What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Douchebag K said:
You just don’t get it do you
Click to expand...
It seemed like you were saying that the democrats should just not hold the president accountable for anything and should instead focus and getting a great nominee for president in place (despite the fact that the Republicans nominated trump)

I don't get it either I guess

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
It seemed like you were saying that the democrats should just not hold the president accountable for anything and should instead focus and getting a great nominee for president in place (despite the fact that the Republicans nominated trump)

I don't get it either I guess

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Dude I’m not talking about whether it’s right or wrong but what they need to do to get him out of office
 
Douchebag K said:
Dude I’m not talking about whether it’s right or wrong but what they need to do to get him out of office
Click to expand...
A. More than one way to skin a cat.
B. If they weren't don't the whole "follow the Constitution by holding the president accountable" thing, then what do you think the Dems would be doing different? They would still have Bernie, Warren, Biden and the rest doing what they are already doing. It's not like if the Dems didn't impeach Trump then magically there would be some super amazing candidate all of the sudden or some super amazing policy would materialize out of thin air that all Americans, Dems and repubs, would just love to death.

What would be different if the house didn't impeach Trump other than the fact that they would be failing to do their jobs?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
A. More than one way to skin a cat.
B. If they weren't don't the whole "follow the Constitution by holding the president accountable" thing, then what do you think the Dems would be doing different? They would still have Bernie, Warren, Biden and the rest doing what they are already doing. It's not like if the Dems didn't impeach Trump then magically there would be some super amazing candidate all of the sudden or some super amazing policy would materialize out of thin air that all Americans, Dems and repubs, would just love to death.

What would be different if the house didn't impeach Trump other than the fact that they would be failing to do their jobs?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Out of 300 million people you really can’t find any better candidates to oppose him ??
 
The Thriller said:
I hope Sanders and Warren are paying attention. Once one of them becomes president, I hope they ban all guns, institute universal health care, Abolish the EC, team up with China to spy on the GOP, and ban toothless old people from voting because it’s all “in the national interest.”

Also, muh judges are important too, so we’ll have to send gorsuch and Kavanaugh to Madame Guillotine. Maybe throw thomas in there too for good measure. Cuz you know, National interest. Let’s send “The Squad” to the Supreme Court. Can justin Trudeau serve? Let’s throw him on there. National interest.

Serving 5 terms is in the national interest too.

And who needs the bill of rights? You don’t need freedoms. you don’t need trials or speech. You should be tortured. National interest baby!

Abolishing the congress and packing the Supreme Court can be construed as being in the national interest, right?

Could Elizabeth Warren hire some Iranian terrorists to kidnap her political rivals and pardon them when they get caught and get away with it over the claim of “national interest?”

can we place additional taxes on businesses that don’t support great leader? National interest.

how about intimidate voters? Shut down Fox News?

Hell, let’s go full #MAGA and just make Warren/Sanders supreme leader for life.

SMH
Click to expand...
Just when I think it would be impossible for the anti-Trump crowd to become more unglued, they prove me wrong. I was in the back country yesterday so I don't know exactly what went on, but I would be very surprised if it is anything near what this post implies. Instead, my guess is that someone they don't like said something and the left went into their usual contest of seeing who could come up with the craziest possible interpretation. I declare Thriller the winner (though I'm sure he hasn't won by much).
 
sirkickyass said:
This is a little wonky (even by my standards) but I've been taken with the assertion that Dershowitz is fine with melding "personal interest" and "the public interest" into a single concern. The idea that a subjective belief that serving your own ends is also for the good of the country is exculpatory is I think unintentionally revealing.

The nature of a "Monarch" in theory is that the person on the throne represents the state itself. The idea of the state is too abstract to cognize, so we endow in a person the powers and functions of the state. Their will is collective will. The illusion that their wants and desires represent the best interests of the entire polity is the social illusion that comprises the foundation of monarchy.

The purest linguistic expression of that concept is the royal "we." Americans think of it as kind of silly when the Queen uses "we" in the singular first person, but that grammatical construction is the entire concept of monarchy. The person on the throne is not capable of having individual thoughts, desires, and urges. When they speak, they speak for all collectively.

Dershowitz's argument is an argument for a "royal we" presidency. That if it is for the president's benefit then it is for everyone's benefit. That also pops up in the arguments made by Philbin yesterday - in which he argues that it is impossible for the President to contravene foreign policy - because whatever he says is foreign policy.

This endows the president with that same mystical authority of the state that is the primary feature of monarchy. It is impossible to betray the country when you are the country. You cannot have a conflict of interest with yourself. You cannot do anything that is against the interests of the state, because if you want it that is the interest of the state.

Dershowitz is telling us that public opinion does not matter. Legitimacy is not conferred on our leaders through acclamation of popular will. If Trump wants to smear the Bidens - then the people want it too. Donald Trump doesn't represent the people, he is the people. WE are Trump.
Click to expand...
If he actually did say this I can only assume he is going to walk it back. Clearly, no American is going to accept this argument. One good thing about words is that they are not actions. Sometimes people say things and only later do they realize that they have gone too far.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
If he actually did say this I can only assume he is going to walk it back. Clearly, no American is going to accept this argument. One good thing about words is that they are not actions. Sometimes people say things and only later do they realize that they have gone too far.
Click to expand...

If they do not "walk it back", will you continue to support them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top