Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

L L wrote:

There is/was no 60 vote rule.

Clarence Thomas was confirmed 52-48 back in 1991.

You're thinking the need of 60 voted to break a filibuster which prevents the vote from taking place.

Thanks for playing along. There is NO clear set clause in the Constitution that requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to impeach and remove anyone other than the President. That is what is an opinion, but since there is no Constitutional clause requiring 50 or 60 votes to appoint someone then is nothing that requires 67 votes to remove anyone. Even the removing the President does not require 67 votes. For that the requirement is at least 2/3rds of the Senate members voting (they must be present in the chamber).

Incorrect. The language is tied ONLY to the president by the use of a : (colon). A colon means a child if the same sentence. It is not a new sentence. "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." Your link claims 67 votes are required for impeachment and that is WRONG. There is no such requirement in the Constitution. preside: And no Person Person (capitalized) is a legal way of identify a group. And in the Constitution that means all Persons in the U.S.

formerly present wrote:

look first wrote:

[The] game plan should be to impeach the three justices who failed to get to 60 votes. The impeachments would not require 2/3rds vote of the Senates because the 60 vote rule was ignored.

The Constitution says otherwise. Impeaching a SCOTUS Justice follows the same procedure as impeaching a President: simple majority in the House, 2/3 in the Senate.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17910524/supreme-court-impeach-impeachment-brett-kavanaugh

Adding interest to the Amy Barrett fake installment is that Roberts WILL NOT administer the oath. Oops. The White House has directed Clarence Thomas to do that. Oops.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1320812840169648135

look first wrote:

There is NO clear set clause in the Constitution that requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to impeach and remove anyone other than the President.

1. The Vice President is included. Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

2. Judges and SCOTUS Justices are included as "civil officers," and more than a dozen (including a Justice, Samuel Chase) have been impeached on that basis.

3. Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. . . . And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

I may be missing something, but I don't see how this is unclear.

look first wrote:

Adding interest to the Amy Barrett fake installment is that Roberts WILL NOT administer the oath. Oops. The White House has directed Clarence Thomas to do that. Oops.

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1320812840169648135

They're trying to get Thomas to retire so Trump can put another 50 year old on the court. This is probably part of the campaign.

OR/AND

it's an intentional diss of Roberts, to punish him for voting against the conservatives a few times.

formerly present wrote:

[quote]look first wrote:

There is NO clear set clause in the Constitution that requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to impeach and remove anyone other than the President.

1. The Vice President is included. Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

-- Two thirds is NOT here.

2. Judges and SCOTUS Justices are included as "civil officers," and more than a dozen (including a Justice, Samuel Chase) have been impeached on that basis.

-- Does NOT make that right. Originalism means take it for what the document actually says.

3. Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. . . . And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

-- Yes, exactly what I posted. Person is used to mean ANY person in the U.S.

I may be missing something, but I don't see how this is unclear.

-- You missed that two thirds IS ONLY directly tied to the President. And no one else.

IF you believe that impeachment applies to all civil officers then Trump could not fire anyone from any government office unless he specifically hired them. They would have to be officially impeached. But people claim the Constitution says otherwise, but "otherwise" is being jerked around to mean a limited number of people, and the Constitution has no such special limit.

crapola president doesnt' care if Americans have health insurance or not.

Trump has been insisting that a replacement plan for Obamacare is right around the corner for a very long time now. Here's a tweet from April 29, 2019 (bolding is mine):

In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!

"I was never planning a vote prior to the 2020 Election on the wonderful HealthCare package that some very talented people are now developing for me & the Republican Party. It will be on full display during the Election as a much better & less expensive alternative to ObamaCare..."

On July 19, Trump told "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace that "we're signing a health care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health care plan that the Supreme Court decision on DACA gave me the right to do."

On August 3, Trump said that "we're going to be introducing a tremendous health care plan sometime prior — hopefully, prior to the end of the month. It's just completed now."

Then there was this from McEnany on September 22:

"The President in the next week or so will be laying out his vision for health care. Some of that has already been put out there -- telemedicine and lowering the cost of drugs ... and protecting pre-existing conditions. But the President will be laying out some additional health care steps in the coming, I would say, two weeks."

formerly present wrote:

3. Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provide: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. . . . And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

I may be missing something, but I don't see how this is unclear.

To be clear, in the Constitution "Person" means anyone in the United States. The use of Person is NOT limited to a special group of elected people. But that is what people keep thinking it says.

Trump has been allowed by the Senate to fire Persons who should have gone through an impeachment process. So, you have that which says the Constitutional language means other than what you think.

NameStolenAgain wrote:

From the Wiki: some Christians consider Mormonism "non-Christian"; Mormons, focusing on similarities, are sometimes offended at being so characterized. Mormons do not accept non-Mormon baptism nor do non-Mormon Christians usually accept Mormon baptism

For the believers, being baptized is a requirement to Christianity. In that sense Mormons don't view others as Christians, and many don't see them as such. So interestingly, if you are a Christian you are more likely to consider Mormons NOT Christian.

And Baptists don't accept any baptism unless it was by immersion. So if you try to join a Baptist church and you were sprinkled, they will insist that you get dunked.

But also in the Baptist church, it's not the act of baptism that makes you a Christian. Rather, it's considered an obedient result of a conversion experience.

I say all this as an example to point out that it's complicated. Each denomination has different ways of looking at other denominations, their faith, and their practice.

Who considers who to be a Christian doesn't depend on any one thing like baptism.

look first wrote:

-- You missed that two thirds IS ONLY directly tied to the President. And no one else.

No, it's the presiding of the Chief Justice that is directly tied to the President. It's not required that the CJSCOTUS preside over other trials--which makes sense, given that CJSCOTUS him/herself might conceivably be impeached--and then, as a continuation of that sentence, we learn that any person *who's being impeached* (which, as we know, can include judges) cannot be convicted except by at least two-thirds of the attending Senators.

I genuinely don't understand why this is unclear. Multiple people have been impeached, and some have been convicted/removed. If it's simply that you believe you are interpreting the Clause correctly, and that *every other Constitutional scholar I know of* has interpreted it differently, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present."

Tuesday night frights ahead of Halloween:

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1320816641257648128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320817615682633728%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fyoull-bury-everyone-involved-bobulinski-recorded-biden-operatives-begging-him-stay-quiet

NOTHING you BOLDED does anything to contradict my statement. Your bolded parts are nonsensical because you have tied ONLY the Chief Justice to the President and NO ONE ELSE.

You provide links to "Constitutional" scholars who state impeachment means 67 votes. AND that is WRONG.

Provide the reason why Trump can fire "Persons" without impeachment. If he can do that then the Constitutional two thirds clause ONLY applies to the office of the President. There is no other way to Interpret who "Persons" are. They are either everyone. And ONLY the President in terms of two thirds. And it is not possible to create a special group of Persons in-between, and that is what your *Constitutional scholars* have been doing.

Constitutional originalist love to tell people NOT to read anything more than what the Constitutional actually says. *Constitutional scholars* keep inventing exceptions and personal interpretations.

Agree on all points minus the last, for some it does depend on that. It doesn't change the main point: while all can be considered Christians, many are not considered, typically by other Christians :)

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Tuesday night frights ahead of Halloween:

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1320816641257648128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320817615682633728%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fyoull-bury-everyone-involved-bobulinski-recorded-biden-operatives-begging-him-stay-quiet

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Tuesday night frights ahead of Halloween:

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1320816641257648128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320817615682633728%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fyoull-bury-everyone-involved-bobulinski-recorded-biden-operatives-begging-him-stay-quiet

Just wondering - do you think that any regular viewer of Tucker "Not 'Stating Actual Facts'" Carlson is not already voting for Trump? Or that any non-Trumpette checking in on the latest lies coming out of Tucker "Not 'Stating Actual Facts'" Carlson is going to believe a single word uttered by Tucker "Not 'Stating Actual Facts'" Carlson's mouth?

Seriously?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Tuesday night frights ahead of Halloween:

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1320816641257648128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1320817615682633728%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fyoull-bury-everyone-involved-bobulinski-recorded-biden-operatives-begging-him-stay-quiet

Oh my god that’s going to change the entire election!

People will be begging to change the votes they already sent in!

Dan Kahneman wrote:

Gina wrote:

Trumps victory and a Trump White House has signified victory and supremacy for his followers.

IF he loses, then pretty much all of that is gone over night.

They will no longer be able to fly his flag as a means of triumphalism.

Except they are still flying the confederate flag.

Very few conservatives support flying the confederate flag. Those are the crazies. Just as the Liberals have their crazies - though their crazies might be of a higher number.

? SCARY ? BIDEN?‍♂️RUSSIA??TRUMP SECOND TERM?‍♀️FLAGPOLE?