███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[adrina]

The majority of the people in the United States didn't even go to the polls in 2016.

The majority of people did not. The majority of the voting age population did.

Of the 61.4% of the voting age population that cast their votes in 2016, 48.2% voted for Hillary Clinton and 46.1% voted for Trump. 28.3% of the voting age population voted for Trump. Less than 1/3 of the country.

While I would like to see voting age participation in the 90s, details matter.

 

[jomar]

They’ll probably claim a win on a technicality since I said majority of people instead of majority of voters.

The majority of the people in the United States didn't even go to the polls in 2016.

Zing!

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

How do you figure?

By using sound logic.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The majority of the people in the United States didn't even go to the polls in 2016.

You are correct. For instance, take a look at the two biggest Trump apologists on this board: BotanyBoy and Conager. Both of them couldn't be bothered to cast an absentee ballot, let alone go to the polls.

...and yet they jostle for position each day here to see who can lick Trump's shoes the most.

 

[Rightguide]

You are correct. For instance, take a look at the two biggest Trump apologists on this board: BotanyBoy and Conager. Both of them couldn't be bothered to cast an absentee ballot, let alone go to the polls.

...and yet they jostle for position each day here to see who can lick Trump's shoes the most.

How do you know if they voted or not?

 

[RobDownSouth]

How do you know if they voted or not?

Both of them publicly admitted it.

https://i.imgur.com/aoGt5qG.jpg

Edited to add:
Here is BotanyBoy bragging about not voting in 2018...because reasons
Chickenshit Hogan couldn't be bothered to vote in 2016 either.

 

[EctoJohn]

It's far past time that we eliminate the political parties.
That's the one thing that's obvious with this impeachment.
One side currently is willing to defend glaringly obvious offenses in favor
of the party over country.
They will do anything to stay in power, even defend the dishonorable and disgusting.
They continue to lie to the American people that there's only two ways to think.
And just because it's the Republicans that are in the wrong this time doesn't
make the Democrats the good party.
It just opens the doors for them to act just as dishonestly and aggressively negative the next time they get the chance.
Constantly investigating each other instead of just having decent human beings run the parties to begin with who care more about the constituents than the party.
They've always been like this, but it's been ramped up partisanship with less and less compromise with each passing Congress.
There's no place for political parties, especially not in the position of President, int he modern world.
How different would this impeachment be if the President was not allowed to belong to a political party?
Guaranteed more Republicans would blink and be on the side to impeach if the President was truly a neutral force in government as the system of checks and balances should really act.
We know this for certain because it seems only Republicans no longer running for Congress or who have retired/will be retiring are willing to speak out against Trump. Party over the people.
There needs to be a Constitutional amendment that makes it so no President or Vice President can be a member of a political party.
There will surely still be conservative and liberal presidents, but at least then Congress will be more willing to actually do their job and keep their powers in check if they weren't so worried about the party's future.
Right now each side is more than willing to bend or break the rules, or outright lie, to maintain power and that's disgusting.

A president should be chosen on merit, not just on whether or not they have a (D) or (R) next to their name. Any asshole can do that, and we have proof of that right now.

By the way, in case someone wants to insinuate my political leaning, let me put that to bed right now. I didn't vote for EITHER Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump in the 2016 election. I didn't trust either of those mother fuckers. I wrote in my brother-in-law's name because frankly he technically qualifies under the constitution (35+ years old, natural born citizen, lived in the country 14 years), and picking him was just as good as picking one of those other two who you just knew would be lousy.

One more thing; neither party properly represents a majority of all registered voters.
In 2018 there were 153.07 registered voters.
In 2019, 31% are registered Democrats and 29% are registered Republicans.
To me that says that no matter what party runs things, at least two-thirds of all registered voters get no damned say!

*sighs*
I'm done.

 

[bigsly]

The electoral college is a disaster for democracy.

Exactly and purposely why the framers, when constituting a republic, created it. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution to assuage your democratic socialist aspirations. Good luck with that, comrade.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Exactly and purposely why the framers, when constituting a republic, created it. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution to assuage your democratic socialist aspirations. Good luck with that, comrade.

Your dear leader would never change it.

 

[icanhelp1]

Your dear leader would never change it.

In the formation of a constitutional convention 75% approval vote by the states for change in an amendment does not require a presidential signature, or 2/3rds of each house. Trump would not play a part, a president does not have a constitutional role, only the governors of each state

 

[HisArpy]

I’m not parsing anything. You’re still having trouble with reading comprehension, I can only hope you’re better with math.

Would you agree that over 50% of voters represents a majority? The math says more than 50% of voters voted against Trump. My original statement is accurate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thi..._the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

This isn't about "math", it's about your lies. As usual, what you do is present a half truth and then attempt to disguise it with a mountain of gibberish.

The electorate doesn't "vote" they "cast ballots". NONE of the candidates on the ballots received a "majority" of the ballots that were cast. By saying that Trump didn't received a majority of votes, you equate "votes" to those cast ballots. Next your inferred idea that someone else actually did receive a majority of "votes" raises the specter of the debunked "popular vote" argument. Which you then toss overboard when caught at it. Thus, a LIE by inference and denial of your own intentions and words.

From there you attempt to be disingenuous by parsing what you previously said and mixing those words with things not stated and the inference above to promote a narrative which is not supported by our political system. Thus a LIE by misdirection and false propaganda.

Finally, you exclude pertinent facts. "The voters" who elected Trump were those who attended the Electoral College. Of those 538 VOTERS, 301 voted for Trump. That is a "majority". Which means you flat out LIED in your statement.

The above is an illustration on the way you debate the issues - you lie and then lie some more when caught at it. It is also why your arguments are weak and ineffective. You intentionally omit facts, fabricate fantasies and promote them as truths, and then use misdirection as a defense when caught at it. Which makes you nothing more than an idjit whose favorite pants smell like smoke and have charred edges.

FACT = 301 out of 538 VOTERS voted for Trump. That is a clear "majority" by math or any other rational metric.

 

[Pookie]

This isn't about "math", it's about your lies. As usual, what you do is present a half truth and then attempt to disguise it with a mountain of gibberish.

The electorate doesn't "vote" they "cast ballots". NONE of the candidates on the ballots received a "majority" of the ballots that were cast. By saying that Trump didn't received a majority of votes, you equate "votes" to those cast ballots. Next your inferred idea that someone else actually did receive a majority of "votes" raises the specter of the debunked "popular vote" argument. Which you then toss overboard when caught at it. Thus, a LIE by inference and denial of your own intentions and words.

From there you attempt to be disingenuous by parsing what you previously said and mixing those words with things not stated and the inference above to promote a narrative which is not supported by our political system. Thus a LIE by misdirection and false propaganda.

Finally, you exclude pertinent facts. "The voters" who elected Trump were those who attended the Electoral College. Of those 538 VOTERS, 301 voted for Trump. That is a "majority". Which means you flat out LIED in your statement.

The above is an illustration on the way you debate the issues - you lie and then lie some more when caught at it. It is also why your arguments are weak and ineffective. You intentionally omit facts, fabricate fantasies and promote them as truths, and then use misdirection as a defense when caught at it. Which makes you nothing more than an idjit whose favorite pants smell like smoke and have charred edges.

FACT = 301 out of 538 VOTERS voted for Trump. That is a clear "majority" by math or any other rational metric.

Ok, pedant

 

[Ramone45]

Boy, what a freak show.

 

[Pookie]

I need to find my electorate registration card.

 

[Pookie]

I need to find my electorate registration card.

And my ballot casting registration card too.

 

[HisArpy]

Ok, pedant

That you are incapable of understanding does not diminish what I said.

 

[Pookie]

That you are incapable of understanding does not diminish what I said.

Ditto.

 

[jaF0]

FACT = 301 out of 538 VOTERS voted for Trump. That is a clear "majority" by math or any other rational metric.

FACT. Those 'voters' do not represent the people and are not bound by the vote of the people. Those 'voters' are not elected by the people and the people don't even know who they are in most cases. Those 'voters' are determined by an internal mechanism of the parties that most of the people are unaware of.


The single most important change to the EC process would be to make the Electors non partisan and elected by a popular vote during the State elections. I'm not even sure that would require a constitutional change.

 

[HisArpy]

Ditto.

Lol.

Please take your seat in the corner.

 

[Kantarii]

FACT. Those 'voters' do not represent the people and are not bound by the vote of the people. Those 'voters' are not elected by the people and the people don't even know who they are in most cases. Those 'voters' are determined by an internal mechanism of the parties that most of the people are unaware of.


The single most important change to the EC process would be to make the Electors non partisan and elected by a popular vote during the State elections. I'm not even sure that would require a constitutional change.

‘Make’ the electors non partisan? That’s some more messed up crap right there.

 

[cowslinger64]

Lol.

Please take your seat in the corner.

Dudly complaining about anyone moving the goal posts is hysterical.

Four is less than three, right?

 

[HisArpy]

FACT. Those 'voters' do not represent the people and are not bound by the vote of the people. Those 'voters' are not elected by the people and the people don't even know who they are in most cases. Those 'voters' are determined by an internal mechanism of the parties that most of the people are unaware of.


The single most important change to the EC process would be to make the Electors non partisan and elected by a popular vote during the State elections. I'm not even sure that would require a constitutional change.

Do you even know how the process works? I mean, AT ALL?

 

[HisArpy]

Dudly complaining about anyone moving the goal posts is hysterical.

Four is less than three, right?

We all know what a fucked up pathetic mess you made of yourself so reiterating it again and again isn't helping you at all.

Now, please pick up what's left of your tattered pride and go take a seat with Pookie in the corner.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

The single most important change to the EC process would be to make the Electors non partisan and elected by a popular vote during the State elections. I'm not even sure that would require a constitutional change.

That's sort of how it's done now. When you vote you're voting for the elector.

 

[cowslinger64]

We all know what a fucked up pathetic mess you made of yourself so reiterating it again and again isn't helping you at all.

Now, please pick up what's left of your tattered pride and go take a seat with Pookie in the corner.

Lol..only in the waste of your empty head, could that possibly be true.

I'm not sure which is more obnoxious, your stupidity or your insistence in constantly showing it.