Congressman Moves To Impeach Donald Trump

[ZiprHead]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-cohen-impeach-trump_us_5995a204e4b06ef724d6de57

President Trump has failed the presidential test of moral leadership. No moral president would ever shy away from outright condemning hate, intolerance and bigotry.

 

[Elixir]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-cohen-impeach-trump_us_5995a204e4b06ef724d6de57

President Trump has failed the presidential test of moral leadership. No moral president would ever shy away from outright condemning hate, intolerance and bigotry.

No GOP members have publicly floated impeachment, though lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have begun to express concern over whether Trump is fit to lead in recent weeks.

Amendment 25 would produce the desired result much more quickly.
Just sayin'...

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

"I do think there need to be some radical changes," Corker told reporters, according to a video posted by a reporter for Nooga.com. "The president has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence that he needs to demonstrate in order to be successful ... And we need for him to be successful. Our nation needs for him to be successful."

Republican Senator Bob Corker

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/17/sen-corker-trump-has-not-shown-stability-or-competence-he-needs.html

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump Is Just Six Senate Votes Away From Impeachment

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What if the impeachment vote is a tie? Usually, the VP casts the deciding vote in those cases but that would mean he's electing himself President.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

What if the impeachment vote is a tie? Usually, the VP casts the deciding vote in those cases but that would mean he's electing himself President.

Impeachment requires 2/3 vote, not a simple majority, so the VP's vote would not affect the result.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's easier for senators to speak out against the president. When I hear republican house member(s) chime in, I'll take this seriously. Until then, it's just wishful thinking.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Trump Is Just Six Senate Votes Away From Impeachment

The disputes reported by CNBC are no greater than what we have experienced in the UK. In fact we expect dissent or disagreement. We call it democracy. The British Labour Party is in fact a coalition of democratic socialist organisations such as the Cooperative Party, Independent Labour Party, Fabian Society and the Affiliated Trade Union.

Added to this are several think tanks, which often disagree with each other. There are pro-EU and anti-EU plus pro and Anti-Blair factions.

We call it a democracy.

Of course we sometimes seek to replace our leaders (e.g. Thatcher) but this is a much simpler process than impeachment.

Like any replacement of a political leader the prime urge is political. Of course there are the Judicial committees, Congress vote and then the Senate Trial.

Two Whack-a-doodles stood for election and the slightly more unpopular won the day. Nonetheless. The US should look at other healthcare systems to gain ways to cut costs. Cuba is a good first port of calm. Libya was another. The US is at last being a bit firm on North Korea. However this should have been done several years ago at a point China massed its troops on North Korea's. This was I recall when I worked for a Chinese State company in Beijing. There was some friction around 2006 or 7. This was also to do with North Korea and China had been having its own talks.

As I understand the new administration has passed 42 bills into law, so it's not exactly as if nothing was done, even if some of these could be minor.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/president-trump-legislation/index.html

 

[whichphilosophy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-cohen-impeach-trump_us_5995a204e4b06ef724d6de57

President Trump has failed the presidential test of moral leadership. No moral president would ever shy away from outright condemning hate, intolerance and bigotry.

According to the English language he did. There were whack-a-doodles present in both camps and there were clashes before the murder (by the driver took place).

There are a lot of right wing splinter groups in the US. Should he list them all?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Holy false equivalence, Batman!

It's like you're a supervillian who's power is to always completely miss the entire point. If it's deliberate, good work. If not, there's kind of sad.

 

[Artemus]

What if the impeachment vote is a tie? Usually, the VP casts the deciding vote in those cases but that would mean he's electing himself President.

Impeachment requires 2/3 vote, not a simple majority, so the VP's vote would not affect the result.

A nitpick, but impeachment requires a simple majority vote of the House of Representatives. The Senate then holds a trial, which requires a 2/3 majority for conviction. [/pedantic]

 

[Keith&Co.]

Holy false equivalence, Batman!

It's like you're a supervillian who's power is to always completely miss the entire point. If it's deliberate, good work. If not, there's kind of sad.

Maybe it's more of a Greek curse? Cursed to always miss the point?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Impeachment requires 2/3 vote, not a simple majority, so the VP's vote would not affect the result.

A nitpick, but impeachment requires a simple majority vote of the House of Representatives. The Senate then holds a trial, which requires a 2/3 majority for conviction. [/pedantic]

Yes, people constantly confuse that, thinking 'impeachment' means 'kicking him out of office.'

On the other hand, if the Senate suddenly made it clear, that '68% of us would vote to kick Trump to the curb if given the chance!'
or
'70% of the senate is now convinced that Trump is a disgrace to the nation and needs to be gone'
might that not improve the chances of the House going forward with the actual impeachment?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Holy false equivalence, Batman!

It's like you're a supervillian who's power is to always completely miss the entire point. If it's deliberate, good work. If not, there's kind of sad.

Maybe it's more of a Greek curse? Cursed to always miss the point?

Either way, he's probably not going to get the point we're trying to make to him.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What if the impeachment vote is a tie? Usually, the VP casts the deciding vote in those cases but that would mean he's electing himself President.

Impeachment requires 2/3 vote, not a simple majority, so the VP's vote would not affect the result.

Correct in that my understanding it is from Congress to vote for a Senate Trial. The Senate does not vote for impeachment but impeaches.

 

[Malintent]

As I understand the new administration has passed 42 bills into law, so it's not exactly as if nothing was done, even if some of these could be minor.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/president-trump-legislation/index.html

Thank you for that link. I suspect you may not have read it. If you did, you would see that pretty much ALL of these "new laws" are actually reforms against recently passed bills from the prior administration.

This is just the continuation of Trumps commitment to undoing anything that was ever done by the Obama administration.... if Obama got Mexico to pay us for our infrastructure (i.e. "The Wall"), he would have signed a bill reversing that too.

Of particular note, is his "new law" reversing the law that Obama put into place that prevents Internet Service Providers from collecting information about you without your permission...
.. and another "new law" that reverses an Obama prohibition from the Federal government withholding entitlements to states that help pay for healthcare... just to make sure that the "Obamacare" system gets less funding.

The list (you provided) goes on and on "repeal this Obama-thing and repeal that Obama-thing", without a single actual new law that provides anyone with any value-add.

Every single one is "take this new provision away"... not a single "here's a new provision".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Impeachment requires 2/3 vote, not a simple majority, so the VP's vote would not affect the result.

A nitpick, but impeachment requires a simple majority vote of the House of Representatives. The Senate then holds a trial, which requires a 2/3 majority for conviction. [/pedantic]

Um.. that's not really pedantry. It's just wrong to mention the Senate as voting on impeachment.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As I understand the new administration has passed 42 bills into law, so it's not exactly as if nothing was done, even if some of these could be minor.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politics/president-trump-legislation/index.html

Thank you for that link. I suspect you may not have read it. If you did, you would see that pretty much ALL of these "new laws" are actually reforms against recently passed bills from the prior administration.

This is just the continuation of Trumps commitment to undoing anything that was ever done by the Obama administration.... if Obama got Mexico to pay us for our infrastructure (i.e. "The Wall"), he would have signed a bill reversing that too.

Of particular note, is his "new law" reversing the law that Obama put into place that prevents Internet Service Providers from collecting information about you without your permission...
.. and another "new law" that reverses an Obama prohibition from the Federal government withholding entitlements to states that help pay for healthcare... just to make sure that the "Obamacare" system gets less funding.

The list (you provided) goes on and on "repeal this Obama-thing and repeal that Obama-thing", without a single actual new law that provides anyone with any value-add.

Every single one is "take this new provision away"... not a single "here's a new provision".

Asking him to read the content of the article he links to instead of just the title is bit of an unwarranted demand.

 

[Elixir]

Thank you for that link. I suspect you may not have read it. If you did, you would see that pretty much ALL of these "new laws" are actually reforms against recently passed bills from the prior administration.

This is just the continuation of Trumps commitment to undoing anything that was ever done by the Obama administration.... if Obama got Mexico to pay us for our infrastructure (i.e. "The Wall"), he would have signed a bill reversing that too.

Of particular note, is his "new law" reversing the law that Obama put into place that prevents Internet Service Providers from collecting information about you without your permission...
.. and another "new law" that reverses an Obama prohibition from the Federal government withholding entitlements to states that help pay for healthcare... just to make sure that the "Obamacare" system gets less funding.

The list (you provided) goes on and on "repeal this Obama-thing and repeal that Obama-thing", without a single actual new law that provides anyone with any value-add.

Every single one is "take this new provision away"... not a single "here's a new provision".

Asking him to read the content of the article he links to instead of just the title is bit of an unwarranted demand.

Yeah, that would be like asking El Cheato to read up on General Pershing...