What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

The Thriller said:
I cannot think of a better description of Trumpers. You might not like it, but Hillary’s description was dead on. Sorry if it wasn’t PC enough for you, snow flake.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it wasn't accurate but coming from one of the top deplorable's in the country in every sense of the word it rings a bit hollow. And yes, before your loose butt starts to pucker, Trump also fits that word to a T.
 
Beer said:
I'm not saying it wasn't accurate but coming from one of the top deplorable's in the country in every sense of the word it rings a bit hollow. And yes, before your loose butt starts to pucker, Trump also fits that word to a T.
Click to expand...

Only a very unserious very low information voter would think that. Back onto the block you go.
 
The Thriller said:
imagine if Hillary or obama had said this about evangelicals? I mean, I remember the outrage when she (accurately) labeled a segment of our population as “a basket of Deplorables.” That was without putting kids in cages or forced sterilizations. Trump has actions to support his hateful rhetoric.

Im shocked at how little attention this is getting. I guess we just don’t have any standards anymore for anything. Replace the term “refugees” with “Mormons, Jews, Tutsi, etc” and you see how depraved this speech is. This is hate speech. Few leaders in the world do this. Trump joins just a handful of world leaders (none of them are our allies) to speak like this. It would get anyone else in America fired from their jobs.

Instead, Trump retains 40 percent of the population and maintains a decent chance of winning the presidency because of the electoral college. Which, goes to show how we need to abolish it. The EC was supposed to prevent tyranny, instead, it’s preserving it.

Just think how different this election would be right now if all that mattered was the popular vote? Trump would have to at least pretend to be moderate or else face a complete blowout.
Click to expand...

While not against abolishing the EC, it would have to be done several years prior to the election. Trump, and future Republican candidates, would obviously spend time campaigning in California, NY, Illinois.
 
NAOS said:
@colton

it’s been made clear that there was an offer with regard to your posting patterns and beliefs. I believe you can now fairly institute a 3-month time out. Just a couple of clicks away, my friend. Tia.
Click to expand...

NAOS had to explain his post to me, but apparently someone I've got on ignore doesn't think I have "any inkling of Republican Party ethos" in me. (NAOS's words, not sure if that was a direct quote of the ignored poster or not). So, to clarify, I'll run down a few things.
  • I'm against abortion, and think it should be made illegal (with very limited exceptions)
  • I'm generally in favor of smaller budgets, less government spending
  • I'm generally in favor of less taxes, especially for low-to-mid income individuals
  • I was very anti- gay marriage, although that ship has sailed so I no longer make a big deal about it.
  • I'm very pro-religion when it comes to cases which involve balancing rights of individual's religious freedoms and views vs. responsibility to provide a public service (e.g. forcing cake makers to supply cakes at gay weddings when that goes against their religious views)
  • I thought Neil Gorsuch was a great Supreme Court choice (still do, as far as I know; haven't really tracked his specific opinions)
In January I left the Republican party in disgust at their worship of all things Trump, where I had been a member since 1988. I am now a member of the United Utah party, and agree with essentially all of their platform points. See https://www.unitedutah.org/platform. Look it over and see if it seems liberal or conservative to you. Since the Republican party itself no longer has a platform except for basically "do anything Trump says, believe anything Trump says" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6c057c-e61c-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html), I can't say to what degree they agree or disagree with me on these things.

To borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican Party. The party left me." (He said it about the Democratic Party.)
 
colton said:
NAOS had to explain his post to me, but apparently someone I've got on ignore doesn't think I have "any inkling of Republican Party ethos" in me. (NAOS's words, not sure if that was a direct quote of the ignored poster or not). So, to clarify, I'll run down a few things.
  • I'm against abortion, and think it should be made illegal (with very limited exceptions)
  • I'm generally in favor of smaller budgets, less government spending
  • I'm generally in favor of less taxes, especially for low-to-mid income individuals
  • I was very anti- gay marriage, although that ship has sailed so I no longer make a big deal about it.
  • I'm very pro-religion when it comes to cases which involve balancing rights of individual's religious freedoms and views vs. responsibility to provide a public service (e.g. forcing cake makers to supply cakes at gay weddings when that goes against their religious views)
  • I thought Neil Gorsuch was a great Supreme Court choice (still do, as far as I know; haven't really tracked his specific opinions)
In January I left the Republican party in disgust at their worship of all things Trump, where I had been a member since 1988. I am now a member of the United Utah party, and agree with essentially all of their platform points. See https://www.unitedutah.org/platform. Look it over and see if it seems liberal or conservative to you. Since the Republican party itself no longer has a platform except for basically "do anything Trump says, believe anything Trump says" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...6c057c-e61c-11ea-970a-64c73a1c2392_story.html), I can't say to what degree they agree or disagree with me on these things.

To borrow a phrase from Ronald Reagan, "I didn't leave the Republican Party. The party left me." (He said it about the Democratic Party.)
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this. I have different views but I truly respect people who stand for what they believe and can tell themselves: these are my core values and this guy (Trump or any other questionable leader) or party does not represent me anymore. Can't stand cult type mentality and the lack of critical thinking (e.g. Political Jazz Fan)
 
Red said:
The question is not whether the system is designed that way; it is whether it is tenable in the 21st century to have a Senate dominated by overwhelmingly small White states, a Supreme Court that is entirely untethered to popular will and a president without a popular majority.
Click to expand...

I would support electing the President by popular vote, but I disagree that the method of electing Senators should be changed. Small states do need some ability to put a the brake on types of legislation.
 
One Brow said:
I would support electing the President by popular vote, but I disagree that the method of electing Senators should be changed. Small states do need some ability to put a the brake on types of legislation.
Click to expand...
They have multiple brakes. The electoral college is too big of one.
 
@colton, @The Thriller, if you have not read this yet, it’s very informative. Basically the only one of Mueller’s prosecutors who is spilling the beans on how the Special Council’s investigation went.


“A former prosecutor on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team writes in a new book that the group failed to fully investigate President Trump’s financial ties and should have stated explicitly that they believed he obstructed justice, claiming that their efforts were limited by the ever-present threat of Trump disbanding their office and by their own reluctance to be aggressive.
 
Last edited:
I think we'd have much better Supreme Court decisions if we had nine moderates seated vs. majorities either way. I don't think it lends itself to sound decision-making.

The Republican precedent to ram this through may come at an electoral price. I think it's quite within reason that if D's take the Senate/Presidency and hold the House, you'll see the dissolution of the filibuster and a push to expand the court four more seats to take back a majority - and they'll be in the electoral position to do it.

This is not a good course for the country - we don't need continual court packing and expansion when one party has all three spots, but a vicious cycle of this expansion could become a reality.
 
Avery said:
I think we'd have much better Supreme Court decisions if we had nine moderates seated vs. majorities either way. I don't think it lends itself to sound decision-making.

The Republican precedent to ram this through may come at an electoral price. I think it's quite within reason that if D's take the Senate/Presidency and hold the House, you'll see the dissolution of the filibuster and a push to expand the court four more seats to take back a majority - and they'll be in the electoral position to do it.

This is not a good course for the country - we don't need continual court packing and expansion when one party has all three spots, but a vicious cycle of this expansion could become a reality.
Click to expand...
Imagine a 51 justice supreme court...
 
Red said:
@colton, @The Thriller, if you have not read this yet, it’s very informative. Basically the only one of Mueller’s prosecutors who is spilling the beans on how the Special Council’s investigation went.


“A former prosecutor on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team writes in a new book that the group failed to fully investigate President Trump’s financial ties and should have stated explicitly that they believed he obstructed justice, claiming that their efforts were limited by the ever-present threat of Trump disbanding their office and by their own reluctance to be aggressive.
Click to expand...
The raw power of the presidency has prevented so much from seeing the light of day. This is true of every presidency, of course, but gawddamn there’s been so much more darkness (and so much more of it flowing straight into our homes) during this 4-year term. —At least during my lifetime.
 
Gameface said:
Imagine a 51 justice supreme court...
Click to expand...

it would be awesome. Having such a large, diluted, and impotent judicial branch might actually force the legislative to actually legislate. instead repubs are relying on the judicial branch to repeal the stuff they hate.
 
JazzyFresh said:
...
Click to expand...

It took three months, with no breaks, of Congressional investigation to vote on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I invite you to join me in saying this time the Senate should also take three months, not including breaks, to investigate and vote on the next nominee.
 
One Brow said:
It took three months, with no breaks, of Congressional investigation to vote on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I invite you to join me in saying this time the Senate should also take three months, not including breaks, to investigate and vote on the next nominee.
Click to expand...
Usually yeah, but hypocrite Democrats have played treasonously dirty for the past 3 years so I don't want to hear a word about being unfair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top