What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Gameface said:
12 years works a little better. That's 2 senate terms or 3 congress terms.

I'm not really in favor of term limits without controls on their staff as well (including any positions that have any amount of influence). I'm generally opposed to term limits, as it is a limit on the people, not a limit on the elected. It is a reduction of freedom for the people, it is a limit on the people's choice.

I get the notion. I get it. But without limits on staff and any other position, you'd just be handing extra power to unelected positions. So it absolutely MUST be more than just term limits.
Click to expand...
I know I am quibbling here, but congressional terms are for 2 years (so that would be 6 terms)...and I agree on the main point, 12 years each house of congress.
 
www.yahoo.com

Lindsey Graham says Republicans 'don't have a snowball's chance in hell' of regaining a Senate majority without Trump

In January, Trump became the first president since 1932 to lose reelection, the House, and the Senate within his term.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

This article is pretty funny to me. It is basically saying that Republicans have no chance to win the Senate, the house, or the presidency again without trump being the figurehead of the party.

Oh and my favorite part of the article:. Trump became the first president since 1932 to lose reelection, the House, and the Senate within his term.

So Trump is the only president since 1932 to lose the house, the Senate, and the presidency in his first term, yet is also the only hope for the republican party to win the house, the Senate, and the presidency. Lol

That's pretty dire, oxymoronic **** right there.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
TheGoldStandard said:
A true act "for the people" would have term limits for the house and senate (8 years seems like plenty). Let's get politicians that work for us and not for lobbyists and efforts to get re-elected.
Click to expand...
Frankly just severely limiting lobbying in general would go a long way to fixing the ****-hole that congress has become.
 
Gameface said:
12 years works a little better. That's 2 senate terms or 3 congress terms.

I'm not really in favor of term limits without controls on their staff as well (including any positions that have any amount of influence). I'm generally opposed to term limits, as it is a limit on the people, not a limit on the elected. It is a reduction of freedom for the people, it is a limit on the people's choice.

I get the notion. I get it. But without limits on staff and any other position, you'd just be handing extra power to unelected positions. So it absolutely MUST be more than just term limits.
Click to expand...
I could get behind that. I also still espouse my idea regarding the presidential term. I think we should change it to a single term of 6 years, no reelection option.

Although after the Trump fiasco maybe 6 is too much.

Nah, I still like the idea of a single 6-year term. We wouldn't have had any of this stole the election ******** and no siege of the capitol that the republicans in congress obviously fully supported.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I could get behind that. I also still espouse my idea regarding the presidential term. I think we should change it to a single term of 6 years, no reelection option.

Although after the Trump fiasco maybe 6 is too much.

Nah, I still like the idea of a single 6-year term. We wouldn't have had any of this stole the election ******** and no siege of the capitol that the republicans in congress obviously fully supported.
Click to expand...
We need something. I agree with limiting lobbying. Maybe even have non-compete type agreements where a politician can't work for any lobbying company for two years post-service.

I do think if politicians had limited terms, many of them would end up being advisors to their replacements, and I still think they knowledge base would be there.

The bedrock of this amazing country was based on the ideas of 30-40 year olds. I think fresh blood would be good. Orrin Hatch is a good example. Started out as a good politician, but eventually lost touch with what matters. Dude wears full on makeup all day every day. I don't want "professional" politicians. I want people that just want to serve. The different mindset would make a huge difference IMO.

Could senior staffers have more influence? Sure, but they won't be the ultimate decision maker. A politician with one long-term stint won't have to bow to lobbyists or special interest groups. They can do what is needed to better the country.
 
TheGoldStandard said:
We need something. I agree with limiting lobbying. Maybe even have non-compete type agreements where a politician can't work for any lobbying company for two years post-service.

I do think if politicians had limited terms, many of them would end up being advisors to their replacements, and I still think they knowledge base would be there.

The bedrock of this amazing country was based on the ideas of 30-40 year olds. I think fresh blood would be good. Orrin Hatch is a good example. Started out as a good politician, but eventually lost touch with what matters. Dude wears full on makeup all day every day. I don't want "professional" politicians. I want people that just want to serve. The different mindset would make a huge difference IMO.

Could senior staffers have more influence? Sure, but they won't be the ultimate decision maker. A politician with one long-term stint won't have to bow to lobbyists or special interest groups. They can do what is needed to better the country.
Click to expand...
Campaign finance reform would do more than term limits. Make it so that candidates not only don't have to go ask people for money, but are actually forbidden from doing it - they get a warchest of X dollars depending on the office they're running for, and that's it. No more. Eliminate SuperPACS and the fiction that they're independent. Could we mandate that any broadcast or cable network that runs advertisement at all would have to run a certain amount of political advertisements for free, and that they would have to be balanced - say that if you're running an ad for the Democrat for President, you have to run the Republican right after it, or, even better, in a random order, so they're not written directly as responses.
 
One thing rarely talked about but is completely necessary is getting rid of super pac money in order to strengthen political parties. Right now both political parties are weak, the GOP is essentially dead. As a result, they cannot complete their gatekeeping function in keeping out crazy candidates.

Even if the GOP wanted to withhold funds from a crazy candidate, the candidate would just raise funds from a super pac, bypassing the party completely. This is a problem.

Pay attention to this upcoming Supreme Court case. This could be really bad now that conservatives are up 6-3:
news.bloomberglaw.com

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Koch-Backed Challenge to Donor Law

The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a challenge by a Koch-backed group to a California law requiring charities disclose their largest donors to state officials.
news.bloomberglaw.com news.bloomberglaw.com
 
Last edited:
some more corruption around team trump resulting in a 12 year prison sentence.
www.yahoo.com

Trump inauguration donor sentenced to 12 years for illegal contribution, obstruction

California venture capitalist Imaad Shah Zuberi was sentenced to 12 years in prison on Thursday for unregistered foreign lobbying, illegal campaign contributions and obstruction of justice.Details: The obstruction of justice charge against Zuberi stemmed from an investigation into a $900,000...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
Ok, this is obviously cherry-picked, but still funny as hell.

Note: minor swears, but mostly bleeped out.

 
Eenie-Meenie said:
Mike Lee is one of the biggest assholes in the Senate and there are quite a few of them. Yet he easily gets elected because he is LDS. Like the Repugs who put party over country, LDS members need to put their religion aside when they vote.
Click to expand...
Senator Lee seems like a good dude to me. I wasn't a fan when he first ran but have been pleasantly surprised. He makes headlines from time to time with something whacky sounding, but after reading his reasoning he comes across as a pretty thoughtful, well reasoned person. I don't have to agree with someone's votes to respect them for thoughtfulness and effort.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Senator Lee seems like a good dude to me. I wasn't a fan when he first ran but have been pleasantly surprised. He makes headlines from time to time with something whacky sounding, but after reading his reasoning he comes across as a pretty thoughtful, well reasoned person. I don't have to agree with someone's votes to respect them for thoughtfulness and effort.
Click to expand...

He's awful. As just one example.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
Huh. It shows up when I quote you.

His vote here doesn't give me reason to dislike him. He seems genuinely thoughtful about it, which is what I want in a representative. Honest and wise, and all that.
Click to expand...

I find him neither honest nor wise. I find him opportunistic and lacking integrity. How else do you explain this


I think you missed the point of my link, though. The context was a SL Trib report where his own campaign issued this statement: "Although Sen. Romney and I usually vote together -- and with a majority of Senate Republicans -- we voted differently. It shows neither one of us blindly defers to anyone."

The Trib's headline about the statement said something like, "Lee defends Romney's right to vote to convict".

In response Lee said this: "This headline is not only misleading, but affirmatively deceptive. The Salt Lake Tribune will stop at nothing to undermine and create divisions within the Republican Party."

To recap: they run a story about him supporting Romney. He accuses them of creating divisions. In his mind, supporting a fellow Republican's right to vote their conscience to convict = "creating divisions". Because he has sold his soul to Trump.
 
colton said:
I find him neither honest nor wise. I find him opportunistic and lacking integrity. How else do you explain this


I think you missed the point of my link, though. The context was a SL Trib report where his own campaign issued this statement: "Although Sen. Romney and I usually vote together -- and with a majority of Senate Republicans -- we voted differently. It shows neither one of us blindly defers to anyone."

The Trib's headline about the statement said something like, "Lee defends Romney's right to vote to convict".

In response Lee said this: "This headline is not only misleading, but affirmatively deceptive. The Salt Lake Tribune will stop at nothing to undermine and create divisions within the Republican Party."

To recap: they run a story about him supporting Romney. He accuses them of creating divisions. In his mind, supporting a fellow Republican's right to vote their conscience to convict = "creating divisions". Because he has sold his soul to Trump.
Click to expand...
Yep and let's remember that back in 2015 he thought Trump sucked and didn't even vote for trump.
Now suddenly he sees that backing Trump night be beneficial to him and he things trump is similar to captain Moroni.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
colton said:
I find him neither honest nor wise. I find him opportunistic and lacking integrity. How else do you explain this


I think you missed the point of my link, though. The context was a SL Trib report where his own campaign issued this statement: "Although Sen. Romney and I usually vote together -- and with a majority of Senate Republicans -- we voted differently. It shows neither one of us blindly defers to anyone."

The Trib's headline about the statement said something like, "Lee defends Romney's right to vote to convict".

In response Lee said this: "This headline is not only misleading, but affirmatively deceptive. The Salt Lake Tribune will stop at nothing to undermine and create divisions within the Republican Party."

To recap: they run a story about him supporting Romney. He accuses them of creating divisions. In his mind, supporting a fellow Republican's right to vote their conscience to convict = "creating divisions". Because he has sold his soul to Trump.
Click to expand...

Outstanding post
 
Just to add to the last two fantastic posts, I find Republicans continuing to insult all media other than Fox News/Newsmax/OANN to be nauseating. This schtick is tired and played out for most of us. It just sounds petty and paranoid now when they attack the media for doing their jobs all while bowing to right wing propaganda.
 
colton said:
I find him neither honest nor wise. I find him opportunistic and lacking integrity. How else do you explain this


I think you missed the point of my link, though. The context was a SL Trib report where his own campaign issued this statement: "Although Sen. Romney and I usually vote together -- and with a majority of Senate Republicans -- we voted differently. It shows neither one of us blindly defers to anyone."

The Trib's headline about the statement said something like, "Lee defends Romney's right to vote to convict".

In response Lee said this: "This headline is not only misleading, but affirmatively deceptive. The Salt Lake Tribune will stop at nothing to undermine and create divisions within the Republican Party."

To recap: they run a story about him supporting Romney. He accuses them of creating divisions. In his mind, supporting a fellow Republican's right to vote their conscience to convict = "creating divisions". Because he has sold his soul to Trump.
Click to expand...

I did miss it. All I saw was the tweet after I quoted you, nothing about the Trib or the rabble rousing.


Edit - the tweet doesn't even show up for me in my post quote anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top