As The Democrats lecture Us About Threats To Democracy They Demonstrate It

[icanhelp1]

No. A democracy is a form of republic. Not all republics are democratic, some are aristocratic.

Both of you are incorrect. Our republic is a representative form of government guided by democratic principles but is not a democracy. A majority does not become all powerful.

That wasn't tyranny. The Republicans lost the vote fair and square.

In the first impeachment all republicans and 3 democrat voted nay. Pelosi knowing full well she didn’t have half the country on her side used her power of the majority and ruled against half of our nation and because she wielded that power she went ahead anyway, that’s tyranny in my opinion. We’re not talking about passing a bill we’re talking about impeachment.

 

[LLCox]

Democracy on the Ballot? Majority of Dems Oppose Certifying a Trump Victory​

By Ben Kew | 6:30 AM on March 12, 2024

The political party claiming that a Donald Trump election victory would mean the end of American democracy has other ideas if the result does not go their way.

According to the latest survey by Rasmussen Reports, a majority of Democrats surveyed said they would prefer Congress to refuse to certify a Trump victory if it comes to pass:

More here: https://redstate.com/benkew/2024/03...ms-oppose-certifying-a-trump-victory-n2171246

So the Democrats who have been at war with the democratic process since before the 2016 election are still at it and all the time telling us how Republicans are a threat to democracy. You see, everything they accuse the GOP of they are doing exactly that. This is a proven fact pattern.

I am just highly amazed how repukes can condemn democrats for "going" to do the same things the repukes have already done and condone. Fuck you GIANT hypocritical clowns.

 

[YDB95]

In the first impeachment all republicans and 3 democrat voted nay.

Completely irrelevant to the second impeachment (which ten Republicans voted for, incidentally).

Pelosi knowing full well she didn’t have half the country on her side used her power of the majority and ruled against half of our nation and because she wielded that power she went ahead anyway, that’s tyranny in my opinion. We’re not talking about passing a bill we’re talking about impeachment.

Well, exactly. We're talking about impeachment. It doesn't matter if "half our nation" either thought Trump was innocent or supported what he did and didn't want him punished for it. The man himself said if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, he wouldn't lose any support. He was probably right, but a popular murder is still a murder. The only question that did matter was, was there evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors on his part? The Republicans had a fair chance to convince the majority that there was not, and they failed. That's not tyranny, it's justice.

 

[Politruk]

Both of you are incorrect. Our republic is a representative form of government guided by democratic principles but is not a democracy.

Then what country is one?

 

[Politruk]

In the first impeachment all republicans and 3 democrat voted nay. Pelosi knowing full well she didn’t have half the country on her side used her power of the majority and ruled against half of our nation and because she wielded that power she went ahead anyway, that’s tyranny in my opinion. We’re not talking about passing a bill we’re talking about impeachment.

And we're not talking about depriving someone of civil rights or liberty without due process of law. We're talking about depriving a public official of his job. That's not tyranny. With or without due process. And this was done using due process, as spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[icanhelp1]

And we're not talking about depriving someone of civil rights or liberty without due process of law. We're talking about depriving a public official of his job. That's not tyranny. With or without due process. And this was done using due process, as spelled out in the Constitution.

What you don’t understand is that impeachment is a political process. Pelosi hated Trump and initiated an impeachment based on vengeance, simple as that. Half the house voted against it. An impeachment is supposed to be a rare event based on high crimes and misdemeanors, crimes so egregious that all parties found no alternative other than removal. The first sham impeachment was along party lines to include 3 democrats who also voted against impeachment. Pelosi used impeachment to further a political agenda and that agenda was to remove Trump from office. Democrats publicly urged impeachment even before Trump was inaugurated, even before he had an opportunity to commit high crimes and misdemeanors. It was an attempt at a soft coup. Don’t tell me Pelosi is not capable of a soft coup, the evidence is as plain as the nose on your face, look what she did to Biden.

 

[Bray123]

 

[HisArpy]

What you don’t understand is that impeachment is a political process. Pelosi hated Trump and initiated an impeachment based on vengeance, simple as that. Half the house voted against it. An impeachment is supposed to be a rare event based on high crimes and misdemeanors, crimes so egregious that all parties found no alternative other than removal. The first sham impeachment was along party lines to include 3 democrats who also voted against impeachment. Pelosi used impeachment to further a political agenda and that agenda was to remove Trump from office. Democrats publicly urged impeachment even before Trump was inaugurated, even before he had an opportunity to commit high crimes and misdemeanors. It was an attempt at a soft coup. Don’t tell me Pelosi is not capable of a soft coup, the evidence is as plain as the nose on your face, look what she did to Biden.

2 Presidents, 2 political coups, and they still deny what's right in front of their faces.

 

[PaxNurgle]

^Nothing more annoying than sock puppeteers having conversations with themselves...

 

[Politruk]

What you don’t understand is that impeachment is a political process.

Exactly. A political process, not a judicial process. So intended by the Constitution. Impeachable "high crimes" are whatever the House decides they are -- that judgment is not subject to judicial review in any court of law.

The first sham impeachment

There is no such thing.

Pelosi used impeachment to further a political agenda and that agenda was to remove Trump from office.

A perfectly legitimate and constitutional use of the process.

 

[Politruk]

Both of you are incorrect. Our republic is a representative form of government guided by democratic principles but is not a democracy.

Then what country is one?

 

[Lazaran]

2 Presidents, 2 political coups, and they still deny what's right in front of their faces.

If a Democrat President had coerced Ukraine to manufacture dirt on their "republican" party opponent by withholding congressionally approved funding, like DonOld did to his Democratic Party opponent , and if a Democrat President had organized and fomented an insurrection based on LIES in an attempt to stay in power, like DonOld did, then the Derpys of the world (and this board) would be singing a very different tune…

And that ^ is why Derpy and ineedhelp1, etc, are mocked as unserious hypocrites and rightly labeled as traitors.

Hope that ^ helps.



Derpy and ineedhelp1, etc

 

[YDB95]

Pelosi hated Trump and initiated an impeachment based on vengeance, simple as that.

No, it is not simple as that. Whether you agree with the charges or not, Trump was charged with inciting an insurrection, not with being hated by Pelosi (who was not among the members who introduced the articles of impeachment - in other words, she did not initiate it).

Half the house voted against it. An impeachment is supposed to be a rare event based on high crimes and misdemeanors, crimes so egregious that all parties found no alternative other than removal.

That you think a gang of rioters invading the Capitol, calling for hanging the vice president, stealing computers and anything else they could grab, smearing shit on the walls, etc doesn't rise to that level says it all, it really does.

Pelosi used impeachment to further a political agenda and that agenda was to remove Trump from office.

Nine days before he would have been out of office anyway? No, Icanthelpit.

Democrats publicly urged impeachment even before Trump was inaugurated, even before he had an opportunity to commit high crimes and misdemeanors.

Names, please. (And the same was true of Clinton years before anyone knew who Monica Lewinsky was, incidentally.)

It was an attempt at a soft coup. Don’t tell me Pelosi is not capable of a soft coup, the evidence is as plain as the nose on your face, look what she did to Biden.

How I wish she really were that powerful. Think of all the disasters we could have avoided during the Trump administration...

 

[icanhelp1]

Exactly. A political process, not a judicial process. So intended by the Constitution. Impeachable "high crimes" are whatever the House decides they are -- that judgment is not subject to judicial review in any court of law.


There is no such thing.

A perfectly legitimate and constitutional use of the process.

Watch especially the second video, a video that explains the critical importance of statutory relevance for impeachment. That is if there’s any objectivity left on the PB.

https://fb.watch/vlSpJxt2Vd

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4835...g-president-trump-creates-dangerous-precedent

 

[Bn2f]

https://fb.watch/vlSpJxt2Vd

You’ve defended all manner of trump offenses by claiming no crime was committed and now you’re highlighting that the House can decide whatever is impeachable?

Being bisexual/trans shouldn’t be confusing to someone who flip flops so easily.