One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Democrats Vote ot Abolish Obsolete Impeachment Procedure
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 next>>
Jan 8, 2019 08:15:36   #
buffalo
 
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise, House Democrats have completely abandoned all plans to impeach President Trump. Going a step further, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has promised to sponsor legislation abolishing the impeachment process altogether. However, Democrats still plan to go ahead with their promise to eliminate the Electoral College.

A spokesman for the House speaker said earlier today, "Even though everybody wants to see the worst Republican president since Hitler kicked out of the White House, we realized that impeachment was just not the way to go. While we were researching the Electoral College as an ancient relic left over from the Constitution that needs to be abolished, one of our staff was startled to discover that the impeachment process was also in the same outdated Constitution. We had to be consistent: either everything in the Constitution is the legal equivalent of a vestigial organ left there by white slave owners, or nothing is. If we're going to can the Electoral College, well, obviously impeachment has to go too."

Chuck Shumer, glaring over his reading glasses, commented on the unnecessary complexity of the impeachment process. "There's more than you'd think," he said. "Everybody thinks impeachment means you're outta there, but it only means you've just been accused, and only the House can do that. Okay, well and good. But get this - after the House impeaches somebody, the impeachment trial goes to the Senate, and it takes two thirds of the Senate to agree to kick out the president. Two thirds! No way can I get that many votes. What good's a show trial if you can't get results?"

Congresswoman and Constitutional scholar Ocasio-Cortez also weighed in tweeting, "If all three chambers of government are involved, then the president could veto it, right? It's really messed up. Impeachment needs to be abolished and replaced with green energy. After all, we only have ten years to save the planet."

Some Democrat voters vented feelings of betrayal. A gender studies major at UCLA, Berkeley, posted on YouTube, "You mean Trump could still be our president!? *hyperventilating* I can't believe this is hap-happen-hap-happening to my nation! Somebody had BETTER FIX THIS NOW!" she opined before fainting. Protesters were asked to comment but only responded by scratching on the doors of the Capitol Building and shouting skyward, "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

Trying to salvage support among some angry Democrat voters, Pelosi promised to "repeal and replace" impeachment with a more streamlined version. "So we're thinking of a system where we trot out a few victims with messy hair to make some allegations about misconduct and if one party thinks he's guilty, out he goes! It would save time, precious taxpayers' money, and above all, the polar bears. I'm trying to save the polar bears."



| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 08:33:58   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
I always enjoy your satire...

It's a kind of guilty pleasure...

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 08:46:46   #
Liberty Tree (a regular here)
 
buffalo wrote:
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise, House Democrats have completely abandoned all plans to impeach President Trump. Going a step further, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has promised to sponsor legislation abolishing the impeachment process altogether. However, Democrats still plan to go ahead with their promise to eliminate the Electoral College.

A spokesman for the House speaker said earlier today, "Even though everybody wants to see the worst Republican president since Hitler kicked out of the White House, we realized that impeachment was just not the way to go. While we were researching the Electoral College as an ancient relic left over from the Constitution that needs to be abolished, one of our staff was startled to discover that the impeachment process was also in the same outdated Constitution. We had to be consistent: either everything in the Constitution is the legal equivalent of a vestigial organ left there by white slave owners, or nothing is. If we're going to can the Electoral College, well, obviously impeachment has to go too."

Chuck Shumer, glaring over his reading glasses, commented on the unnecessary complexity of the impeachment process. "There's more than you'd think," he said. "Everybody thinks impeachment means you're outta there, but it only means you've just been accused, and only the House can do that. Okay, well and good. But get this - after the House impeaches somebody, the impeachment trial goes to the Senate, and it takes two thirds of the Senate to agree to kick out the president. Two thirds! No way can I get that many votes. What good's a show trial if you can't get results?"

Congresswoman and Constitutional scholar Ocasio-Cortez also weighed in tweeting, "If all three chambers of government are involved, then the president could veto it, right? It's really messed up. Impeachment needs to be abolished and replaced with green energy. After all, we only have ten years to save the planet."

Some Democrat voters vented feelings of betrayal. A gender studies major at UCLA, Berkeley, posted on YouTube, "You mean Trump could still be our president!? *hyperventilating* I can't believe this is hap-happen-hap-happening to my nation! Somebody had BETTER FIX THIS NOW!" she opined before fainting. Protesters were asked to comment but only responded by scratching on the doors of the Capitol Building and shouting skyward, "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

Trying to salvage support among some angry Democrat voters, Pelosi promised to "repeal and replace" impeachment with a more streamlined version. "So we're thinking of a system where we trot out a few victims with messy hair to make some allegations about misconduct and if one party thinks he's guilty, out he goes! It would save time, precious taxpayers' money, and above all, the polar bears. I'm trying to save the polar bears."
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise... (show quote)


One fact is true. Democrats hate the Constitution.

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 09:17:39   #
JFlorio (a regular here)
 
You are gonna put some of the libs on here in a tizzy until the figure out its satire.
buffalo wrote:
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise, House Democrats have completely abandoned all plans to impeach President Trump. Going a step further, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has promised to sponsor legislation abolishing the impeachment process altogether. However, Democrats still plan to go ahead with their promise to eliminate the Electoral College.

A spokesman for the House speaker said earlier today, "Even though everybody wants to see the worst Republican president since Hitler kicked out of the White House, we realized that impeachment was just not the way to go. While we were researching the Electoral College as an ancient relic left over from the Constitution that needs to be abolished, one of our staff was startled to discover that the impeachment process was also in the same outdated Constitution. We had to be consistent: either everything in the Constitution is the legal equivalent of a vestigial organ left there by white slave owners, or nothing is. If we're going to can the Electoral College, well, obviously impeachment has to go too."

Chuck Shumer, glaring over his reading glasses, commented on the unnecessary complexity of the impeachment process. "There's more than you'd think," he said. "Everybody thinks impeachment means you're outta there, but it only means you've just been accused, and only the House can do that. Okay, well and good. But get this - after the House impeaches somebody, the impeachment trial goes to the Senate, and it takes two thirds of the Senate to agree to kick out the president. Two thirds! No way can I get that many votes. What good's a show trial if you can't get results?"

Congresswoman and Constitutional scholar Ocasio-Cortez also weighed in tweeting, "If all three chambers of government are involved, then the president could veto it, right? It's really messed up. Impeachment needs to be abolished and replaced with green energy. After all, we only have ten years to save the planet."

Some Democrat voters vented feelings of betrayal. A gender studies major at UCLA, Berkeley, posted on YouTube, "You mean Trump could still be our president!? *hyperventilating* I can't believe this is hap-happen-hap-happening to my nation! Somebody had BETTER FIX THIS NOW!" she opined before fainting. Protesters were asked to comment but only responded by scratching on the doors of the Capitol Building and shouting skyward, "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

Trying to salvage support among some angry Democrat voters, Pelosi promised to "repeal and replace" impeachment with a more streamlined version. "So we're thinking of a system where we trot out a few victims with messy hair to make some allegations about misconduct and if one party thinks he's guilty, out he goes! It would save time, precious taxpayers' money, and above all, the polar bears. I'm trying to save the polar bears."
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise... (show quote)

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 09:32:09   #
buffalo
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
One fact is true. Democrats hate the Constitution.


And trumpy. Now I am no fan of trumpy's because I do not like his tax cuts for the wealthy and mega-corporations with the LIE that it is going to help the middle class and working poor. Much of the improvement in the economy,. especially lower unemployment, actually began under his Oliness' reign.

I do not agree that a border wall, or whatever you want to call it, is the best solution to stop the invasion of the US by illegals, terrorists, drug and sex smugglers, criminals and gang members. A wall would also cut off access to parts of farmers' and ranchers' land and the river in many places.

IMO, stationing as many troops as necessary along the border and giving them the authority to use whatever means (force) necessary to stop the invasion would be a better solution. Think of the economic boom to all the US towns and cities along the border with the military and their families...housing, autos, clothes, local taxes, etc.

Also, stop the BILLIONS ( http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/02/10/514172676/mexicans-in-the-u-s-are-sending-home-more-money-than-ever ) being sent back to Mexico. As for paying for the troops...they were going to get paid regardless.

But the hate dim-o-craps and their moonbatty apparatchiks have for trumpy and the continual witch hunt to find something on him is ridiculous especially when the biggest criminals reside in their ranks, yet they overlook them.

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 09:38:36   #
Seth (a regular here)
 
buffalo wrote:
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise, House Democrats have completely abandoned all plans to impeach President Trump. Going a step further, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has promised to sponsor legislation abolishing the impeachment process altogether. However, Democrats still plan to go ahead with their promise to eliminate the Electoral College.

A spokesman for the House speaker said earlier today, "Even though everybody wants to see the worst Republican president since Hitler kicked out of the White House, we realized that impeachment was just not the way to go. While we were researching the Electoral College as an ancient relic left over from the Constitution that needs to be abolished, one of our staff was startled to discover that the impeachment process was also in the same outdated Constitution. We had to be consistent: either everything in the Constitution is the legal equivalent of a vestigial organ left there by white slave owners, or nothing is. If we're going to can the Electoral College, well, obviously impeachment has to go too."

Chuck Shumer, glaring over his reading glasses, commented on the unnecessary complexity of the impeachment process. "There's more than you'd think," he said. "Everybody thinks impeachment means you're outta there, but it only means you've just been accused, and only the House can do that. Okay, well and good. But get this - after the House impeaches somebody, the impeachment trial goes to the Senate, and it takes two thirds of the Senate to agree to kick out the president. Two thirds! No way can I get that many votes. What good's a show trial if you can't get results?"

Congresswoman and Constitutional scholar Ocasio-Cortez also weighed in tweeting, "If all three chambers of government are involved, then the president could veto it, right? It's really messed up. Impeachment needs to be abolished and replaced with green energy. After all, we only have ten years to save the planet."

Some Democrat voters vented feelings of betrayal. A gender studies major at UCLA, Berkeley, posted on YouTube, "You mean Trump could still be our president!? *hyperventilating* I can't believe this is hap-happen-hap-happening to my nation! Somebody had BETTER FIX THIS NOW!" she opined before fainting. Protesters were asked to comment but only responded by scratching on the doors of the Capitol Building and shouting skyward, "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

Trying to salvage support among some angry Democrat voters, Pelosi promised to "repeal and replace" impeachment with a more streamlined version. "So we're thinking of a system where we trot out a few victims with messy hair to make some allegations about misconduct and if one party thinks he's guilty, out he goes! It would save time, precious taxpayers' money, and above all, the polar bears. I'm trying to save the polar bears."
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise... (show quote)


LOL! First class!

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 09:48:14   #
Morgan
 
buffalo wrote:
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise, House Democrats have completely abandoned all plans to impeach President Trump. Going a step further, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has promised to sponsor legislation abolishing the impeachment process altogether. However, Democrats still plan to go ahead with their promise to eliminate the Electoral College.

A spokesman for the House speaker said earlier today, "Even though everybody wants to see the worst Republican president since Hitler kicked out of the White House, we realized that impeachment was just not the way to go. While we were researching the Electoral College as an ancient relic left over from the Constitution that needs to be abolished, one of our staff was startled to discover that the impeachment process was also in the same outdated Constitution. We had to be consistent: either everything in the Constitution is the legal equivalent of a vestigial organ left there by white slave owners, or nothing is. If we're going to can the Electoral College, well, obviously impeachment has to go too."





Chuck Shumer, glaring over his reading glasses, commented on the unnecessary complexity of the impeachment process. "There's more than you'd think," he said. "Everybody thinks impeachment means you're outta there, but it only means you've just been accused, and only the House can do that. Okay, well and good. But get this - after the House impeaches somebody, the impeachment trial goes to the Senate, and it takes two thirds of the Senate to agree to kick out the president. Two thirds! No way can I get that many votes. What good's a show trial if you can't get results?"

Congresswoman and Constitutional scholar Ocasio-Cortez also weighed in tweeting, "If all three chambers of government are involved, then the president could veto it, right? It's really messed up. Impeachment needs to be abolished and replaced with green energy. After all, we only have ten years to save the planet."

Some Democrat voters vented feelings of betrayal. A gender studies major at UCLA, Berkeley, posted on YouTube, "You mean Trump could still be our president!? *hyperventilating* I can't believe this is hap-happen-hap-happening to my nation! Somebody had BETTER FIX THIS NOW!" she opined before fainting. Protesters were asked to comment but only responded by scratching on the doors of the Capitol Building and shouting skyward, "NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!"

Trying to salvage support among some angry Democrat voters, Pelosi promised to "repeal and replace" impeachment with a more streamlined version. "So we're thinking of a system where we trot out a few victims with messy hair to make some allegations about misconduct and if one party thinks he's guilty, out he goes! It would save time, precious taxpayers' money, and above all, the polar bears. I'm trying to save the polar bears."
In a startling reversal of a core campaign promise... (show quote)


Whenever we go to make any kind of constitutional changes, we should think what is the highest good for the country, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander, because sooner or later things are going to come full circle and they'll be standing in their shoes.

I'm of the thought if a sitting president has done treasonous acts, we should not have to wait to bring him to court and allow him to finish his term. If these treasonous actions have been validated and have been proven, we should not wait for a vote by the house to impeach nor to depend on the Senate to possibly absolve him because he's their party guy, as I say what goes around, comes around.

Have we lost our true justice? Now with a party majority influence in the Supreme Court, a righteous verdict may not be possible, and we are beginning to see the signs of an absolute authority of one party.

Are we too late?

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 09:56:05   #
JFlorio (a regular here)
 
There often is a party majority in the Supreme Court. In your mind does that mean the Justices made flawed decisions because of party? Before you answer, ask yourself this, when is the last time you had to wonder which way a liberal judge would vote on a huge an important challenge?
Morgan wrote:
Whenever we go to make any kind of constitutional changes, we should think what is the highest good for the country, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander, because sooner or later things are going to come full circle and they'll be standing in their shoes.

I'm of the thought if a sitting president has done treasonous acts, we should not have to wait to bring him to court and allow him to finish his term. If these treasonous actions have been validated and have been proven, we should not wait for a vote by the house to impeach nor to depend on the Senate to possibly absolve him because he's their party guy, as I say what goes around, comes around.

Have we lost our true justice? Now with a party majority influence in the Supreme Court, a righteous verdict may not be possible, and we are beginning to see the signs of an absolute authority of one party.

Are we too late?
Whenever we go to make any kind of constitutional ... (show quote)

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 10:08:31   #
Morgan
 
JFlorio wrote:
There often is a party majority in the Supreme Court. In your mind does that mean the Justices made flawed decisions because of party? Before you answer, ask yourself this, when is the last time you had to wonder which way a liberal judge would vote on a huge an important challenge?


There are nine judges, we should divide the seats up into thirds, three to the left, three to the right, three unaffiliated. This would better ensure a balanced vote. I can say the same, when was the last time you had to wonder which way a conservative judge would vote on a huge an important challenge? What happened with the whole Citizens United or the Patriot Act, both of which have had a devastating impact on our country.

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 10:26:59   #
JFlorio (a regular here)
 
LOL. Did you forget Obamacare and Roberts vote. More recently Kavanaugh voted opposite of what Trump wanted. I disagreed with both the Patriot Act and Cotizens United. As most conservatives did.
Morgan wrote:
There are nine judges, we should divide the seats up into thirds, three to the left, three to the right, three unaffiliated. This would better ensure a balanced vote. I can say the same, when was the last time you had to wonder which way a conservative judge would vote on a huge an important challenge? What happened with the whole Citizens United or the Patriot Act, both of which have had a devastating impact on our country.

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 10:33:18   #
Bad Bob
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
One fact is true. Democrats hate the Constitution.


Where do you get that Einstein?

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 10:38:27   #
Seth (a regular here)
 
Morgan wrote:
Whenever we go to make any kind of constitutional changes, we should think what is the highest good for the country, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander, because sooner or later things are going to come full circle and they'll be standing in their shoes.

I'm of the thought if a sitting president has done treasonous acts, we should not have to wait to bring him to court and allow him to finish his term. If these treasonous actions have been validated and have been proven, we should not wait for a vote by the house to impeach nor to depend on the Senate to possibly absolve him because he's their party guy, as I say what goes around, comes around.

Have we lost our true justice? Now with a party majority influence in the Supreme Court, a righteous verdict may not be possible, and we are beginning to see the signs of an absolute authority of one party.

Are we too late?
Whenever we go to make any kind of constitutional ... (show quote)


A Supreme Court justice is supposed to be guided by the letter of the Constitution, not by what he believes to be "right" or "just" according to his/her personal political beliefs.

Conservative leaning justices, BECAUSE they are conservatives, tend to do just that because it was what the founders invented SCOTUS for to begin with.

Ginsburg and the other "progressives," however, let their mares-eat-oats and does-eat-oats liberal dogmas guide their decisions, and that is not what the founders intended.

The purpose of the Electoral College was and is to make sure that Americans in every segment of America have a voice in electing presidents. The founders were a hell of a lot smarter than anyone fielded by today's Democrats. They knew that it was human nature that a) the large coastal states would inevitably have the most concentrated of U.S. populations, along with the most people of academic background, that b) such people have a tendency for what is today called "progressive" thinking and would be most likely, seeing themselves as an intellectual elite, to try and enact change, not necessarily a good thing, according to the fiat of their "progressive" political beliefs, and that c) due to their sheer numbers could nullify the votes of Americans living throughout the rest of the country.

In other words, the Electoral College prevents "mob rule." It is a sound principle.

Your talk of impeachment is purely politically motivated; Trump has done nothing to deserve impeachment, in fact his administration thusfar has seen nothing of the magnitude of Fast & Furious, Benghazi, the IRS kerfuffle, Hillary's pay-to-play stint as SecState, Uranium One, treaties signed without consent of the Congress and other fun things that occurred on Obama's watch, all conveniently ignored by an irresponsible left wing mainstream media.

The only reason Trump is under constant assault as he is? Because he won the election that "belonged to Hillary" according to a system that's served this country well for most of our history.

The only thing you've posted above that I agree with is that parties should be careful about enacting policies that might come full circle, and interestingly enough, the party that needs most to heed that advice is the Democrats, since they're the folks who keep straying from the norms for the convenience of the moment.

From where I sit, that in itself is one of many indicators that the Democratic Party is no longer fit to lead the country: they are incapable of evaluating the long term consequences of actions for which they are responsible, whether it is setting bad precedent or obligating the taxpayer to indelible long term economic disasters.

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 10:38:37   #
Morgan
 
JFlorio wrote:
LOL. Did you forget Obamacare and Roberts vote. More recently Kavanaugh voted opposite of what Trump wanted. I disagreed with both the Patriot Act and Cotizens United. As most conservatives did.


Whether you agreed or not, was not the point. Yes, I'm not denying that and I'm sure if I look I can find the same on the left, my point was to better secure a balance... as in Congress, there could be a set party of seats in order to ensure a more foolproof balanced vote.

I don't believe any party majority should rule in the Supreme Court

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 10:44:41   #
JFlorio (a regular here)
 
Shouldn’t have to do it that way. Would kind of kill the Independence of the Court. Bet you can’t find any example on the left either. We don’t look for balanced votes from the Court. We look for votes based on sound Constitutional Law.
Morgan wrote:
Whether you agreed or not, was not the point. Yes, I'm not denying that and I'm sure if I look I can find the same on the left, my point was to better secure a balance... as in Congress, there could be a set party of seats in order to ensure a more foolproof balanced vote.

| Reply
Jan 8, 2019 10:52:09   #
Morgan
 
JFlorio wrote:
Shouldn’t have to do it that way. Would kind of kill the Independence of the Court. Bet you can’t find any example on the left either. We don’t look for balanced votes from the Court. We look for votes based on sound Constitutional Law.


No that ensures it, when one party is rolling over the other that is an act of suppression. The judges are "suppose" to do it the way you say ideally, in reality, it doesn't always happen. When I say balanced, I'm speaking of representing all the people, not just one side or the other. Yes, based on sound constitutional law is always what we always want.

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.