Impeach Trump!

[kalm]

Correct all around, but that's still a big difference.

I didn’t say it was the same, just ironic. The R’s didn’t want to do their job in appointing a judge...for political gain, but will be quick to do so on voting for acquittal....for political gain. This is what they beat the Dems at.

[AZGrizFan]

The Constitution doesn't say it's for the voters to decide on impeachments or filling SCOTUS seats.

You know, the ole "we're a republic, not a democracy."

Agreed. This "we must let the voters decide" doesn't make sense if we're going to have a Republic. What's the point of a representative then? The Democrats also ran on a platform that they'll impeach the President...so their voters literally decided that's what they want by sending them to Congress.

I would have been pissed if my representative didn't follow through.

Oh, the voters are going to decide alright. November is going to be a fucking bloodbath for Dems. There's gonna be so much of this I can hardly wait:

phpBB [video]

[89Hen]

Correct all around, but that's still a big difference.

I didn’t say it was the same, just ironic. The R’s didn’t want to do their job in appointing a judge...for political gain, but will be quick to do so on voting for acquittal....for political gain. This is what they beat the Dems at.

We're cool on this subject, but you did say "ironically not much different"... isn't that the same as same?

[Ibanez]

Neither have anything to do with the voters. It's about winning one for the party and not what is best for the country or the institutions.

Correct, but notice I said "they sold it". You can't possibly spin this impeachment as that.

Yes, agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I didn’t say it was the same, just ironic. The R’s didn’t want to do their job in appointing a judge...for political gain, but will be quick to do so on voting for acquittal....for political gain. This is what they beat the Dems at.

We're cool on this subject, but you did say "ironically not much different"... isn't that the same as same?

That’s a fair criticism. My bad.

[∞∞∞]

If Trump wins, it'll be thanks to the garbage that is the electoral college system, along with a nice sprinkle of the GOP's reliance on voter suppression.

A President can't act like they have a mandate, or act surprised, when the majority of voters didn't vote for them. And it is - once again - another great example of the pure crap that is the American Constitution.

[Skjellyfetti]

Oh, the voters are going to decide alright. November is going to be a fucking bloodbath for Dems.

And, you predicted Rs would control the House in 2018. We'll see!

[89Hen]

the pure crap that is the American Constitution.

That should be your tag line. I will say this for you Trip, you're nothing if consistent.

[CID1990]

If Trump wins, it'll be thanks to the garbage that is the electoral college system, along with a nice sprinkle of the GOP's reliance on voter suppression.

A President can't act like they have a mandate, or act surprised, when the majority of voters didn't vote for them. And it is - once again - another great example of the pure crap that is the American Constitution.

It’s a wonder you stick around given the failed state you live in


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

If Trump wins, it'll be thanks to the garbage that is the electoral college system, along with a nice sprinkle of the GOP's reliance on voter suppression.

A President can't act like they have a mandate, or act surprised, when the majority of voters didn't vote for them. And it is - once again - another great example of the pure crap that is the American Constitution.

For Christ's sake, you're a broken record. Are you doing anything to fix it? Are you putting your money and efforts into people and policies that have a chance of creating change?

The pure crap of of the Constitution? Why? Because you didn't get your way? B/c your party screwed up in 2016? Democrats are as much to blame for Trump as the Republicans. IT was democrats that were so disgusted by Clinton that they those the lesser of two evils was TRUMP.

It's not our constitution that's the problem. That's a weak argument. It's the caliber of our candidates and what we've allowed our country to become.

You want hope and change? Run, nominate and elect a Democrat that actually stands a chance.


RAWR!

[Chizzang]

Agreed. This "we must let the voters decide" doesn't make sense if we're going to have a Republic. What's the point of a representative then? The Democrats also ran on a platform that they'll impeach the President...so their voters literally decided that's what they want by sending them to Congress.

I would have been pissed if my representative didn't follow through.

Oh, the voters are going to decide alright. November is going to be a fucking bloodbath for Dems. There's gonna be so much of this I can hardly wait:

phpBB [video]

Women don't vote - that's already been proven
and black people don't vote - that's old news
and 20 somethings don't vote... because they're lazy about the political process


They get what they deserve

[Skjellyfetti]

Women vote more than men.

Though, really... most people across all demographics don't vote in any high numbers.

[CID1990]

You want hope and change? Run, nominate and elect a Democrat that actually stands a chance.


RAWR!

Like Mitt Romney

hee hee couldn’t resist


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

If Trump wins, it'll be thanks to the garbage that is the electoral college system, along with a nice sprinkle of the GOP's reliance on voter suppression.

A President can't act like they have a mandate, or act surprised, when the majority of voters didn't vote for them. And it is - once again - another great example of the pure crap that is the American Constitution.

For Christ's sake, you're a broken record. Are you doing anything to fix it? Are you putting your money and efforts into people and policies that have a chance of creating change?

Of course. My name is in the FEC donations database; and I'll be volunteering again in the 2020 election.

The pure crap of of the Constitution? Why? Because you didn't get your way? B/c your party screwed up in 2016? Democrats are as much to blame for Trump as the Republicans. IT was democrats that were so disgusted by Clinton that they those the lesser of two evils was TRUMP.

The Constitution is antiquated garbage. Let's not forget that Clinton won the majority of votes, which in most free elections, means she would win the one branch which represents all people. I know I know, "we're a Republic" 'cause we don't actually give a sh*t about solid democratic concepts.

It's not our constitution that's the problem. That's a weak argument. It's the caliber of our candidates and what we've allowed our country to become.

I can maybe contend that it's less the design that's the issue than it's the fact that legislators over the years have failed to keep the Constitution up-to-date. Instead we rely on a labyrinth of SCOTUS rulings and precedents. But on the other hand, designing a system which makes amendments extremely difficult is in itself a serious design flaw.

You want hope and change? Run, nominate and elect a Democrat that actually stands a chance. :coffee

The fact that you can run someone who wins the majority of votes and still loses is not conducive to good national representation. Additionally studies show that throughout the world, when people select candidates who they think can win, instead of selecting candidates they're genuinely excited about in the primary, that primary winner will often lose the general election.

[SDHornet]

If Trump wins, it'll be thanks to the garbage that is the electoral college system, along with a nice sprinkle of the GOP's reliance on voter suppression.

A President can't act like they have a mandate, or act surprised, when the majority of voters didn't vote for them. And it is - once again - another great example of the pure crap that is the American Constitution.

Looks like somebody got their morning dose of Occupy Democrats propaganda this morning.

[Ibanez]

For Christ's sake, you're a broken record. Are you doing anything to fix it? Are you putting your money and efforts into people and policies that have a chance of creating change?

Of course. My name is in the FEC donations database; and I'll be volunteering again in the 2020 election.

The pure crap of of the Constitution? Why? Because you didn't get your way? B/c your party screwed up in 2016? Democrats are as much to blame for Trump as the Republicans. IT was democrats that were so disgusted by Clinton that they those the lesser of two evils was TRUMP.

The Constitution is antiquated garbage. Let's not forget that Clinton won the majority of votes, which in most free elections, means she would win the one branch which represents all people. I know I know, "we're a Republic" 'cause we don't actually give a sh*t about solid democratic concepts.

It's not our constitution that's the problem. That's a weak argument. It's the caliber of our candidates and what we've allowed our country to become.

I can maybe contend that it's less the design that's the issue than it's the fact that legislators over the years have failed to keep the Constitution up-to-date. Instead we rely on a labyrinth of SCOTUS rulings and precedents. But on the other hand, designing a system which makes amendments extremely difficult is in itself a serious design flaw.

You want hope and change? Run, nominate and elect a Democrat that actually stands a chance. :coffee

The fact that you can run someone who wins the majority of votes and still loses is not conducive to good national representation. Additionally studies show that throughout the world, when people select candidates who they think can win, instead of selecting candidates they're genuinely excited about in the primary, that primary winner will often lose the general election.

It's not extremely difficult to make amendments. The average time to get an amendment proposed in Congress and ratified is roughly 1.5 yrs. 1-10 were done in over 2.5 years. 9 have been done in less than 1 year. 6 were proposed, ratified (and repealed) between 1913 and 1933. Another 4 between 1961 and 1971.

It's not easy but to say it's prohibitively difficult is dishonest.

[Pwns]

We need to ban closed primaries and have every state hold their primary on the same day before we even talk about tweaking the EC. If you don't like Trump, talk about the system that led to his nomination instead of just taking on faith that we won't get another Trump as long as the winner of the popular vote wins the election.

[tribe_pride]

We need to ban closed primaries and have every state hold their primary on the same day before we even talk about tweaking the EC. If you don't like Trump, talk about the system that led to his nomination instead of just taking on faith that we won't get another Trump as long as the winner of the popular vote wins the election.

Disagree on banning closed primaries. If the Republican Party want to nominate someone to nominate someone to represent that Party, why should someone who is not a Republican be able to have a say over that? Same with the Democrats. They should all be closed primaries.

I could back you up on the every state being on the same day though

[∞∞∞]

It's not easy but to say it's prohibitively difficult is dishonest.

I feel like you're being a little dishonest about the "ease" when amendments 1-12 were ratified when the US was less than 20 states, and 13-15 were done only because the South had reconstruction governments.

It was also a lot easier to amend things when you only represented white men for over half the amendments, and men in general for 70% of the amendments.

If you think the Constitution isn't difficult to modify, I've got a book written by Trump to sell you.

[Ibanez]

It's not easy but to say it's prohibitively difficult is dishonest.

I feel like you're being a little dishonest about the "ease" when amendments 1-12 were ratified when the US was less than 20 states, and 13-15 were done only because the South had reconstruction governments.

It was also a lot easier to amend things when you only represented white men for over half the amendments, and men in general for 70% of the amendments.

If you think the Constitution isn't difficult to modify, I've got a book written by Trump to sell you.

I didn't say it wasn't difficult. You make it is some impossible feat. I said historically, it's been done and with some expediancy. You aren't going to try b/c it's hard? That's pathetic thinking.

And what the fuck does race have to do with any of those, aside from the 13th? You're just grasping at DNC talking points now. If you keep villanizing(sp?) white people for things that were done by dead white people 100+ years ago, the day will come where you will regret it. Should we also villianize(sp?) Africans b/c they sold and owned slaves and still do?

[∞∞∞]

WTF...where is the villainization?

It's a point that it's a lot easier to amend when you represent the wants of a narrow demographic.

The Constitution is outdated.

[89Hen]

The Constitution is outdated.

[GannonFan]

WTF...where is the villainization?

It's a point that it's a lot easier to amend when you represent the wants of a narrow demographic.

The Constitution is outdated.

Amending the Constitution is only hard if what you're trying to amend has only very little general support in the first place. And really, if it only has little general support why would we want to enshrine it in the Constitution in the first place? If you really want something to be amended, do the hard work and convince people to agree with you. Stop falling back on tropisms whenever you realize you just can't snap into existence whatever you want because *horror* you have to engage with the other side of the electorate that you've convinced yourself is pure evil. That's not the Constitution's fault, more so the person you see in the mirror.

[∞∞∞]

WTF...where is the villainization?

It's a point that it's a lot easier to amend when you represent the wants of a narrow demographic.

The Constitution is outdated.

Amending the Constitution is only hard if what you're trying to amend has only very little general support in the first place. And really, if it only has little general support why would we want to enshrine it in the Constitution in the first place? If you really want something to be amended, do the hard work and convince people to agree with you. Stop falling back on tropisms whenever you realize you just can't snap into existence whatever you want because *horror* you have to engage with the other side of the electorate that you've convinced yourself is pure evil. That's not the Constitution's fault, more so the person you see in the mirror.

The Constitution promotes unequal representation.

You can have theoretically 99% of the population agree on a change, yet the Constitution unable to be amended simply due to where those people live. If 4951 people lived in Nebraska, and 1 person lived in every other state...13 to 49 people could stop the will of everyone else.

Might as well be a federation of central government if we're gonna make a mockery of democracy.

[GannonFan]

Amending the Constitution is only hard if what you're trying to amend has only very little general support in the first place. And really, if it only has little general support why would we want to enshrine it in the Constitution in the first place? If you really want something to be amended, do the hard work and convince people to agree with you. Stop falling back on tropisms whenever you realize you just can't snap into existence whatever you want because *horror* you have to engage with the other side of the electorate that you've convinced yourself is pure evil. That's not the Constitution's fault, more so the person you see in the mirror.

The Constitution promotes unequal representation.

You can have theoretically 99% of the population agree on a change, yet the Constitution unable to be amended simply due to where those people live. If 4951 people lived in Nebraska, and 1 person lived in every other state...13 people could stop the will of 4987.

Might as well be a federation of central government if we're gonna make a mockery of democracy.

Your hyperbole only serves to demonstrate your inability to rationally discuss the subject. What a wonder that you can't get enough people to agree with you to make the changes you deem so dire and necessary.