Trump laws

[BULLDOG]

McConnell already said trump was guilty of the charge in the impeachment.

He also voted against it.

And his reasoning was sound for that vote. As much as a detest Moscow Mitch, he was 100% dead on. You can't impeach someone AFTER they leave office. It becomes the Judicials juristiction.

You could be right, but I'm not sure. The constitution laid out how impeachment trials are handled, and then gave the senate authority to change that in the same article. The Senate is free to hold an impeachment trial any way they see fit. Proposals for what will, or won't be allowed is proposed and debated, and then there is a vote to procede with the rules that have been chosen. If the majority votes to procede, the rules are set. The Senate voted to procede with the trial, so that means they gave themselves authority to determine trump's guilt or innocence. Looks like McConnell was wrong about having the authority to find him guilty.

 

[BULLDOG]

and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments

You are not a total Communist? That isn't Marxism? What about that dictatorship of the proletariat that takes the place of the monied class of capitalists? Isn't that the same thing?

No dumb ass. It's making sure our president doesn't use his office to make money. Are you too stupid to see that?

Well since he gets a salary you better look at that again. That’s making money from your office. TDS thread #25,764

You are stupid, aren't you?

Well dummy, explain how getting a salary for holding the office is not gaining profit from that office? You can start sputtering and stammering in impotence now.

As I said before, You are really stupid.

SO you can’t answer a simple question. That makes YOU really stupid. Your surrender is noted.

Wages for serving in an office are not the same as making money as in the emoluments clause, dumb ass. I knew you were stupid, but I never met someone that stupid before.

hey asshole, you never mentioned the emoluments clause. You stated, “profit from the office”. Which taking a salary means. Maybe YOU need to not move those goalposts asshole. You got caught and now you’re trying to add things you didn’t originally say to try to cover your ass. Wow you’re a fucking moron. And you’re bitch slapped.

Salary is not profit. Even the IRS recognizes that. They are handled differently. Again, you are a real dumb ass.

 

[lantern2814]

and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments

You are not a total Communist? That isn't Marxism? What about that dictatorship of the proletariat that takes the place of the monied class of capitalists? Isn't that the same thing?

No dumb ass. It's making sure our president doesn't use his office to make money. Are you too stupid to see that?

Well since he gets a salary you better look at that again. That’s making money from your office. TDS thread #25,764

You are stupid, aren't you?

Well dummy, explain how getting a salary for holding the office is not gaining profit from that office? You can start sputtering and stammering in impotence now.

As I said before, You are really stupid.

SO you can’t answer a simple question. That makes YOU really stupid. Your surrender is noted.

Wages for serving in an office are not the same as making money as in the emoluments clause, dumb ass. I knew you were stupid, but I never met someone that stupid before.

hey asshole, you never mentioned the emoluments clause. You stated, “profit from the office”. Which taking a salary means. Maybe YOU need to not move those goalposts asshole. You got caught and now you’re trying to add things you didn’t originally say to try to cover your ass. Wow you’re a fucking moron. And you’re bitch slapped.

Salary is not profit. Even the IRS recognizes that. They are handled differently. Again, you are a real dumb ass.

So your claim now is that that $400,000 salary was money the person would have had anyway? Without being in that office? What an asshole you are. Moving the goalposts again. And getting bitch slapped again. Seems your dumb ass can’t even answer your own idiocy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And his reasoning was sound for that vote. As much as a detest Moscow Mitch, he was 100% dead on. You can't impeach someone AFTER they leave office. It becomes the Judicials juristiction.

Which Benedict Roberts wouldn't even entertain.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow,do you mean that I have a 1st amendment right to invade the US Congress when it doesn't go the way I demand it does? Thanks for that clarification. Don't know about you, but if I were to entice a group to do that in my own name then I wouldn't see sunlight for at least 20 years.

But when we do it, we'll just tell them you said it was okay.

Is that what you think? A quick scenario here: You and your neighbor are talking over the fence. You tell him you need money so badly you are almost ready to rob a bank. So your neighbor actually does rob a bank to give you the money you need. Who do the police arrest, you or your neighbor?

The first amendment guarantees our right to free speech whether government likes that speech or not. Unless you can find the actual words Trump used to incite this riot, then there is no case. You can't blame Trump for how people reacted to what he said.

Furthermore we have several bits of evidence that whatever Trump said had nothing to do with the riot. The pipe bombs were planted well before that day or Trump's speech. The FBI warned the Capital police of a riot possibility the day before, and they came armed with zip lock handcuffs. This was not a spontaneous reaction to a speech, this was planned well ahead of time.

So now that it's been established that Trump's speech had nothing to do with the riot, what they actually impeached him on was exercising his first amendment rights.

 

[BULLDOG]

and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments

You are not a total Communist? That isn't Marxism? What about that dictatorship of the proletariat that takes the place of the monied class of capitalists? Isn't that the same thing?

No dumb ass. It's making sure our president doesn't use his office to make money. Are you too stupid to see that?

Well since he gets a salary you better look at that again. That’s making money from your office. TDS thread #25,764

You are stupid, aren't you?

Well dummy, explain how getting a salary for holding the office is not gaining profit from that office? You can start sputtering and stammering in impotence now.

As I said before, You are really stupid.

SO you can’t answer a simple question. That makes YOU really stupid. Your surrender is noted.

Wages for serving in an office are not the same as making money as in the emoluments clause, dumb ass. I knew you were stupid, but I never met someone that stupid before.

hey asshole, you never mentioned the emoluments clause. You stated, “profit from the office”. Which taking a salary means. Maybe YOU need to not move those goalposts asshole. You got caught and now you’re trying to add things you didn’t originally say to try to cover your ass. Wow you’re a fucking moron. And you’re bitch slapped.

Salary is not profit. Even the IRS recognizes that. They are handled differently. Again, you are a real dumb ass.

So your claim now is that that $400,000 salary was money the person would have had anyway? Without being in that office? What an asshole you are. Moving the goalposts again. And getting bitch slapped again. Seems your dumb ass can’t even answer your own idiocy.

I've explained it enough. Wages and profit are not the same. If you can't get that, you are too stupid to deal with.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

McConnell already said trump was guilty of the charge in the impeachment.

He also voted against it.

And his reasoning was sound for that vote. As much as a detest Moscow Mitch, he was 100% dead on. You can't impeach someone AFTER they leave office. It becomes the Judicials juristiction.

You could be right, but I'm not sure. The constitution laid out how impeachment trials are handled, and then gave the senate authority to change that in the same article. The Senate is free to hold an impeachment trial any way they see fit. Proposals for what will, or won't be allowed is proposed and debated, and then there is a vote to procede with the rules that have been chosen. If the majority votes to procede, the rules are set. The Senate voted to procede with the trial, so that means they gave themselves authority to determine trump's guilt or innocence. Looks like McConnell was wrong about having the authority to find him guilty.

Again, the Senate doesn't have the power to find anyone guilty or innocent. They only vote to remove a public figure from office (and maybe prevent them from holding another fed job) or they don't. There is no Guilt or Innocents. That is up to the Civilian Court System.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And his reasoning was sound for that vote. As much as a detest Moscow Mitch, he was 100% dead on. You can't impeach someone AFTER they leave office. It becomes the Judicials juristiction.

Which Benedict Roberts wouldn't even entertain.

Are you sure? Did you ask him about it? Give us the cite on that one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow,do you mean that I have a 1st amendment right to invade the US Congress when it doesn't go the way I demand it does? Thanks for that clarification. Don't know about you, but if I were to entice a group to do that in my own name then I wouldn't see sunlight for at least 20 years.

But when we do it, we'll just tell them you said it was okay.

Is that what you think? A quick scenario here: You and your neighbor are talking over the fence. You tell him you need money so badly you are almost ready to rob a bank. So your neighbor actually does rob a bank to give you the money you need. Who do the police arrest, you or your neighbor?

The first amendment guarantees our right to free speech whether government likes that speech or not. Unless you can find the actual words Trump used to incite this riot, then there is no case. You can't blame Trump for how people reacted to what he said.

Furthermore we have several bits of evidence that whatever Trump said had nothing to do with the riot. The pipe bombs were planted well before that day or Trump's speech. The FBI warned the Capital police of a riot possibility the day before, and they came armed with zip lock handcuffs. This was not a spontaneous reaction to a speech, this was planned well ahead of time.

So now that it's been established that Trump's speech had nothing to do with the riot, what they actually impeached him on was exercising his first amendment rights.

Hate to break it to you but only in your empty mind does what you say make sense. In the RW, Rump is guilty as all hell. And there is going to be some kind of criminal court action on it against him even if it's only done the District of Columbia.

 

[Fueri]

I don't know about specifics, but any law must apply equally to congress, as they are a supposedly co-equal branch, so we cannot weaken one without similarly holding the other to account.

IMHO, this applies more to Congress at this point than the president. Congress outlasts the president, as we see here.

And that's the problem, as it always is. Congress makes the laws that govern itself. Glaring hole in the process as at this point that self-oversight is being handled by the most amoral pieces of crap imaginable.

They'll be happy to pass laws to strap the president, as it increases their relative power, but anything that clips their wings won't fly far....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hate to break it to you but only in your empty mind does what you say make sense. In the RW, Rump is guilty as all hell. And there is going to be some kind of criminal court action on it against him even if it's only done the District of Columbia.

You can't use the courts against a citizen for what he or she did while serving the federal government. Furthermore, a court uses laws, empirical evidence, and facts. The Nazis impeached on claimed mind reading abilities. There are no Thought Police in our court system. The Nazis believe the book 1984 is a Democrat instruction manual.

You see, in a court of law, they would have to present to the court actual words--not what they "thought" some words meant. They would have to allow the defendant the ability to refute presented evidence, something the Nazis didn't allow in the House impeachment. They simply said "Trump did this" and impeached him on it. They didn't even operate this way in the former USSR.

You can support these un-Americans all you like, but the rest of us will continue to try and keep this a free country guided by the US Constitution.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you sure? Did you ask him about it? Give us the cite on that one.

He refused to preside, didn't he?

 

[bripat9643]

In the aftermath of trump, it's clear that our laws are not sufficient to stop an immoral, unethical president, who cares more about his own brand than he does about the country. By right, those should be called " trump laws ", because he exposed our need for them. We can start by requiring all tax records from candidates, and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments, and strengthening our emoluments laws. Both parties should be interested in limiting the extralegal shenanigans we have seen because the next loose cannon could be from either party. Any ideas for more laws that should be enacted to assure the integrity of our politics?

Another colossally stupid idea.

 

[bripat9643]

In the aftermath of trump, it's clear that our laws are not sufficient to stop an immoral, unethical president, who cares more about his own brand than he does about the country. By right, those should be called " trump laws ", because he exposed our need for them. We can start by requiring all tax records from candidates, and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments, and strengthening our emoluments laws.

So you’re essentially demanding that no qualified US Citizen ever be allowed to run for POTUS ever again. No sane, intelligent and successful individual would EVER agree to those demands.

That's exactly what they want.

 

[Nostra]

In the aftermath of trump, it's clear that our laws are not sufficient to stop an immoral, unethical president, who cares more about his own brand than he does about the country. By right, those should be called " trump laws ", because he exposed our need for them. We can start by requiring all tax records from candidates, and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments, and strengthening our emoluments laws. Both parties should be interested in limiting the extralegal shenanigans we have seen because the next loose cannon could be from either party. Any ideas for more laws that should be enacted to assure the integrity of our politics?

Would you require the same from all those in Congress?

 

[Nostra]

In the aftermath of trump, it's clear that our laws are not sufficient to stop an immoral, unethical president, who cares more about his own brand than he does about the country. By right, those should be called " trump laws ", because he exposed our need for them. We can start by requiring all tax records from candidates, and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments, and strengthening our emoluments laws. Both parties should be interested in limiting the extralegal shenanigans we have seen because the next loose cannon could be from either party. Any ideas for more laws that should be enacted to assure the integrity of our politics?

Oh.....get better soon!

 

[bripat9643]

McConnell already said trump was guilty of the charge in the impeachment.

He also voted against it.

And his reasoning was sound for that vote. As much as a detest Moscow Mitch, he was 100% dead on. You can't impeach someone AFTER they leave office. It becomes the Judicials juristiction.

You could be right, but I'm not sure. The constitution laid out how impeachment trials are handled, and then gave the senate authority to change that in the same article. The Senate is free to hold an impeachment trial any way they see fit. Proposals for what will, or won't be allowed is proposed and debated, and then there is a vote to procede with the rules that have been chosen. If the majority votes to procede, the rules are set. The Senate voted to procede with the trial, so that means they gave themselves authority to determine trump's guilt or innocence. Looks like McConnell was wrong about having the authority to find him guilty.

The Constitution does not give the Senate authority to hold an impeachment trial for someone who isn't the president, and it doesn't allow them to impeach without the Chief Justice presiding. The Constitution does not give the Senate authority to alter the rules specified in the Constitution.

You and Daryl are a couple of NAZI morons.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow,do you mean that I have a 1st amendment right to invade the US Congress when it doesn't go the way I demand it does? Thanks for that clarification. Don't know about you, but if I were to entice a group to do that in my own name then I wouldn't see sunlight for at least 20 years.

But when we do it, we'll just tell them you said it was okay.

Is that what you think? A quick scenario here: You and your neighbor are talking over the fence. You tell him you need money so badly you are almost ready to rob a bank. So your neighbor actually does rob a bank to give you the money you need. Who do the police arrest, you or your neighbor?

The first amendment guarantees our right to free speech whether government likes that speech or not. Unless you can find the actual words Trump used to incite this riot, then there is no case. You can't blame Trump for how people reacted to what he said.

Furthermore we have several bits of evidence that whatever Trump said had nothing to do with the riot. The pipe bombs were planted well before that day or Trump's speech. The FBI warned the Capital police of a riot possibility the day before, and they came armed with zip lock handcuffs. This was not a spontaneous reaction to a speech, this was planned well ahead of time.

So now that it's been established that Trump's speech had nothing to do with the riot, what they actually impeached him on was exercising his first amendment rights.

Hate to break it to you but only in your empty mind does what you say make sense. In the RW, Rump is guilty as all hell. And there is going to be some kind of criminal court action on it against him even if it's only done the District of Columbia.

In the real world, Trump was acquitted. In the real world, Trump hasn't committed any crimes. Pissing off Reich minions is not a crime.

Reich minions are totally delusional. They believed the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax for 4 years, and now they imagine Trump is guilty of some kind of crime.

 

[bripat9643]

In the aftermath of trump, it's clear that our laws are not sufficient to stop an immoral, unethical president, who cares more about his own brand than he does about the country. By right, those should be called " trump laws ", because he exposed our need for them. We can start by requiring all tax records from candidates, and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments, and strengthening our emoluments laws. Both parties should be interested in limiting the extralegal shenanigans we have seen because the next loose cannon could be from either party. Any ideas for more laws that should be enacted to assure the integrity of our politics?

The constitution specifies the requiements to run for president, and Congress can't change them, you fucking moron.

 

[366h34d]

In the aftermath of trump, it's clear that our laws are not sufficient to stop an immoral, unethical president, who cares more about his own brand than he does about the country. By right, those should be called " trump laws ", because he exposed our need for them. We can start by requiring all tax records from candidates, and requiring real, verified divestment of ALL investments, and strengthening our emoluments laws. Both parties should be interested in limiting the extralegal shenanigans we have seen because the next loose cannon could be from either party. Any ideas for more laws that should be enacted to assure the integrity of our politics?

Can you tell me how he immoral and unethical? After seeing Biden and Harris 'won' the election, I always wonder about this too. It is because they just have someone even worse

BTW, You better not watch too much MSM.

P.S. I am not a trump supporter.