• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The trump impeachment thread

@cduggles that isn't fair. People in your political party should never have a vote for themselves basically. It's like being up on murder charges and you can have your family in the jury

@JessFR thanks, i wasn't to sure what impeachment is. I thought it was a conviction and the Senate removes the president. So he is basically charged but now there has to be a trial? And the decision makers are from his side ? How did this idiot(trump) get so dam lucky. Shitty person, shitty business man, shitty TV show and now a president of a powerful country.
 
@Lucy20 I agree that it’s unfair. 😕
But... if public opinion turns on Trump, the Republicans will be much more willing to indict him on the articles of impeachment, which, as JessFR explained, were voted on and passed in the House of Representatives.

The Senate trial will probably be at the beginning of the year. It will be a mess, I think, because Trump wants to prove his innocence and he’ll make his case somehow, on Twitter or wherever the Senate holds the trial.
 
op-eds from biased sources don't do anything except tell other biased people what they already think

cduggles said:
I agree that there should be more than two parties, but it’s hard to go from one system to the other, I would think.
Click to expand...
two party systems naturally occur in first past the post voting systems like the US has. "third parties" will become immediately viable when the US institutes ranked choice voting
 
tathra said:
op-eds from biased sources don't do anything except tell other biased people what they already think


two party systems naturally occur in first past the post voting systems like the US has. "third parties" will become immediately viable when the US institutes ranked choice voting
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why I've been arguing for such a system for years.

On the other hand, Australia has such a system, and they seem to still bitch about it. So don't expect that to stop.

Seems they think it's totally unfair that they should have to label a bunch of boxes for different parties. And also that it's unfair to label one box and let that party choose the ranking. And also that it's unfair not to have such a choice whatsoever.

People suck, if they don't get their way they'll complain regardless. Even if they don't really know what their way even is.

But I agree, a ranked or run off system would be better.
 
cduggles said:
Trump probably can’t expand his base very much, and he has to keep what he has.
Click to expand...

And yet his popularity is supposedly growing among blacks and hispanics. :unsure:

= = = =

cduggles said:
if Trump loses the religious right, he loses, no doubt. Pence is supposed to keep them in line.
Click to expand...

This bit puzzles me. Pence, like most VPs are largely out of the spotlight. Was Pence simply an insurance policy to get the Christian votes, knowing that group wouldn't assassinate the Pres to move their guy in? But really, what has Pence done good or bad while VP? I'm sorta rambling on this thought...the enigma of Pence.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
And yet his popularity is supposedly growing among blacks and hispanics. :unsure:
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're being serious here but that has struck me as similar to how Trump will repeat something over and over as if saying it makes it real. It's a very common talking point among Trump supporters but I've seen plenty of evidence to the contrary and none supporting it except select minority celebrities making a big deal about emphasizing how their support is proof of this assertion (Kanye West is the first that comes to mind).

TheLoveBandit said:
This bit puzzles me. Pence, like most VPs are largely out of the spotlight. Was Pence simply an insurance policy to get the Christian votes, knowing that group wouldn't assassinate the Pres to move their guy in? But really, what has Pence done good or bad while VP? I'm sorta rambling on this thought...the enigma of Pence.
Click to expand...

I tend to think he was a choice, like you speculate, driven by an appeal to the religious right voter base. He doesn't seem to have done a whole lot, I agree. makes me wonder if he has been behind the scenes, or not. It seems like not. He seems like a Trump toadie, like most Repub politicians these days.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
And yet his popularity is supposedly growing among blacks and hispanics. :unsure:

= = = =



This bit puzzles me. Pence, like most VPs are largely out of the spotlight. Was Pence simply an insurance policy to get the Christian votes, knowing that group wouldn't assassinate the Pres to move their guy in? But really, what has Pence done good or bad while VP? I'm sorta rambling on this thought...the enigma of Pence.
Click to expand...

I've seen no evidence of any unusual level of support for Trump among blacks and Hispanics. I say unusual because, obviously it's not "no" support. I'm not sure it's even possible to get "no" support barring going out and putting them into concentration camps or something.

His support when I've looked into it has seemed to be at about the base level it sits at for most Republicans.

Let's be clear about one thing though. In the world of trump, almost everyone supports him. And he will either lose, and it'll be proof the poll was rigged, or he will win, and it will also be proof the poll was rigged, because otherwise he would have won with an even higher majority.

There's a reason totalitarian regimes just can't resist faking votes that show unanimous support, when a more modest support would be so much more convincing.

As for pence... Well, VPs aren't usually super active anyway. It's a position of great power only in so much as he's first in line if something happened to trump.

But, putting that aside. Trump absolutely will not tolerate anyone stealing his spotlight. He's a narcissists. And narcissists can't stand sharing.
 
What 23 said:
It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers,
Click to expand...
lol. i can think of one thing :)

i'm sure the irony of republicans now getting bent out of shape about unconstitutional behavior is completely lost on them...

alasdair
 
I just wanted to leave this here, poor guy.
79735881_2654160661367690_9121262109970137088_o.jpg

 
alasdairm said:
lol. i can think of one thing :)

i'm sure the irony of republicans now getting bent out of shape about unconstitutional behavior is completely lost on them...

alasdair
Click to expand...

Can you give an example? Just seeking enlightenment.
 
the thing i was thinking of is the president of the united states abusing his power by bribing a foreign leader with withheld aid to interfere in our election by digging up dirt on his political rival.

alasdair
 
If that can be truly found to be the case, then I wish it would just pass through to the senate trial.
 
What 23 said:
If that can be truly found to be the case, then I wish it would just pass through to the senate trial.
Click to expand...
just as soon as they can get unbiased jurors. if you think it's ok for jurors to already have their minds made up and openly declare they're going to work closely with the defendant's attorney to make sure they walk, then I suggest you try saying that next time you get called for jury duty and see how they respond
 
tathra said:
just as soon as they can get unbiased jurors. if you think it's ok for jurors to already have their minds made up and openly declare they're going to work closely with the defendant's attorney to make sure they walk, then I suggest you try saying that next time you get called for jury duty and see how they respond
Click to expand...

Well this is the folly of comparing an impeachment process to a trial.

The senate constitutionally has absolute and total power to conduct the trial however they like.

There is no jury, it's not a good comparison.

You can argue that perhaps it shouldn't work like this at all. I'd probably agree with that. But it does.

The house has no role to play in the trial portion of the process.
 
cduggles said:
House of Representatives selects impeachment managers who then present their case for impeachment to the Senate.

www.cbsnews.com

What are impeachment managers and what do they do?

During the Senate trial, House members selected as impeachment managers will argue the case for removing President Trump.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...

what are impeachment managers and what do they do? I don't see any explanation at the link

JessFR said:
Well this is the folly of comparing an impeachment process to a trial.

The senate constitutionally has absolute and total power to conduct the trial however they like.

There is no jury, it's not a good comparison.

You can argue that perhaps it shouldn't work like this at all. I'd probably agree with that. But it does.

The house has no role to play in the trial portion of the process.
Click to expand...

judging charges of abusing power while admitting upfront you'll abuse your power to ensure none of the charges will stick and the accused walks, sounds legit
 
impeached ?? the cunt should be fucking hanged. horrible man. only one that's worse is the despicable fuck that's ruining, oops, i meant running, our country... boris johnson !
 
tathra said:
what are impeachment managers and what do they do? I don't see any explanation at the link
Click to expand...

The role of the impeachment managers will prove critical to Democrats’ prospects as they attempt to remove Trump from office for, according to their allegations, trying to exert political pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Democrats charge that Trump also tried to obstruct their investigation into that pressure campaign, which lasted throughout the spring and summer of 2019.

An impeachment manager is “the impeachment analog of a prosecutor,” said University of Missouri School of Law professor Frank O. Bowman III, who is the author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.” The impeachment manager, according to Bowman, “presents the case on behalf of the lower house to the upper house.”

According to an explanation of the impeachment process by the Congressional Research Service, “The House managers, who might be assisted by outside counsel, present evidence against the accused and could be expected to respond to the defense presented by the accused (or his or her counsel) or to questions submitted in writing by Senators.”
An impeachment manager should be “someone with experience building a case factually,” according to Kim Wehle, author of “How to Read the Constitution — and Why.” As a young attorney, Wehle worked with Kenneth Starr on what eventually became the Bill Clinton impeachment inquiry. “You would need a trial lawyer,” Wehle says. Someone who can show “how the story unfolds” instead of merely reciting a litany of facts.
Click to expand...

news.yahoo.com

Impeachment managers: What do they do, and whom will Nancy Pelosi pick?

The quotidian title of impeachment manager belies the significance of the position, which will prove critical to Democrats’ prospects as they attempt to remove Trump from office for, according to their allegations, trying to exert political pressure on Ukraine's president.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
 
JessFR said:
I've seen no evidence of any unusual level of support for Trump among blacks and Hispanics.
Click to expand...
likewise.

it's obviously hard to get an authoritative answer but aggregate polling helps. also: Analyzing Black Support for President Trump

tl;dr. trump claimed, in 2016: "At the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95% of the African-American vote. I promise you. Because I will produce."

that's obviously trump's usual absolutely bullshit. in reality - and again it depends on who you choose to believe - his popularity among black voters has ticked up slightly and currently runs at about 10% (i.e. dismal)

from that article:

But it appears very unlikely there will be a sudden breakthrough by which Trump gains a substantially higher percentage of the black vote than he got in 2016. Black Americans' approval of the job Trump is doing as president remains low, and the stability of these ratings since Trump took office suggests a low probability that the pattern will be significantly disrupted. The history of consistently low black voting for GOP candidates over the past four decades also underscores the structural challenge any Republican candidate faces in attempting to increase their black vote share.
Click to expand...

i am having trouble finding recent data on hispanic support - this is the most recent thing i can find: Poll: Black and Latino Americans think Donald Trump's actions have made life worse for people of color

from that article:

Sixty-nine percent of Latinos think Trump’s actions have been bad for Hispanics generally, while 19% think they’ve been good. Majorities of Latinos also think Trump’s actions have been bad for African Americans, Muslims and women.
Click to expand...

ymmv.

alasdair
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top