The totally cool no stress US election thread

AdrianH

Active Member
Joined
May 5, 2020
Messages
120
Location
Essex, England
he could try to appeal to SCOTUS who would dismiss motion for certiorari (and possibly cite Nixon). Trumps feelings have no bearing on anything - or at least they shouldn't. The problem is Trump supporters are little pansy snowflakes who don't want their or their Great Leader's feeling to get hurt. As a practical matter on the electorate people who decry decency and don't care for the feelings of others while expecting their irrational feelings to matter are going to be an electoral block but one which successive elections show can only impact the outcome of US elections if there is pandering to them and apportionment advantage (the argument is not that the Electoral College is a bad thing but rather that it generates an apportionment advantage). Things like felony disenfranchisement at state level (in particular where you have one set of drug crimes resulting in treatment and no felony attachment while another set of drugs results in disenfranchisement and the difference between the two sets of drug crimes is demographics - Florida is particularly poignant here - - somewhat ironically though the Miami-Dade drug court which has allowed several hundred numnuts with a hardon hatred for Hillary Clinton to evade felony disenfranchisement was setup by Janet Reno) and efforts by some states to lock out voters all feed into the problem of a profoundly undemocratic populist movement that demands apportionment advantage and when it looses resorts to feigned populism. Never confuse populism with democracy, and never assume that a cult figure has more support than the numnuts voting for them.

Thanks

Yes, this is ultimately what I meant by going to court. Democrats saying its constitutional regardless if Trump left office, and Republicans saying its unconstitutional as he already left office, somebody would have to decide if Trump wasn't acquitted.
 

Paul Hjul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
483
ja the court would decide that its for the Senate to decide and the Senate decided that it was constitutional.

I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that the jurisdiction to try impeachment ends when the office is vacated. The trouble with the argument is precedent. As a total rung of impeachments trials in the US Senate a lot have been conducted after the impeached individual has left office, they have tended to result in acquittal or dismissal of the charges - I think Belknap is the first where a judge resigned and was thereafter acquitted by the Senate (didn't get his office back) - and the case of English (in the 20s I believe) saw a dismissal of the charges after the impeached resigned. The most recent trial of Kent went that direction. So the argument for senators to have voted to dismiss that charges is one which has poignance and can be grounded. The fact though is that the vote to dismiss the charges failed.

Its also worth pointing out that apart from some real dishonest jackasses - Rand Paul and Ted Cruz - the GOP position in so far as there is one (remember 7 GOP senators voted to convict, 1 of whom voted to dismiss and with that failing honoured the will of the Senate and applied his mind to the question of conviction) isn't that it is unconstitutional for the Senate to try an individual who has vacated office per se but rather that they don't want to try a former president. A big hole in this argument is that the powers to try impeachment extends across holders of office of trust of the United States. It has generally been presidents and judges who are subjected to impeachment because there aren't other removal aligned accountability measures (if a cabinet secretary is up to no good you apply pressure on the president meaning it has only been once that a cabinet secretary, similarly if the local postmaster is an issue complain to their supervisor) with nobody there to fire them. Federal judges retire largely by way of taking "senior status" and judges on senior status would find themselves impeached for misconduct, every president save Nixon for the remainder of their life exercises an office of former president in a way that resembles being an emeritus of the United States.
If a sitting president dispatches somebody as a special representative of the United States that person is drawn from persons holding another office of trust in the United States and as such is accountable, former presidents are so used all the time. The US taxpayer funds an office for former presidents (and they literally fork out money for an office), former presidents receive secret service protection, intelligence briefings and an array of entrustments representing the public trust of the United States.

The fact that representatives are immune from impeachment (and as Hastings shows a person who has been impeached can be later elected to Congress) even if they hold public trust of the United States doesn't shift the purpose here as they can be expelled. Unless a person wants to argue that the impeachment by the House and discretion of successive presidents to exclude Trump from the public trust afforded to former presidents I don't see the argument for dismissal on the GOP premise doesn't carry real weight.
 

Paul Hjul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
483
It's about time. Some states want to become Second Amendment Sanctuary States. A big up yours to the gun grabbers like Biden (y)
Can see a lot of people moving to these states if Biden goes for the guns.


finally saw this

good grief this cunt is a moron

....

"my friend Grand Master Jay" probably is the only thing said with any actual honesty
 

scudsucker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
1,517
A moron and a c**t!!!! That's pretty bad. Oh and your vocabulary is astounding.
You do know that even a cunt like you is able to type the word "cunt" without the two asterisks?

 
Last edited:

Paul Hjul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
483
A moron and a c**t!!!! That's pretty bad. Oh and your vocabulary is astounding.
dude, you have no fucking idea what my or anybody else taking issue with your elective* stupidity's vocabulary is

on a bad day I'll make a stupid mistake on the Webster test. I suggest you run through todays and see if you can crack 3280


Its an interesting issue really:

its pretty hilarious actually because if I were to use more precise and esoteric terms in the discussion you'd take issue with the use of "big words", fuck I should probably be concerned that you'll take issue with the word "esoteric" because a Philistine of your ilk

* it shouldn't need to be said but the mendacity of this charlatan pus of a blue waffle infection makes it inevitable that the notion of elective stupidity will be misunderstood to mean stupidity about who somebody votes for. It is choosing (electing) to be an anti-intellectual moron vide (you can look up vide)
 

SoldierMan

Active Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
460
dude, you have no fucking idea what my or anybody else taking issue with your elective* stupidity's vocabulary is

on a bad day I'll make a stupid mistake on the Webster test. I suggest you run through todays and see if you can crack 3280


Its an interesting issue really:

its pretty hilarious actually because if I were to use more precise and esoteric terms in the discussion you'd take issue with the use of "big words", fuck I should probably be concerned that you'll take issue with the word "esoteric" because a Philistine of your ilk

* it shouldn't need to be said but the mendacity of this charlatan pus of a blue waffle infection makes it inevitable that the notion of elective stupidity will be misunderstood to mean stupidity about who somebody votes for. It is choosing (electing) to be an anti-intellectual moron vide (you can look up vide)

Again, humour and sarcasm aren't your forte are they :ROFLMAO:
But thanks for the useless dissertation.
 

Paul Hjul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
483
Again, humour and sarcasm aren't your forte are they :ROFLMAO:
But thanks for the useless dissertation.
plagiarism clearly is yours
 

SoldierMan

Active Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
460

Paul Hjul

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
483
Oh mama!
Take it easy man I'm not here for a fight just to peruse the forums.
there is nothing careful, diligent or thoughtful in your reading of content.

Probably best to know what a word like peruse means before you use it.
 

SoldierMan

Active Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2020
Messages
460
there is nothing careful, diligent or thoughtful in your reading of content.

Probably best to know what a word like peruse means before you use it.

And here we have the perfect example of how threads get hijacked by you lot when you just can't resist having a go at me even when the post ios harmless. You just can't resist insulting me for the most pointless thing can you. Stop derailing threads with this childish nonsense.
 
Top