If The Donald is truly just signing any order that crosses his desk the 25th amendment (section 4) lays out the process for a President who is unable to fulfill his duties.
Quote from: hippo on February 07, 2017, 08:14:18 pmI am not even sure what the criteria for impeachment is. Making peace with other countries will do it every time. The military-security complex needs enemies to justify their $600 billion annual budget.Threatening the oligarchy's source of income is the biggest offence possible in American politics.
I am not even sure what the criteria for impeachment is.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on Yesterday at 01:40:32 Trump is a liar and a con man.
Quote from Mr.DeMartino on June 14, 2019 at 02:28:07 Donald Trump is a lying sack of shit
If The Donald is truly just signing any order that crosses his desk the 25th amendment (section 4) lays out the process for a President who is unable to fulfill his duties. Amendment XXVSection 1.In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.Section 2.Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.Section 3.Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.Section 4.Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv
Quote from: hippo on February 07, 2017, 08:14:18 pmI am not even sure what the criteria for impeachment is. Who knows, they tried to impeach Bill for getting his knob waxed or whatever.
Your "liberal" (misnomer) hissy fits crack me up. I forsee alot of entertainment coming my way for the next 8 years.
Poll: 35 percent say impeachment justifiedBy Justin Sink - 07/14/14 01:23 PM EDT http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/212152-poll-35-percent-say-impeachment-justifiedMore than a third of all Americans and two-thirds of Republicans believe Congress would be justified in bringing impeachment proceedings against President Obama, according to a poll from YouGov and the Huffington Post released Monday. Thirty-five percent of all respondents, including 68 percent of Republicans, say there's reason for Congress to try to remove Obama from office. By contrast, just 8 percent of Democrats say impeachment proceedings are justified.The results mirror how Americans felt at a similar point during the George W. Bush administration. A 2007 poll from Gallup found that 36 percent of Americans believed Congress had reason to begin impeachment proceedings, including 54 percent of Democrats and 9 percent of Republicans.
Donald Trump might be more popular than you thinkhttp://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-popularity-polling-234630Once again, there's evidence suggesting traditional polls aren't accurately measuring support for the president and his policies.By Steven Shepard02/03/17 07:31 PM ESTJust how popular is Donald Trump? Two weeks into the new president’s term, it’s a matter of some dispute.Traditional phone polls that use live interviewers — including some of the most trusted polls in politics and media — report limited support for Trump and the controversial executive orders he’s signed. But automated phone and Internet-based surveys tell a different story. Once the element of anonymity is added, the president’s approval ratings suddenly look a lot better………
2016 Presidential Election Forecastshttp://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/1. Associated Press Electoral Map Analysis As of November 7th 2. ABC News Presidential State Ratings Final Forecast: November 4th3. CNN Electoral College Map Final Forecast: November 4th 4. NPR General Election Ratings Final Forecast: November 7th 5. NBC General Election Battleground Map Final Forecast: November 7th 6. Fox News Electoral Map As of November 7th
*1968 Popular Vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968Nixon - 43.42%Humphrey – 42.72%Wallace – 13.53%**1972 Popular Votehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972Nixon – 60.67% (49 States)McGovern – 37.52% (1 State – Massachusetts)
Liberal-fascists, elitists, nazis....FFS did you people actually graduate from university? Interior design maybe?
QuoteDonald Trump should be referred to the federal ethics office for his tweet attacking department store Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line, a Democratic senator has suggested.Bob Casey pointed the US Office of Government Ethics towards Trump’s message in a tweet, which read: “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” Trump’s message was later retweeted from the official presidential account, @potus.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/trump-nordstrom-tweet-ethics-bob-caseyQuoteTrump has refused to sell off his many businesses despite demands from critics that he do so to avoid multiple conflicts of interest.He said on 11 January he would maintain ownership of his global business empire but hand control to his two oldest sons Donald Jr and Eric, along with Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, during his presidency.Trump’s web of international companies remains opaque since he has refused to release his tax returns, which experts have said would provide a clearer view of his business interests.Norman Eisen, Obama’s chief ethics counsellor, told Associated Press: “The Trumps are using the White House like the Kardashians used reality TV, to build and vastly expand their overall business enterprises.”I'm sorry Ivanka, but if you've tried to always make your father do the right thing, then you've failed miserably.
Donald Trump should be referred to the federal ethics office for his tweet attacking department store Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line, a Democratic senator has suggested.Bob Casey pointed the US Office of Government Ethics towards Trump’s message in a tweet, which read: “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” Trump’s message was later retweeted from the official presidential account, @potus.
Trump has refused to sell off his many businesses despite demands from critics that he do so to avoid multiple conflicts of interest.He said on 11 January he would maintain ownership of his global business empire but hand control to his two oldest sons Donald Jr and Eric, along with Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, during his presidency.Trump’s web of international companies remains opaque since he has refused to release his tax returns, which experts have said would provide a clearer view of his business interests.Norman Eisen, Obama’s chief ethics counsellor, told Associated Press: “The Trumps are using the White House like the Kardashians used reality TV, to build and vastly expand their overall business enterprises.”
Quote from: Dave Stepz on February 09, 2017, 12:05:02 pmQuoteDonald Trump should be referred to the federal ethics office for his tweet attacking department store Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line, a Democratic senator has suggested.Bob Casey pointed the US Office of Government Ethics towards Trump’s message in a tweet, which read: “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” Trump’s message was later retweeted from the official presidential account, @potus.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/trump-nordstrom-tweet-ethics-bob-caseyQuoteTrump has refused to sell off his many businesses despite demands from critics that he do so to avoid multiple conflicts of interest.He said on 11 January he would maintain ownership of his global business empire but hand control to his two oldest sons Donald Jr and Eric, along with Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, during his presidency.Trump’s web of international companies remains opaque since he has refused to release his tax returns, which experts have said would provide a clearer view of his business interests.Norman Eisen, Obama’s chief ethics counsellor, told Associated Press: “The Trumps are using the White House like the Kardashians used reality TV, to build and vastly expand their overall business enterprises.”I'm sorry Ivanka, but if you've tried to always make your father do the right thing, then you've failed miserably.Stop being an elitist. You are only complaining because Hillary lost. We love Trump and you lost!! Get over it.Just kidding. I can't understand how people can't differentiate between their politics (party) and what is unethical, immoral, and more than likely unconstitutional. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vANWpIm6Jfc
Well, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.
Quote from: chrismclea on February 09, 2017, 01:14:08 pmWell, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?
Quote from: orionchocopie on February 09, 2017, 01:19:08 pmQuote from: chrismclea on February 09, 2017, 01:14:08 pmWell, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?The president is still a member of the public and still human, right? Is it really unethical to tweet your disappointment about something that happened to your family? Is he allowing business interest to hold sway over his office? Your arguments are circumstantial. Do you apply the same standards to past presidents or other elected officials, even the ones you support? The thing is, the left is really digging through the scrap heap to find something to pin on the POTUS so they have a reason to raise impeachment proceedings or probably more realistically a chance in the next election. It seems to me that all other avenues of stopping him from dismantling Obama's legacy are unattainable given the strength of the Republicans in the house and senate, thus all they have left is to promote the idea (with the aid of the willing media), in the hearts and minds of the public that his behavior is so abhorrent that he needs to be removed prior to serving his full term. It smacks of desperation. But if he does something as morally corrupt as Bill did, I will definitely join call for his impeachment.
Quote from: chrismclea on February 09, 2017, 02:39:53 pmQuote from: orionchocopie on February 09, 2017, 01:19:08 pmQuote from: chrismclea on February 09, 2017, 01:14:08 pmWell, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?The president is still a member of the public and still human, right? Is it really unethical to tweet your disappointment about something that happened to your family? Is he allowing business interest to hold sway over his office? Your arguments are circumstantial. Do you apply the same standards to past presidents or other elected officials, even the ones you support? The thing is, the left is really digging through the scrap heap to find something to pin on the POTUS so they have a reason to raise impeachment proceedings or probably more realistically a chance in the next election. It seems to me that all other avenues of stopping him from dismantling Obama's legacy are unattainable given the strength of the Republicans in the house and senate, thus all they have left is to promote the idea (with the aid of the willing media), in the hearts and minds of the public that his behavior is so abhorrent that he needs to be removed prior to serving his full term. It smacks of desperation. But if he does something as morally corrupt as Bill did, I will definitely join call for his impeachment. A simple yes or no would suffice. Could you answer the question? And if you don't have a problem with 45's behaviour, please explain why it's okay (in your opinion).
Does this first article mean that the elitists have created such a hostile environment that Americans are worried what will happen to them if they admit they support Trump? Will they be assailed on airplanes? Will their businesses be targeted? Are they afraid to exercise their right to free speech?
Quote from: orionchocopie on February 09, 2017, 02:43:04 pmQuote from: chrismclea on February 09, 2017, 02:39:53 pmQuote from: orionchocopie on February 09, 2017, 01:19:08 pmQuote from: chrismclea on February 09, 2017, 01:14:08 pmWell, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?The president is still a member of the public and still human, right? Is it really unethical to tweet your disappointment about something that happened to your family? Is he allowing business interest to hold sway over his office? Your arguments are circumstantial. Do you apply the same standards to past presidents or other elected officials, even the ones you support? The thing is, the left is really digging through the scrap heap to find something to pin on the POTUS so they have a reason to raise impeachment proceedings or probably more realistically a chance in the next election. It seems to me that all other avenues of stopping him from dismantling Obama's legacy are unattainable given the strength of the Republicans in the house and senate, thus all they have left is to promote the idea (with the aid of the willing media), in the hearts and minds of the public that his behavior is so abhorrent that he needs to be removed prior to serving his full term. It smacks of desperation. But if he does something as morally corrupt as Bill did, I will definitely join call for his impeachment. A simple yes or no would suffice. Could you answer the question? And if you don't have a problem with 45's behaviour, please explain why it's okay (in your opinion).Convince me that his intention was categorically and demonstrably meant to benefit her business interest and not just him showing disappointment at their decision. I might then agree that it could be grounds for impeachment. You should also be realistic and know that's not going to happen under the current balance of power in congress. Presidents don't generally get impeached because of vague ethical quagmires. There has to be substantial evidence of wrong doing to sway congress.