Biden/Liberal Bullshit...

[Left Seater]

Not this one because the impeached is already out of office.

So you're saying that a POTUS can violate whatever laws they don't like if it's in the last month of their term?

You do know there is a difference between impeachment and charging someone with criminal or civil crimes right?

[Screw_Michigan]

Not this one because the impeached is already out of office.

But that has nothing to do with the voting on the Constitutionality of something. Again should the Senate be voting on the Constitutionality of abortion.

The SC doesn't *ever* have any involvement in impeachment. You remain and will always be this board's biggest idiot.

[Mikey]

History Shows the Senate Can Hold an Impeachment Trial After Trump Leaves Office

https://www.justsecurity.org/74226/hist ... es-office/

...

Post-presidential impeachment is also legitimate because the Senate rules, initially drafted by Thomas Jefferson when he was vice-president, allow it. They provide that once the Senate has received the articles of impeachment, the Senate must “immediately” proceed with a trial.

Once the Senate receives the articles of impeachment against Trump, the Senate has no choice but to begin an impeachment trial. Every senator knows that the Senate has a long tradition of following its rules, and this is why Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) will not reconvene the Senate until the day before Joe Biden’s inauguration as the 46th president of the United States: He knows the Senate would have to begin a trial, and therefore he may be taking advantage of the Senate’s being in recess now so that Chuck Schumer, a Democrat who will become majority leader on Jan. 20, will take the heat for starting Trump’s second impeachment trial after Trump has left office. No one is more skilled at the use of congressional procedures than McConnell, but even he surely knows the Senate must begin an impeachment trial, even after the president leaves office.

The third reason that post-presidential impeachment is legitimate is perhaps the most compelling: On three separate occasions after an official left office, Congress proceeded with an impeachment and a trial of the impeached official. These three precedents provide a strong foundation for the Senate’s conducting a second impeachment trial of Trump. Some commentators overlook or dismiss these precedents because they did not involve presidents, but that makes no sense, since there is only one impeachment clause, which subjects presidents and every other impeachable official to the same process: They “shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

...

BTW...Trump was still in office when he was impeached.

[Softball Bat]

Runt Paul has been pushing this "it's unconstitutional" tripe.




It's no wonder he had a neighbor who decided to kick his ass.


The Dims are once again standing on the right side of history.


Dump's tweet just hours after multiple people died in the Capitol insurrection that had a mob coming to kill Mike Pence and others...

These are the things and events that happen when an election victory is stolen.
Go home with love and in peace, remember this day forever!

- Dump (Evening of 1/6/21)




Trash.

[Diego in Seattle]

Not this one because the impeached is already out of office.

So you're saying that a POTUS can violate whatever laws they don't like if it's in the last month of their term?

You do know there is a difference between impeachment and charging someone with criminal or civil crimes right?

High crimes & misdemeanors. What's your point?

[Innocent Bystander]

Meanwhile, in the People's Republic of Mexifornia ...

[+] yeah

(props to Xnxn3c+7 and rPUgkN+V for the lulz above. fuck this gay earth.)

[Mikey]

Meanwhile, in the People's Republic of Mexifornia ...

And...?

[Kierland]

Not this one because the impeached is already out of office.

But that has nothing to do with the voting on the Constitutionality of something. Again should the Senate be voting on the Constitutionality of abortion.

Fuck off traitor. You are as dumb as you are fat. It’s literally in the First article of the constitution, which I guarantee you have never read.

[smackaholic]

Not this one because the impeached is already out of office.

So you're saying that a POTUS can violate whatever laws they don't like if it's in the last month of their term?

He said nothing of the sort.

A lame duck POTUS, or anyone else, for that matter is subject to the nation's laws. If Trump violated any, pursue him in court as a private citizen.

But, that won't happen, because actual courts need to follow rules and stuff, unlike the joke kangaroo court congress has become.

[Screw_Michigan]

He said nothing of the sort.

A lame duck POTUS, or anyone else, for that matter is subject to the nation's laws. If Trump violated any, pursue him in court as a private citizen.

But, that won't happen, because actual courts need to follow rules and stuff, unlike the joke kangaroo court congress has become.

Wrong. Preventing Dump from ever taking federal office again is essential to the national security of the United States. Plus, putting these treasonous and cowardly GOPers on trial for aiding, enabling and EXCUSING Dump's anti-democratic behavior is very important. And voters are watching undoubtedly.

Why do you hate free and fair elections? Don't bother, we all know why, you fascist pile of human excrement.

[Kierland]

Not this one because the impeached is already out of office.

So you're saying that a POTUS can violate whatever laws they don't like if it's in the last month of their term?

He said nothing of the sort.

A lame duck POTUS, or anyone else, for that matter is subject to the nation's laws. If Trump violated any, pursue him in court as a private citizen.

But, that won't happen, because actual courts need to follow rules and stuff, unlike the joke kangaroo court congress has become.

Fuck off traitor. You don’t even care about elections.

[Left Seater]

So you're saying that a POTUS can violate whatever laws they don't like if it's in the last month of their term?

You do know there is a difference between impeachment and charging someone with criminal or civil crimes right?

High crimes & misdemeanors. What's your point?

That you liberals are only doing this for show. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Trump isn't in office. If you think he broke laws then charge him with a crime.

But this is just liberal political theater.

[Diego in Seattle]

You do know there is a difference between impeachment and charging someone with criminal or civil crimes right?

High crimes & misdemeanors. What's your point?

That you liberals are only doing this for show. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Trump isn't in office. If you think he broke laws then charge him with a crime.

But this is just liberal political theater.

The reason for the impeachment is not to remove Trump from office (obviously). It is to disqualify him from holding office ever again.

But then you knew that, but chose to play dumb (or was it just an act?).

[Left Seater]

Preventing Dump from ever taking federal office again is essential to the national security of the United States.

Why do you hate free and fair elections? Don't bother, we all know why, you fascist pile of human excrement.

Talking about free and fair elections and banning citizens from running makes you the fascist pile of human excrement.

Keep kicking your own ass.

[Diego in Seattle]

Not this one because the impeached is already out of office.

So you're saying that a POTUS can violate whatever laws they don't like if it's in the last month of their term?

He said nothing of the sort.

A lame duck POTUS, or anyone else, for that matter is subject to the nation's laws. If Trump violated any, pursue him in court as a private citizen.

But, that won't happen, because actual courts need to follow rules and stuff, unlike the joke kangaroo court congress has become.

Yeah, I'm sure that Trump's DOJ was just about to jump on that when Trump's term ran out....

[Left Seater]

The reason for the impeachment is not to remove Trump from office (obviously). It is to disqualify him from holding office ever again.

The GOP would appreciate you doing that. Makes 2022 and 2024 easier.

[Diego in Seattle]

Preventing Dump from ever taking federal office again is essential to the national security of the United States.

Why do you hate free and fair elections? Don't bother, we all know why, you fascist pile of human excrement.

Talking about free and fair elections and banning citizens from running makes you the fascist pile of human excrement.

Keep kicking your own ass.

Take it up with the Founding Fathers. They're the ones who made disqualification a constitutional remedy.

[Diego in Seattle]

The reason for the impeachment is not to remove Trump from office (obviously). It is to disqualify him from holding office ever again.

The GOP would appreciate you doing that. Makes 2022 and 2024 easier.

In 2022 Democrats will simply replay yesterday's trial & then report how the GOP chose to protect the guy who set up an insurrection. It will make 1976 pale in comparison to how they got trounced.

[smackaholic]

He said nothing of the sort.

A lame duck POTUS, or anyone else, for that matter is subject to the nation's laws. If Trump violated any, pursue him in court as a private citizen.

But, that won't happen, because actual courts need to follow rules and stuff, unlike the joke kangaroo court congress has become.

Wrong. Preventing Dump from ever taking federal office again is essential to the national security of the United States. Plus, putting these treasonous and cowardly GOPers on trial for aiding, enabling and EXCUSING Dump's anti-democratic behavior is very important. And voters are watching undoubtedly.

Why do you hate free and fair elections? Don't bother, we all know why, you fascist pile of human excrement.

How about you allow "free and fair elections" determine who is elected in the future?

The fact remains that no one has a clue how much fraud went on during the last election because we allowed a process that is not verifiable.

[smackaholic]

The reason for the impeachment is not to remove Trump from office (obviously). It is to disqualify him from holding office ever again.

The GOP would appreciate you doing that. Makes 2022 and 2024 easier.

In 2022 Democrats will simply replay yesterday's trial & then report how the GOP chose to protect the guy who set up an insurrection. It will make 1976 pale in comparison to how they got trounced.

5-6 dollar gas along with being fed up with hard left policies will buttfukk the dems in the mouf.

[Mikey]

You do know there is a difference between impeachment and charging someone with criminal or civil crimes right?

High crimes & misdemeanors. What's your point?

That you liberals are only doing this for show. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Trump isn't in office. If you think he broke laws then charge him with a crime.

But this is just liberal political theater.

Not only do you hate the Constitution, you lie about it.

Duly noted.

[Left Seater]

President Executive Action can't even get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass his crap. He has resorted to Executive Action.

Executive Orders in a President's first week

Trump 5
Obama 5
Bush 0
Clinton 0

Biden 24

This is after making some sort of claim about dictators and executive actions:

"Things you can't do by executive order unless you're a dictator. We're a democracy. We need consensus."

Hell, even the NYTimes is telling their hero to slow his roll:

But this is no way to make law. A polarized, narrowly divided Congress may offer Mr. Biden little choice but to employ executive actions or see his entire agenda held hostage. These directives, however, are a flawed substitute for legislation.

[Left Seater]

High crimes & misdemeanors. What's your point?

That you liberals are only doing this for show. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Trump isn't in office. If you think he broke laws then charge him with a crime.

But this is just liberal political theater.

Not only do you hate the Constitution.

Typical liberal. When you don't know shit, just throw out the word Constitution and says others hate it.

Facts are, an impeachment conviction by itself doesn't prevent anyone from holding office again.

[Diego in Seattle]

President Executive Action can't even get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass his crap. He has resorted to Executive Action.

Executive Orders in a President's first week

Trump 5
Obama 5
Bush 0
Clinton 0

Biden 24

This is after making some sort of claim about dictators and executive actions:

First year total EO's signed by Obama: 39
First year total EO's signed by Trump: 55

Your point?

[Kierland]

The GOP would appreciate you doing that. Makes 2022 and 2024 easier.

In 2022 Democrats will simply replay yesterday's trial & then report how the GOP chose to protect the guy who set up an insurrection. It will make 1976 pale in comparison to how they got trounced.

5-6 dollar gas along with being fed up with hard left policies will buttfukk the dems in the mouf.

#Soon

Fuck off traitor.

[Diego in Seattle]

An impeachment trial of a POTUS/former POTUS is a huge news story.

What is Fox News afraid of that is causing them not to let their viewers see it?

[Mikey]

That you liberals are only doing this for show. Impeachment is to remove someone from office. Trump isn't in office. If you think he broke laws then charge him with a crime.

But this is just liberal political theater.

Not only do you hate the Constitution.

Typical liberal. When you don't know shit, just throw out the word Constitution and says others hate it.

Facts are, an impeachment conviction by itself doesn't prevent anyone from holding office again.

Where did I say that it does?
Talk about strawmen...

You might want to scroll up this page and read the article I posted.
Then again, it's not what you want to see, so never mind.

[Innocent Bystander]

President Executive Action can't even get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass his crap. He has resorted to Executive Action.

Executive Orders in a President's first week

Trump 5
Obama 5
Bush 0
Clinton 0

Biden 24

This is after making some sort of claim about dictators and executive actions:

"Things you can't do by executive order unless you're a dictator. We're a democracy. We need consensus."

Hell, even the NYTimes is telling their hero to slow his roll:

But this is no way to make law. A polarized, narrowly divided Congress may offer Mr. Biden little choice but to employ executive actions or see his entire agenda held hostage. These directives, however, are a flawed substitute for legislation.

He's controlled by Mexico and China.

"President Executive Action" ... hahahahaha... time for a throwback:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsole ... 59e6e75f36

But Biden said he would not test the legal bounds of executive action and use it in lieu of legislation, stating “I am not going to violate the constitution,” and arguing unfettered use of executive orders can set a dangerous precedent for future administrations.

Throwback 2:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics ... index.html

Biden told a group of seven leaders of civil rights organizations that some progressive Democrats are urging executive actions that are "way beyond the bounds" of a president's legal authority. The comments reflect what Biden has said publicly about the limited scope of executive action and the need for presidents to work with Congress to enact long-lasting policy.

In the meeting, Biden said he planned to roll back everything President Donald Trump has done through executive action, rather than with the approval of Congress. He said he would use his powers "to undo every single damn thing this guy has done by executive authority."

"I am not going to violate the Constitution. Executive authority that my progressive friends talk about is way beyond the bounds," he said.

But, he said, he would not seek to use executive action to mandate policy changes that he has long said are up to Congress to make.

He said two different things at the same time.

[Mikey]

Reversing ridiculous EOs imposed by his deranged predecessor is not a bad thing.

Of course the extent of your vision and comprehension doesn't go past the end of your nose so I expect nothing of any substance from you.
Something that Left Seater also doesn't seem to recognize, or chooses to conveniently ignore.

[smackaholic]

President Executive Action can't even get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass his crap. He has resorted to Executive Action.

Executive Orders in a President's first week

Trump 5
Obama 5
Bush 0
Clinton 0

Biden 24

This is after making some sort of claim about dictators and executive actions:

First year total EO's signed by Obama: 39
First year total EO's signed by Trump: 55

Your point?

His point is that President EA’s first day came close to matching Trump’s entire year.

Regarding the Obama and Trump numbers on EAs, I’d like to know more about the individual EAs.

How many of Trump’s were to simply undo Barry’s

I have no problem at all with such an EA.

How many of Barry’s were to initiate a position.

Those, I do have a problem with.

On the topic of EAs itself, we need to pass a law, or better yet, an Ammendment, putting a limit on them as an available tool for a President something done instantly which can’t wait for congress.

Obama said that’s the way it works, until he realized that it was in his interest to do otherwise.

Biden has doubled down in this dictator tactic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Innocent Bystander]

Reversing ridiculous EOs imposed by his deranged predecessor is not a bad thing.

- Transsexual MtF are not women. Transsexual FtM are not men.
- Illegals should not be encouraged to come here.
- Stopping illegals also stops child exploitation and sexual exploitation.
- What policies did Trump put into place to specifically racially discriminate against Asians?

[Innocent Bystander]

Smackaholic:

https://www.federalregister.gov/preside ... ive-orders

[Bill in Houston]

- Transsexual MtF are not women. Transsexual FtM are not men.

I’m certain transgender individuals value your shit opinion

- Illegals should not be encouraged to come here.

Tell us when this ever happened.

- Stopping illegals also stops child exploitation and sexual exploitation.

Wrong. And everyone knows you have no way to prove this statement. This is just another example of you talking out of your ass.

- What policies did Trump put into place to specifically racially discriminate against Asians?

Well said here. No policies put into place.

Only legitimized hate and xenophobia with rhetoric. Then let his domestic terrorists take it from there. You know the drill IB.

[Left Seater]

You might want to scroll up this page and read the article I posted.

I read it. Maybe you should read it again. Hell even from your quote of if:

https://www.justsecurity.org/74226/hist ... es-office/

...

which subjects presidents and every other impeachable official to the same process: They “shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of”

...

[Mikey]

You might want to scroll up this page and read the article I posted.

I read it. Maybe you should read it again. Hell even from your quote of if:

https://www.justsecurity.org/74226/hist ... es-office/

...

which subjects presidents and every other impeachable official to the same process: They “shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of”

...

And you obviously only pay attention to the part that, taken out of context, *seems* to support your ridiculous position.

WTF is wrong with you, anyway? You think this makes you look smart or something?
Waste of fucking time.

[Bill in Houston]

President Executive Action can't even get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass his crap. He has resorted to Executive Action.

Executive Orders in a President's first week

Trump 5
Obama 5
Bush 0
Clinton 0

Biden 24

This is after making some sort of claim about dictators and executive actions:

First year total EO's signed by Obama: 39
First year total EO's signed by Trump: 55

Your point?

His point is that President EA’s first day came close to matching Trump’s entire year.

Regarding the Obama and Trump numbers on EAs, I’d like to know more about the individual EAs.

How many of Trump’s were to simply undo Barry’s

I have no problem at all with such an EA.

How many of Barry’s were to initiate a position.

Those, I do have a problem with.

On the topic of EAs itself, we need to pass a law, or better yet, an Ammendment, putting a limit on them as an available tool for a President something done instantly which can’t wait for congress.

Obama said that’s the way it works, until he realized that it was in his interest to do otherwise.

Biden has doubled down in this dictator tactic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clearly you aren't very smart, but 24 = 55? Really?

Whether an EO is used to reverse a previous one or initiate a new position is irrelevant. One is OK and the other objectionable is clearly partisan stance.

You should ask your representatives to put forth an amendment, good luck.
"Can't wait for congress" is such a clear definition. In fact, I'd guess nearly all EOs fit that definition, by the president declaring them.

It's always better to get congress to act first. In this obstructionist-before-country era it is most often the only route to policy creation.

[Innocent Bystander]

Roach, please add 'B1' to my title. So it reads:

'Koko B1'

Thank you.

[Kierland]

President Executive Action can't even get a Democratic controlled Congress to pass his crap. He has resorted to Executive Action.

Executive Orders in a President's first week

Trump 5
Obama 5
Bush 0
Clinton 0

Biden 24

This is after making some sort of claim about dictators and executive actions:

First year total EO's signed by Obama: 39
First year total EO's signed by Trump: 55

Your point?

His point is that President EA’s first day came close to matching Trump’s entire year.

Regarding the Obama and Trump numbers on EAs, I’d like to know more about the individual EAs.

How many of Trump’s were to simply undo Barry’s

I have no problem at all with such an EA.

How many of Barry’s were to initiate a position.

Those, I do have a problem with.

On the topic of EAs itself, we need to pass a law, or better yet, an Ammendment, putting a limit on them as an available tool for a President something done instantly which can’t wait for congress.

Obama said that’s the way it works, until he realized that it was in his interest to do otherwise.

Biden has doubled down in this dictator tactic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fuck off traitor. Your seditious orange Russian had the most in decades so suck more proud boy dick you Nazi POS.

[smackaholic]

First year total EO's signed by Obama: 39
First year total EO's signed by Trump: 55

Your point?

His point is that President EA’s first day came close to matching Trump’s entire year.

Regarding the Obama and Trump numbers on EAs, I’d like to know more about the individual EAs.

How many of Trump’s were to simply undo Barry’s

I have no problem at all with such an EA.

How many of Barry’s were to initiate a position.

Those, I do have a problem with.

On the topic of EAs itself, we need to pass a law, or better yet, an Ammendment, putting a limit on them as an available tool for a President something done instantly which can’t wait for congress.

Obama said that’s the way it works, until he realized that it was in his interest to do otherwise.

Biden has doubled down in this dictator tactic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Clearly you aren't very smart, but 24 = 55? Really?

Whether an EO is used to reverse a previous one or initiate a new position is irrelevant. One is OK and the other objectionable is clearly partisan stance.

You should ask your representatives to put forth an amendment, good luck.
"Can't wait for congress" is such a clear definition. In fact, I'd guess nearly all EOs fit that definition, by the president declaring them.

It's always better to get congress to act first. In this obstructionist-before-country era it is most often the only route to policy creation.

I think there is a distinct difference between using an EO to negate an earlier one and an EO that just writes a law out of thin air.

You clearly do not think it is better to let congress act if you are for this EO binge Senile Joe has been on.

I haven't studied The Bad Orange Man's EOs, but if he did produce any that were anything other than previous EO negation, and it could have waited for congress, then it was wrong.

Using "the only route to policy creation" is BS. It is admission that you are perfectly fine with authoritarian rule.

But then, being a good socialist, I'd expect no different from you. As much as you lying fukks try to say you are for "democratic socialism", you realize that in the end, especially in a large diverse country, the democratic part is optional.

[Mikey]

I haven't studied The Bad Orange Man's EOs, but if he did produce any that were anything other than previous EO negation, and it could have waited for congress, then it was wrong.

Then you really should just SFTU because you have no idea what you're talking about.