Impeachment 2, the reckoning revenge redemption.

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,252
806
118
Country
United Kingdom
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
1,382
235
68
Country
USA
...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

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,276
790
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Mitch the turtle has refused to call for an emergency session for the senate to consider removing trump from office.

 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
312
222
48
Country
The Netherlands
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.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
153
52
33
Country
US
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.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,433
671
118
Trump has officially been impeached for a 2nd time :D
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?
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,614
496
88
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

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
312
222
48
Country
The Netherlands
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,433
671
118
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

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,334
2,134
118
Country
USA
Love that our moist boy will be remembered as being nearly as bad as Buchanan.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,614
496
88
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
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,794
517
118
Corner of No and Where
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,614
496
88
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,252
806
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,811
2,017
118
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.