Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Tiberius said:

The electoral college ignores the voters 

 

 

You are either so patrisan you advocate that or, much mose likely, you have zero concept of why the found fathers put in the framework of the electoral college.

 

Let me put it to you in simple,  real world terms even you can understand.  When cities have 100% voter turnout, even 90%, you know the system is flawed.  You  dont get 1oo% "voter turnout" oustide of cities.

 

If we were to use simple majority vote all the major, mostly deomcratic scities would have strangely, almost magically high voter turnout and elect the president. 

 

The elctoral college as also a compromise between  of the President by a vote in Congress and election  by  popular vote.  It was established to give each state a role in the election.  Without it New York, California and Illinois would pretty much elect every president of their choice.    

Edited by RoyBatty is alive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Hardly.  It insures that the voters in Wyoming, Montana, New Hampshire, etc. are represented in the election for President

 

 

 

...

15 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  Hardly.  It insures that the voters in Wyoming, Montana, New Hampshire, etc. are represented in the election for President

 

....so it's been just fine since 1787, or 223 YEARS, until the pantsuit lost in 2016?......makes PERFECT sense........

 

"The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution in 1787, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

 

...

 

....so it's been just fine since 1787, or 223 YEARS, until the pantsuit lost in 2016?......makes PERFECT sense........

 

"The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution in 1787, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.".

  Libs have been carping on the EC for decades now.  It became a massive problem when Hillary thought she was some kind of Caesar or Napoleon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:


It is the role of the House to compile evidence, and then bring their case to the Senate.

 

It is the role of the Senate to hear the House’s fully established case, and render a verdict based on the evidence presented.

 

New evidence is not introduced during the Senate proceedings.  Witnesses are limited to those who testified during House proceedings in order to clarify, if necessary, existing evidence.

 

The House broke with this tradition, and did not do their jobs because they sought to restrict the President from having due process, did not wish to present fact witnesses of their own in order to protect narrative, and wanted to rush the process for political reasons.

 

Now they’re asking the Senate to break with tradition, and to do the job they failed to do in their rush to maximize political damage.

 

The Senate is telling them to pound sand.

it might be a little premature to say that there will be no new witnesses or documentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

In a perfect world.  Yes.  Dems screwed the pooch by rushing through impeachment and not going through the courts to get these witnesses.  The average voter doesn't grasp the concept that it's not the Senate's job to call new witnesses.  It's just a dog and pony show now but I'd be concerned with these numbers if I was a GOP Senator.

 

 

I don't know who Josh Jordan is, but he's a freaking idiot.

 

There is no world where the Senate is supposed to do 'the will of the people" as defined by media polls.

 

That's dumber than anything @SlimShady'sGhost posted, and that's saying something.

 

TYTT makes is very simple for even a Josh Jordan to understand.

 

2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:


It is the role of the House to compile evidence, and then bring their case to the Senate.

 

It is the role of the Senate to hear the House’s fully established case, and render a verdict based on the evidence presented.

 

New evidence is not introduced during the Senate proceedings.  Witnesses are limited to those who testified during House proceedings in order to clarify, if necessary, existing evidence.

 

The House broke with this tradition, and did not do their jobs because they sought to restrict the President from having due process, did not wish to present fact witnesses of their own in order to protect narrative, and wanted to rush the process for political reasons.

 

Now they’re asking the Senate to break with tradition, and to do the job they failed to do in their rush to maximize political damage.

 

The Senate is telling them to pound sand.

 

If the 'will of the people' is really being spit on, then they can do what millions of Americans have done before today: vote the current president out of office.

 

Just that simple.

 

But a poll? Please. The last poll I paid any attention had Hillary in a landslide.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

 

 

You are either so patrisan you advocate that or, much mose likely, you have zero concept of why the found fathers put in the framework of the electoral college.

 

Let me put it to you in simple,  real world terms even you can understand.  When cities have 115% voter turnout, you know the system is flawed.  You  dont get 115% "voter turnout" oustide of cities.

 

If we were to use simple majority vote all the major, mostly deomcratic scities would have strangely, almost magically high voter turnout and elect the president. 

 

The elctoral college as also a compromise between  of the President by a vote in Congress and election  by  popular vote.  It was established to give each state a role in the election.  Without it New York, California and Illinois would pretty much elect every president of their choice.    

Do you have proof that cities have 115% voter turn out, or are you just going to admit you are a lying tool? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Val Demings was speaking about an Oval Office Meeting, I was reading  the first Article of Impeachment.

The abuse of office alleged in the First Article of Impeachment ONLY references withholding Ukrainian aid.  It doesn't mention anything at all about an Oval Office visit.

 

Such a B.S. waste of time.  Don't these people know that just because they have 24 hours to speak, they don't need to use 24 hours to speak?  They're just going round and round and repeating the same allegations over and over.

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, snafu said:

While Val Demings was speaking about an Oval Office Meeting, I was reading  the first Article of Impeachment.

The abuse of office alleged in the First Article of Impeachment ONLY references withholding Ukrainian aid.  It doesn't mention anything at all about an Oval Office visit.

 

Such a B.S. waste of time.  Don't these people know that just because they have 24 hours to speak, they don't need to use 24 hours to speak?  They're just going round and round and repeating the same allegations over and over.

 

 

 

That doesn’t matter, showing more evidence is bad you think? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

:blink:


and the comments are even crazier!
 

 

 

 

 

 

I've said it before...if you ever want to grasp how stupid Dems are, just listen to them. And Rubin is one of the dumbest, except for the fact that she's managed to convince people she's a Republican.

 

Here...Rubin retweeted this earlier...

 

Image

 

 

But not this shortly after...

 

 

 

Image

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That doesn’t matter, showing more evidence is bad you think? 

 

I believe this is a smear job and nothing more.

 

I believe that the Democrats in the House are doing exactly the thing that they want to remove Trump over.  They are using their own high office for purely political gain.  This whole dog an pony show  is a hypocritical abuse of power in and of itself.

 

I believe that since the House drafted the Articles then the House should read their own charges and stick to what they alleged.  I don't mind evidence if it is limited to the charges they passed.  But they should have done that "gather evidence" thing when they had the chance.  Therefore, I believe they screwed up.

 

But why do we need more evidence?  I was told by no fewer than 230 members of Congress that the facts are (1) not in dispute, and (2) overwhelmingly in support of impeachment.

 

It's B.S.  Stop pretending otherwise.

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...