Tell me what has increased to over 1,000,000 incidents again this year

Actually, the debate answers your question and that’s how the Fathers designed it.

If you aren’t an officeholder at the time of a Senate trial, the trial itself is unconstitutional. Consequently,  a non-officeholder cannot be impeached.

I don't know how anyone could apply left/right dichotomies to societies before liberty, equality, fraternity took root.

-->@oromagi

I don't know how anyone could apply left/right dichotomies to societies before liberty, equality, fraternity took root.

Liberty and equality are not always the same thing, it's why I don't agree with crossing over 'progressive' with 'liberal'.

Left-wing is the wing that is pro-sharing wealth and pro-balancing things out in more ways than one.

Right-wing is the wing that is pro-keeping what one has (whether rightly earned or not)

and pro de-balancing things in favour of whichever tribe/clan/lineage/corporation (yes, corporation even) one associates with.

Guy Fawkes certainly was right-wing in ways but one cannot simply dub him as that, he had left-wing and sheer wingless liberalism as motives.

Specifically, and I’ll repeat again: on what basis do you think extending a legal process to apply to those no longer in office - I would also make it apply to those who are dead; considering that a) dead people don’t fit the rationale and b) no legal process of punishment extends to people who are dead.

Property rights.

If you’re saying that I believe dead people can be impeached, I don’t. But DR’s implications with his Constitutional interpretation leave the option on the table.

I don’t think Washington nor Clinton can be impeached right now.

No its not - as I keep explaining; you’re just making this up, and frankly is so stupid I’m trying to figure out for either a.) why you believe something so stupid or b.) why you would troll with something so stupid.

Again, as I have explained (and you have dodged 3 times now) - firstly: the motivation of covering former officials via impeachment is to prevent them serving in public office - which doesn’t apply to dead people. Meaning that arguing this is what he’s saying is absurdly ridiculous.

Secondly: the idea that one must leap to the conclusion that allowing impeachment of former officials must definitely also apply or would encourage people to apply this to dead individuals for which no punishment can be exacted - is also absurdly ridiculous. 

It’s an obvious and colossal straw man which you still haven’t explained other than to reiterate the same straw man.

You’re clearly not understanding my position on the issue lol. I literally agree with you position, but DR’s interpretation of the Constitution directly supports this ridiculous belief.

It’s clearly NOT DRs position or interpretation, nor can it possibly be thought of as much because a.) the motivating factors clearly and obviously don’t apply to someone who is dead c.) there is literally no rational reason why a sane person would conclude that an interpretation of a process that would include both current and previous office holders would somehow also definitely mean that the process would also apply to dead people. Given that the premise that the person a punitive process is designed to punish must be alive, is so generally obvious that one would not expect it to need to be explicit, no? 

Hence the question - do you believe this absurd straw man, or do you know it’s an absurd straw man, in which case why on earth did you go for something so absurd?

Seems clear that any former officer is not impeachable, nor triable in a case of impeachment, nor, certainly, anyone who is dead, whether they died in office, or not. If they died in office, they have been removed from office, and are no longer eligible to hold a subsequent office, so all that impeachment and trial can do has been accomplished by other means. This clearly makes impeachment a political, not a legal act.

His interpretation of the Constitution implies they can be impeached. It’s really simple. 

There’s two options: only current officeholders can  be impeached/tried in the Senate

Or, non-current but previous officeholders can be impeached/tried in the Senate. 

The latter interpretation inherently implies that the Constitution says dead Presidents can be impeached and convicted. 

Non-current, previous officeholders is a set that includes dead people. And since impeachment is a political process, all it does is tarnishes reputation for the individual convicted. There’s your “punishment.”

Go read miscarriage, still birth and infant mortality statistics and you will be suicidal.

It’s clearly NOT DRs position or interpretation, nor can it possibly be thought of as much because a.) the motivating factors clearly and obviously don’t apply to someone who is dead - specifically the prescribed constitutional punishment of preventing them from serving in office again doesn’t apply and tarnishing their reputation is not a legally recognized punishment, let alone a constitutional one.  b.) there is literally no rational reason why a sane person would conclude that an interpretation of a process that would include both current and previous office holders would somehow also definitely mean that the process would also apply to dead people - which it doesn’t. Dead people can’t be charged or tried in criminal cases: and interpretation of language for impeachment doesn’t suddenly reverse that - any more that the suggestion that extending the insider trading act to include current and former employees of a company - would magically extend to dead people.

The fact that you’re still beating this dead horse is even more absurd: and frankly, I don’t know which is worse at this point - believing it or not believing it.

You do you my man. Makes sense to me. I can’t help it if you don’t understand my position. Havoc understands it pretty?

Impeachment is inherently a political process

and per DR’s position the Constitution wouldn’t stop a hypothetical impeachment of George Washington.

What you mourn for is relative to how your sensibilities are set, in terms of ideologies and moral selectivity etc.

Some people mourn for the millions of animals that a slaughtered every day.....Do you also choose this as a focus of your selective mourning?

What about all the lives lost due to the U.S. led war on terror?

Are you absolutely moral?

->@oromagi

You seem to be incapable of grasping abstract concepts at this point. It's like you literally think there was no left-wing or right-wing to politics before the phrases to describe the sides of politics were invented.

It's like saying until we had the word 'lemur' there was no lemur, it's just ridiculous but I'll let you play around with this nonsense.

There's always been left-wing vs right-wing dynamics in politics. Always has been and always will be.

Ancient peoples did not think of universal human rights in the same way we do today.  The true forerunner of human-rights discourse was the concept of natural rights which appeared as part of the medieval natural law tradition that became prominent during the European Enlightenment. From this foundation, the modern human rights arguments emerged over the latter half of the 20th century.

17th-century English philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. In Britain in 1689, the English Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right each made a range of oppressive governmental actions, illegal.

Ancient Egypt was the epitome of right-wing politics and is one of the oldest civilisations in existence.

All rights in Ancient Egypt were held by an elite group of Royal householders who derived their authority by claiming descendancy from Gods. 

You got an issue with me having a guy fawkes pic,

 You can fuck off with this utter bullshit calling me a poster boy for Trump

or trying to troll me into feeling I can't have my beautiful profile pic, you have not had a good-looking avatar since you joined the website, get some taste.