The idea of impeaching someone who is not in office is taken so seriously by the Chief Justice that he didn't want anything to do with it. Because he's embarrassed by the silliness of it 
It's supposedly Constitutional, BUT
- Thread starter just me
- Start date
I told you, people might vote wrong. Democracy is great and all but people might choose wrong. So we might have to get rid of democracy to make sure people choose correctly next time.
So, from what I gather from all this? Our Senate and Congress are attempting something where the people cannot speak next term. That means to me? Our own government is spending our own money because they do not trust the people any longer.
So, WTF is next?
There is nothing "normal" about committing violence outside the laws of armed conflict. The question then becomes were the acts of assault independent of each other, or were they part of an insurrection? That is the more subjective aspect; how do you prove insurrection?
If you focus on the word "fight" in the President's tweets (I assume this is what you are referring to), it is, again, vague. He would have to be a complete moron to literally use the word "assault", so we're left with ambiguity... But is it laughable? My point of view is that a leader of an entire nation should be expected to be accountable for even a gross misinterpretation of words that leads to such events. If Biden gives a speech tomorrow and says to the people "You need to go out and take care of this police problem", and a significant number of people start murdering police officers, he should stand accountable for such ill-fated words. With great power comes great responsibility...
Last edited:
Truer words than most. How about these words?
There's a time and a place for everything.
How about :FIGHT LIKE HELL?
nypost.com/2021/02/10/old-tweets-show-raskin...
Republicans on Wednesday dug up past instances of Democratic House impeachment managers and President Biden using the words "fight" or "fight like hell"
Errrrr: I wonder which is walking and which is chewing gum?
Last edited:
Trial by a jury of one's peers refers to a trial upon competent legal testimony. A fair and impartial trial by a jury of one's peers is a sacred right guaranteed to every citizen under the laws. A citizen's right to a trial by a jury of one's peers in a criminal prosecution is guaranteed by the sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This is not a criminal trial. Due process does not apply here. If he's convicted by the senate he's not going to prison. He's just barred from seeking office again. Trump will likely be facing a number of trials outside of impeachment, though. For one, Georgia is now opening a criminal investigation into efforts to overturn the election there.
Last edited:
Should SpecialEdition be banned for encouraging violence between forum members?
She would have to be an idiot to say it explicitly, which is why she just wrote "fight"
Again, just gotta make sure people can't choose wrong again, it's far better to take choices away from the voters than to let them choose wrong.
The state knows what's good for you, fuck your democracy
If the admins determine a certain member's actions/behavior create a hostile environment, I have no doubt action would be taken, and I know they do take that kind of thing seriously.
Not everyone is equally capable of creating a hostile environment to the same extent, as well. I know of someone was literally able to tear apart a forum (and tried to do the same to another) because of their reputation, their effect on people due to the relationships they had forged, etc... and again, being in a position of power sets a much higher standard for the expectation of one's behavior and actions.
You disagree with the constitution that we shouldn't have a means to disqualify someone from office through impeachment? Because this isn't a new thing. He can be impeached and convicted and then a majority in the senate can vote to bar him from seeking federal office. It's part of why we vote for representatives to carry this sort of thing out. Should we propose an amendment that strikes this power from congress?Again, just gotta make sure people can't choose wrong again, it's far better to take choices away from the voters than to let them choose wrong.
The state knows what's good for you, fuck your democracy
Fuck your democracy? You are bending over backwards for a guy who couldn't accept the results of an election because he didn't win it. The results of an election in which his own lawyer admitted was fair oddly enough, in his defense! Lol. Wat.
Last edited:
What would be the point of disqualifying someone who has no chance of winning? And furthermore what would be the point of disqualifying someone who will spend the rest of their life in prison?
Unless you don't actually believe what you're saying and subconsciously know it's not true.
I'm not on staff.Should SpecialEdition be banned for encouraging violence between forum members?
She would have to be an idiot to say it explicitly, which is why she just wrote "fight"
I think the point is that he can run again and lose and then pull this shit all over again.
What are you talking about life in prison? He's not going to prison for this!
I'm not so sure he doesn't. Would his ardent supporters be willing to support a more moderate "politician type" Republican instead of him? Or are they going to take votes away from who the party decides to be the nominee, assuming the party chooses someone besides him? Trump may be the most viable nominee for the party next time around, and depending on how Biden is received, things could very well swing the other way in 2024/28.
My assumption was this was why McConnell seemed to change positions on the impeachment after he left office, but I'm just guessing.