I think we all know people like that. It is unbelievable. My best friend is a Trump voter, and I have the hardest time understanding it. He's the son of Vietnamese immigrants, one of which being from the North and having actually been in the army (not that he had a choice in the matter). I try to get him to realize Trump's immigration policies would have kept his family out, but he doesn't see it. Of course he is also a big buy American guy that never actually buys American. Guns and illegal immigration are issues I get are important to these people, but there are so many better candidates that believe the same thing. I think the real reason is because they like that Trump can seemingly do and say whatever he wants without consequence. It is fair to say I don't know anybody from the rust belt, and that is how he won the Presidency. The real difference maker was that he appealed to all those places that dealt in manufacturing and old outdated energy. Things that Bernie was more appealing on than Hillary. I think hate powers the unabashed Trump voter, but the real issues are what actually made the difference.
The answer is obvious to those with fully functional brains. Read what the constitution says, it's pretty straight forward. The president can pardon himself or anyone for crimes except for impeachment. That pretty clearly means that the president can pardon himself for non-impeachable offenses. How is that hard for you to understand? Seriously kid, it's embarrassing, do better.
Pretty hard because you can be impeached and removed from office for anything. Chuck Schumdog recently said we lack democracy completely ignoring if we actually got a blue wave, Trump could be instantly removed from office before any investigation concludes. That's democracy in action. He is asking for a bureaucracy to do what he cannot achieve with votes. With your weird limits Trump cannot pardon himself of anything. He could be removed from office for being white if the senate gets the votes.
Where in the article you linked does it say anything about impeachment, let alone impeached before the investigation is completed?
Not really though. It's pretty limited to "high crimes and misdemeanors" it's pretty clear that only the most serious of crimes are impeachable offenses. Now that said, obviously that is assuming that the congress actually did their job properly instead of it just being a political sh*t show....and we know it would be. I'm just saying that according to the constitution, this is the way it is supposed to be. Also, when it comes to the "blue wave", even in the most wildly optimistic outcome for our fringe left friends, that would still only get them 62 votes in the senate, which means even if impeached by the house, Trump wouldn't be going anywhere.
The article was linked to show Chuckie believes we lack democracy. The fact is impeachment is democracy in action. The article avoids it because mentioning it would undermine his argument, which is why I brought it up.
There have already been impeachment votes in the house. If they had a majority of votes, it would have passed. a President can be impeached with votes, it is a political action. If the public outrage was as high as the term constitutional crisis implied, surely the house as the will of the people would reflect that and impeachment would be vastly supported.
Well sure, but that's just "Trump Derangement Syndrome" showing up in the House and a few of their members throwing b**** fits...and sure it's embarrassing, but I'm going to assume that if there was an actual chance of it passing, they'd wait till there was some kind of actual charge to go after him with. In any scenario they'd need republicans voting on their side and that wouldn't happen if there wasn't an actual charge that could be proven....just like with Bill Clinton, it probably still wouldn't happen even if those crimes were proven. So like I said, he's not going anywhere realistically.
Which reflects the will of the people, which suggests there is no democracy deficit as chuckie suggests.
yes, and he was wrong. He wants an unelected civil service to do what the will of the people isn't there for.
Your points tend to confuse me... are you referring to Mueller as the "unelected civil service"? Was this also the case with Kenneth Starr? Archibald Cox? Heck... didn't trump threaten to assign a special counsel to go after Hillary Clinton? Or are you making some other defense of trump here?
These answers seem self evident. In an argument about a deficit of democracy, chuck is making a point that is the opposite of the truth. It isn't a confusing point at all. the House is setup to follow the will of the people. If the will is to oust Trump, the midterms will reflect it and he will be out.
Again, if the sitting president places himself above the law and a House of the same party chooses not to pursue the recommendations made by the Special Counsel, then Shumer's point is well made. But even assuming that the House does pursue articles of impeachment (and in your description, "follows the will of the people", what happens if the republican majority Senate votes to not convict? Does that not follow the will of the people?
Did it limit the will of the people when the Senate refused to remove Clinton from office despite the house impeaching him and the evidence of his guilt with respect to the charges brought against him (including ironically obstruction of justice the charge you hope one day to bring against Trump if any evidence is found)? I know this puts you in a box DNC propaganda bot, but do your best to think of a response.
Chucks point that we lack democracy if the representatives of the people choose to not impeach? He wants an unelected process instead of one that comes from elected officials because he doesn't have the votes to get his way. That's fine but don't blame it on lack of democracy in our country. The senate follows the will of the people just as much as the House. There are 35 seats available. If there is overwhelming support for impeachment, the democractic process will vote in representatives that reflect that view. Don't pretend these jerks aren't updated daily on polls in order to write their talking points.
Again, Shumer is specifically talking to trump's statement re: pardoning himself. But the very same republican senate that can't even show the ethics to demand the resignation of the most corrupt member of trump's administration (someone one senator called "as swampy as you can get")? You think they will act ethically should article of impeachment are submitted? Anyway... the system we have is the system we will work with. The investigation will proceed, and Mueller will make recommendations based on what the investigation found. We will then see what happens with the House and Senate.
and again I fail to see how that process means we don't live in a democracy. in a debate about a deficit of democracy, your opinion of "acting ethically" is one out of millions of voters. Those opinions are expressed in polls and ultimately elections. If you feel they acted unethically but you are outvoted on the day, that has nothing to do with a lack of democracy, the people just went the other way. what will happen is the will of the people will be represented. When Clinton was impeached his approval rating jumped 10 points, the senate not throwing him on his ass was an act of democracy as the will of the people prevailed.
