Is impeachment and removal from office possible? What would it take?

[abelcainsbrother]

Edwardmurphy,

I have to admit, between you and Ablecainsbrother, ablecainsbrother is looking like the more rational one.

It Was All Harvested,FISA Goes Both Ways,Sky Is Falling. For you.It is about 30 minutes long but worth it.
https://youtu.be/6RcEurOdoYw

[Stu]

I'll leave this here for Ed...

[edwardmurphy]

Edwardmurphy,

I have to admit, between you and Ablecainsbrother, ablecainsbrother is looking like the more rational one.

You're always saying stuff like that, but never explaining why you think that. It's odd.

I'll leave this here for Ed...

That'd be a better zinger if there was any truth at all to the claim. And if Trump hadn't partied with Epstein and joked about how ol' Jeff liked 'em young. Or if Trump hadn't bragged about walking into the dressing room while his Miss Teen USA contestants were changing. And if something like two dozen women hadn't accused Trump of sexual assault, and he hadn't bragged about how, yes, he often did precisely what they accused him of. Your guy is a scumbag, and you support him anyway.

Feel free to call me irrational at this point, Rick, but all of that is public record.

[abelcainsbrother]

I still believe in my country, our democracy, and the innate goodness and rationality of our people, and I think that we'll overcome people like you and excise Trump and a lot of his minions come November 2020.

So, IF he wins, again, democracy and rationality will have spoken, correct?

Democracy has already spoken on Trump. Democracy's answer was a resounding no. He lost the popular vote badly and I don't recall his popular support ever topping 45% since the election. To be clear, I'm talking about the average across all polls. He's been much higher in some polls and much lower in others, but he's always been well underwater when it's all averaged out. The current rules say that the winner of the EC wins, so Trump's presidency would be legitimate if he hadn't colluded with a hostile foreign power to rig the election, but that's not democracy.

BTW, it went like this -

Cambridge Analytica used personality tests on Facebook to collect tons of data about American voters. They used that data to identify voters whose minds didn't appear to be made up. They then bombarded those voters with targeted ads, either in support of Trump or attacking Clinton. Some of their best material for said ads came from emails that were illegally hacked by a hostile foreign power (that'd be Russia), then released via Wikileaks. The extent to which swing voters were swayed or Bernie supporters were suppressed (as in convinced that there was no point bothering to vote) is impossible to quantify, but the difference in the election was about 70,000 votes spread across 3 swing states. That's 70,000 votes out of a total of 128,000,000. That's 0.0005% of the total. And he still lost the popular vote by nearly 3,000,000 votes.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that any honest person could seriously argue that a massive, targeted propaganda campaign directed by big data and fueled by damaging information stolen by the Russians and dribbled out over the last month of the campaign could possibly have had no effect whatsoever. That's me trying to be diplomatic. I'm not arguing that Clinton was the best candidate (although she was one of the smartest, most knowledgeable, most qualified people ever to run), or that she ran the best campaign (she was overconfident and her campaign sucked), or that she wouldn't have used stolen data to support her own candidacy (she very well might have have), but none of that is relevant. One candidate definitely, indisputably benefited from illegal acts by a hostile foreign power (and then tried to obstruct the investigation into said illegal intervention) and that was Donald Trump. The 2016 election was illegitimate.

And now I'm moving on...

I don't care for the EC because it creates a situation in which the only votes that matter are the ones cast in a handful of swing states. Big state versus small state isn't a major issue. California and Texas don't matter, and neither do Rhode Island and Wyoming. Every single Democrat in Texas or Wyoming is disenfranchised, as is every single Republican in California and Rhode Island. I'm in New Hampshire, so my vote counts. Ditto for Rick in Florida, and Phil in Ohio (iirc), but if you happen to be in, say, Arkansas or Massachusetts then you'll be taken for granted if you support the majority party and disenfranchised if you don't.

We do it here VIA percentage of population, example is that if a province has 40% of the population, they have 40% of the representation in terms of seats in parliament.

God, I envy Canadians. There seem to be so many areas where you guys do it logically and we do it in the stupidest, most convoluted, most easily corruptible way possible.

Take healthcare. You have a system where everybody gets healthcare. We have a system where a bunch of people have no healthcare, a bunch more have it but can't afford to use it because their deductibles are so high, losing your job costs you your health insurance, and the government only steps in to provide care for the absolute poorest of the poor. People who pull themselves up by their bootstraps lose their benefits they get a job, even if they don't make anywhere near enough to insure themselves. And your whole system, which isn't perfect but beats the hell out of ours, and actually costs less per person than ours does.

Or the way you deal with partisan gridlock. If the ruling coalition can't get it done the whole thing comes down and you hold new elections. We, by comparison, have opted for permanent partisan gridlock.

Or the way you elect your leaders. If there are 10 seats to be distributed the party that gets 60% of the vote gets 6 and the party that gets 40% gets 4. Seems like a reasonable plan. Alas, we prefer a system of extreme partisan gerrymandering which allows whichever party controls the statehouse when the lines are drawn to use computer models to pack and crack until a 52% majority can securely hold 8 of those 10 seats. I mean, what's more democratic than allowing the ruling party to disenfranchise 48% of voters for a decade at a time, or for a politician to pick his voters, rather than the other way around? Nothing, according to the new SCOTUS majority.

Or voting rights. You guys allow people to vote even while they're incarcerated, I assume because they're still citizens. We, by comparison, still enforce Jim Crow era laws designed to criminalize anything that a poor black person might opt to do, and then permanently disenfranchise them. (Seriously. Look it up.) Anyway, great system. Screw up once and the State will never, ever forgive you, no matter what. And when Florida voters overwhelmingly chose to give felons their votes back after they'd served their terms the state GOP nullified it by adding additional stipulations. Yay, democracy?

And on and on and on...

I know Canada isn't some utopia, but at least you guys seem to have an ounce of sense.

You need to know that a Presidential candidate cannot lose the electoral college by so much like Hillary did and yet win the popular vote by so much unless their is vote fraud and election rigging.The only time it can happen where the loser wins the popular vote are in close elections.It was not close. Expect to see voter ID laws to protect the sovereignty of US citezens and their right to vote from illegal immigrants.

[edwardmurphy]

You need to know that a Presidential candidate cannot lose the electoral college by some much like Hillary did and yet win the popular vote by so much unless their is vote fraud and election rigging. Expect to see voter ID laws to protect the sovereignty of US citezens and their right to vote from illegal immigrants.

Spoken like a good little Brownshirt.

[abelcainsbrother]

You need to know that a Presidential candidate cannot lose the electoral college by some much like Hillary did and yet win the popular vote by so much unless their is vote fraud and election rigging. Expect to see voter ID laws to protect the sovereignty of US citezens and their right to vote from illegal immigrants.

Spoken like a good little Brownshirt.

I'm a nationalist and patriot not a Democrat or Republican.Power back to the people is where we are headed.

[abelcainsbrother]

Soon the days of liberals running to the Government and having their beliefs forced on to the rest of America against its will,is about over.Abortion,same sex marriages,transgender bathrooms,etc. In the future liberals are going to have to get out in their State and campaign on issues like these,debate,argue,etc that these things will be good for your State,then gather enough signatures to get it put on the ballot in their State.It will be overturned and sent back to the States for the people to decide these issues,not the government for the people,if they try to get the Government to mandate these things for the people. It has been backwards for so long doing things the liberal way. Power back to the people. In the future the people are going to decide if we have these kinds of things,not the government,the way it is laid out in the Constitution.

[RickD]

I'll leave this here for Ed...

Stu,

You do know that pedophilia is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, right? And sexual attraction to girls who have already gone through puberty, is NOT pedophilia.

[RickD]

You need to know that a Presidential candidate cannot lose the electoral college by some much like Hillary did and yet win the popular vote by so much unless their is vote fraud and election rigging. Expect to see voter ID laws to protect the sovereignty of US citezens and their right to vote from illegal immigrants.

Spoken like a good little Brownshirt.

I'm a nationalist and patriot not a Democrat or Republican.Power back to the people is where we are headed.

Wow! Edwardmurphy is neither a Democrat nor Republican, too!

You guys have more in common than you think!

[abelcainsbrother]

You need to know that a Presidential candidate cannot lose the electoral college by some much like Hillary did and yet win the popular vote by so much unless their is vote fraud and election rigging. Expect to see voter ID laws to protect the sovereignty of US citezens and their right to vote from illegal immigrants.

Spoken like a good little Brownshirt.

I'm a nationalist and patriot not a Democrat or Republican.Power back to the people is where we are headed.

Wow! Edwardmurphy is neither a Democrat nor Republican, too!

You guys have more in common than you think!

I wish,but from everything I can tell Ed is still stuck in the matrix and is fond of liberalism eventhough it has been a failure for the people of America over decades of time. It boggles our mind how people can actually desire to stay in the Matrix when we finally have a way out like we have never had before.I mean look at Trump and the Q team and how they are taking out the Matrix.We now have the chance to and we can't let it slip by us so that we remain stuck in the Democrat vs Republican lesser than two evil political game played on us. There is really no difference no matter which party has been in power.And they keep the people divided over wedge issues because they know the people are weak when we are divided.But when we come together we the people have the power to truly change how our government is ran.Both political parties have failed the American people.Now how can we convince people that actually legislating according the Constitution is good for the people and is a good thing.I think liberals actually think we want to do things like they did and have some kind of theocracy like they have had,but we don't.We go by the Constitution and it is unconstitutional to have theocracies.

[edwardmurphy]

I agree with some of that, Abe. Where we differ is that you want a strongman to come in and fix everything that you think is broken, and I know enough history to understand how that always turns out. You'd trade freedom for security and call it a bargain.

[PaulSacramento]

We do a lot of things right here BUT also a lot of things wrong, lack of free speech for one thing, our senators NOT being elected is another.
I can understand the theory behind the electoral college and, for a country the size of the US with so few "centers of population", there is a logic of sorts behind it.
I think you guys need electoral reforms, as do we.
My personal favorite would be a MINIMUM percentage of total votes needed for the election to be valid.
EX:
No one can when an election unless they have 51% of the votes, which means that if A) got 42% and B) 35%, that NEITHER would win and that a new election would have to happen.
WHY?
Because this eliminates the idiotic view that voting for crap is better than not voting at all.

The democratic process DESERVES the BEST candidates and voters deserve to vote for someone WORTH voting for.

I would also reform the campain process and pool ALL the money and divide equally among all candidates.

[edwardmurphy]

I can understand the theory behind the electoral college and, for a country the size of the US with so few "centers of population", there is a logic of sorts behind it.

These days that's the justification that EC backers use to defend it, but that wasn't the Founders' reasoning. In reality the EC was created to serve two purposes. The first reason was to prevent low information voters from selecting a terrible candidate.

Here are Hamilton's thoughts on the matter, cribbed from the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

In other words, the EC was created, in part, to prevent someone like Donald Trump from becoming President. How ironic...

The second reason for the EC was to protect the rights of the slave states - not small states, slave states. It's important to be clear about that. The talk about small versus large states is propaganda. It glosses over reality. The South didn't have a smaller population than the North, it had a smaller free population. Southerners were afraid that they'd wind up politically powerless due to their deliberate choice to base their economy on slave labor rather than manufacturing or small farms like in the North. As Madison put it:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

In other words, "Hey, you guys didn't enslave a third of your population so have more voters than we do! No fair!"

Consequently politicians from the South insisted that their slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of allocating seats in the House of Representatives and electors in the electoral college. Thus a southern white man's vote was worth more than that of a northern white man. The slave owners essentially got the right to vote on behalf of their slaves, and they used that right to protect slavery. How's that for Orwellian?

In short, anyone who tells you that the EC was created to protect the rights of the "small states" is either ignorant of history or deliberately lying.

Finally, I think it's worth pointing out that the Founders were neither infallible nor opposed to changing their system to deal with unanticipated problems. For example, their original plan didn't account for the emergence of political parties, so the Constitution initially stipulated that in a presidential election the first place candidate would be President and the runner-up would be the Vice President. When it became clear that that was a bad idea they amended it. Our system wasn't meant to be dipped in amber and held forever in stasis. Change is okay.

[DBowling]

I can understand the theory behind the electoral college and, for a country the size of the US with so few "centers of population", there is a logic of sorts behind it.

These days that's the justification that EC backers use to defend it, but that wasn't the Founders' reasoning. In reality the EC was created to serve two purposes. The first reason was to prevent low information voters from selecting a terrible candidate.

Here are Hamilton's thoughts on the matter, cribbed from the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

In other words, the EC was created, in part, to prevent someone like Donald Trump from becoming President. How ironic...

That irony is not lost on me!

The second reason for the EC was to protect the rights of the slave states - not small states, slave states. It's important to be clear about that. The talk about small versus large states is propaganda. It glosses over reality. The South didn't have a smaller population than the North, it had a smaller free population. Southerners were afraid that they'd wind up politically powerless due to their deliberate choice to base their economy on slave labor rather than manufacturing or small farms like in the North. As Madison put it:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

I was not aware of this...
Do you have a link that links slavery directly to the creation of the EC.
Madison is one voice, but I am interested if this was explicitly stated rationale for the creation of the EC.

Thanks

[DBowling]

The second reason for the EC was to protect the rights of the slave states - not small states, slave states. It's important to be clear about that. The talk about small versus large states is propaganda. It glosses over reality. The South didn't have a smaller population than the North, it had a smaller free population. Southerners were afraid that they'd wind up politically powerless due to their deliberate choice to base their economy on slave labor rather than manufacturing or small farms like in the North. As Madison put it:

“The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”

I was not aware of this...
Do you have a link that links slavery directly to the creation of the EC.
Madison is one voice, but I am interested if this was explicitly stated rationale for the creation of the EC.

Here's a NYT Op Ed that I ran across when I googled the topic
The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opin ... -myth.html