LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Trump to be Speaker of the House, then………

Good luck with that.

Not enough political capital for that....sorry
 
Mayoral Proclamation with ZERO to back that up. Typical, Mr. Mayor!
 
The only way that could happen is if 67 senators vote to convict. It is all but mathematically impossible for the Republicans to get 67 seats, and even if they could, a few of them have the integrity not to vote to overturn an election for no real reason. ESPECIALLY not if it means returning Trump to the White House, which plenty of them privately know would be a disaster.
 
Good Lord...

The improbable meets the impossible.
You might consider taking up a hobby.
 
YDB95 said:
The only way that could happen is if 67 senators vote to convict. It is all but mathematically impossible for the Republicans to get 67 seats, and even if they could, a few of them have the integrity not to vote to overturn an election for no real reason. ESPECIALLY not if it means returning Trump to the White House, which plenty of them privately know would be a disaster.
Click to expand...
Not if the Senate changes its rules, like Schumer wanted to do.
 
Mropietaylor69 said:
had to beat trump once, will have to happen again. I suppose
Click to expand...
Whether he runs again or not, the bigotry he stirred up will continue to be a problem we'll need to address one way or another. A friend of mine on Facebook said it best, right after Biden won: "It's like we invited some friends over for dinner and took a vote on what to eat, and the nominees were pizza or we go out and kill everyone who doesn't look like us. Even if pizza wins, you've still got a problem."
 
money has really polarized our country or things we cant talk about, with Ukraine we are able to get back to a little communality
 
phrodeau said:
The Constitution says a 2/3rds majority is needed. You really ought to read it some time.
Click to expand...
As much as I consider Biden and his VP to both have the combined IQ of a stinkbug, I have to agree with phrodeau here. It isn't going to happen with at least 2/3 voting Yes to carry the motion. Currently, the "nuclear" option can be used once per fiscal year in the senate to bypass the GAO approving the financial cost of a bill being passed. Yes Chucky boy is in favor supposedly of getting rid of the filibuster right now because it benefits the R's, but the D's aren't going to get rid of it because they'll almost certainly use it just as much in the next 2 years for their own party. Tends to go back and forth every 2-4 years.

Edit: Just want to be clear here, I'm not elaborating on 100% of the process of getting a bill passed. I don't have time for that boring crap.
 
LongDraw said:
As much as I consider Biden and his VP to both have the combined IQ of a stinkbug, I have to agree with phrodeau here. It isn't going to happen with at least 2/3 voting Yes to carry the motion. Currently, the "nuclear" option can be used once per fiscal year in the senate to bypass the GAO approving the financial cost of a bill being passed. Yes Chucky boy is in favor supposedly of getting rid of the filibuster right now because it benefits the R's, but the D's aren't going to get rid of it because they'll almost certainly use it just as much in the next 2 years for their own party. Tends to go back and forth every 2-4 years.

Edit: Just want to be clear here, I'm not elaborating on 100% of the process of getting a bill passed. I don't have time for that boring crap.
Click to expand...
Even if the filibuster were abolished completely, that has nothing to do with impeachment. Unlike the filibuster, the rules for impeachment are actually in the Constitution, and it calls for a 2/3 majority in the Senate for a conviction. The only way to change that would be with an amendment. And neither Chuck Schumer nor any other officeholder has called for that.
 
YDB95 said:
Even if the filibuster were abolished completely, that has nothing to do with impeachment. Unlike the filibuster, the rules for impeachment are actually in the Constitution, and it calls for a 2/3 majority in the Senate for a conviction. The only way to change that would be with an amendment. And neither Chuck Schumer nor any other officeholder has called for that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I was trying to get across in my previous response. Kind of like how the District of Columbia will never become its own state with 2 more senators until all the D's and R's agree to it, which will never happen in a million years.

A crazy thought did pop into my head though. Wouldn't it be crazy hella awesome if we offered to accept Ukraine into the U.S. as a 51st state? Man would that piss off Russia to the max!
 
There's a pretty big flaw to this plan though. Let's say the right will do this and be able to impeach Biden. Fine, that makes Kamala Harris President of the United States, and as POTUS what's to stop her from choosing someone to be her Vice President. So, if you guys impeach her whoever she selected as Vice President becomes the President who will choose someone else to be their Vice President and so on and so on.

Impeachment and the transfer of the office of Presidency just wasn't designed to work like you want it to here. Impeachment's not something meant to nail more than one politician and certainly not quickly. It's a long process with hearings and procedures to follow.
 
Veroe said:
Impeachment's not something meant to nail more than one politician and certainly not quickly. It's a long process with hearings and procedures to follow.
Click to expand...
Well, it is when they have no real reason for impeaching the president beyond wanting to be rid of him. No matter how long the hearings would be, 99% of the Republicans (and the Democrats for that matter) would already know how they were voting regardless of what emerged.
 
YDB95 said:
Well, it is when they have no real reason for impeaching the president beyond wanting to be rid of him. No matter how long the hearings would be, 99% of the Republicans (and the Democrats for that matter) would already know how they were voting regardless of what emerged.
Click to expand...

That's the way it works in this politically divided time in our history, but that's not the way it was intended to go by our founding fathers. They intended impeachment to be used as a last resort and for the Senators to vote for what was best for the country rather than their party.
 
Veroe said:
That's the way it works in this politically divided time in our history, but that's not the way it was intended to go by our founding fathers. They intended impeachment to be used as a last resort and for the Senators to vote for what was best for the country rather than their party.
Click to expand...
There is a LOT the founding fathers didn't foresee. Some good (women and people of color getting the vote, direct election of senators), some bad (the filibuster, a single senator being able to prevent the president from getting much of anything done), but the point is, no one is trying to change the number of senators needed to convict in an impeachment trial. And they wouldn't be able to change it if they did want to.
 
Let me ask honestly, on what grounds do they have for impeaching Biden?

The grounds for impeaching Bill Clinton were flimsy at best: He lied about sex with an intern. That should never even have come up before a hearing in the first place; it should have remained between him, Hillary, and Monica Lewinsky.

The grounds for impeaching Donald Trump were far more serious, he leveraged money to a foreign country to gain information to discredit his political opponents, and then tried to forcibly overturn an election that went against him.

The grounds for impeaching Biden? Well, um...inflation, and...?
Ineffective economic policy is not constitutional grounds for impeachment. Why didn't they go after Bush during the last recession? Or Jimmy Carter? Or Herbert Hoover in 1931? Because they couldn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top