disqualification choices?

Author: fauxlaw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 18
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    So, as Democrats in the Senate lick their chops, now that they will officially control the Senate after inauguration [because until inauguration, Kammie is not the tie-breaker] over a trial on impeachment...

    Wait, that may not happen at all, because in spite of an ill-advised second House impeachment of Trump, it must be decided, by interpretation of the Senates power to try an impeachment after the President has left office - and the Constitution is fairly clear, since "removal from office" would not be a consequence as of noon tomorrow...

    ... is disqualification an automatic? No, the Senate votes on that issue separately. Are both issues automatic, i.e., removal and disqualification from holder future office? No, because of the last answer.  Can the Senate not vote to remove, but still vote to disqualify, i.e., remove, or disqualify?  No. The operative word is "and," not "and/or," or simply "or,"  therefore, if the Senate takes up the trial, their must be a conviction/acquittal vote, and only then would the Senate decide to vote on disqualification. That is, unless you want to treat the Constitution like a cafeteria, in which the words can be altered at will. But, that's how Democrats read the Constitution, anyway.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @fauxlaw
    If Trump is as bad as they say, isn't it strange they are afraid of him running and winning again? If Trump runs again and wins, who do they think would have elected him? Bolivians? 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @ethang5
    People on Hillaryous Balloon Girl's hit list.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @ethang5
    If Trump is as bad as they say, isn't it strange they are afraid of him running and winning again? If Trump runs again and wins, who do they think would have elected him? Bolivians? 
    I think the republicans are afraid of all the damage trump will do if he can run again. 

    1) the republicans will be paralyzed. Trump will play his favorite game of keeping people guessing about whether he will run or not right up to the last minute. This will keep any other potential candidate in limbo and pretty much screwed since it takes years to build up a campaign. So the republicans would like to prevent him from running again if they can. 

    2) The republicans are afraid of the damage trump will do to them if he hangs around as a prospective nominee for 4 years. Trump is toxic for a large chunk of the population and a large chunk of political donors. If trump is saying he will run, the republicans will be in trouble for the next 4 years. Trump didn't lose Georgia and Pennsylvania because he is wildly popular. He will weigh down the republican party for as long as there is the risk he is coming back. 



  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
    Trump didn't lose Georgia and Pennsylvania because he is wildly popular. 
    poor choice of words. You do see, don't you, that one can read your commentary as admitting Trump is wildly popular, and that he didn't lose. your words, not mine. How many people did Biden attract at his handful of campaign rallies compared to Trump rallies? Like it or not, GA and PA did change their election laws, but not by their respective legislatures. That's not lawful according to their own election legislations.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ethang5
    If Trump is as bad as they say, isn't it strange they are afraid of him running and winning again? If Trump runs again and wins, who do they think would have elected him? Bolivians? 

    They don't give a crap about Trump. They want to make an example for the next person that dares challenge establishment DC. 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    Trump didn't lose Georgia and Pennsylvania because he is wildly popular. 
    poor choice of words. You do see, don't you, that one can read your commentary as admitting Trump is wildly popular, and that he didn't lose. 
    my apologies, you are correct. I didn't take into account the insanity of the potential audience. Biden obviously won those states and that has been confirmed over and over. So it didn't occur to me at the time of writing that people could think i meant something that very clearly isn't true. 

    How many people did Biden attract at his handful of campaign rallies compared to Trump rallies?
    who cares? How is that even relevant? The fact that trump can turn out thousands of cultists to his rallies does not necessarily translate into widespread support. It means he has a core group of fanatics who will literally risk death from a pandemic in order to listen to his insane ramblings. 

    Like it or not, GA and PA did change their election laws, but not by their respective legislatures. That's not lawful according to their own election legislations.
    If that were true (and anyone actually objected to the changes) that would have been tested in court prior to the election. I don't have access to the source so take this with a grain of salt since I cannot back it up at the moment. But I recall seeing a story about republicans suing about that, but only after the election. And they were quoted as saying they didn't object before the election because they didn't know if the changes would benefit them or not. 

    So essentially, the republicans didn't object to these changes until it became clear they lost, then they started whining about it. 
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
    people could think i meant something that very clearly isn't true. 
    You claim things that are not true all the time. What else should one think?
    The difference is, I don't claim to be a history buff, even though I have a History PhD.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
    You claim things that are not true all the time. What else should one think?
    nope, I stick to reality. not nonsense about invisible election fraud. 

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I think the republicans are afraid of all the damage trump will do if he can run again. 
    Yet it's the Democrats trying to prohibit him from being able to run again. Does reality matter to you?

    I stick to reality....
    Reality doesn't reside between your ears. 
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Greyparrot
    They don't give a crap about Trump. They want to make an example for the next person that dares challenge establishment DC. 
    True, but sure as rain, there will be a next person.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ethang5
    Nah, Fucktards on the left think that people will just fall in line and obey authority now that Trump isn't there to "brainwash" them.

    Clownworld.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Greyparrot
    Lol. Watching the inauguration today on CNN, I think they mentioned the capitol building "terrorists" a million times in 10 minutes. What sort of ignorant stupidity falls for that rubbish? Are Democrats really that dumb? 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 10,176
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @ethang5
    Nah, as long as the police shoot the right skin color and the group the crony DC MSM approves of, then the police can do no wrong.

    People can now just shut up and take it in the neck from DC elites now that Trump is gone.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Greyparrot
    I know it's ok for the police to shoot white men, but what if a half white/half black police officer shoots a half black perp? How do they navigate that land mine?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 57
    Forum posts: 2,408
    4
    6
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @HistoryBuff
     invisible election fraud. 
    Hint: it's election fraud when a governor and a sec of state change election laws instead ofd state legislatures. I know the law means little to you, but some of us depend on it to maintain civilization.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,184
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @fauxlaw
     invisible election fraud. 
    Hint: it's election fraud when a governor and a sec of state change election laws instead ofd state legislatures. I know the law means little to you, but some of us depend on it to maintain civilization.
    so when someone changes the rules months before an election and then no one objects to it, that is fraud in your world? If people disagreed with the changes they had lots of time to object and sue to stop it. They didn't. It can't be fraud if everyone knew exactly what was happening and was ok with it. 

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @HistoryBuff
    It can't be fraud if everyone knew exactly what was happening and was ok with it. 
    Then why do we need laws written down? If people are "ok" with slavery, it's fine, the Constitution be damned.

    You may agree with the rule change HB, but you have lost this point. Fauxlaw is correct.