The hell are you talking about? He's accused of fomenting an attempted insurrection, one which we all saw happen on live TV.
He exclusively made friends with dictators, and gave them tons of concessions without receiving anything in return. That's not how a strong leader operates.
…are you having trouble reading too, then? I don’t exactly know what you’re talking about, your post is word salad, but I’ll gather what I can before I finish the conversation with you. If you listened to the phone call then you wouldn’t be saying what you’re saying now, unless you have severe memory issues or trouble with comprehension skills. For the record, here’s the transcript:
Bill Clinton was impeached for lying to congress, not “a sex thing”. Nobody cares about his scepter getting polished by interns, that wasn’t the issue. He was indeed caught in a cleverly constructed trap, but ultimately he’s the one who lied under oath. Shame, considering I quite liked the guy as a president.
“Literally not what he said or asked for”, again, and anyone can verify that for themselves by just reading what he actually said, yes. I don’t know why you find that amusing considering it directly contradicts what you said - you purport Trump asked Raffenspberger to “find votes for him”. He didn’t do that. Through the exchange he’s talking about finding fraudulent votes, not votes for himself. That’s about all there is to it."But but but, that's not what he meant!", again?
When did Trump lie to congress under oath? He also didn’t “escape impeachment” - Trump’s been impeached twice, he was simply acquitted of the charges because there wasn’t ample evidence to prove he’s committed any offense. Congress can move to impeach the sitting president at any time, for any reason - it doesn’t mean anything in isolation and doesn’t bar Trump from running again.
You’re clearly not very familiar with the history of the office then. Not that it matters - if your complaint here is that he wasn’t charged because congress followed the letter of the law then I don’t really know what to tell you.
People don’t get charged with crimes just because you don’t like them.
Why would he ever testify before congress? To get trapped in an impeachment trap, like Clinton did? That’d be idiotic on his part. Innocent until proven guilty - he has the same rights as any other American and is under no obligation to testify if he believes that would implicate him somehow. It was congress’ job to collect material evidence of wrong-doing, and they failed to do so, so acquittal was the only correct path forward. As a side note, repeating yourself doesn’t make you right - doubling down on silly is doubly silly, which is precisely why I said that the conversation about the call is effectively over. There are no “but buts” about it, nobody is splitting hairs over what Trump “meant”, or “implied” - he didn’t say what you accuse him of saying, period. It’s never brought up in the call. It’s not open to interpretation. You can continue to be stubborn about it, it’s really no skin off my back. Other than being spammy, your response adds nothing to the conversation, so it’s safe to assume you have no rebuttal and your further input on the matter can be safely ignored."But but but, that's not what he meant!", again?
Yet you're fine with people getting away with crimes because you like them. Funny how that works. Coward Trump wouldn't even testify at his own impeachment hearings because they knew he'd commit perjury every other breath.
People have this weird obsession with the electoral college, but it existed to solve the communication problem that was solved decades ago.
It's only a trap if he's guilty, like Clinton was.
Are you asking why republicans didn't impeach Trump?
That’s not the reason why the electoral college was established. The founders wrote at length about their reasoning behind it. It’s intended as a buffer between the population and the selection process which serves two purposes - firstly, it balances the voting power of larger and smaller states to ensure that they’re properly represented in the union. Secondly, a smaller group of electors chosen from the population is more likely to make an informed decision than a mob of people - it’s a presidential election, not a popularity contest. It’s supposed to be about policy, not about whether the candidate is endearing or not. Communication was certainly easier when sending electors as opposed to large shipments of ballots, but that wasn’t the primary concern - the concern was populism. An excerpt from the Federalist 68:
If communication was the sole reason behind the existence of the electoral college, it would’ve become obsolete with the invention of the telegraph. That, of course, wasn’t the case then, and isn’t the case now.
Plenty of innocent people in prison. You should never testify in your own defense unless absolutely, positively necessary, and only under the advice of an attorney. This is court proceedings 101 - “if you’re innocent then you have nothing to hide” is a tired argument. Either they have evidence or they don’t - prosecutors are not your friends. “Nothing to hide” is the weakest of weak sauce - come up with something better. Refusing to aid the prosecution is not an admission of guilt, it’s the exercise of basic legal rights. Every attorney on the planet will tell you to avoid the stand like the plague if you can help it - prosecutors are in court to win, not to uncover truth. The same applies to congressional committees, except they’re less qualified than actual prosecutors.
Right, their reason for doing it was corrupt and is designed to foster tribalism to make it easier to control people.
Because the United States are a republic that consists of a number of states with varied interests which do not necessarily align. What’s good for New York might not be so great for West Virginia or Texas - in fact, it might even be damaging. As such, a system for rebalancing voting power was devised to avoid a situation wherein a large state with a substantial population dictates policy for the rest of the country with complete disregard to their different circumstances. Not only is it a good system, it’s a shame that it isn’t emulated in other countries. I also maintain that the telegraph would’ve sufficed - it’s really not that hard to transmit two numbers over a length of wire - ballots can be counted locally, and they are counted locally to this day. The telephone made such a transmission even easier, and the Internet makes it trivial indeed - that still doesn’t make the electoral college obsolete since there are other reasons why it exists. Of course there’s something to be said about the U.S. becoming (sadly) increasingly homogenised, with people identifying as American first, and as residents of their particular state second, but that’s a wholly different discussion. The whole premise of the U.S. is a union of states with varied state law and varied interests - if you don’t like one, you can always move to another which suits your expectations better. The U.S. was never meant to be a homogenous federal blob - the states are individual entities, the federal government only exists for the purposes of more overarching activity that encompasses all states.
You’re clearly not very familiar with the history of the office then. Not that it matters - if your complaint here is that he wasn’t charged because congress followed the letter of the law then I don’t really know what to tell you.
Xdqwerty
a_username_that_is_cool
Sicklyboy
PandaPandel
BigOnYa
@
Xdqwerty:
@
BigOnYa:
