MovieChat Forums > beermonkey70 > Replies
beermonkey70's Replies
Well that makes sense.. a police homicide unit exists to do homicides right?
It like arguing with a child except you are clearly the child here
You can't parse simple English. It must not be your native language or you dropped out of school before middle school because there's no other rationale for this nonsense
Read slowly .. these are the statements I have made
1. .. that the impeachment was the will of the people .
are we clear on that?
2. ... that impeachment was justified because the charges were legit (you don't agree ,ok ,but that's a different topic)
got it so far??
3 ... that being the "will of of the people" is NOT the REASON that it's justified
(I've probably gone over your head but its worth a shot)
therefore..
so why was the "will of the people" mentioned in the first place
4.. that acting on the "will of the people" means democracy was not being subverted as you claimed
these 4 statements are internally consistent and consistent with what I stated earlier
not sure I can make it any simpler
again I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you
you quoted
"I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for"
I never said the will of the people is what makes it justified
You attempt at proving I said that does not accomplish that
The second statement that you quoted only establishes that it was in fact the will of the people
Your inability to parse English is astonishing.
"The "will of the people" is represented by the vote.
Did you fall asleep that day in Civics class?"
Poor reading comprehension again from you and now just arguing in bad faith.
You know full well that I AM WELL AWARE THAT THE VOTE REPRESENTS THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I explained this clearly several time. The 2018 mid term was the vote. The will of the people are the policy decisions and actions that the people voted them in to execute
Also your justification of his illegal actions is an absolute joke. He cant investigate political rivals for good reason and he sure as hell cant pressure a foreign gov't to do so
"That's you, saying I'm agreeing with you."
You quoted yourself paraphrasing my previous and adding your own spin that completely changed the meaning.. hence straw man
" it's justified because that's what they voted for"
Nope never said that. Your reading comprehension is so bad there is little point in trying to explain. I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you.
It's justified because the charges were legit and would have been legit if they decided to impeach on the earlier mentioned obstruction charge.
I never said that it's justified because that's what they voted for
What I did say was that this impeachment was the will of the people which refutes the idea that it a subversion of democracy.
Being the will the people doesn't justify an action in and of itself. That is a different debate
"So wait, you're claiming that the Democrats were justified in making up bullshit claims to impeach Trump, because some idiots voted for them to make up bullshit claims to impeach Trump?"
Another straw man argument. Never said that but I've explained why you're wrong
"Wow. You're fucking Einstein."
Actually this is about the most truthful statement you've made yet.
You intended sarcasm but actually got it right. I am clearly your intellectual superior
"Please explain how any of the official reasons they impeached Trump were "known by the 2018 election" as you claimed."
I never said anything about "official" reasons. Although some of the context behind the official reason was known before 2018.
The impetus for the impeachment is not limited to the official reason the conversation was taking place in 2018 ex: many wanted to impeach for obstruction of justice (termination of Comey)
This was also the case with Clinton. You know damn he wasn't impeached over a bj or lying about a bj ( prejury, the official reason)
"So the 2018 election couldn't have been a mandate for impeaching Trump, if Trump hadn't yet committed the 'crimes' he was impeached for"
It was whether you like it or not. Facts dont care about your feelings. The people wanted him impeached for obstruction of justice which they already knew about.
"Now, if you want to admit that some idiots voted for House Democrats because they hoped the Democrats would make up some bullshit charges to impeach Trump over, you wouldn't be lying about that."
LOL now you're conceding the point OK thanks
Even Madagascar is considered Sub-Saharan Africa so . .yea just say Africa
Both statements are technically true. Facts came out after the 2016 election not before.
The point being the people voted for Trump before we knew all of the things he would do and the people voted the 2018 congress knowing full well they wanted to impeach him (you even admit this and made a point about it)
But you have no real argument so you resort to name calling
You're lost
"Again, how can a president be impeached and remain in office?"
I've already answered the ever loving shit out of this question. That's not what impeachment does. Impeachment is a step Conviction is ANOTHER STEP that end in removal.
"If you dont get removed for being impeached, then why impeach people in the first place?"
As I said because its the first hurdle.
That's like saying why do we indict people in the first place if indicted people don't go to prison
then you posted this again as if it supports your argument
"the penalty for an impeached official <b>upon conviction</b> is removal from office."
it doesn't . You are not parsing that correctly.
Impeached + convicted = removed
Impeached but not convicted = stays in office... still was impeached though
"If we follow that same logic, a person convicted of crime is found not guilty, but is still convicted of that same crime."
Nope you used the wrong word there should be ..
a person indicted of crime is found not guilty, but was still indicted
"Do you understand what "By that logic" means?"
It means you're about to twist someone's words
Yes the Ukraine phone call happened in 2019, Hence the word "some" in my post. It wasn't the only charge but yes it was the event that caused the impeachment to move forward.
I will concede that the most damaging stuff wasnt known until after the 2018 election
But the fact you can't get around is that America wanted him impeached in November 2018 before the Ukraine was even known about and voted in a congress knowing they would do exactly that if the chance. Trump has been corrupt his entire life we all knew it was a matter of time.
"No, that's your dumbass logic. According to you, anything a politician does while in office is justified because they were voted into office."
No its YOUR logic You said he was carrying out the will of people when he solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection and therefore its ok
"Again, Trump WAS impeached in the House, he WAS found not guilty in the Senate."
The senate doesn't find you "not guilty" but I'm not going to delve into the semantics on that. He was not convicted. I know that.
"If acquittal doesnt reverse the impeachment then that means Trump is still impeached and OJ is still guilty."
Yes it means the impeachment was not reversed. NO , it doesn't mean OJ is still guilty. They are two different things Again you are not grasping that and conflating impeachment with verdict.
Also why would you say "still" guilty regarding OJ? In the eyes of the law he was presumed innocent even after indictment.
'If Trump is still impeached then why was he not removed from office?"
You must have rocks in your head . How do you not grasp this.????
You dont get removed from office when you are impeached just like you dont get sentenced when you are indicted.
Bill Clinton was impeached too and still remained in office. He was and still is referred to as an "impeached" president
"The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official upon conviction is removal from office."
Correct.. and an impeached official who is not convicted stays in office.
"If a jury is split 6/5 for a not guilty vote, it doesnt mean that a person was in fact guilty."
Then it would be a hung jury and state could either try him again or drop the charges. There is certainly a difference here between that and an actual acquittal
You are conflating impeachment with guilt.
Trump was impeached twice. FULL FUCKING STOP.
He was "acquitted" as was OJ despite both actually having committed the offenses
The acquittal doesn't reverse the impeachment as you have said. He was STILL impeached. By your logic president has ever been impeached.
Also, on the second one the senate voted 57-43 in favor of conviction but the constitution requires 2/3 (67 senators)
This means due to partisanship every impeach will ALWAYS result in acquittal.
However Trump was the first ever to get conviction votes (5) from his own party. That fact is the best indication that the charges were legit
https://bookriot.com/texas-book-ban-list/
"By that logic, Trump was acting on the will of the people who voted him into office"
By your logic no one would ever be impeached. The impeachment was based on facts that came out after the 2016 election. Some of these facts were known by the 2018 election and people voted accordingly.
Also the house of representatives are elected directly by the people while the president is elected by electors therefore the house more closely represents the will of the people.
The different ways of electing these 2 entities is part of our system of checks and balances. Trump got checked
.
"How could he be impeached for that?"
The house's desire to impeach wasn't a secret. We voted congress in to do just that.
clueless on so many levels
A pardon is NOT at all the same. As I explained the ,pardoned criminal IS STILL considered GUILTY. In fact accepting a pardon is an ADMISSION of GUILT. Some have refused or considered refusing because they didn't want to admit guilt.
"if what you are saying is true, then that means OJ is still guilty of killing 2 people"
Poor reading comprehension on your part
I mean, OJ DID kill 2 people regardless of the outcome.
But nothing I said would imply that the law would still consider him "guilty" after his acquittal. OJ was INDICTED for murder then acquitted (wrongly) but that doesn't mean he wasn't indicted. Learn what words mean
"its a good thing you are not a judge because everyone would still be guilty"
WRONG just awful reading comprehension here .. embarrassing on your part
The charges were not bogus.
"You're removing the person elected by the people. Especially since they vowed to impeach him the day after he was elected. They made their intentions clear."
OK. The people knew their intentions but still voted all of them into office in 2018.
The impeachment was the will of the people carried out by the very people that we the people voted into office. It was democracy in action
"I guess it would be similar to a pardon. If a person is pardoned they are no longer guilty of the crime."
This is ALSO wrong, in fact it's VERY wrong. A person that accepts a pardon by definition ADMITS guilt (that's in the constitution in regards to the presidential pardon) A pardon frees a guilty person who (theoretically) deserves freedom. It should happen if a law is unjust or the sentence is unjust although there may be cases where the person was unjustly convicted and the pardon was the only recourse. An innocent could refuse a pardon if they don't want to admit guilt
The word you're looking for is exoneration , . That actually reverses a conviction. Even so, an exonerated person would be have been indicted (which is analagous to impeachment)
Even IF the constitutional process of impeachment had resulted in a conviction (it requires 2/3 majority which means its basically impossible) the result would be that Pence would become president and Pence would nominate a new VP. It wouldn't overthrow democracy in any way shape or form
Grasping at straws doesn't mean something is technically false, it usually means false equivocation and your post was full of that.
The items that are factually wrong are
"Nancy tried to subvert democracy by trying to impeach Trump twice."
An impeachment does NOT "subvert democracy". It is a constitutional process carried out for representatives who are elected by the people. Contrast that with storming the capitol and threatening the VP to not certify the results which NOT a constitutional process
"rampant inflation"
inflation has not yet outpaced wage increase so by definition its not rampant.
"this election was a sham and was stolen from us"
They said the election was interfered with not "stolen" nor was it referred to as a "sham"
The rest of your statement were false equivalencies and/or misleading