Trumped

[Taylor]

I don't think st1ck or UTH are part of the husky AW demographic.

[UndertheHalo]

Yes.  Return to us @tdawg87

[St1ck]

9 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

I’m not going after you ! I’m just giving you my thoughts on it. 

I don’t care about round 2 of impeaching Trump.  I think it’s pointless but whatever. The reason what I think that is because he’s not going to be convicted and thus it’s pointless.  Nobody is learning a lesson.  No point is being made.  I guarantee you that republicans will impeach democrats at everyone possible opportunity and use this and the previous impeachment as justification.  I think it might be wise for Democrats to factor that into their political calculus here.  That said, they may just assume that will happen anyway and that’s fair enough.   

but I will double down that Niki Haley would probably be worse.  Like if you put aside the Trump aesthetic.  Which does turn a lot of people off.  It’s really, not that difficult to see a hard core ideologue like Haley being quite a bit worse.  

I never said you were going after me.

I couldn't disagree with you more that impeaching Trump is pointless just because we already know 17 Republicans won't vote to convict him. You either think he committed impeachable acts or he didn't.  He did so he should be. The fact that some partisan Republicans won't convict him doesn't change my mind on that. 

Your take on that it could lead to Nikki Haley being a frontrunner is even worse. You are saying Trump should get a free pass because you fear what it might lead to. 

[St1ck]

9 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I don't think st1ck or UTH are part of the husky AW demographic.

I didn't get the nickname st1ckboy from a couple buddies of mine out of irony. 

[UndertheHalo]

2 hours ago, st1ckboy said:

I never said you were going after me.

I couldn't disagree with you more that impeaching Trump is pointless just because we already know 17 Republicans won't vote to convict him. You either think he committed impeachable acts or he didn't.  He did so he should be. The fact that some partisan Republicans won't convict him doesn't change my mind on that. 

Your take on that it could lead to Nikki Haley being a frontrunner is even worse. You are saying Trump should get a free pass because you fear what it might lead to. 

I think the take on Haley is good and correct.  I’m not saying Trump should get a free pass.  Honestly I’m not sure what you mean by that.  Look, my concerns are actual implemented policy.  I think about what Haley department of labor would look like and it’s horrifying to me.  I think it’s worse than Trump.  I think she’s worse on a lot of things.  That’s not to say that Trump couldn’t eventually get there.  I don’t know. Who can say.  I can tell you that in terms of policy.  Haley is at least as bad and probably worse.  I think she’s wholly capable of unleashing the same kind of psychotic right wing fervor that Trump did.  I think that has existed aside from these politicians for some time.  Trump just harnessed it.  In fact, I think she and other rightoids learned a lot of from Trump.  I think that we’ll see a lot of Trump tactics with mobilizing  these people going forward.  Right wing populism is what we’re seeing here.  

you’re taking a really righteous position on the impeachment stuff.  I get it.  I’m not criticizing you.  I don’t think you’re wrong really.  I just can’t be bothered to care.  I’m very cynical on this topic.  I just feel that he won’t be convicted so practically it’s not worth putting a lot of thought to.  And like I said, I don’t understand this thought about disciplining republicans or whatever.  That’s not how this is going to work.  The evidence seems to be that its just makes them more powerful.  More popular.  

Edited February 11, 2021 by UndertheHalo

[Blarg]

I just read an interesting article that states that if the Senate does go forth with impeachment of Donald Trump as president, currently it is an illegitimate trial. Here is why.

Either the impeachment resolution and the subsequent trial are aimed at Donald Trump as president, or it is an impeachment of Donald Trump as a private citizen. These proceedings are obviously the former, since the resolution holds Trump to have violated the presidential oath of office. The argument that "the President" in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 means only the sitting president does not change that fact. The text clearly refers to the subject of the impeachment at the time of the impeachment. The plain language of the text and the subject of the impeachment resolution indicate that "the President" in question was/is Donald Trump as president, acting as president. And if that is the case, the Constitution makes clear, the Chief Justice must be the one to preside over this impeachment trial.

The general principles behind the complex issue of impeachment require the Chief Justice's presence as a constitutional prerequisite in a presidential impeachment. Impeachment of the president pits one branch of the government against another; it is Congress versus the president. The only way this can be done consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances is to have the arbiter of this process be the head of the third and least politically invested branch of government, the Chief Justice.

The critical defect in the Senate's proceeding with the trial is the absence of the Chief Justice of the United States. We are informed that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer invited Chief Justice John Roberts to preside, but Roberts declined to participate.

https://www.newsweek.com/case-missing-chief-justice-opinion-1567887?ref=upstract.com&curator=upstract.com&utm_source=upstract.com

 

 

[UndertheHalo]

Wouldn’t Roberts have a duty to preside over the trial then ? I mean, is “opting out” a legal option for him ? He’s done it regardless.  Interesting. 

[Jason]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

I just read an interesting article that states that if the Senate does go forth with impeachment of Donald Trump as president, currently it is an illegitimate trial. Here is why.

Either the impeachment resolution and the subsequent trial are aimed at Donald Trump as president, or it is an impeachment of Donald Trump as a private citizen. These proceedings are obviously the former, since the resolution holds Trump to have violated the presidential oath of office. The argument that "the President" in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 means only the sitting president does not change that fact. The text clearly refers to the subject of the impeachment at the time of the impeachment. The plain language of the text and the subject of the impeachment resolution indicate that "the President" in question was/is Donald Trump as president, acting as president. And if that is the case, the Constitution makes clear, the Chief Justice must be the one to preside over this impeachment trial.

The general principles behind the complex issue of impeachment require the Chief Justice's presence as a constitutional prerequisite in a presidential impeachment. Impeachment of the president pits one branch of the government against another; it is Congress versus the president. The only way this can be done consistent with the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances is to have the arbiter of this process be the head of the third and least politically invested branch of government, the Chief Justice.

The critical defect in the Senate's proceeding with the trial is the absence of the Chief Justice of the United States. We are informed that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer invited Chief Justice John Roberts to preside, but Roberts declined to participate.

https://www.newsweek.com/case-missing-chief-justice-opinion-1567887?ref=upstract.com&curator=upstract.com&utm_source=upstract.com

 

 

Lol if anyone thinks members of congress still care about following the constitution 

[Jason]

2 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

Wouldn’t Roberts have a duty to preside over the trial then ? I mean, is “opting out” a legal option for him ? He’s done it regardless.  Interesting. 

That’s kind of what I thought but maybe it comes down to the fact that he is no longer the sitting President. This whole situation is rather unique so we’ll see how it plays out. Unfortunately I think impeachment will be a standard tactic of political rivals moving forward 

[Redondo]

Jordan points out that Dems at impeachment trial are conveniently omitting key detail of Trump speech

Video footage presented by Democrats at this week’s Trump impeachment trial sessions has told only part of the Jan. 6 Capitol story, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, claimed Wednesday.

Democrats have repeatedly stressed Trump’s "fight like hell" remark at the rally as they look to convict Trump on a Jan. 13 House impeachment charge of "inciting an insurrection."

But at another point in his speech, Jordan noted, Trump urged his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" – an inconvenient comment that doesn’t seem to fit the Democrats’ narrative as they pursue a Trump conviction.

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

— President Trump, Jan. 6 speech in Washington

"The one line from the president’s speech that wasn’t in the Democrats’ video is the line that’s most important, and that’s where the president said, ‘Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,’" Jordan said during an appearance on Fox Business’ "Varney & Co."
 

[Redondo]

"The First Amendment argument [made by Democrats against Trump] is very dangerous. … The president is engaged in constitutionally protected speech – speech that is protected by the First Amendment, the very document … that we take the oath to uphold and they’re going to try to impeach him for that."

"How does this unify the country?" Jordan asked about the Democrats’ impeachment effort. "How does this bring the nation together, which is what Joe Biden said he wanted to do on Jan. 20?"

"Democrats last summer – Democrat members of the Congress -- said there needs to be more unrest in the streets, while there was unrest in the streets -- and somehow that’s not incitement?" Jordan said in an appearance with Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. 

"But when the president says ‘peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,’ they’re going to impeach him?

"This is what Americans so despise," Jordan continued. "There’s a lot of things they hate about this town [Washington]. They hate when we spend their money on crazy things. But what they mostly hate is the hypocrisy and the double standard that the elite in this town get to have.

"Right now there’s a wall around the Capitol to protect the politicians but, no, we can’t secure the border to protect the country?

"That’s what ticks Americans off more than anything else and that’s why they so appreciated President Trump because he came here and did what he said and fought for the things American families care about and right now they're seeing … this crazy circus of an impeachment."

Link

[St1ck]

33 minutes ago, Redondo said:

Jordan points out that Dems at impeachment trial are conveniently omitting key detail of Trump speech

Video footage presented by Democrats at this week’s Trump impeachment trial sessions has told only part of the Jan. 6 Capitol story, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, claimed Wednesday.

Democrats have repeatedly stressed Trump’s "fight like hell" remark at the rally as they look to convict Trump on a Jan. 13 House impeachment charge of "inciting an insurrection."

But at another point in his speech, Jordan noted, Trump urged his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" – an inconvenient comment that doesn’t seem to fit the Democrats’ narrative as they pursue a Trump conviction.

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

— President Trump, Jan. 6 speech in Washington

"The one line from the president’s speech that wasn’t in the Democrats’ video is the line that’s most important, and that’s where the president said, ‘Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,’" Jordan said during an appearance on Fox Business’ "Varney & Co."
 

 

32 minutes ago, Redondo said:

"The First Amendment argument [made by Democrats against Trump] is very dangerous. … The president is engaged in constitutionally protected speech – speech that is protected by the First Amendment, the very document … that we take the oath to uphold and they’re going to try to impeach him for that."

"How does this unify the country?" Jordan asked about the Democrats’ impeachment effort. "How does this bring the nation together, which is what Joe Biden said he wanted to do on Jan. 20?"

"Democrats last summer – Democrat members of the Congress -- said there needs to be more unrest in the streets, while there was unrest in the streets -- and somehow that’s not incitement?" Jordan said in an appearance with Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif. 

"But when the president says ‘peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard,’ they’re going to impeach him?

"This is what Americans so despise," Jordan continued. "There’s a lot of things they hate about this town [Washington]. They hate when we spend their money on crazy things. But what they mostly hate is the hypocrisy and the double standard that the elite in this town get to have.

"Right now there’s a wall around the Capitol to protect the politicians but, no, we can’t secure the border to protect the country?

"That’s what ticks Americans off more than anything else and that’s why they so appreciated President Trump because he came here and did what he said and fought for the things American families care about and right now they're seeing … this crazy circus of an impeachment."

Link

Lol @ posting opinion pieces by Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes. 

[St1ck]

2 hours ago, Jason said:

Lol if anyone thinks members of congress still care about following the constitution 

In this interpretation it would mean that John Roberts is the one not following the constitution. 

It says he shall preside not that he has to. If you follow the line of thinking of the article that would mean that an impeachment trial taking place would lay in the hands of one person, the Chief Justice. That would mean any time chose not to preside he could effectively just end the entire impeachment process. 

[St1ck]

Tuberville says he informed Trump of Pence’s evacuation before rioters reached Senate - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/tuberville-pences-evacuation-trump-impeachment-468572

“I said ‘Mr. President, they just took the vice president out, I’ve got to go,'” Tuberville (R-Ala.) told POLITICO on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night, saying he cut the phone call short amid the chaos.

House managers say the call took place shortly after 2 p.m. Pence was evacuated from the chamber at about 2:15 p.m. and Trump sent his tweet attacking Pence at 2:24 pm. 

[Taylor]

9 hours ago, cals said:

You’re the only skinny guy here and it’s because you’re wife won’t let you eat good food or drink beer.  That photo is a pretty good “average AW member” photo.  And since they’re kissing it also reflects the true sexual feelings of our politics board conservatives.

I wish I were skinny. I have more of a dad bod.

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, st1ckboy said:

Tuberville says he informed Trump of Pence’s evacuation before rioters reached Senate - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/tuberville-pences-evacuation-trump-impeachment-468572

“I said ‘Mr. President, they just took the vice president out, I’ve got to go,'” Tuberville (R-Ala.) told POLITICO on Capitol Hill on Wednesday night, saying he cut the phone call short amid the chaos.

House managers say the call took place shortly after 2 p.m. Pence was evacuated from the chamber at about 2:15 p.m. and Trump sent his tweet attacking Pence at 2:24 pm. 

Good guy Trump. He waited until after the football coach told him Pence had left the building before he sent the tweet.

 

[Adam]

49 minutes ago, Taylor said:

I wish I were skinny. I have more of a dad bod.

You don't get to claim dad bod until that little shit comes out. You're just fat.

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Adam said:

You don't get to claim dad bod until that little shit comes out. You're just fat.

[mtangelsfan]

8 hours ago, st1ckboy said:

 

Lol @ posting opinion pieces by Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes. 

If they are correct why does anything else matter?

[Taylor]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

If they are correct why does anything else matter?

Are they correct? Plenty of others disagree with them.

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, Taylor said:

Are they correct? Plenty of others disagree with them.

Shocking

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

Shocking

If Donald Trump wrote an article about why the impeachment is unconstitutional, would you take it seriously?

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, Taylor said:

If Donald Trump wrote an article about why the impeachment is unconstitutional, would you take it seriously?

He isn’t always wrong.  Doesn’t matter, the only opinions important to you are ones you agree with 

[Taylor]

1 minute ago, mtangelsfan said:

He isn’t always wrong.  Doesn’t matter, the only opinions important to you are ones you agree with 

Not true. If, say, Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi wrote an op ep that the impeachment is constitutional, I wouldn't take it seriously.

[St1ck]

22 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

If they are correct why does anything else matter?

Because they aren't correct and they are the two biggest Trump nutswingers in Congress.