Donald Trump

[SWP's back]

Yes and yes.

My point stands. Its a pointless thing to do because it is never going to work.

Democrats would be better served finding a fucking decent candidate with great policy and taking it to the nation because much like the remain campaign over here, their current way of going about getting rid of the **** is going down like a fart in a lift with a huge majority of your fellow citizens.

You seem totally and wilfully unaware of the meaning of the word “majority”.

 

[hilts]

You can't just call it hyperbole. Tell me where I am wrong. Argue your point. "Impeachment doesn't work" isn't an argument. If you think we should do away with it, how are criminals in elected office removed, especially when they can't be arrested or indicted as the President cannot be while in office (recall he's in charge ultimately of the DOJ and all law enforcement)?

You would have thought that as a modern democracy one might get rid of the rule that a president can’t be arrested or indicted. What would happen if he shot someone in the head this weekend? Genuine question.

 

[blueinsa]

If I have this wrong please tell me as I don’t follow American politics so am not up on their political system so - surely if someone has committed a crime It should be dealt with by the law and a trial with non partisan people deciding on the verdict. It seems pretty mad that if the Potus Has been accused of breaking the law he gets saved by members of his own party or gets condemned by members of the opposition.

Going by the split of the vote it seems obvious not many are voting on integrity and it’s just a political farce.

Careful mate.

Sensible thinking like that is not welcomed in this thread.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Campaign to change your constitution rather than wailing at the Bluemoon would be my best advice.

Impeachment as a tool is fucking useless in all reality.

Change my constitution how? I don't want it changed.

 

[pudge]

Haha this fucking thread.

"Down dogs......down"!

At no point have I stated it's a good idea to leave him in power, I've just said the process to remove him is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

The process may only be flawed due to the majority/minority members and their numbers but it's still due process for holding the President accountable.

Removal from office is a potential outcome of that process not the objective of it. If they, as a country, can't hold the President accountable for improper and illegal activities then they're fucked.

For those who voted to impeach they'd rather be on the right side of history and the wrong side of the next 5 years.

 

[blueinsa]

You seem totally and wilfully unaware of the meaning of the word “majority”.

Give over.

Look up reality and accept the only way this **** is gone is either via a constitutional change or at the ballot box.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

You would have thought that as a modern democracy one might get rid of the rule that a president can’t be arrested or indicted. What would happen if he shot someone in the head this weekend? Genuine question.

He'd be impeached per process, then convicted, then arrested and tried out of office.

I should note -- it's the opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel who made this determination, for the simple fact that a President is unlikely to be able to faithfully discharge his duties nor be tried fairly when he is ultimately in control of the DOJ.

 

[SWP's back]

Well he wont win the election then will he and the world and a few posters on Bluemoon will be rid of him?

Rejoice if the numbers are with you.

I don’t think he will win the election no. But that’s completely irrelevant to the discussion about his impeachment.

 

[SWP's back]

It was a general comment.

Only a fucking idiot wouldn't have picked that up.

It was a wrong comment.

 

[blueinsa]

Change my constitution how? I don't want it changed.

So stop fucking moaning if it doesn't stop a criminal being potus.

 

[hilts]

He'd be impeached per process, then convicted, then arrested and tried out of office.

If this is the case why isn’t the above happening now?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

If this is the case why isn’t the above happening now?

It is happening now. Except he won't be convicted.

 

[hilts]

It is happening now. Except he won't be convicted.

Why not?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

So stop fucking moaning if it doesn't stop a criminal being potus.

I'm not moaning, mate. The Republican party and Trump may have a terrible price to pay for all this in the end. But that doesn't mean I don't want the process followed, which we are doing.

 

[SWP's back]

You would have thought that as a modern democracy one might get rid of the rule that a president can’t be arrested or indicted. What would happen if he shot someone in the head this weekend? Genuine question.

According to DOJ Barr (and Trump’s lawyers current argument to SCOTUS) then he couldn’t be tried for the offence.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Why not?

Because elected Republican representatives are afraid of losing their jobs if they vote to convict on the evidence would be my view, not to mention being shunned as pariahs and losing clout within the party. So I guess the answer is "self-preservation."

 

[SWP's back]

Give over.

Look up reality and accept the only way this **** is gone is either via a constitutional change or at the ballot box.

Give over what?

70% wanted him impeached.

50% wanted him impeached and removed. 43% do not.

There’s no ‘majority’ view against it.

 

[hilts]

According to DOJ Barr (and Trump’s lawyers current argument to SCOTUS) then he couldn’t be tried for the offence.

Like I said I don’t know much about American politics but if a president can commit a crime and get away with it because in certain circumstances his own party are judge and jury this seems pretty bloody stupid.

 

[SWP's back]

Like I said I don’t know much about American politics but if a president can commit a crime and get away with it because in certain circumstances his own party are judge and jury this seems pretty bloody stupid.

The Framers weren’t expecting cunts like McConnell and Graham.

 

[hilts]

Because elected Republican representatives are afraid of losing their jobs if they vote to convict on the evidence would be my view, not to mention being shunned as pariahs and losing clout within the party. So I guess the answer is "self-preservation."

So in theory he could shoot someone or kill someone pissed while driving and the republicans could keep him in his job and out of jail?