is the usa secretly[its not a secret though its in the MSM on the front page playing out in real time] run by moose lodger comity's ?(secret right wing socialist oligarchy of ruling classes) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Turkish symbols on their hats ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Turks reformation of the young turks ? proud turks ? a trial of what ? what is being put on trial ? to anyone not aware of the massive amount of long term long form? systemic cultural subliminal programming of people(social engineering by accident or design) combined with Main stream media & other factions of society which drives the real working gears of the machine & are completely devoid of any relationship to common law & common systems of expected compliance & control
Just for the record... ( including V.P Pence's response to Trumps demand to thwart the constitution. ) Video of attack presented to the impeachment trial.
That's the hope: be safe from the MAGA-hats and acceptable to the side of the split party that gets more corporate donors. It's a gamble: even with the legal bs, he's been heard to say 'guilty' while voting to acquit; he's also been heard to say he voted to acquit because the ex-president couldn't be forced to leave office, so the vote was moot. But those of us who don't subsist on bourbon slushies know that the question was 'guilty - yea or nay?', which was legal on all counts; only after a guilty verdict would he be required to vote on removal from office, which is moot. The old saying went: he sat down between two chairs.
If Trump and the GOP are true to form the destruction of the GOP has only just started... Trump simply can't help himself so stay tuned....
I sure could. But look at the fear in McConnell's eyes and his mealy mouthed "he is guilty but I am not going to vote for his impeachment" - he was trying to walk a tightrope there. If he said "guilty" he'd never win a primary ever again because Trump supporters would crucify him. If he said "not guilty, he's not to blame" he would never win an election ever again because his opponent would just have to show a picture of the dead cop and say "This is what Mitch supports." So he said "guilty not guilty" hoping to placate both. And that is the weight that every GOP senator will have to carry around their necks for as long as Trump is alive. "I support him! But I don't support him. He was great for the US because I'm a republican. He was a criminal, because I support police." So we will see if, over the next few years, we see a lot of that.
Not at all. As you can see, I was correct on my prediction that the Republican senators, for the most part, would decide to put loyalty to Trump and self-interest in their own re-election above country and the Constitution. That is patently not true. Not a single one of the Democrats that Trump's defence team showed using the word "fight" was speaking at a rally whose sole aim was to prevent the validation of the results of a free and fair election. The impeachment managers covered your First Amendment argument in detail in the trial, and refuted the argument of Trump's lawyers that it should be considered "protected speech". It doesn't look to me like you watched the trial, or kept up with what happened in it. I am aware that Fox News ratings plummetted when it broadcast the opening arguments of the trial, so after that it essentially took the decision not to show any of it. Trump supporters like yourself preferred not to watch it because, like you, they worried they might learn something they would prefer not to know. It doesn't matter. The argument made for convicting Trump was not based solely on statements he made at that rally, but also on his long history of inciting his followers to violence. You might like to ask yourself why the rioters chose to turn up at the Capitol en masse on that particular day. Who asked them to come? You just don't get it, do you? This is your country you're toying with. No. They chose to embrace him. Trump has completely captured the Republican Party. No. McConnell said he voted for acquittal because he believed that it was unconstitutional to try Trump after he had left office. However, it was only due to McConnell's own decision that the trial was not able to proceed during Trump's term. Moreover, the senate, in a procedural vote at the start of the trial, voted that the trial was constitutional and could proceed. That issue was done and dusted, despite the fact that Trump's team continued to argue it during the trial. McConnell's other reason for voting to acquit, according to him, was that while Trump was morally culpable for the violent insurrection, and for doing nothing to stop it, an impeachment trail is not about moral culpability: "There's no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president. The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. .... By the strict criminal standard, the president's speech probably was not incitement. However — however — in the context of impeachment, the Senate might have decided this was acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riot. But in this case the question is moot because former president Trump is constitutionally not eligible for conviction. History will harshly judge McConnell and the other Republicans who voted to acquit.
"vote of no confidence" thats really what it is like any other parliamentary system only its called "impeachment" the majority agree with his actions as being morally correct for a president thats class system oligarchy faking it as democracy democracy by any other name ... they voted him out but the upper class wont vote him out that is what the upper class have to say about the issue case closed moving on ... will all those upper class elitists now collect the equal amount spent on all the impeachments & investigations, & give that money to children who cant afford hospital treatment for life saving operations ? of coarse not specially not the "pro lifers"(or the super wealthy evangelical mega churches) what irony obviously since its a subjective concept to define "incitement" it becomes the nature of the judges prerogative based on a few basic things 1 did he know about the rioters ? was he briefed about them in security briefings? why not why, if so what was said etc... 2 did he tell anyone to break the law ? = i dont think so, i have not seen any video of such a thing. incitement for a poor person would be decided by a lower circuit court judge & the poor person would then be bullied into signing a confession & then plea deal rich upper class person ... = no assuming it goes all the way to the supreme court which it probably would not be allowed to as it simply fails to meet the basic illegal action evidence ... assuming that it was argumentative AND he knew there was rioters massing AND he was told they had plans to go to the capitol building AND there was evidence to support that THEN it might be the judges legal prerogative to define it as incitement which would be a traffic ticket ? except for accountability for those whom died but he would never be found guilty of being accountable because they would be unable to prove his incitement caused those specific rioters to go there and do what they did. so around again it goes on the upper class working class poor funded merry go round. all on expensive catering & free lunches free lunches only for the upper class who get paid off poor working class taxes
Wouldn't the following have a chance of keeping Trump out of future office if he's convicted for: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...all-raises-new-prosecution-risk-in-final-days
Are you saying that this is what the vote will appear to suggest, or are you saying that the vote actually shows that the majority agree his actions to be morally correct for a President? Because if the latter, I'm not sure that's the case: people vote for things despite not being what they actually believe to be correct. That's politics. Unfortunately there will never be a poll taken of how the 100 would have voted had nothing been on the line at all, if they could vote purely with their own moral compass and conscience on the matter, irrespective of impact to their personal political situation. But that's politics. A politician that concerns himself with his future political ambitions is already compromised. Sometimes a lesser victory has to be passed over in favour of the long game. Sometimes even a monumental decision that one agrees with has to be rejected for the longer game. If only that longer game wasn't merely the selfish hunger for power. Meh. Anyhoo - here's an optimistic prediction: - Trump runs again, as his ego won't let him not do so. So barring any incapacity (health etc) he will opt to run in 4 years. - The Republican Party will quickly distance themselves from him. They will elect someone else. No idea who. - Trump will run as an Independent and take a significant tranche of Republican vote, causing a Democratic landslide in 2024.
Unless he controls the "GOP" at that stage and the Republicans that refuse to serve are not strong enough to mount a presidential challenge of their own? (would such a rump support a moderate Democratic candidate?)
I think we shall find that the Narcissistic Personality Disorder that Trump suffers from will force him to be rather active prior to 2024. He will most likely be involved in all sorts of sensational media grabbing behavior including supporting alt right demonstrations that may include fatalities etc... My prediction is that he will run for President from a prison cell...lol
ok, big topic so i will try & stay precise 2 sets of people technically roughly 3 or 4 or 5 classes of people mostly the way power is divided up in the usa it exists in roughly 2 basic classes the top class(politicians & the rich elite) the bottom class(voting public) is it a moral debate/vote ? see how you open up a whole new discussion by asserting there is a difference between money & morals 500,000 dead from covid clearly shows what the morals are. but is this what you wish to argue ? to suggest there is not an over arching concept of moral control that defines the will to put collective interests above societys interests ? surely thats a debate around the law and the usa law is clearly not only racist, xenophobic but clearly predominantly classicist. obviously in a shit hole society like the usa where you need to carry guns to go about your normal daily things, where people dont speak to others in fear the other will pull a gun & shoot them for just talking(free speech) how far down the rabbit hole are you intending to go before you hit the eject button & claim nothing is related to anything ? so your not talking morals now ? your talking scientific factual reality actions ? provable by scientific method ? you need to clarify this because it leans right in there, into the toilet
No. Even the senate vote was 57-43 in favour of conviction, which means that even a majority of senators did not "agree" with Trump's actions. Remember, Democrat senators count, too. 46.8% of Americans (all "classes") voted for Trump. Of those, I don't know who you'd put in the "upper class", but I'm guessing it would be a small minority. So you can't put the blame on the "upper classes". Trump was fully aware of the existence and aims of organisations like the Proud Boys. He addressed them directly in one of the presidential debates prior to the election, telling them to "stand back and stand by". Irrelevant. The relevant question is: did he incite people to break the law? And even more important: did he act according to the oath of office he took? Did he seek to uphold the constitution, or to bring it down? Clearly, you have a dim view of your justice system. Do you think that all criminals are bullied into admitting guilt? Are any of them actually guilty of the crimes alleged? He invited them to mass, at a particular place at a particular time. He told them to go to the Capitol. Evidence was presented in the senate trial. Did you watch any of it? Indeed. No. It would be removal from office (irrelevant, since Trump's was already out of office), and another vote to ensure that he could never hold public office again.
OK roughly 47 % of the citizens voted for trump 43% of the senators did so Obviously the senate/congress is/are not accurately representing the will of the people which is why trump was able to win in the first place. Trump is just a symptom and not the disease.
Put that way, it doesn't look like there's a huge discrepancy. Bear in mind that the Republican senators probably voted for Trump's acquittal at least in part because they feared the backlash from their own constituents if they didn't vote that way. Republican-controlled state legislatures, which are probably even more rabidly pro-Trump than the national Congress, on average, have already censured some of the republican senators who voted to convict Trump. Two of the Republican senators (out of 7) who voted for conviction are due to retire, so don't have to worry about being re-elected. On the other hand, two other Republican senators, who are also retiring, voted to acquit Trump, so go figure. It would be silly to assume that Trump madness is only a problem within the Republican Party. There is a huge grass-roots movement of people who idolise Trump. Some people just want to be led by a popularist strong-man narcissist. It's not just in 2021 America that we see that. It's happening all over.
One of the points I was trying to raise earlier is that the USA had about: 239 million eligible voters in 2020 only 66% presented votes Of the total eligible voters, 239M in 2020, only 74M voted for Trump. Therefore Trump vote was only 32% of all eligible voters. So 32% voted for Trump (T) 34% voted for Biden (B) 34% abstained. (A) It is the 68% ( A+B) of the eligible USA voters that may find significant cause for concern about the "Insurrection" Trump inspired/incited /ordered. 68% of 239 M eligible voters amounts to over 162 million eligible voters. (Non Trump eligible voters) 162million voters that may have grave concerns about the future of the Union and it's constitution today. That being said, we can speculate with some accuracy how 66% (T&B) of the eligible population will react to the acquittal but we really have no idea how the remaining 34% (A) will react.