off. There is even a good chance that you wouldn't recognize any change at all. A better economy is one at the federal level. If there is a problem with your state economy, the president has less to do with that the the governor. For Kansas see Brownback.


Its too funny being feaux lectured by a youngen like this who has no exposure to much aside from globalist news and propaganda to go by.

One word: Obamacare - and since you dont appear to understand that, its not really worth talking to you about how things were under the previous 4 presidents.


W was nothing more than an idiot son that made a decent puppet for those who wanted strings pulled.

Obama is naught but a groomed from birth race baiting manchurian president.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 21 days ago , edited 21 days ago



You just keep repeating the same ridiculous statements with no substantiated reasons why, not only that I told you the primary subject of my comment and you can't seem to help digressing to the irrelevant. You also keep bringing up the state of Kansas which is wholly pointless to the conversation and truthfully it sounds like you found one article on it and now want to bait people into the topic to regurgitate the same lines. I told you what I was interested in discussing, but we can't agree, ("obama is good for the economy", and "everyone thinks Trump is bad for it" aren't really useful lines of dialogue and wholly untrue. The only reason that the Obama administration could divert the title of remarkable failure is due to fracking and opening oil reserves) on the facts and you don't want to discuss my primary subject nor I yours. So I think I am done with this conversation.
18678 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 21 days ago

AnimeKami wrote:

"whitelashing" is a new word now.



yea I just frickin noticed that

-inhale-
17077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 21 days ago

Daverost wrote:


Oxymoon wrote:

They could immediately impeach him based upon some of the current lawsuits, if the lawsuits didn't go his way. If he were found guilty of fraud (the Trump University lawsuit), he could be impeached by Congress. If the rape lawsuit hadn't been dropped and he were found guilty of raping a 13 year old, he could (and I imagine would!) have been impeached by Congress. Certain impeachable offenses don't have to occur during the time in office to be considered suitable for Congress to impeach.
Whether or not they would choose to impeach him is another matter.


Trump University is a civil case, not criminal. They could never impeach him over it even if he loses.

The 13-year-old thing was, to the best of my knowledge, proven to be a false charge. Even if it went to court, he wouldn't have been convicted.


This. Paula Jhones was a cival case. The only reason Bill Clinton was impeached is because he perjured himself in a federal grand jury. As I stated above the Senate decided to cencure him in the well of the Senate 'in absentia' rather than prosicute him to give Senate Democrats political cover and put the case to rest. But he was impeached. Impeachment by the house and conviction for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' by the Senate are two different things. Sadly moast immigrants are better versed in us civics than moast native born collage graduates.
Posted 21 days ago

gotcha291 wrote:

When Obama took office did republicans cry this much and act this crazy no, maybe try to act more mature for starters, this is what the United States has chosen try just try to act more mature.


Wasn't Electoral college thing that got him elected?
SGZone 
81 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 21 days ago
Only if he has been found to have committed a crime or in some other way is revealed to be unfit for the presidency. Essentially unless a video releases of him sexually molesting a woman, killing someone, or any other crime between now and inauguration he will not be impeached.
211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Jasmine Dragon
Offline
Posted 21 days ago , edited 21 days ago

bernardwheelerjr wrote:


Daverost wrote:


Oxymoon wrote:

They could immediately impeach him based upon some of the current lawsuits, if the lawsuits didn't go his way. If he were found guilty of fraud (the Trump University lawsuit), he could be impeached by Congress. If the rape lawsuit hadn't been dropped and he were found guilty of raping a 13 year old, he could (and I imagine would!) have been impeached by Congress. Certain impeachable offenses don't have to occur during the time in office to be considered suitable for Congress to impeach.
Whether or not they would choose to impeach him is another matter.


Trump University is a civil case, not criminal. They could never impeach him over it even if he loses.

The 13-year-old thing was, to the best of my knowledge, proven to be a false charge. Even if it went to court, he wouldn't have been convicted.


This. Paula Jhones was a cival case. The only reason Bill Clinton was impeached is because he perjured himself in a federal grand jury. As I stated above the Senate decided to cencure him in the well of the Senate 'in absentia' rather than prosicute him to give Senate Democrats political cover and put the case to rest. But he was impeached. Impeachment by the house and conviction for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' by the Senate are two different things. Sadly moast immigrants are better versed in us civics than moast native born collage graduates.


Yes, the Trump University case is a civil case. However, it is a fraud-based case. Unlike sexual harassment (the charge in Paula Jones' civil case), fraud is a crime. Because no criminal case based on it has been pursued yet (to my knowledge), a criminal case could be pursued as well. If he (or his university) were found guilty in the civil case, they would have a suitable reason to pursue a criminal case as well. Impeachment is the form of criminal trial used on sitting presidents (and certain other sitting officials). Ergo, impeachment could, legally, occur on the first day if the civil case went against Trump.
I find it extremely unlikely that Congress would choose to go that route even if the civil case went against him.

**The rape charge was dropped by the victim (as is her right, since it was a civil case), not shown to be false. Given that he's now our president-elect, I certainly hope it was a false charge. Either way, it's now a non-issue.
17077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 21 days ago , edited 21 days ago

Oxymoon wrote:


bernardwheelerjr wrote:


Daverost wrote:


Oxymoon wrote:

They could immediately impeach him based upon some of the current lawsuits, if the lawsuits didn't go his way. If he were found guilty of fraud (the Trump University lawsuit), he could be impeached by Congress. If the rape lawsuit hadn't been dropped and he were found guilty of raping a 13 year old, he could (and I imagine would!) have been impeached by Congress. Certain impeachable offenses don't have to occur during the time in office to be considered suitable for Congress to impeach.
Whether or not they would choose to impeach him is another matter.


Trump University is a civil case, not criminal. They could never impeach him over it even if he loses.

The 13-year-old thing was, to the best of my knowledge, proven to be a false charge. Even if it went to court, he wouldn't have been convicted.


This. Paula Jhones was a cival case. The only reason Bill Clinton was impeached is because he perjured himself in a federal grand jury. As I stated above the Senate decided to cencure him in the well of the Senate 'in absentia' rather than prosicute him to give Senate Democrats political cover and put the case to rest. But he was impeached. Impeachment by the house and conviction for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' by the Senate are two different things. Sadly moast immigrants are better versed in us civics than moast native born collage graduates.


Yes, the Trump University case is a civil case. However, it is a fraud-based case. Unlike sexual harassment (the charge in Paula Jones' civil case), fraud is a crime. Because no criminal case based on it has been pursued yet (to my knowledge), a criminal case could be pursued as well. If he (or his university) were found guilty in the civil case, they would have a suitable reason to pursue a criminal case as well. Impeachment is the form of criminal trial used on sitting presidents (and certain other sitting officials). Ergo, impeachment could, legally, occur on the first day if the civil case went against Trump.
I find it extremely unlikely that Congress would choose to go that route even if the civil case went against him.

**The rape charge was dropped by the victim (as is her right, since it was a civil case), not shown to be false. Given that he's now our president-elect, I certainly hope it was a false charge. Either way, it's now a non-issue.


And had Hillary been elected she could have been impeached on day one for a wide range of federal felonies ranging from perjury before a grand jury, perjury before Congress, derilicton of duty, improper handling of classified materiels, not to mention all of the quid pro quo between the state department and Clinton foundation donors.

This is why as an independent I sat this election out despite the fact that I reside in verginia, a purple state where an independant's vote might matter. I found Clinton, Trump and all of the down ballot candidates so repugnant that I just stayed home. As an independent I don't just vote for all the shit sandwiches with a R or D. Honestly I think they should remove party affiliation from the ballot so people actually have to know who and what they are voting for.
211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / Jasmine Dragon
Offline
Posted 21 days ago , edited 21 days ago

bernardwheelerjr wrote:



And had Hillary been elected she could have been impeached on day one for a wide range of federal felonies ranging from perjury before a grand jury, perjury before Congress, derilicton of duty, improper handling of classified materiels, not to mention all of the quid pro quo between the state department and Clinton foundation donors.

This is why as an independent I sat this election out despite the fact that I reside in verginia, a purple state where an independant's vote might matter. I found Clinton, Trump and all of the down ballot candidates so repugnant that I just stayed home. As an independent I don't just vote for all the shit sandwiches with a R or D. Honestly I think they should remove party affiliation from the ballot so people actually have to know who and what they are voting for.


I can't say that I'd put it past the Congress to have started an impeachment process on her on day one for some sort of email thing, despite the constant FBI "no, she didn't do anything illegal" findings. And yes, they could have done that on day one too! (But OP didn't ask about whether or not doing that against her in such a counterfactual was possible/legal.)

Also an independent, but out in California. Not as depressed about my voting options as you; also, tons of ballot measures, so, I definitely voted.
And the removal of party affiliation on the ballot is an intriguing idea. I do wish people would pay more attention to the actual candidate than the party. I get having strong party affiliations and consequently voting along party lines (even if I don't do so myself), but that should be a proper, conscious decision, not a default. And one can easily determine the party during election research, so, removal of that info from the ballot proper doesn't screw over those who want to vote with their party, it just means that voters have to actually know something about the race they're voting on.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.