Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[Eddie]

Ask a room full of standard Republicans to choose one of the two options below

1. The US continues on as a Constitutional representative democracy as it has for the last 250 years with free elections even if your side starts to lose 60% of them

Or.

2. We start all over with a new system where the Republicans are always in charge and elections done away with

Most of them would choose #2 today. This is sadly not just a hypothetical. The party apparatus is actively pursuing that direction and will take it as far as possible.

What do you think the Dem's would pick? What about the Libertarians? Green Party? I'm guessing a majority of parties would pick "we are always in charge" over "we lose 60% of the time". Actually - the Libertarians and Green Party folks might take that, since they never win, 40% might sound pretty good.

[fusnik]

What do you think the Dem's would pick? What about the Libertarians? Green Party? I'm guessing a majority of parties would pick "we are always in charge" over "we lose 60% of the time". Actually - the Libertarians and Green Party folks might take that, since they never win, 40% might sound pretty good.

Disagree. I don’t know any democrat, and I’ve talked to more than anyone here, that would prefer a king/queen.

The GOP literally at their convention said, whatever Dear Leader says = our platform.

Look at the actions of the GOP chairperson, the state parties, POTUS, the senators/congressmen and women and you honestly tell me they don’t want a king right now.

[fusnik]

What was the plan for the insurrection? I guess that what I am not understanding. So the mob gets into the capital (clearly most of them were just sheep following along and having fun) and certain people were supposed to do what?

Kill Pence? What would that result in? He’s a lame duck and Biden would still be sworn in.

Kill Pelosi? I don’t think that accomplishes anything for Trump.

Hold congress hostage? Um, public sentiment is already wholly against the riot, can you imagine how bad Trumps approval would be in that situation? Yikes.

Delay the vote counting? That’s just delaying the inevitable and Biden is still sworn in as president.

I guess I don’t see the plausible endgame that results in trump being president at the end of all of this even if it did go further. Someone help me out here since I don’t frequent 4chan so I don’t know the plans.

Oh, and I’d vote to impeach as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why don’t people just believe what Trump says?

Remember when he said the 2nd amendment people might need to take care of HRC?

Remember when he said he’d pay for people’s legal fees if they roughed up disrupters at his rallies?

Remember when he called Obama and Biden treasonous traitors?

Remember his speech at the Ellipse?

He’s threatened violence and the death penalty for years, maybe we should just believe him and take him at his word. It’s clear to me he wanted chaos, violence and disruption. He knew Mike Pence was being ushered away and he still tweeted that Mike wasn’t doing the right thing further jeopardizing his safety.

Why do we give him the benefit of the doubt?

[All-American]

Why do we give him the benefit of the doubt?

Are you asking why we presume innocence until guilt is proven?

[BlueK]

Are you asking why we presume innocence until guilt is proven?

Well, he wasn't able to pull off the three or four terms thing or president for life yet, so there's that. But at this point are you still believing he wouldn't have tried if he could?

[Clark Addison]

Why don’t people just believe what Trump says?

Remember when he said the 2nd amendment people might need to take care of HRC?

Remember when he said he’d pay for people’s legal fees if they roughed up disrupters at his rallies?

Remember when he called Obama and Biden treasonous traitors?

Remember his speech at the Ellipse?

He’s threatened violence and the death penalty for years, maybe we should just believe him and take him at his word. It’s clear to me he wanted chaos, violence and disruption. He knew Mike Pence was being ushered away and he still tweeted that Mike wasn’t doing the right thing further jeopardizing his safety.

Why do we give him the benefit of the doubt?

I don't agree with everything fus has said about this, but I agree with a lot, and I definitely I agree with this.

Let me preface this by saying that I definitely do NOT think that Trump is Hitler. The point of this post has nothing to do with comparing Trump to Hitler, but comparing how people reacted to what they said.

After the war, a lot of Germans said things like "We didn't know he would do those things". This was pretty much BS, as Hitler was actually pretty explicit on what he would do in Mein Kampf and other speeches and writings. He always said the Germans needed lebensraum in Eastern Europe. He always said they needed to take it by force. He always said that the Jews were sub-human. He said a lot of things that your average 1930 German would have found distasteful and would not vote for as a line item. But they used the excuse that he didn't really mean these things, that he was using hyperbole. They convinced themselves of this because he accomplished things that they wanted accomplished. He beat off the Communists and the Trade Unions. He built up German military. It was almost literally the 1930s equivalence of "But he nominates good judges".

Again, Trump is not Hitler, but like Hitler, as fus said, there are a large number of people who discount what he says ("oh, he just likes to tweet weird stuff") because they like the results.

Even scarier, there are a growing number of people who agree with his actual words.

[Northwestcoug]

I think you're not wrong. But the Republicans are much farther down that road right now and the Democrats are not currently anti-democracy.

Oh absolutely. They cannot reliably win the popular vote now, and it will likely get worse for them in the future. I do not expect them to curtail the power they can still wield any time soon.

[All-American]

Well, he wasn't able to pull off the three or four terms thing or president for life yet, so there's that. But at this point are you still believing he wouldn't have tried if he could?

Thankfully they don’t try people for things they didn’t do but would do if they thought they could get away with it. Otherwise I’d never see the light of day.

[wapiti]

Remember when he said he’d pay for people’s legal fees if they roughed up disrupters at his rallies?

I don't blame people for not believing this.

[fusnik]

I don't blame people for not believing this.

Lol, legit funny.

The idea that Orange Jesus would pay for someone else’s lawyer fees, lol.

[frank ryan]

That is my main concern. If impeachment is based on high crimes or misdemeanors, the jury (senate) should be satisfied BARD that the elements of the charge(s) in the articles sent over by the house are in fact met. The argument I am seeing from the convict Trump crowd seems to say that when looking at everything he did as a whole we just need to forego that standard, which exists for every crime and even infraction in the US and its States, and convict just to get to the disqualification vote. Acknowledging that impeachment is a political function and not strictly legal, I still cannot see them connecting the dots and showing the intent required.

And if we are to relax the standards of proof so to convict Trump, what is to stop a Republican or Democrat majority of the house from impeaching a President or other official down the line for a less egregious action?

Standard disclaimer: I didn't vote for Trump either time and have voted for both sides in nearly every election since I started. I am still a registered republican because I am too lazy to change to independent.

If this doesn’t merit impeachment and conviction, I’m not sure what does.

[Flystripper]

I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed this paradox... a vote for Republicans to acquit means that they have to believe that Trump's followers are not strongly influenced by his words, yet when it comes to future primary races they must also believe that his followers are strongly influenced by his words.

What a dizzying conundrum they must feel.

[Bo Diddley]

I am sure I am not the only one who has noticed this paradox... a vote for Republicans to acquit means that they have to believe that Trump's followers are not strongly influenced by his words, yet when it comes to future primary races they must also believe that his followers are strongly influenced by his words.

What a dizzying conundrum they must feel.

I think the word you're looking for is hypocrisy.

[Flystripper]

I think the word you're looking for is hypocrisy.

More than hypocritical. Its blatant dishonesty. We all know where the lie is here.

[Bo Diddley]

More than hypocritical. Its blatant dishonesty. We all know where the lie is here.

Truth