pro iran

[lurker]

lets just go with your theory on democracy. In a democracy it the rule of the people were the majority rules. Trump received 63 millions vote and Clinton received 66 millions votes. So lets also let the 66 millions that voted for Clinton also testify. Who wins? I would say that the 66 millions win since its a democracy. This is why we have a constitutional republic.

So are you saying you want to abolish the electoral collage in this case? As it wasn’t the 63 millions votes that got Trump elected, it was the electoral collage votes that got Trump elected. Now if we were to ask the electoral collage voters, I almost certain you wouldn’t get the answer you are asking for.

[kidrock]

Lurker

Out of everyone I know, first or second hand, everyone see’s through the impeachment sham for what it is, with seeing all ulterior motives, agendas and intentions, as I’ve stated here - other than, one person I work with, and two posters here. It is my belief that the greater majority of the American voting masses see through the Democrats sham for removal of Trump.

Thus in my humblest of opinions, the odds are not in favor of any Democrats moving forward on most political topics of (Democrats importance) governmental agendas regarding items that really matter, to them. Democrats are going to get exactly what they are deserving, for many years to come. You can thank, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, a host of others, plus the 31 other Democrats, for the Party suffering to come.



How the 31 Democrats in Trump districts voted on impeachment -

I guess we disagree on the Impeachment but, you may be right about the Dems losing over this because it did happen to the Republicans when they impeached Clinton.

[ss12]

I didn't say anything about abolishing the electoral collage. I was just commenting on democracy. I wasn't looking for any answers or for a different outcome. And by the way I didn't vote for Clinton.

[lurker]

I didn't say anything about abolishing the electoral collage. I was just commenting on democracy. I wasn't looking for any answers or for a different outcome. And by the way I didn't vote for Clinton.

Asked and answered, thank you.

[Stefan2k4]

lets just go with your theory on democracy. In a democracy it the rule of the people were the majority rules. Trump received 63 millions vote and Clinton received 66 millions votes. So lets also let the 66 millions that voted for Clinton also testify. Who wins?

It proves that this is not grounds for impeachment. Now you are basically arguing that the electoral college is wrong. I disagree but right now I'm not going to entertain that argument. Anyway, "We don't like the electoral college" is not grounds for impeachment. So, even if we accept your argument, it still proves the process is a sham, because doing away with the electoral college, or changing it's result is NOT the purpose of impeachment. If you don't like the electoral college the proper way to deal with that is to amend the constitution, not impeach the president.

Secondly, Hilary is not yet running in this election and if she does, no one yet knows how many votes she would get or how many trump would get. I would predict that now she would get much fewer votes, because the country has moved on, and a lot of voters who may have voted for her, would likely not see her as the person they want to be their president now.

that's where you and I differ

I quoted you directly! You said this.

Let the people decide

Impeachment DOES NOT "let the people decide". Only an election does that, and that's exactly what happened in 2016. Impeachment is about taking away the people's ability to decide and overturning their decision. That's why the founding fathers only intended it to be used in emergency situations, "high crimes and misdemeanors" like treason. They never intended it to be used for partisan reasons, nor to protest the electoral college as ss12 suggests. If you don't like the result of an election, campaign and vote in the next election, don't try to criminalize politics. If you don't like the electoral college, there's a mechanism to deal with that as well, a constitutional amendment, good luck with that.

I want a FAIR impeachment process

There can be no "fair" process, when the whole motive behind the process is purely partisan and political. If a black guy get pulled over and taken in just because he was driving through an upscale white neighborhood, is it fair if they eventually have to release him from jail? No! because he never should have been pulled over and taken in in the first place. Donald Trump is the black guy driving through the wrong neighborhood. In the eyes of the elite politicians in DC, he's in a place he doesn't belong. How dare he win the election beating out all of those "more deserving" career politicians? And how dare those "deploreables" think they have the right to elect him their president? They both must be put in their place, and that's what this whole process is really about. Even if he's exonerated, it's still 3 years and untold amounts of tax dollars wasted. But what's even worse, is the long term damage done to the political system as a whole, the constitution, and the country. The people pushing this have done long term damage to our country.

[kidrock]

It proves that this is not grounds for impeachment. Now you are basically arguing that the electoral college is wrong. I disagree but right now I'm not going to entertain that argument. Anyway, "We don't like the electoral college" is not grounds for impeachment. So, even if we accept your argument, it still proves the process is a sham, because doing away with the electoral college, or changing it's result is NOT the purpose of impeachment. If you don't like the electoral college the proper way to deal with that is to amend the constitution, not impeach the president.

Secondly, Hilary is not yet running in this election and if she does, no one yet knows how many votes she would get or how many trump would get. I would predict that now she would get much fewer votes, because the country has moved on, and a lot of voters who may have voted for her, would likely not see her as the person they want to be their president now.



I quoted you directly! You said this.



Impeachment DOES NOT "let the people decide". Only an election does that, and that's exactly what happened in 2016. Impeachment is about taking away the people's ability to decide and overturning their decision. That's why the founding fathers only intended it to be used in emergency situations, "high crimes and misdemeanors" like treason. They never intended it to be used for partisan reasons, nor to protest the electoral college as ss12 suggests. If you don't like the result of an election, campaign and vote in the next election, don't try to criminalize politics. If you don't like the electoral college, there's a mechanism to deal with that as well, a constitutional amendment, good luck with that.


There can be no "fair" process, when the whole motive behind the process is purely partisan and political. If a black guy get pulled over and taken in just because he was driving through an upscale white neighborhood, is it fair if they eventually have to release him from jail? No! because he never should have been pulled over and taken in in the first place. Donald Trump is the black guy driving through the wrong neighborhood. In the eyes of the elite politicians in DC, he's in a place he doesn't belong. How dare he win the election beating out all of those "more deserving" career politicians? And how dare those "deploreables" think they have the right to elect him their president? They both must be put in their place, and that's what this whole process is really about. Even if he's exonerated, it's still 3 years and untold amounts of tax dollars wasted. But what's even worse, is the long term damage done to the political system as a whole, the constitution, and the country. The people pushing this have done long term damage to our country.

Let the people decide once the trial was over who was lying and who wasn't. Where you and I differ is on is the Impeachment a scam or not. You say it is I say it isn't and if we ever have all the people testify we may here more evidence to see who is right. It's in the Senate chambers and they can run it how they see fit. That's what control does for you.

[ALLDIRT]

lets just go with your theory on democracy. In a democracy it the rule of the people were the majority rules. Trump received 63 millions vote and Clinton received 66 millions votes. So lets also let the 66 millions that voted for Clinton also testify. Who wins? I would say that the 66 millions win since its a democracy. This is why we have a constitutional republic.

Lets go with results . Trump won by the way elections are held in this country .
You wouldn't do good in Las Vegas . You don't know how odds are played .
Whats odd is you lost , And can't accept it .

[lurker]

There can be no "fair" process, when the whole motive behind the process is purely partisan and political.

And I would agree. Furthering, that was the point I was trying to make. I guess my posting didn’t read that way.

[ss12]

Stefan2k4 how conveniently you left out my last sentence in my post. I said nothing about the electoral college. I was just commenting on democracy and you know that. If are society was a democracy there wouldn't even be a electoral college. Again in a democracy the "majority" rules. And here is the sentence you conveniently left out "This is why we have a constitutional republic". In a constitutional republic the "majority" (Democracy) does not rule!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klm6yZxDmJc

As far as the impeachment, congress are following the rule of law.

I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the "Republic" for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with "Liberty" and "Justice" for all.

[lurker]

I said nothing about the electoral college.

As I was the one brought up the electoral college question post to you; Your original post, does come off on the side as reading that you DO want to abolish the electoral college. That’s just the way the post referenced read to me. I do understand that you DO NOT want to abolish the electoral college, so you and I are clear.

[ss12]

Lurker if our government was a democracy as stefan2k4 says would we have a electoral college? In a democracy the Majority rules. And this is my whole point. We have a republic is which is why we have a electoral college. If the majority of citizens live at west and they want to change something to benefit them but have the opposite effect on the citizen out east. In a democracy the west would win even though it would be bad for the east. Now instead of using west and east use democrats vs republicans.

[ALLDIRT]

Lurker if our government was a democracy as stefan2k4 says would we have a electoral college? In a democracy the Majority rules. And this is my whole point. We have a republic is which is why we have a electoral college. If the majority of citizens live at west and they want to change something to benefit them but have the opposite effect on the citizen out east. In a democracy the west would win even though it would be bad for the east. Now instead of using west and east use democrats vs republicans.

And that is the very reason it is the way it is . Because everyone in the middle count's .
don't forget the independents matter .

[fastford]

our government has been evolving since the beginning , our founding fathers did the best they could for the era they lived in , and of coarse some things need tweaking over time like the 2nd amendment , just as some things need left alone , like the electoral college , they new that because of the migrants that would be pouring into concentrated areas of the country , it would give these areas an unfair advantage , in other words , California and new york would rule the whole country , thank god they had enough fore thought to realize this.......

[lurker]

--- and of coarse some things need tweaking over time like the 2nd amendment ---

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What needed or needs tweaking regarding the 2nd amendment?

[ZERO25]

our government has been evolving since the beginning , our founding fathers did the best they could for the era they lived in , and of coarse some things need tweaking over time like the 2nd amendment , just as some things need left alone , like the electoral college , they new that because of the migrants that would be pouring into concentrated areas of the country , it would give these areas an unfair advantage , in other words , California and new york would rule the whole country , thank god they had enough fore thought to realize this.......

Maybe it was because 23 of the signers of the Constitution were ordained Christian ministers. Or, maybe they prayed to receive their wisdom from God, as his word states, he gives liberally!Or maybe, they were just "lucky"! lol

Of course, the evil anti-God democrats wont EVER believe that! smh