Joe Biden is now officially the 46th President of the United States of America

[Lacius]

You need to set an acceptable standard of speech. Detract from that all day if you want, but if you can't vocalise what is and is not permissable in a heated public speech, your bias is showing. For the record, I don't think Waters should be on her way to Gitmo for what she said, but I can easily call it a violence-inciting dog whistle, regardless of her original intention, since apparently intent went out the window with the start of these proceedings.

"Don't serve those who are complicit with the deplorable actions of this administration" is different from "This election was stolen from us, and the only thing we can do to fix it is go to the Capitol and take it back. Oh, and in the middle of the violence. I will cattily tell those pleading for help that they should have cared more about my fake claims of election fraud. I'll also tweet attacks against Mike Pence after I'm told he's being rushed to safety because I've put him in danger."

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@Foxi4 With regard to the words of Waters, you might want to look into the history of peaceful protest and noncompliance with regard to matters of racial injustice in this country.

 

[Plasmaster09]

Listen, telling you not to play therapist isn't a carte blanche to play the preacher instead. If you don't have anything to say about the currently recessed impeachment proceedings and wish to instead focus on talking about me personally for some undisclosed reason, I'll have to treat your posts as off-topic. I've given you a subtle verbal indication that this will be the case, but you didn't seem to pick up on it. Stick to the topic, get off my back - rides are $5 a minute and you haven't paid yet.

In any case, after the recess the Senate will finally decide whether they want to call in witnesses or vote straight away. There's a fair chance that they'll vote for holding further hearings, extending the circus a little longer. We'll see soon enough.

I mean...
this also applies to all the other hardcore Trumpers in the thread.
The evidence: against you.
The numbers: against you.
The OTHER evidence: also against you.
A steadily growing fraction of your former allies in collective delusion: now against you because they finally realized just how wrong they were.
Reality does not side with Trump, and neither should any of you.
The fact that there are still people in this thread (heck, still people anywhere in general) defending Trump's actions by ignoring everything right in front of them, or ignoring all his horrible misdeeds with blatant whataboutism... is just plain fucked up.
Trump incited a coup, refused to actually denounce it for days because he was more focused with "winning" (read: cheating after the fact) an election he rightfully lost than the basic democracy of our country or anything resembling morals.
Admit it.

(Also, what the heck am I supposed to play? You refuse to accept piles of legitimate evidence when placed directly in your line of sight, so what on earth SHOULD I do that might convince you to reexamine the situation from a neutral perspective?!)

 

[Foxi4]

@Foxi4 With regard to the words of Waters, you might want to look into the history of peaceful protest and noncompliance with regard to matters of racial injustice in this country.

I know it very well. The Woolworth's Sit-in, among with many other civil rights protests, were successful without "pushing" anyone from the administration in charge. Restaurants and department stores desegregated in the 1960's specifically as a result of non-compliance with company policies. Not sure what those events have to do with Waters asking her supporters to start hunting for Trump admin team members and harassing them.

 

[Plasmaster09]

I know it very well. The Woolworth's Sit-in, among with many other civil rights protests, were successful without "pushing" anyone from the administration in charge. Restaurants and department stores desegregated in the 1960's specifically as a result of non-compliance with company policies. Not sure what those events have to do with Waters asking her supporters to start hunting for Trump admin team members and harassing them.

First off, you STILL confuse "hunting and harassment" with "giving people social consequences for their actions".
If someone is an immoral scumbag willing to actively participate in ruining the nation for the sake of power, they deserve every last bit of public mockery and refusal they receive.
Second off, Waters' ask for people to give Trump admin members what they deserve is a form of peaceful protest.
It's protesting Trump's horrific actions and the also-horrific lengths taken to support him and to continue doing so in blatant disregard of facts, morals or the basic tenets of democracy our country was founded upon.
Waters does not want people to be discriminated against for passive beliefs.
However, supporting Trump is not a passive belief. Steps must be taken mentally to distance yourself from the facts, from all forms of media stating said facts (i.e. calling everything negative "fake news"), from anyONE stating said facts, etc. Supporting Trump is an active choice of self-delusion and hatred, and should very well be socially rejected.
Also, the protests you mention weren't aimed at specific government officials because that wasn't what they were protesting- segregation wasn't maintained by the government at that point, but by bigots and a society that refused to punish them.
In this case, various forms of hatred, bigotry and denial ARE being maintained by the (former) government- by Trump and the officials that were in his administration.

 

[Foxi4]

First off, you STILL confuse "hunting and harassment" with "giving people social consequences for their actions".
If someone is an immoral scumbag willing to actively participate in ruining the nation for the sake of power, they deserve every last bit of public mockery and refusal they receive.
Second off, Waters' ask for people to give Trump admin members what they deserve is a form of peaceful protest.
It's protesting Trump's horrific actions and the also-horrific lengths taken to support him and to continue doing so in blatant disregard of facts, morals or the basic tenets of democracy our country was founded upon.
Waters does not want people to be discriminated against for passive beliefs.
However, supporting Trump is not a passive belief. Steps must be taken mentally to distance yourself from the facts, from all forms of media stating said facts (i.e. calling everything negative "fake news"), from anyONE stating said facts, etc. Supporting Trump is an active choice of self-delusion and hatred, and should very well be socially rejected.

The fact that you think they *deserve* to be harassed and berated solely on the basis of being members of Trump's administration speaks volumes about you. I'll refrain from responding to your posts any further until you provide some new and relevant take, for now I'm too busy watching the hearings, the recess is about to finish and the lunacy in the Senate will continue, which is far more interesting than your Analyze This reenactment.

 

[Lacius]

I know it very well. The Woolworth's Sit-in, among with many other civil rights protests, were successful without "pushing" anyone from the administration in charge. Restaurants and department stores desegregated in the 1960's specifically as a result of non-compliance with company policies. Not sure what those events have to do with Waters asking her supporters to start hunting for Trump admin team members and harassing them.

1. Waters did not incite violence.
2. Nobody in the Trump administration should be welcome anywhere, except maybe prison.
3. I apologize for derailing the thread by engaging in Foxi4's pointless whataboutism.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I know it very well.

You've been known to supposedly know many things very well, then proven wrong. What makes this instance any different?

 

[Plasmaster09]

The fact that you think they *deserve* to be harassed and berated solely on the basis of being members of Trump's administration speaks volumes about you. I'll refrain from responding to your posts any further until you provide some new and relevant take, for now I'm too busy watching the hearings, the recess is about to finish and the lunacy in the Senate will continue, which is far more interesting than your Analyze This reenactment.

Firstly, if the principal of a school actively bullies children for things beyond their control, and a teacher sides with them, there are only two reasons why they would do so.
Reason one: they are also a terrible person, in which case they deserve social consequences. (Which, despite what you may think, is not "harassment".)
Reason two: they are a complete and utter coward afraid of suffering punishment or losing their job for doing what's right, in which case they at the very least deserve ridicule for prioritizing personal fear over what is fundamentally right and good.
Either way, they deserve whatever social consequences they get. As Trump and the members of his administration are in an equivalent position (almighty bully and his minions) but on a far larger scale that warrants far more legitimate morality to be a good example to the NATION (of which he has none and is not), this applies to them but even more so.
Secondly, "new and relevant take"? What take do you want?
"You're right and I will dodge every drop of evidence I come across to continue agreeing with you"?
"I'm going to conveniently ignore everything that paints Trump in a bad light so that I can spout nonsense while claiming to have seen things as they 'are'"?
"I'll shut up now because I'm personally afraid that contradicting a global moderator's impenetrable viewpoint might get me banned for stating basic facts of reality"?
What take do you want- denial, ignorance or fear?
Because I'm not giving any of those.
I'm asking for you to analyze things again because you adamantly refuse to.

 

[Foxi4]

You've been known to supposedly know many things very well, then proven wrong. What makes this instance any different?

That depends on your definition of "wrong". I stand by everything I've said so far and can't recall making an incorrect judgement in regards to the election. Also, off-topic - fan mail should be directed to my PM box, I collect it there and strongly encourage sending your thoughts and prayers in.

 

[smf]

There's a thing called reasonable doubt.

Sure and Trump is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, your doubt is not reasonable.

He knew what would happen because people told him before the day what would happen if he kept making fraudulent claims and talking in the way he did, he knew it was happening as he was watching it and refused to stop it because he wanted it to work.

If he was in a real court then his only plea now would be insanity.

He was the president, it was his job to not cause a riot and bring it to a peaceful end if one starts. He was a failure at his job.

Impeachment is stupid because half the jury are your criminal accomplices. He won't get that luxury if they decide he can't be impeached because he is no longer in office, next stage would be to hold him criminally accountable (you can't have it both ways).

Accessory to 5 unlawful killings would be how long?

 

[Foxi4]

The show's back on, for anyone watching.

 

[Doran754]

Sure and Trump is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, your doubt is not reasonable.

He knew what would happen because people told him before the day what would happen if he kept making fraudulent claims and talking in the way he did, he knew it was happening as he was watching it and refused to stop it because he wanted it to work.

If he was in a real court then his only plea now would be insanity.

He was the president, it was his job to not cause a riot and bring it to a peaceful end if one starts. He was a failure at his job.

Impeachment is stupid because half the jury are your criminal accomplices. He won't get that luxury if they decide he can't be impeached because he is no longer in office, next stage would be to hold him criminally accountable (you can't have it both ways).

Accessory to 5 unlawful killings would be how long?

Keep this energy when he gets acquited.

 

[WeedZ]

Keep this energy when he gets acquited.

Even if he is, he has charges to keep him busy in court for the next few years.

 

[SG854]

Sure and Trump is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, your doubt is not reasonable.

He knew what would happen because people told him before the day what would happen if he kept making fraudulent claims and talking in the way he did, he knew it was happening as he was watching it and refused to stop it because he wanted it to work.

If he was in a real court then his only plea now would be insanity.

He was the president, it was his job to not cause a riot and bring it to a peaceful end if one starts. He was a failure at his job.

Impeachment is stupid because half the jury are your criminal accomplices. He won't get that luxury if they decide he can't be impeached because he is no longer in office, next stage would be to hold him criminally accountable (you can't have it both ways).

Accessory to 5 unlawful killings would be how long?

My History Class teacher is teaching me that Trump and Trumpist are Racist.

 

[Valwinz]

Merry Impeachmas!
what a failure of a impeachment ahahaahahah

 

[SG854]

Even if he is, he has charges to keep him busy in court for the next few years.

Unless Covid Kills him

 

[Lacius]

Merry Impeachmas!
what a failure of a impeachment ahahaahahah

This impeachment may get the most bipartisan amount of support in the history of presidential impeachments, despite the likely acquittal. Try again.

 

[Plasmaster09]

This impeachment may get the most bipartisan amount of support in the history of presidential impeachments, despite the likely acquittal. Try again.

Says a lot about the state of the Republican Party when they're so obsessed with party lines over sanity that having like five of them budge an inch is quite possibly the most supportive they've ever been of having one of their own leaders get what's coming to him.

 

[omgcat]

your wrong bout disqualification saddly he needs to have an conviction first then they can disquallify him, but say if trump goes to prison for his various financial crimes he might win the election but he cant hold office due to the 25th amendment stating a president cannot be impeded (unable) to hold office due to incompasitation (since he is in the big house he cant hold office) soo the VP gets the hot seat automaticly then theres the fact he could instantly pardon trump unless the pardon power is moddified through an amendment cause of trump's gross abuse of pardons

you might want to do a little more legal legwork my dude.

Judgment - Removal and Disqualification
SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Annotations

Article II, section 4 provides that officers impeached and convicted “shall be removed from office”; Article I, section 3, clause 7 provides further that “judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.” These restrictions on judgment, both of which relate to capacity to hold public office, emphasize the non-penal nature of impeachment, and help to distinguish American impeachment from the open-ended English practice under which criminal penalties could be imposed.853

The plain language of section 4 seems to require removal from office upon conviction, and in fact the Senate has removed those persons whom it has convicted. In the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, the Senate determined that removal is automatic upon conviction, and does not require a separate vote.854 This practice has continued. Because conviction requires a two-thirds vote, this means that removal can occur only as a result of a two-thirds vote. Unlike removal, disqualification from office is a discretionary judgment, and there is no explicit constitutional linkage to the two-thirds vote on conviction. Although an argument can be made that disqualification should nonetheless require a two-thirds vote,855 the Senate has determined that disqualification may be accomplished by a simple majority vote.856

 

[Valwinz]

imao JULY???????? Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/AtomicDenny/status/1360606071950356482