Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Second tRump Impeachment.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    in 2020, the US gov took in about 3 Trill in taxes and spent $6 Trill, a little extra for Covid relief.

    But when Biden wants to spend big but not quite as much as Trump ... it's a problem for the GOP ?
    Never Under-estimate the Psychopathic-ness of a Politician

    who is in Save the Children Mode.

    Comment


      Originally posted by St. Phatty View Post
      in 2020, the US gov took in about 3 Trill in taxes and spent $6 Trill, a little extra for Covid relief.

      But when Biden wants to spend big but not quite as much as Trump ... it's a problem for the GOP ?
      Of course it is. Never mind the 5.7 trillion dollars Jerome Powell dumped into the market to make sure the millionaires stayed safe and content during these trying times.
      current catch all grow thread

      SSSDH x GROM/Digiberry from Stank Bros.

      Comment


        Originally posted by St. Phatty View Post
        in 2020, the US gov took in about 3 Trill in taxes and spent $6 Trill, a little extra for Covid relief.

        But when Biden wants to spend big but not quite as much as Trump ... it's a problem for the GOP ?
        anything a D POTUS wants to do is a problem for the Rs. even if it is something the last R POTUS wanted to do. God forbid anyone do something that they might get credit for...can't be having THAT shit happen.
        smoking more pot is NOT the answer to my problems. my problem is that i need more problems that smoking more pot IS the answer to...

        Comment


          Originally posted by GOT_BUD? View Post
          A large portion of that can be directly traced to not knowing how to critically think. Even though there is apparently a large swath of Americans that think they do. They can't tell they're being led to a pre determined outcome because they're not directly being told what's happening. They believe they are "discovering" the truth, which in turns leads to them being fiercely passionate about defending that "truth" that only they can see because they've "woken up".

          The exact same thing happens in a game of Dungeons and Dragons or any other roleplaying type tabletop game. The Dungeon Master leaves little clues for the party to find that help move the story along and end at the pre-determined boss fight where they win the day/save the town/girl, and get the loot. Except in this real world scenario, the "loot" is the "Dungeon Master's" completely made up narrative dreamed up in some Chinese/Russia/Iranian bunker.
          The quandary however still remains as to which "side" the emboldened text ^^ actually relates to.
          The presented premise is just as easily stated for the "other side".

          Which is the "right/ correct" scenario?
          Well... the one in which we as individuals personally think/ opine, of course.

          This lends to my thoughts that folks really shouldn't be all that smug about being on the "right" side of 'things'
          and that those who think differently are... all "wrong".

          After all... we the minions (the "99%"), each and every one of us... are under the thumb of the
          dungeon masters and can only guess at the end game.

          Since we are all stuck in this power play; how is it that there are those that hold themselves above others?
          Folks simply assuming to be more informed/ smarter than the rest so; it must be those 'others' (they/ them) whom
          are unable to discern any "truths" due to having disagreeing opinions/ thoughts.

          We are all in the 'pits' together. Not one is better/ more worthy than any other.
          Thinking otherwise... well, then the dungeon masters continue to win; keeping chaos/ control/ division alive and well.

          A majority does not automatically and magically make that particular majority "right" or the only ones who have discovered the real "truth".
          The majority may rule as it's said but... that still does not automatically and magically make the minority "wrong/ stupid/ conspirator theorists" etc.

          JM02


          We (humans) still remain more alike than we are unalike.

          Comment


            Originally posted by imiubu View Post
            The quandary however still remains as to which "side" the emboldened text ^^ actually relates to.
            The presented premise is just as easily stated for the "other side".

            Which is the "right/ correct" scenario?
            Well... the one in which we as individuals personally think/ opine, of course.

            This lends to my thoughts that folks really shouldn't be all that smug about being on the "right" side of 'things'
            and that those who think differently are... all "wrong".

            After all... we the minions (the "99%"), each and every one of us... are under the thumb of the
            dungeon masters and can only guess at the end game.

            Since we are all stuck in this power play; how is it that there are those that hold themselves above others?
            Folks simply assuming to be more informed/ smarter than the rest so; it must be those 'others' (they/ them) whom
            are unable to discern any "truths" due to having disagreeing opinions/ thoughts.

            We are all in the 'pits' together. Not one is better/ more worthy than any other.
            Thinking otherwise... well, then the dungeon masters continue to win; keeping chaos/ control/ division alive and well.

            A majority does not automatically and magically make that particular majority "right" or the only ones who have discovered the real "truth".
            The majority may rule as it's said but... that still does not automatically and magically make the minority "wrong/ stupid/ conspirator theorists" etc.

            JM02


            We (humans) still remain more alike than we are unalike.
            That's a wonderful "both sides" argument you've crafted.

            Unfortunately, one group of the 99% lives in verifiable fact checked world. And another who lives and breathes on the word of a narcissistic conman.

            How do you propose we reconcile this massive rift that has been caused by a bunch of lies and nonsense? The only way I know how is to present credible evidence. And in 60 court cases across 50 states, a grand total of 150 votes were found to be fraudulent. All cast for Donald Trump I might add.

            If there were any truth to "massive fraud" taking place, why is there zero evidence? The only thing found so far has been a bunch of first time poll watchers seeing things they didn't understand, so their only conclusion must be fraud because that's what they want it to be. Or a truck driver who recanted his story when he told it to the FBI.

            There is this little thing called the Rule of Numbers. It goes into great detail why when something secret involves more than 2 people, the chances of it remaining a secret fall exponentially the more people that know about it.

            And right on brand, the $76 million Trump raised for "election fraud investigations"? Trump pocketed it.

            https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump...elxXD47FQc9Ot5
            current catch all grow thread

            SSSDH x GROM/Digiberry from Stank Bros.

            Comment


              How can the republicans be saying they won’t vote to convict before they hear the case. I though jurors are not allowed to discuss the case until they hear all the evidence...
              Prop 215 compliant.
              Don't panic it's ORGANIC...

              Comment


                Originally posted by EsterEssence View Post
                How can the republicans be saying they won’t vote to convict before they hear the case. I though jurors are not allowed to discuss the case until they hear all the evidence...
                The vote that has been taken was on the trials constitutionality which was correctly determined
                Not to be...impeachment hearings are political
                And not bound by the same guidelines as a criminal
                Or civil court case...the clue to its unconstitutionality
                Was foreshadowed when justice Robert's refused to preside over the trial....he knows it would not pass
                A challenge in the supreme court....the purpose of an impeachment hearing is to remove a sitting president....trump is no longer the sitting president
                Making a trial moot
                Impeachment protocol also requires the chief justice preside over the Senate trial....without this would also make the trial moot
                The whole idea of a of a trial for impeachment of an ex government official who is now a citizen is a perilous undertaking setting a precedence that will
                Reverberate disastrously..
                It will now allow any ex official to be tried regardless
                Of their being no longer in an official capacity ..
                Whose next Obama? Clinton? Justice of the supreme court? The list is endless

                Comment


                  Originally posted by med4u View Post
                  The whole idea of a of a trial for impeachment of an ex government official who is now a citizen is a perilous undertaking setting a precedence that will
                  Reverberate disastrously..
                  It will now allow any ex official to be tried regardless
                  Of their being no longer in an official capacity ..
                  Whose next Obama? Clinton? Justice of the supreme court? The list is endless
                  *Precedence exists minus the disastrous reverberation hyperbole... .. .

                  March 2, 1876 House of Representatives votes unanimously to impeach Secretary of war William Belknap, hours after Grant accepted his resignation.

                  The senate fully debated every aspect of the late impeachment issue and then voted to allow it in a 37-29 vote.

                  https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6...b600a279622b39

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by redlaser View Post
                    *Precedence exists minus the disastrous reverberation hyperbole... .. .

                    March 2, 1876 House of Representatives votes unanimously to impeach Secretary of war William Belknap, hours after Grant accepted his resignation.

                    The senate fully debated every aspect of the late impeachment issue and then voted to allow it in a 37-29 vote.

                    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6...b600a279622b39
                    there you go again, using facts against folks that aint got any to fire back with...
                    smoking more pot is NOT the answer to my problems. my problem is that i need more problems that smoking more pot IS the answer to...

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by armedoldhippy View Post
                      there you go again, using facts against folks that aint got any to fire back with...
                      How will you impeach if the chief justice who is bound by constitution that he "shall" preside
                      ,refuses ?
                      No chief justice...no impeachment
                      Your shooting blanks...unarmedoldhippy

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by redlaser View Post
                        *Precedence exists minus the disastrous reverberation hyperbole... .. .

                        March 2, 1876 House of Representatives votes unanimously to impeach Secretary of war William Belknap, hours after Grant accepted his resignation.

                        The senate fully debated every aspect of the late impeachment issue and then voted to allow it in a 37-29 vote.

                        https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_6...b600a279622b39
                        They used to lynch negros back in the 1800s...
                        Wasn't constitutional or legally correct,yet had precedence..and they certainly
                        Carried this action out as a means of justice

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by med4u View Post
                          How will you impeach if the chief justice who is bound by constitution that he "shall" preside
                          ,refuses ?
                          No chief justice...no impeachment
                          Your shooting blanks...unarmedoldhippy
                          The constitution requires the involvement of the Chief Justice only when the president is on trial. Since trump is no longer President, there is no requirement for the Chief Justice to be involved.

                          The Chief Justice is required to preside over impeachment trials involving only sitting presidents.

                          There is no evidence Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any obligation to do so.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by med4u View Post
                            They used to lynch negros back in the 1800s...
                            Wasn't constitutional or legally correct,yet had precedence..and they certainly
                            Carried this action out as a means of justice

                            The burden of proof is on the accuser, if you are alleging the impeachment of Mr. Belknap wasn’t constitutional or legally correct.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by redlaser View Post
                              The constitution requires the involvement of the Chief Justice only when the president is on trial. Since trump is no longer President, there is no requirement for the Chief Justice to be involved.

                              The Chief Justice is required to preside over impeachment trials involving only sitting presidents.

                              There is no evidence Roberts refused or was even asked to preside over the trial, nor does he have any obligation to do so.
                              The only objective of an impeachment is the removal from office.....your logic runs in circles
                              And yes Sen Schumer did ask and Robert's
                              declined

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by med4u View Post
                                The only objective of an impeachment is the removal from office.....your logic runs in circles
                                And yes Sen Schumer did ask and Robert's
                                declined

                                And your right wing news source told you thats the "objective"?
                                Let me enlighten you then...
                                They are trying to bar him from ever holding public office again
                                And it appears to me
                                Your logic will take you off a cliff.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X