Impeachment 2, the reckoning revenge redemption.

[Chimpzy]

I like that idea. I wonder how many government layers we would create once it's all ours though.

Oh, and don't forget state reforms, at least once every decade.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, it is. You're creating that dichotomy, but it isn't an all or nothing decision. Had the bill failed that vote, it would have been debated and reconsidered with different language. If the only options are one extreme or the other, you may be right, but that's not how legislation works here. There's no double jeopardy law for bill passage.

...How does this make it similar to a government digging into everybody's personal information to search for illegal pornography? The question is simply about what level of government should prohibit something, not what far-reaching, privacy-destroying powers they should have. That was a bunk analogy.

 

[tstorm823]

...How does this make it similar to a government digging into everybody's personal information to search for illegal pornography? The question is simply about what level of government should prohibit something, not what far-reaching, privacy-destroying powers they should have. That was a bunk analogy.

But it isn't about what level of government should prohibit something, but rather about what level of government should enforce the prohibition. Like, there's effectively a drinking age of 21 in the US, federally determined. But also there isn't. The federal government told the states they needed to enforce that policy and held highway funding hostage if they didn't. So why not just make that federal law if that's what they want? Because if they did it that way, the federal government would be in charge of enforcing it. And for the federal government to enforce that law, you'd either need a federal police force capable of enforcing the drinking age in bars across the country, or it just won't be enforced. Consider marijuana: it's broadly legal in a bunch of states despite a federal ban on recreational use that is so unenforced that states can pass legalization laws and nobody cares.

Despite the explicit federal ban on marijuana, the situation with regards to drinking age is better enforced and more uniform state-by-state.

 

[Worgen]

Mitch the turtle has refused to call for an emergency session for the senate to consider removing trump from office.

U.S. House impeaches Trump for a second time; 10 Republicans vote yes

Donald Trump on Wednesday became the first president in U.S. history to be impeached twice, as 10 of his fellow Republicans joined Democrats in the House of Representatives to charge him with inciting an insurrection in last week's violent rampage in the Capitol.

www.reuters.com

 

[Hades]

So Trump's going to be the first one term, two times impeached president in American history. In world history?

Even if future historians decide that president Buchanan only barely beats Trump as the worst president in history then it would still be hard to argue that Trump is one of the least successful presidents in American history. Widely despised throughout his entire tern, never once having won the popular vote or even popular support if the citizens and two impeachments despite only having one term.

What a loser.

 

[Houseman]

Matt Gaetz dropping bombs during impeachment debates

 

[Schadrach]

So Trump's going to be the first one term, two times impeached president in American history.

Let's hope one term. If Senate doesn't officially convict him via impeachment (thus barring him from holding office ever again, even if they don't do it until after his term ends) and he somehow dodges his oncoming legal woes then he could technically run again in 2024.

 

[tippy2k2]

Trump has officially been impeached for a 2nd time

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-trump-impeachment-vote-01-13-21/

(Top Story on this Live Update thingy, though it'll probably not be the Top Story soon enough as developments happen)

 

[Houseman]

Trump has officially been impeached for a 2nd time

I guess impeach just means "to charge with misconduct", even if nothing comes of it, even if he isn't kicked out of office?
Seeing as how the first one didn't take, I don't see how this one is any more significant.

More like an accusation, isn't it?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I only like presidents that don't get impeached twice.

 

[tippy2k2]

I guess impeach just means "to charge with misconduct", even if nothing comes of it, even if he isn't kicked out of office?
Seeing as how the first one didn't take, I don't see how this one is any more significant.

More like an accusation, isn't it?

No, he is officially impeached and will be recorded in history as the first president to get impeached twice

Whether the Senate chooses to also follow suit is on them but no matter what happens in The Senate, he's been impeached (again).

 

[Hades]

I guess impeach just means "to charge with misconduct", even if nothing comes of it, even if he isn't kicked out of office?
Seeing as how the first one didn't take, I don't see how this one is any more significant.

More like an accusation, isn't it?

Well it means that Trump now holds half of all US presidential impeachment. It further deligitimizes his presidency and it forces the Republicans to admit color. Are their loyal to Trump or to America.

 

[Houseman]

No, he is officially impeached

Yes, sure, he's down on record as "impeached", i.e. accused of wrongdoing.
But he's not kicked out of office... so... I don't get why this is significant.

Whether the Senate chooses to also follow suit is on them but no matter what happens in The Senate, he's been impeached (again).

So the Senate also has to impeach him in order for any negative consequences (besides to his reputation) to actually happen?

Why not just wait and say "He's been impeached!" until after the Senate votes in the affirmative, then? Why cheer over just the House voting if that, alone, doesn't actually do anything (besides "tarnish his reputation"?)

That's like if I were to cheer about one of Rudy's lawsuits merely being brought to court.

 

[Revnak]

Love that our moist boy will be remembered as being nearly as bad as Buchanan.

 

[tippy2k2]

Yes, sure, he's down on record as "impeached", i.e. accused of wrongdoing.
But he's not kicked out of office... so... I don't get why this is significant.



So the Senate also has to impeach him in order for any negative consequences (besides to his reputation) to actually happen?

Why not just wait and say "He's been impeached!" until after the Senate votes in the affirmative, then? Why cheer over just the House voting if that, alone, doesn't actually do anything?

For the lulz

 

[Revnak]

Technically this impeachment has the most bipartisan support of all time at 10 votes from the president’s own party.

 

[SilentPony]

For the lulz

For the lulz, sure, but an impeachment does a lot more than just remove Trump from office. If found guilty he'll lose his 200k pension, his $1 million travel allowance, his secret service detail, he can't run for federal office, and any diplomatic immunity he has. So even if Trump isn't removed from office in the few days he has left, a trial and conviction would really hamper him.
Also plus he's have to testify, and that's just delightful.

 

[tippy2k2]

For the lulz, sure, but an impeachment does a lot more than just remove Trump from office. If found guilty he'll lose his 200k pension, his $1 million travel allowance, his secret service detail, he can't run for federal office, and any diplomatic immunity he has. So even if Trump isn't removed from office in the few days he has left, a trial and conviction would really hamper him.
Also plus he's have to testify, and that's just delightful.

I was more answering why I am celebrating now rather than waiting until The Senate makes their decision.

 

[Silvanus]

But it isn't about what level of government should prohibit something, but rather about what level of government should enforce the prohibition. Like, there's effectively a drinking age of 21 in the US, federally determined. But also there isn't. The federal government told the states they needed to enforce that policy and held highway funding hostage if they didn't. So why not just make that federal law if that's what they want? Because if they did it that way, the federal government would be in charge of enforcing it. And for the federal government to enforce that law, you'd either need a federal police force capable of enforcing the drinking age in bars across the country, or it just won't be enforced. Consider marijuana: it's broadly legal in a bunch of states despite a federal ban on recreational use that is so unenforced that states can pass legalization laws and nobody cares.

This would hold muster if the states actually had their own laws effectively preventing racist segregation.

They didn't. That's the whole point. And they had long enough to implement them, and didn't. The options available in that vote were: A) Federal government mandates racist segregation ends; or B) Some states do, and others don't, and in the latter it continues unabated.

And, no, the Civil Rights Act did not transfer authority for enforcement of this to a Federal agency. State authorities would still actually do most of the work on a local level. The difference is that they actually had to do it, rather than not doing it.

 

[Agema]

If found guilty... he can't run for federal office

I've read a legal argument that apparently a basic censure for insurrection would also accomplish this, because a censure would be constitute a legal standard of guilt, and being found guilty of insurrection will also bar future office.