Impeachment Thread

[BotanyBoy]

FYP
When the president of the US is elected by fewer votes than his opponent then that system is a failure and should be changed .

The President wasn't elected by fewer votes.

Domroger needs a remedial US government class.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No you are a Democracy, sorry. When you boil down ALL forms of government you get to three: Autocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy.

Read this, it might help you understand your own countries form of democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

Links WaPo LOL!!! Maybe something more reputable next time like Salon or RAW???

Maybe InfoWarz!!!

 

[magicalmoments]

#578 above.
Old 1i living up to his name again, I'm sure he must stand sideways and only run his right eye over the issues.
There are many constitutional republics in the world. Most are autocracies, some are ogliarchies and a few are democracies.
The important thing that 1i has yet to grasp, perhaps it is beyond his comprehension, is that constitutional republics are a subset form of govt under the main categories, not vice versa.
Until recently I would have placed the USA in the ogliarchs camp, given that big money corporates primarily held the power, however with trump this has changed and he is strongly trying to move the republic into the autocracy camp. He clearly sees himself as some sort of Caesar, he has publicly expressed his admiration and envy of autocratic leaders. Certainly the big money corporates are losing their influence on the strings of power.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Until recently I would have placed the USA in the ogliarchs camp, given that big money corporates primarily held the power, however with trump this has changed and he is strongly trying to move the republic into the autocracy camp.

Now that's some funny shit that isn't supported by anything other than leftist hysteria.

He clearly sees himself as some sort of Caesar, he has publicly expressed his admiration and envy of autocratic leaders.

As if that has anything to do with how the US government is structured.

 

[JackLuis]

McConnell blocked by his own party from calling impeachment witnesses Trump wants for Senate trial: report

According to a report from the New York Times, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is finding his hands tied by members of his own party who are skeptical over the appropriateness of calling some of the witnesses Donald Trump — and a few of his House Republican enablers — want to appear.

As the Times notes, “While Democrats who control the House are focused on a swift impeachment vote by year’s end, the White House is almost entirely consumed by the trial that would follow in the Republican-controlled Senate, where Mr. Trump’s team believes he would have the chance to defend himself and where Democrats would almost certainly fall short of the two-thirds vote they would need to remove him from office.”

Mitch has got trouble in River City!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

"Key difference between a democracy and a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a "pure democracy," the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority."

So what??? It is a Democracy, period end of story.

Again since you seem unable to read and or comprehend.
By Definition.

"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

You have a Constitutional Republic, I have a Parliamentarian system, they are both Democracies.

"In a Democracy, each individual member no matter which party, has the right to speak for their own riding electorate, but they alone, cannot pass or enact any laws, without the support of the Majority. However they are only the voice of the individual in their riding, where as, the Majority Party is the voice of ALL the people."


So what if you have inherent rights as an individual?? Based upon a Constitution.

We have them too!! Based upon a Constitution.

The basic principle is the Majority represents "We the People". That is the heart of a Democracy, over the other two base designs of Government. Now I doubt I have educated you one iota, but, try and disprove either of the blue texts.

 

[icanhelp1]

So what??? It is a Democracy, period end of story.

Again since you seem unable to read and or comprehend.
By Definition.

"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

You have a Constitutional Republic, I have a Parliamentarian system, they are both Democracies.

"In a Democracy, each individual member no matter which party, has the right to speak for their own riding electorate, but they alone, cannot pass or enact any laws, without the support of the Majority. However they are only the voice of the individual in their riding, where as, the Majority Party is the voice of ALL the people."


So what if you have inherent rights as an individual?? Based upon a Constitution.

We have them too!! Based upon a Constitution.

The basic principle is the Majority represents "We the People". That is the heart of a Democracy, over the other two base designs of Government. Now I doubt I have educated you one iota, but, try and disprove either of the blue texts.

I agree that we have a representative style government and in that sense it does fall in the category as a democracy. My point is, there are stark differences between a constitutional republic and a parliamentary style democracy. Certain protected inalienable right makes our form of government quite different in that aspect. Personal liberties are guaranteed and the majority can't impose its will upon us. Most governments have a constitution but we recognize inalienable rights as part of our constitution, So you can understand where I'm coming from, "a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather a government indirectly controlled by its people". We have democratic processes and in that way we are a representative democracy. YOU HAVE INHERENT RIGHTS, WE HAVE INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Most democracies are unitary in nature, in the United States each state functions unitarily under the umbrella of a federal system. We have fifty individual state governments each with representative style government 'for the people' 'by the people'.

The majority party is not the voice of the people, congress as a whole represents the people.

A majority by party does not necessarily pass legislation. A majority party can be split on votes but can still pass legislation with the appropriate votes from both parties both in the house and senate

 

[magicalmoments]

#585 above.
Despite your extensive explanations I fail to see any fundamental difference between your constitutional republic and my constitutional monarchy. At least in terms of individual rights and freedoms.
Even then, the differences in our respective representative democracies seem largely cosmetic.
I also point to independent international surveys ranking the "individual freedom" within each country in the world. I note that NZ routinely ranks higher in these surveys than the US.
So... I'm not sure what it is you are claiming for the constitutional republic team.

 

[BotanyBoy]

#585 above.
Despite your extensive explanations I fail to see any fundamental difference between your constitutional republic and my constitutional monarchy. At least in terms of individual rights and freedoms.
Even then, the differences in our respective representative democracies seem largely cosmetic.
I also point to independent international surveys ranking the "individual freedom" within each country in the world. I note that NZ routinely ranks higher in these surveys than the US.
So... I'm not sure what it is you are claiming for the constitutional republic team.

Freedom of speech and armament for starters.

Surveys who probably think like most that government control = freedom.

 

[icanhelp1]

Freedom of speech and armament for starters.

Surveys who probably think like most that government control = freedom.

It doesn't make a difference as to how you explain things to these people, they're smarter than everyone. I call it arrogance. I.E. NZ parliament just changed gun ownership to a privilege voted, 119 to 1, why, because they know better. I wonder if that was representative of all NZ'ers That's how authoritarian rule begins, slowly taking rights away disguised as 'for the common good'

Like you say GOV CONTROL=/=GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE=/= FREEDOM

That was my distinction between a full style democracy and a constitutional republic. Their response is an all inclusive generic definition of democracy and to poke fun, when there are startling differences between a republic and a parliamentary democracy, they don't get the UNITARIAN ASPECT OF DEMOCRACY. They don't seem to know the difficulty involved in changing one of our constitutional amendment, where, with them, it can be done with relative ease.

 

[phrodeau]

Only what the duly elected Democrats decided was required. It isn't as if they represent "We the People."

Every concession Trump and Republicans have asked for, they have received. They may lie about it on TV, bit they are getting due process.

 

[bhurry]

Every concession Trump and Republicans have asked for, they have received. They may lie about it on TV, bit they are getting due process.

sure they are. sure they are

 

[icanhelp1]

#585 above.
Despite your extensive explanations I fail to see any fundamental difference between your constitutional republic and my constitutional monarchy. At least in terms of individual rights and freedoms.
Even then, the differences in our respective representative democracies seem largely cosmetic.
I also point to independent international surveys ranking the "individual freedom" within each country in the world. I note that NZ routinely ranks higher in these surveys than the US.
So... I'm not sure what it is you are claiming for the constitutional republic team.

Your freedoms are what you accept as a people, but your system of government has more say as to your well being than your citizens. A representative government=/= individual and equal rights under the law. I.E. Your parliament just changed firearm ownership to a privilege, were your citizens represented in that decision or did your parliament vote on it with the preconceived authority that they know better. Rights and freedoms may be similar in scope and universally accepted but how they are protected is the distinction.

Your fucking problem is you think I'm comparing one to the other as to which form is better. 'We the people' grant our own freedoms and are to be protected by government. Government is not the ultimate say 'we the people are'. Our individual rights are the foundation of our republic and the government can't change them. Having a representative government is a democratic process in it's own right but is not the hinge pin of how our laws are made and enforced. We have 10 bill of rights and 17 additional amendments which cannot be arbitrarily removed, rescinded or changed without consent of the people represented by 3 separate and co=equal branches of government, 2/3rds majority vote of both houses or a constitutional convention where 3/4trs majority of the states in our republic vote in favor of a change. That is why our electoral college will most likely never change.

 

[bhurry]

Freedom of speech and armament for starters.

Surveys who probably think like most that government control = freedom.

Maybe someday NZ will sink

 

[Rightguide]

Every concession Trump and Republicans have asked for, they have received. They may lie about it on TV, bit they are getting due process.

That's bullshit and you know it.

 

[KeithD]

sure they are. sure they are

So, you see the light now?

It will help if you look at every instance of this from the perspective, if/when the Republicans are in control what would they do/what have they done? Each and every time that would come out showing the Democrats to be more fair. I know it; you know it.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I agree that we have a representative style government and in that sense it does fall in the category as a democracy.

Thank you for that.

My point is, there are stark differences between a constitutional republic and a parliamentary style democracy. Certain protected inalienable right makes our form of government quite different in that aspect. Personal liberties are guaranteed and the majority can't impose its will upon us. Most governments have a constitution but we recognize inalienable rights as part of our constitution, So you can understand where I'm coming from, "a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather a government indirectly controlled by its people". We have democratic processes and in that way we are a representative democracy. YOU HAVE INHERENT RIGHTS, WE HAVE INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Most democracies are unitary in nature, in the United States each state functions unitarily under the umbrella of a federal system. We have fifty individual state governments each with representative style government 'for the people' 'by the people'.

The majority party is not the voice of the people, congress as a whole represents the people.

What you are describing is the process. Since your government requires two separate bodies to come together to pass legislation ( as does the Canadian model), that does not remove the fact that the each of the bodies Majority speaks for "all the people". All it means is your government was designed with partisan cooperation in mind. Which was the exact opposite of how most other world powers operated in the 1700's. When your form of Democracy was designed ( and set the standard for Democracy's future btw) by the founding fathers.

Still though, even with the mechanics of your governance, you cannot claim that the Democrats( or Republicans as the case maybe) only speak for Democrats(Republicans), if they are a Majority in either the House, or the Senate. The Majority of each body still speaks for "All the People".


What the two bodies do is act as a control to ensure equal representation, and limit large localized bodies of populous, from controlling, through Majority Votes, the rest of the country. 2 Senators from each state, create a balance of equal state populous representation. Where as the house Majority # fluctuates since electoral districts are controlled by population (435 seats @ 711,000 population). We have a similar set up in Canada.

A majority by party does not necessarily pass legislation. A majority party can be split on votes but can still pass legislation with the appropriate votes from both parties both in the house and senate

All I said was the Majority represents the people. Since a Majority, does not need other party support to move out it's legislation.

As a note, I do not have Inherent rights though, the First Nations peoples of Canada do. I figure I should just mention that in case you do some googling and don't read the full legislation etc.. My rights as a Canadian are defined via our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property."

Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes our Rights Inalienable, though it does not define all the rights in the manner of the US constitution, and it's amendments ( if it had,I can say the testing of "Rights" in court would have been greatly limited here in Canada).

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"In other words, section 26 confirms that rights not within the Charter are nevertheless as real as they would be had the Charter never been enacted. The purpose of this "cautionary provision" was to confirm pre-Charter rights will persist." ( Canadian Bill of Rights )

 

[LincolnDuncan]

Republicans in congress are taking turns doing their impression of Baghdad Bob

 

[icanhelp1]

Thank you for that.



What you are describing is the process. Since your government requires two separate bodies to come together to pass legislation ( as does the Canadian model), that does not remove the fact that the each of the bodies Majority speaks for "all the people". All it means is your government was designed with partisan cooperation in mind. Which was the exact opposite of how most other world powers operated in the 1700's. When your form of Democracy was designed ( and set the standard for Democracy's future btw) by the founding fathers.

Still though, even with the mechanics of your governance, you cannot claim that the Democrats( or Republicans as the case maybe) only speak for Democrats(Republicans), if they are a Majority in either the House, or the Senate. The Majority of each body still speaks for "All the People".


What the two bodies do is act as a control to ensure equal representation, and limit large localized bodies of populous, from controlling, through Majority Votes, the rest of the country. 2 Senators from each state, create a balance of equal state populous representation. Where as the house Majority # fluctuates since electoral districts are controlled by population (435 seats @ 711,000 population). We have a similar set up in Canada.



All I said was the Majority represents the people. Since a Majority, does not need other party support to move out it's legislation.

As a note, I do not have Inherent rights though, the First Nations peoples of Canada do. I figure I should just mention that in case you do some googling and don't read the full legislation etc.. My rights as a Canadian are defined via our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Inalienable right refers to rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else, especially a natural right such as the right to own property."

Section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms makes our Rights Inalienable, though it does not define all the rights in the manner of the US constitution, and it's amendments ( if it had,I can say the testing of "Rights" in court would have been greatly limited here in Canada).

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"In other words, section 26 confirms that rights not within the Charter are nevertheless as real as they would be had the Charter never been enacted. The purpose of this "cautionary provision" was to confirm pre-Charter rights will persist." ( Canadian Bill of Rights )

Government is a process.

Are you a parliamentary democracy or a constitutional republic. When you learn the difference we can talk. Fucking word games. We have majority and minority leaders in both houses, and a speaker of the house,{ governing protocol }. A majority is not defined as representation of all, that, by your definition, would eliminate the minority and over-represent the majority. Again, all of congress represents all the people. If you remove the electoral college that would remove electoral districts as 1 vote each , the color red and blue ( republican and democrat ) would disappear. You would see that each representative derives governing authority from its local constituents and not centralized government, (from the bottom up). The majority would be exposed for nothing more than a vote count needed to pass legislation, a plurality count not majority rule. In a two party system a majority does have more influence due to numbers but no one party in either house rules absolutely. The majority represents a tally of votes. Each senator and representative is duty bound to its constituents not to the government. Our government is a mechanism to do the peoples business. In my opinion we should dissolve both parties to eliminate party loyalty and reposition representative authority back to the people. We the people have given government too much power.

 

[magicalmoments]

#591 above
Well... It's a good job you're not comparing as you'd come off last.
Changes to constitutional laws in NZ require a 75% majority in our House of Representatives to become law. I'm somewhat surprised that you yanks treat your constitution so lightly, allowing changes to it with only a 66% majority.
The law change that outlawed military style automatic weapons in NZ was passed with a 99% majority. In a House of Representatives containing 120 members representing 4 political parties ranging from the extreme right to the moderate left you'd have to say that was a fairly emphatic statement by "we the people". Although, here in NZ, firearm ownership is not a constitutional issue and it could have passed with a simple 51% majority.

 

[JackLuis]

As we sit here arguing the structure of DEMOCRACY, the Rethuglicunts in the Judiciary Committee are raising all sorts of OBSTRUCTION of Donnie's extortion of the Ukraine who are fighting for their country against the Russian aggressor!

None of their objections refute the issue that the July PeeResident did extort the Ukraine and continues to with hold parts of the aid right now in December.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Government is a process.

we should dissolve both parties to eliminate party loyalty and reposition representative authority back to the people. We the people have given government too much power.

I agree with you 100% on that point, in both countries!!

 

[KeithD]

None of their objections refute the issue that the July PeeResident did extort the Ukraine and continues to with hold parts of the aid right now in December.

Which will, I'm sure, be reflected in the House vote (should it happen. There's always a chance it won't happen until it actually does, with the result of impeachment) and then also in the Senate vote, although the Senate vote won't negate the judgment of history (and of a bunch of U.S. senators).

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Government is a process.

Are you a parliamentary democracy or a constitutional republic. When you learn the difference we can talk. Fucking word games.

You should try the parliamentary version over yours. Where 33 % of the electorate can allow a party to form the government. The leader of said party is now a Dictator in all but name until the next election cycle.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It doesn't make a difference as to how you explain things to these people, they're smarter than everyone.

Hallmark of the "Progressive" lefty.....so woke....so superior in all ways.

Also why they are always so interested in telling Americans how they should run their HC system.

Maybe someday NZ will sink

I don't wish them any harm.

It's just a lie to claim they have the same rights we do.

The Majority of each body still speaks for "All the People".

Only if they share the same core political values......otherwise you wind up with a polarized situation like we have now where the government is basically non-functioning because 2 sides are not in agreement about core values.