|
Post by patroller on Jan 13, 2021 18:03:11 GMT -5
The 2nd Senate vote is a simple majority. Guaranteed, DJT will never be able to run for elected office again. Regardless he'll be a lil tied up w/ multiple SDNY lawsuits over the next few years. 2/3's to prevent holding office again I believe. Wrong ! 2/3 to Impeach Simple Majority to Ban him from elected office for life And YES they already have 51 votes should it get that far
|
|
|
Post by promontoryrider on Jan 13, 2021 18:03:34 GMT -5
Best comment I read today, they can get an impeachment through in less than a week, but its taken 8 months to get a stimulus package through to the American People.
|
|
|
Post by wheelie on Jan 13, 2021 18:40:02 GMT -5
Best comment I read today, they can get an impeachment through in less than a week, but its taken 8 months to get a stimulus package through to the American People. Don’t think they will have a problem getting the agenda through now thanks to DJT antics submarining the GOP senate candidates in Georgia. Smooth move ex lax.
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Jan 13, 2021 19:02:26 GMT -5
They should have impeached Pelosi then when she labeled Republicans as "Enemies of the State". That's very incendiary since being an enemy of the state can justify all kinds of violence. Are you joking?
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Jan 13, 2021 19:03:34 GMT -5
Best comment I read today, they can get an impeachment through in less than a week, but its taken 8 months to get a stimulus package through to the American People. You can thank Mitch for that second part.
|
|
|
Post by what is hip ? on Jan 13, 2021 21:03:25 GMT -5
Best comment I read today, they can get an impeachment through in less than a week, but its taken 8 months to get a stimulus package through to the American People. Don’t think they will have a problem getting the agenda through now thanks to DJT antics submarining the GOP senate candidates in Georgia. Smooth move ex lax. The Georgia GOP candidates were doomed from the beginning. They both sucked. But they both "won" on 11/3. These state laws slicing and dicing elections is bull shit. Ranked choice titties and ass, no 50% erection is flaccid laws. How about most votes win assholes?
|
|
|
Post by Machski on Jan 13, 2021 22:19:19 GMT -5
Regardless he won't be able to run again and loses his pension about $200,000 a year! Loser gets what he deserves Fact check: No, impeachment itself would not ban Trump from a 2024 presidential run. 1) loses his 200k+ pension for the rest of his life 2) loses his 1 million dollar/year travel allowance 3) loses lifetime full secret service detail 4) loses his ability to run in 2024" Facts First: 1) Trump would lose his post-presidency pension only if both the House voted to impeach him and then the Senate voted to remove him from office; impeachment itself, without removal, would not result in Trump being denied any benefits. 2) The law makes clear that presidents who have lifetime Secret Service protection never get a $1 million travel allowance. 3) It is unclear that Trump would lose lifetime Secret Service protection even if the Senate voted to remove him and prohibit him from running. 4) Even a Senate vote to remove Trump would not prohibit him from running in 2024; for the Senate to ban him from the presidency, it would have to hold an additional vote on this question. #3 is incorrect now as well. W was the first former president to only get 10 years of secrete service detail after leaving office. All future presidents follow the same. The belief is that they make plenty of coin and can afford private security after that timeframe and that timeframe is long enough that any sensitive info they were privy too has waned in it usefulness.
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Jan 13, 2021 22:26:11 GMT -5
Fact check: No, impeachment itself would not ban Trump from a 2024 presidential run. 1) loses his 200k+ pension for the rest of his life 2) loses his 1 million dollar/year travel allowance 3) loses lifetime full secret service detail 4) loses his ability to run in 2024" Facts First: 1) Trump would lose his post-presidency pension only if both the House voted to impeach him and then the Senate voted to remove him from office; impeachment itself, without removal, would not result in Trump being denied any benefits. 2) The law makes clear that presidents who have lifetime Secret Service protection never get a $1 million travel allowance. 3) It is unclear that Trump would lose lifetime Secret Service protection even if the Senate voted to remove him and prohibit him from running. 4) Even a Senate vote to remove Trump would not prohibit him from running in 2024; for the Senate to ban him from the presidency, it would have to hold an additional vote on this question. #3 is incorrect now as well. W was the first former president to only get 10 years of secrete service detail after leaving office. All future presidents follow the same. The belief is that they make plenty of coin and can afford private security after that timeframe and that timeframe is long enough that any sensitive info they were privy too has waned in it usefulness. Obama signed the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, reinstating lifetime Secret Service protection for his predecessor George W. Bush, himself, and all subsequent presidents. By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions. That’s all on wiki.
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Jan 14, 2021 2:07:17 GMT -5
Don’t think they will have a problem getting the agenda through now thanks to DJT antics submarining the GOP senate candidates in Georgia. Smooth move ex lax. The Georgia GOP candidates were doomed from the beginning. They both sucked. But they both "won" on 11/3. These state laws slicing and dicing elections is bull shit. Ranked choice titties and ass, no 50% erection is flaccid laws. How about most votes win assholes?Careful where you go with that. For 'republicans" this flirts with a very sensitive issue of states' rights and republic vs. democracy - and the electoral college vs majority rule. Democrats have historically made, and are likely to elevate, the call for majority rule and nationalized election laws. At least for now that totally screws Republicans. There are more registered Democrats than Republicans and the prevailing trend supports an expanding gap. A move to "most votes" would make it very difficult for Republicans to win any elections if voters vote party affiliation. Republican strategists know this and are vehemently opposing musings leaning away from the status quo. States' rights ... except for where the party doesn't like states' rights. To Republican's favor ... "red states" are producing. Blue states aren't having enough babies to replace themselves. Over the long haul... Strategically Republicans might want to rethink the party platform on abortion and speed up the process. LOL
|
|
|
Post by wheelie on Jan 14, 2021 5:47:50 GMT -5
How about most votes win assholes? Then Hillary would have been president not DJT. If Trump had actually supported them instead of dogging on them and telling his mob not to vote because the election was rigged they might not be the first black and first Jewish senators (let alone Democrats) from Georgia. Think about that sea change for a minute. All he would have to say is “make sure you come out and vote for these most beeeeutiful candidates” and the results could have been different. But no, he had to go and fuck that up. I guess your saying the house and senate were going to be dem controlled after 11/3 anyway and that may be true; but it’s hard to believe that with “the most popular president ever” backing you in a southern traditionally republican state the two “white guys” would not have done better.
|
|
|
Post by wheelie on Jan 14, 2021 6:11:13 GMT -5
I think the national leadership of the GOP would love to see DJT barred from even running in 2024. If he is not, they have 0 shot at regaining the presidency. He has split that party and they have a less than 0 shot if he runs as an independent.
|
|
|
Post by sitzmark on Jan 14, 2021 7:56:03 GMT -5
How about most votes win assholes? Then Hillary would have been president not DJT. If Trump had actually supported them instead of dogging on them and telling his mob not to vote because the election was rigged they might not be the first black and first Jewish senators (let alone Democrats) from Georgia. Think about that sea change for a minute. All he would have to say is “make sure you come out and vote for these most beeeeutiful candidates” and the results could have been different. But no, he had to go and fuck that up. I guess your saying the house and senate were going to be dem controlled after 11/3 anyway and that may be true; but it’s hard to believe that with “the most popular president ever” backing you in a southern traditionally republican state the two “white guys” would not have done better. Georgia has morphed in a huge way. Would require a deep dive into registration numbers to figure out, but not so sure GA is/was a slam dunk for Republican senators without DJT's senate race antics. Over the past 40-50 years almost every major company has established a regional office (some now HQ'ed) in GA. Georgia might have been rolling red due to lack of voter motivation - minorities not bothering to vote and "predestined results" in the minds of moderates. With the huge infusion of carpetbaggers and explosion of minority population, not so red anymore. DJT did bring out the vote, but not in a good way for Republicans. When my family moved to GA in 1972 it was a whole nuther world. At least for me, a kid from CO. We were the only family on the block that didn't have domestic help. Some had live-in help and for others the bus stopped a couple of streets over and 30-40 black women walked to our neighbors' houses - at least one per house. The bus returned late every afternoon. The Dixiecrats had shifted parties but not mentality. The South WILL rise again. You'd think it might just be rhetoric ... not with many of my friends families. They were hellbent on preserving the South they knew and loved. My best friend's family built a new house - not just any house, an 11,000 sqft expanse - with a professional shooting range in the basement. (Next to a wine cellar to die for.) "Doc" had a couple of machine guns, 44 magnums, all sorts of wildass rifles, and carried a 45 EVERYWHERE he went. Not a revolutionary family ... just plain jane southern like most around us. And Jewish, counterintuitively. Republican to the core in step with the transition of Dixiecrats. At that time GA was a red state without question. Later in life that friend played semi-pro football post college for a while. I got to know a lot of good ol' boys in my GA days. Guns and fights ... a way of life.
|
|
|
Post by Machski on Jan 14, 2021 8:12:30 GMT -5
#3 is incorrect now as well. W was the first former president to only get 10 years of secrete service detail after leaving office. All future presidents follow the same. The belief is that they make plenty of coin and can afford private security after that timeframe and that timeframe is long enough that any sensitive info they were privy too has waned in it usefulness. Obama signed the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, reinstating lifetime Secret Service protection for his predecessor George W. Bush, himself, and all subsequent presidents. By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions. That’s all on wiki. Interesting that he signed that literally a week and a half before he took the oath to start his second and final term. Guess it looks better that he did that since his predecessor was already on the new deal rather than changing it just for himself on. I assume that's why W didn't get it changed on his watch, bad optics.
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Jan 14, 2021 8:27:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ZenMaster on Jan 14, 2021 8:37:55 GMT -5
Obama signed the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012, reinstating lifetime Secret Service protection for his predecessor George W. Bush, himself, and all subsequent presidents. By law, former presidents are entitled to a pension, staff and office expenses, medical care or health insurance, and Secret Service protection. These entitlements only apply if the former president was not removed from office by impeachment or other Congressional actions. That’s all on wiki. Interesting that he signed that literally a week and a half before he took the oath to start his second and final term. Guess it looks better that he did that since his predecessor was already on the new deal rather than changing it just for himself on. I assume that's why W didn't get it changed on his watch, bad optics. I don’t think optics has anything to do with it. Living in a post 9/11 world was a big part of it, and it had wide bi-partisan support. “I think protection, public safety [and] security [are] the foremost responsibility of government and this is a different world, even from the 1990s, when this act was last revisited in terms of the threat that high profile people face,” said the bill’s main sponsor Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). “President Bush [and] President Obama are youthful in terms of how long we currently expect people to live. So it just struck me that when you have people that high profile, that have served the country, that it is not too much to ask that they be protected for the remainder of their life.”
|
|