Military Officers in Congress Join Call to Invoke 25th Amendment, Remove Trump

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

5 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

What kinda "optics" when down at the Capitol?

The deranged one that Trump caused the rioters to do what they did, with the comically flimsy-at-best dog whistle theory.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Republicans Confront the Consequences of Their Doomsday Rhetoric

The Capitol riot showed how the ominous tenor of contemporary GOP messaging could be fueling white conservatives’ extremism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/capitol-riot-and-white-conservatives-extremism/617615/

 

The riot showed how the ominous tenor of contemporary Republican messaging could be fueling white conservatives’ extremism. For at least the past decade, GOP candidates and conservative-media personalities have routinely deployed rhetoric similar to the Flight 93 argument. Only about 40 hours before the insurrection, at a campaign rally hosting an enthusiastic, virtually all-white audience in rural Georgia, President Trump insisted that if Democrats won the state’s two Senate runoff elections this week, “America as you know it will be over, and it will never—I believe—be able to come back again.”

Trump’s speech that night didn’t attract as much attention as his incendiary remarks in Washington on Wednesday, which fueled the riot and led to calls for his resignation, removal, or impeachment. Nor did his closing argument in Georgia succeed: The elections there tipped control of the Senate to the Democrats.

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

On 1/8/2021 at 8:35 AM, Burnt Reynolds said:

Already know that's a lie.

 

The few that do know it won't happen.

 

Just a reminder that if Democrats wanted universal healthcare, preferable environmental policies, etc. they had the mandate to do it when Obama got elected and had at least 1-2 years of filibuster proof Congress along with the Presidency to get it done. Yet they opted for a joke corporatist mandate to the insurance industry and related lobbies. Nothing has changed between then and now.

 

  They had ~4 months of filibuster proof control.

 

  Al Franken wasn't seated as the 60th senator until July 9th 2009, at which time Robert Byrd was out ill, and Ted Kennedy was on his death bed. The Democrats had control of congress the whole time, but they finally got the 60th seat in congress on Sept 24 2009 after Kennedy's replacement was seated. They subsequently lost that seat to Republicans in the special election in January less than 4 months later. 

 

  Those of us who were alive then would actually remember, the ACA was voted on in the senate on Dec 23rd 2009, and the GOP took the MA senate seat and ended the filibuster proof majority on January 5th 2010. The bill was rushed through at the end with the sense of urgency that comes with knowing it's a one shot deal. There was never any chance to push through anything else on the Democrat agenda without getting the Republicans on board.

 

  None of the above excuses either party for contributing to a horrendous pile of trash legislation, but that is how it happened. Perhaps a less polarized group of people might have actually been able to work together and accomplish what we all know is a much needed overhaul of a broken health care system, but I'm not seeing any indication that this current group will be able to do that either. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  They had ~4 months of filibuster proof control.

 

  Al Franken wasn't seated as the 60th senator until July 9th 2009, at which time Robert Byrd was out ill, and Ted Kennedy was on his death bed. The Democrats had control of congress the whole time, but they finally got the 60th seat in congress on Sept 24 2009 after Kennedy's replacement was seated. They subsequently lost that seat to Republicans in the special election in January less than 4 months later. 

 

  Those of us who were alive then would actually remember, the ACA was voted on in the senate on Dec 23rd 2009, and the GOP took the MA senate seat and ended the filibuster proof majority on January 5th 2010. The bill was rushed through at the end with the sense of urgency that comes with knowing it's a one shot deal. There was never any chance to push through anything else on the Democrat agenda without getting the Republicans on board.

 

  None of the above excuses either party for contributing to a horrendous pile of trash legislation, but that is how it happened. Perhaps a less polarized group of people might have actually been able to work together and accomplish what we all know is a much needed overhaul of a broken health care system, but I'm not seeing any indication that this current group will be able to do that either. 

I'll skip over all the talk then about why it's Trump's failure for his first two years that he couldn't get filibuster proof legislation to pass when Obama spent so much of that Congressional session not only with a filibuster proof Congress but then remaining that close to one until the next session. If the idea was Congress was polarized back then, well... what about now?

 

Nonetheless, without challenging the specific time frame, even 4 months of filibuster proof Congress is way beyond sufficient to pass legislation. They could've come up with something, anything better than the ridiculous mess they did. In some ways I think its a blessing in disguise, and represents an opportunity for states and local governments to do their own universal healthcare. For example, what is stopping Colorado?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

serious question. I have not seen it in the Media. What is it Trump specifically did that caused the riot. I have not seen where he called for violance. He called for a protest to protest the election.

 

seems like much the same thing that happened when he was elected.

 

imeline of protests against Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_protests_against_Donald_Trump

 

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said Friday that he heard from senior White House officials that President Trump was "delighted" to hear that his supporters were breaking into the Capitol building in a riot Wednesday that turned deadly.

"As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren't as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building," Sasse told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt in an interview. "That was happening. He was delighted."

"I'm sure you've also had conversations with other senior White House officials, as I have," Sasse told Hewitt.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/533403-sasse-says-trump-was-delighted-and-excited-by-reports-of-capitol-riot

[Steeleballz 7,550]

41 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I'll skip over all the talk then about why it's Trump's failure for his first two years that he couldn't get filibuster proof legislation to pass when Obama spent so much of that Congressional session not only with a filibuster proof Congress but then remaining that close to one until the next session. If the idea was Congress was polarized back then, well... what about now?

 

Nonetheless, without challenging the specific time frame, even 4 months of filibuster proof Congress is way beyond sufficient to pass legislation. They could've come up with something, anything better than the ridiculous mess they did. In some ways I think its a blessing in disguise, and represents an opportunity for states and local governments to do their own universal healthcare. For example, what is stopping Colorado?

 

  Trump never had a filibuster proof senate, I've never made that assertion. The Republicans controlled both houses for 2 years, much like the Dems had in the earlier example you gave. In those cases, you still should be able to get some of your agenda accomplished, but probably not all, and not to the extent you want. There will have to be some compromises. As we have seen, the current and recent members of congress don't really seem capable of consensus, even on areas where there should be. 

[spookyturtle 9,466]

He should just resign. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

He should just resign. 

That's what I told Tom Brady but he just keeps playing.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

27 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

That's what I told Tom Brady but he just keeps playing.

And playing well. 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

GOP Sen. Toomey calls on Trump to resign

The Pennsylvania senator says there's not enough time to impeach the president for his role in Wednesday's Capital riot.

https://www.newsweek.com/gop-senator-toomey-says-trump-should-resign-not-viable-candidate-office-ever-again-1560303

 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Stage managing things. Pretend to be able to impeach and remove Trump. When that fails, just revive the issue shortly after he's gone to try and prevent him from running for future office. Thing is, that won't work either.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

13 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Stage managing things. Pretend to be able to impeach and remove Trump. When that fails, just revive the issue shortly after he's gone to try and prevent him from running for future office. Thing is, that won't work either.

Trump will not receive a salary and will prevented from holding public office. He may even be denied Secret Service. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, CanAm1980 said:

Trump will not receive a salary and will prevented from holding public office. He may even be denied Secret Service. 

None of that's going to happen. It requires 67 Senators. While I know the chamber is full of scummy establishment characters, certainly more than 67 of them, many of those Republicans understand that if they vote to do this their political career is done. Let me know which 17 GOP Senators are going to vote to convict/bar from future office.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

13 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

None of that's going to happen. It requires 67 Senators. While I know the chamber is full of scummy establishment characters, certainly more than 67 of them, many of those Republicans understand that if they vote to do this their political career is done. Let me know which 17 GOP Senators are going to vote to convict/bar from future office.

Impeachment is one the remedies, congress is not limited by impeachment once the man is unemployed.

As to the 17? I count 5 off of news reports, I am sure there are 10.

 

Who is going to vote to not convict? 

 

 

Edited January 10, 2021 by CanAm1980

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

52 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Impeachment is one the remedies, congress is not limited by impeachment once the man is unemployed.

As to the 17? I count 5 off of news reports, I am sure there are 10.

 

Who is going to vote to not convict? 

 

 

People who want to save their political careers, those who understand the President didn't commit any crime, never mind a high crime and misdemeanor. The idea that Trump did any of those things stands no chance in court, there are plenty of lawyers who know this too, they know the political motivations behind impeachment, and they know their constituents are aware of it too.

 

Impeachment isn't anything by itself.

 

The exercise isn't to find out who won't, because you've seen that not many will. So logic dictates you figure out who will. Unless you've got 17 GOP Senators willing to convict/bar from future office, you have another meaningless impeachment.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Burnt Reynolds