Total posts: 17,895
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
science is adding me as a friendpolitics is blocking me while doing it...
Ok boomer
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Aye we Auth-Right buddies
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
You don’t need to quote to respond. The voters just read the argument, they don’t need to read it again.But whatever that’s just my opinion. Not a big deal, I’ll draft my arguments how I wish and you are of course free to do the same.
I’ll keep it minimal just so voters know what I’m referencing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Fine, send me a challenge. No more than 8,000 characters, and how many days to respond can we have? 3 days is rough for me cause I can only log on in spurts.
However long you want. I’m a college student so I’m busy as well and fully understand.
Oh and no (or at least minimal) quoting each other. It just ruins the quality of the debate. If you’re cool with that I’ll accept.
I mean isn’t quoting and responding the whole purpose of the debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Looks like you Trust Authority LOL!
Oddly enough I answered Strongly Agree to all authority must be questioned 🤡
Created:
Posted in:
Take the quiz and show off your amazing results.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You're actually wrong about this. Democrats do want the bill to pass, they just want the bill to pass while also appeasing the fringe ultra-rich corporate lobbyists demanding a minimum wage to destroy their competition.
I meant a stand alone Covid Bill lol. There’s bipartisan support for that in the 2k checks, but ofc they have to poison it
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Because once again, context be dammed.I know this doesn’t make sense to you because right wing media has no interest in educating you, but anyone actually following the conversation knew this. Yes there were some left wing politicians calling for a whole new $2k, that’s not relevant to what the majority of the party was talking about.
How tf is context relevant to this when Biden, Warnock, and Ossoff word for word said they support 2000 dollar checks in people’s pockets. How tf do they do that if they don’t mean a separate 2k check lol. This has nothing to do with right wing media lol. Your own progressives said they meant 2000 when they said 2000. Your party was calling for the checks and clearly now they are backtracking because they only meant 1400 additional. You’re either being deceptively misleading or straight up lying which is abhorrent when people’s lives are at stake per your own party’s sayings.
I’m starting to realize this is all you do. You don’t respond, you just repeat.
Hey buddy it’s not rocket science. You can pass the Covid Bill easily without a 15 dollar minimum wage, but your side chooses not to.
It’s not impassable. I just explained why. “Nuh uh” is not a response.
It literally is because two Democratic Senators have already said they will vote Nay if 15 dollar minimum wage is a part of it. It’s literally dumb af to move to a vote when you know you don’t have enough votes. There’s a reason why it’s at a standstill rn in the Senate.
Do you have any explanation for how on earth this makes sense to you?
Why can’t they pass a simple bill with 2k checks. It’s simple.
The only explanation I gather is projection. Just because republicans don’t give a rat’s ass about helping people or fighting COVID doesn’t mean democrats don’t either.
15 dollar minimum wage kills more jobs than creates. And I’ve already said I support a stand alone 2k check in a Covid Bill. It’s not just me, a lot of Republicans do I clouding Josh Hawley.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The “all” isn’t inclusive to everyone in the United States. I already explained why, did you read it?Article 2 section 4 establishes who can be impeached. That is an inclusive passage. I already explained why this matters. Did you understand it?
Ah good so it is a qualification that only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be impeached. The also is the same for conviction by the Senate lol. Trump is neither of those.
I already explained why this is false. Did you read it?
If you think this is false then Trump is a private citizen and therefore cannot be impeached.
The burden of proof rests on the person who makes the claim.You are the one claiming “the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen”. Prove your claim. Show me the passage you claim exists where the framers discussed what happens in a scenario where a sitting president is constitutionally impeached towards the end of his term and then time runs out before the senate can finish the trial.
That is absurdly false lol, it’s your job to prove that a private citizen can be convicted. Until then status quo states you cannot.
There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether an officer no longer in office can be impeached, constitutional scholars do not largely agree. But the question of whether a sitting officer who has been impeached can be tried is a different question, and there is very little disagreement on that.
The opinion of constitutional experts is irrelevant to what the Constitution actually says.
I haven’t taken a position on that either way. What I’ve argued isA) Trump’s impeachment was constitutionalB) This according to the constitution gives the senate the power to try himThere is nothing explicit in the texts to rule out convicting someone in this scenario, so it takes interpretation. That is where your argument monumentally fails.
The Constitution inherently is limiting the power of the government lol: it limits conviction to the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. If the Founding Fathers wanted former officials to be included they’d say that they didn’t because they wanted to limit the power.
Every law comes down to two different ways it can be interpreted; by the “spirit of the law” or “the letter of the law”. You aren’t even bothering to argue the spirit of the law on this, and I don’t blame you cause you have nothing there.
The Spirit of the Law is also very clear. You cannot convict a private citizen because you’d literally be committing to a bill of attainder, which is definitely unconstitutional in a plethora of ways not to mention statutory.
The letter of the law takes much less interpretation than the spirit, but still requires some. Words are written in context, and that context is what determines what they mean. If you are just going to ignore the context of the passage then you’re not even trying to understand it, you’re just putting on your partisan glasses to block out anything inconvenient. That’s clearly what’s going on here as evidenced by the fact that your responses continually ignore my arguments and just re assert the same tired talking points.
Your arguments hold no value to the words of the Constitution. No Bill of Attainders against private citizens, what does this Senate trial amount to? It’s goal was literally a bill of attainder lol.
Either way why don’t you and I have a formal debate over this rather than just chit chatting over a forum. Let the voters decide who’s more convincing.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The $2000 is a continuation from the debate we had in December. Democrats wanted $2k, republicans stood on the way so democrats accepted the $600 and pledged to get the rest once they won the senate.Anyone who was paying attention knew this and understood what they were talking about. It’s true that a lot of people did not understand and assumed it meant another $2k, misunderstandings that work in your favor are unfortunately nothing new in politics.
That is absurdly false. Ossoff, Warnock, and Biden all referred to 2000 dollar checks after the 600 dollar check bill had already passed. Even Alexandria Ocasió Cortez and your progressive buddies said they meant 2000 more on top the 600.
Trump signed the 600 dollar check bill on December 27th, 2020.
In January 4th, 2020, at a rally in Atlanta, Biden said this: "If you send Jon [Ossoff] and the reverend [Raphael Warnock] to Washington, those $2,000 checks will go out the door, restoring hope and decency for so many people who are struggling right now.”
This was after the 600 dollars had already started going out. Only an idiot would believe they meant 2000 total when Biden talks about 2000 dollar checks.
It’s not a poison pill. A poison pill is defined by its purpose; to stop the bill from passing. Democrats are putting it in there in an attempt to get it. That’s not the same thing.
No they put it in there because they don’t want the bill to pass lol. If they just cared about the money they wouldn’t attach if 15 dollar minimum wage lol. They’d pass that in a separate bill.
The reason they don’t just leave it as a separate bill is because it probably won’t pass. The two democrats that object are more likely to cave in rather than to be stigmatized as standing in the way of COVID relief.
LMAO. That’s literally the definition of poison pill. You put something into a bill that makes the bill impassable. They’re not going to cave in and your side will blame Republicans for not having it pass. I’ll tag you when this happens.
It’s ugly and dishonest, but this is how politics has always worked.
Your side is the one introducing an irrelevant measure to a Covid Bill. What does the 15 dollar minimum wage have to do with Covid? Pass the Covid Bill separately and don’t include any pork, it’s pretty simple, but your side doesn’t want that because they don’t want the bill to pass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Science is always changing oddly enough just like politics
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
There’s nothing inconsistent about my position. The difference between us here is about an inclusive interpretation vs. an exclusive one. You are taking it exclusively, that is to say only these positions strictly interpreted can be impeached and tried. There is nothing in the constitution of federalist papers that supports that interpretation.
“All” is inherently inclusive to everyone in the United States, dead or alive lol. The “all” is qualified by Article 2 Section 4 where it clearly states only the President, VP, and Civil Officers can be convicted. Trump is neither of those period.
The line in the constitution for example that states that the cheif justice shall president of its the outsider on trial, that is strict to the sitting president. Why? Because we know the reason why that is in there... it is to avoid a scenario where the Vice President presides over a proceeding that could potentially result in themselves becoming president.
Lmfao, the Articles of Impeachment clearly name the President of the United States Donald John Trump. That means Chief Justice John Roberts has to preside. Or you have to interpret that for the Senate trial, “The President of the United States Donald John Trump” does not exist and therefore the Articles don’t apply at all.
And as far as your rocket science comment... it’s also not rocket science that the word “all” means “all”.
Yes “all” means everyone in the United States, what’s the problem with that? Oh wait, it’s qualified by the fact that only the President, VP, and Civil Officers can be convicted.
Show me that part of the constitution. Quote the texts you are referring to that discuss what happens with an official whose time in office ran out during the trial. I’ll wait.
You have the burden to prove the positive lol not me proving the negative. And either way if you disagree we can go to the Courts to interpret the Constitution - the job they have. We all know how Roberts feels about the trial lol.
Trump was impeached while he was the sitting president. Neither Obama or Washington can be impeached as sitting presidents. That’s the difference. Why is that so hard for you?
Your premise is that Presidents are liable for impeachment based on what’s happened in their term. Therefore you can impeach someone who’s out of office because they’re liable for what they did in office. You can’t cherry-pick who can get impeached or not lmfao cause it destroys your entire premise.
Also, remember that the *two* questions the senate is tasked with answering during a trial are “should this individual remain in office” and “should this individual be disqualified from holding future office”.
But the second has to go with the first. That’s what “and” means lol. With one the first your cannot have the second.
The first question is no longer relevant. The second question still is, which is why the George Washington example is particularly nonsensical.
Historically you can remove from office and then choose to not ban from public office, that’s what happened to Alcee Hastings. But there is no where the latter is the sole decision because every effort has failed on the grounds of unconstitutionality whether you look at the Blount trial, Belknap trial, or this trial.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you know the ultra-rich lobbies support a minimum wage? Here is a big hint, it's not out of "compassion"
Easier to use robots amirite
Created:
-->
@Double_R
They didn’t back away from anything, and that’s not a poison pill. A poison pill is designed to get the other side to say no, democrats are trying to pressure the whopping two senators that oppose this to say yes.
Bruh what? Ossof and Warnock literally ran their entire campaign on 2000 dollar checks and now they’re backing off. The 15 dollar wage is a poison pill. You could reasonably get bipartisan support without it, but now they purposefully put it in an irrelevant bill and their own party members are opposed to it. Why can’t Democrats pass two separate bills?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you read anything I write? Do you stop and and think about any of it?
To the contrary I don’t think you’ve read anything I’ve posted lol.
I’ve already quoted you the part of the constitution that says who can be impeached. Private citizens are not on there. This is a classic slippery slope fallacy and an absurd one at that - the idea that if we convict a former president who was impeached as the sitting president then this would lead to private citizens like you or I being impeached. You can’t be serious.
If you want to remain consistent with your logic, I already said that the Chief Justice should be presiding, but you seem to even disagree with that. The Constitution clearly states only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be convicted. It’s not rocket science.
And while you entertain the absurdity of this leading to private citizens being impeached for being private citizens, you ignore the absurdity of your own position. How do you hold a president *politically* accountable for lighting a match on his way out the door? How do you bar any public official from holding future office if they just resign right before the vote? Explain that to me, then we can further discuss your slippery slope.
The Founding Fathers explicitly designed the impeachment power to remove a sitting threat. After they get out of office they aren’t a threat lol. In fact most of the impeachment trials haven’t resulted in officials barred from future office Lol, just take a look at your buddy Alcee Hastings. The Constitutional text is very clear. Your question about resignation is irrelevant to this when the Constitution clearly states you cannot convict a private citizen. Deal with it. Unless you want to set a precedent that Obama can be impeached and convicted too. Hell why not George Washington for that matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Impeach all former presidents lol! That will solve every problem the public has. Did you get the 2000 dollars Biden promised? Impeach him for lying.
Hell ya, impeachment party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That would be in the word “all”.Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.He was impeached as president, the senate therefore had the power to convict. It’s basic English, since we’re going with the semantic argument.
If we are using “all” then can the House impeach a member of the US Senate? Can the House impeach an American Citizen? They cannot. Impeachment is inherently limited meaning that Conviction is limited by Article 2 Section 3 that states on the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. It’s not that hard, otherwise the House can impeach anyone in the United States.
Taking a 2 year long vacation with no security briefings
Pretty sure that amounts to treason lol.
A vote to bar a federal official from holding future office can literally only be held after they are no longer in office.
False. After being removed from office, not after their term expires. Impeachment was designed to remove a President that posed a current threat in office if you read the Federalist Papers. A preemptive ban is 100% unconstitutional.
Setting that aside, this entire line of argument is completely absurd. You keep saying that they can’t do X because it doesn’t specifically say that in the constitution. Damn near all the rules they’re operating under are not in the constitution. No where in the constitution does it say that they need 67 votes to convict. What it actually said is you need 2/3rds majority. Guess what that means... you actually have to think about how the words in the constitution apply. That’s how it works.
“X” isn’t in the Constitution? Wtf does this even mean? 2/3rds is 67 lol. What’s your point. If we were being literal with 2/3 then it would still amount to 67 Senators. The fact of the matter is that Article 2 Section 3 clearly lays out that only the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers can be Convicted by the Senate. Trump is neither of those, which is a sheer fact. You can impeach whoever the hell you want with your definition but Constitutionally you can only convict a President, Vice President, or other Civil Officers
Created:
Who calls a person a Confederate lmfao
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Dying to know how you reached that conclusion
Well they did back away from their 2000 promise. They’re poisoning the bill with a 15 dollar minimum wage that Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin are against.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Most American supremacist's are European derivatives.
Ya the Europeans are inferior 🤡
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He’s a supporter of European Supremacy
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yo come join our impeachment party. We gonna impeach Kamala for aiding rioters
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, who cares. Impeachment means nothing.
Impeachment Party woohoo
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You down to impeach Obama?
Created:
Such as?
Since when do we need legitimate reasons to impeach someone?
Created:
I say we should impeach Obama. Hold him accountable for what he did in office
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Now that Trump has been acquitted from that farcical clown show of a rogue Congress, The same Congress will will now peruse a vote on article 3 of the 14th amendment to try and over turn the acquittal of the clown show they just had. What say you all?
Democrats just want to delay the 1400 dollar checks
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah, if you can't improve, wreck it.
You’re probably right, but I can’t vote for two establishment puppets. Just can’t
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Depends who is the alternative. I'd vote for her over Mitt Romney.
I’d vote Libertarian or leave it blank
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
He was acquitted anyway. Show's over. Time to move on.
As predicted
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So he was found innocent of the charges, but politicians chose to punish him anyway without any evidence. Why is that what matters in your opinion? Surely the trial and being found innocent because there was no evidence is the important point.
11th Circuit Court Judges found that he had lied in the trial and was guilty of perjury and bribery, and that he had fabricated his defense. The panel of 27 judges agreed that he committed impeachable offenses and this referred him the House for impeachment.
The fact still remains that he was impeached 413-4 and convicted on like 8 Articles with 67+ votes, because they all believed he had committed impeachable offenses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You clearly didn't read either the source or what I wrote. I said he was charged with those crimes and acquitted, which is true. He had his day in court and was found innocent of all charges. He was then impeached and convicted without any real evidence being presented.The courts found him innocent, but congress decided to impeach him anyway without much, if any, evidence.
You didn’t specify what you were talking about lol. He got impeached and convicted in the Senate, that’s what matters imo lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I googled this. He was charged with those crimes an acquitted. There was no evidence he had actually done anything wrong.
Literally the first sentence of your source:
“U.S. District Judge Alcee L. Hastings was convicted by the Senate yesterday of engaging in a "corrupt conspiracy" to extort a $150,000 bribe in a case before him.”
The Senate did convict him and he’s currently a member of The House of Representatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who? lol!
Alcee Hastings from Florida’s 8th District I think. I just found about this the other day. He was impeached and convicted on accounts of bribery in getting a lesser sentence for someone in the mafia
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The house has the power to impeach the President, Vice President, and other officers and the senate has power to try all impeachment. Explain how this gets you to; “then they can impeach private citizens”
A “former President” is a private citizen and not an Officer of the United States and therefore cannot be convicted.
Also, quote me where it says that the senate can only try someone while they are still in office.
That’s not the duality present. You said he’s the “former President.” The only people that the Senate can constitutionally convict are the President, Vice President, and Civil Officers. I’ll ask you once again, where does “former President” fit into that? The answer is, it doesn’t. Therefore, the Senate cannot try him.
Impeachment trials and criminal trials are fundamentally different processes for a reason. One cannot be substituted for the other.
Name one offense that is impeachable but not criminally prosecutable lol.
Impeachments determine an individuals eligibility to hold public office. Criminal trials determine an individuals right to freedom. These are not the same thing, therefore they do not follow the same rules or standards.
Impeachments serve to remove a person from office per the founding fathers in the Federalist Papers and for that purpose alone; nowhere does it say that it can be used to ban a person from holding office after he’s left office. At that point he’s not even a threat lol. Hell the Democrats have an impeached and convicted federal judge in the US House lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
But even if they don’t, the decision probably won’t be a legal one but rather political. Biden has said repeatedly he wants to look backwards not forwards. He doesn’t want this to tear the country apart which I can understand. But that has nothing to do with how clear this all is.
So you’re ok with not prosecuting someone even though in your eyes they committed a crime, but are ok with that same said person being convicted in the Senate? All because of unity? Huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Is this a joke? No, it’s because republicans decided to create a new rule that no justice will be confirmed in the final year of a presidency, only to confirm one in the final month of Trump’s. It’s blatant hypocrisy in order to maintain power.
That’s not what history states lol. The history states that when the ruling parties in the Senate and the White House are different, Justices aren’t confirmed in the past year. If they are the same party it has historically been done.
Created:
Irrelevant coming from a Brit lmfao
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You tryin to get impeached with me? It’ll be a fun time!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It states that president’s can be impeached. Check.It then states that the senate has the *sole power* to try *all* impeachments.
But it also says only Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Civil Officers and be convicted in the Senate. Trump is not of those. Your interpretation of the clause means the House can choose to impeach anyone including me or you, which definitely is unconstitutional. The constitution clearly lays out who can be impeached and convicted and a private citizen isn’t one of those.
This isn’t complicated. And even if it were, after playing this little semantic game you are resorting to we can then move on to using common sense. The framers put impeachment as a means to hold office holders accountable politically. Please explain why they would have made it “against the rules” to try someone for high crimes and misdemeanors merely because the clock ran out. Please explain how your semantic interpretation would stop someone from resigning right before the final vote in order to take away the senate’s constitutional right to disqualify them from running again.
Well first thing’s first, a private citizen can still be prosecuted in a court of law. The President can resign but he can’t escape criminal prosecution lol. Try Trump in a criminal court for all I care. The Constitution clearly states that former Presidents cannot be tried by the Senate because a separate system is available for private citizens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That’s not what it says.“When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”The president is not being tried, the former president is.Impeachment and the trial are two different things. The house impeached the sitting president. The senate is now holding the trial of the former president. Nothing about this violates the constitution.
Ok so Trump is being charged as the “former” President. Where in the Constitution does it say “former” Presidents can be convicted in the Senate?
The Constitution clearly states this:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Where does “former President” fall? Can’t be President, VP, or Officer.
And beyond that... what is your point? That John Robert’s gets to decide on his own whether the senate can try Donald Trump? And for what? Are you that desperate to avoid having to face the reality that he is obviously guilty as charged?
No the whole Supreme Court gets to decided whether a private citizen can be convicted in the Senate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Also: if prosecution or impeachment after someone is out of office is unconstitutional, I wonder what all those 2016 "lock her up" chants were referring to? 🤔
Who said ex-presidents are immune from prosecution? Try him in federal court all you want lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And it was the president they impeached. The trial is entirely in regards to his actions *as president*.Do you believe original intent should play any role in this, or do you really see this as a semantic game of gotcha?
Great so if the President of the United States is impeached, then Article 1 Section 4 states that the Chief Justice must preside. Since he is not presiding the trial is inherently unconstitutional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Where is the fake media when you need it? Damn you CNN for losing viewership!
MSM is ded
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
banning a president that has committed impeachable offenses is precisely why impeachment exists. Of course it is true that it could do exactly what it is designed to do. Why would that surprise anyone?
You forgot the non-subsequent part.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would mean that Congress could simply wait until they know who would be in the primaries, and preemptively bar them from government service using bogus charges that would never hold up to the standards of an actual impartial court proceeding. It would mean my fortunes in crypto will go thru the roof as I plan a hasty exit.
Never thought of it this way. It would absolutely be true though. Preemptively banning a one term President from non-subsequent reelection
Created: