ADVERTISEMENT

Who’s responsible?

W

watu04

I.T.S. Redshirt Freshman
Nov 25, 2020
68
24
8
While Trump claims he is not responsible for the Capitol building rioting, the rioters sure do. Demanding pardons



BTW will be posting as 04Watu in future. Having a a login issue and cancelling this login.
 
I definitely see and understand that perspective but what kind of America do we live in where a person is essentially accused of manslaughter of 5 people and convicted without a trial? This is not constitutional! Guilty or innocent, people deserve a trial. Many people feel like if they can do it to POTUS, what’s stopping the system from doing the same thing to me? Make POTUS defend himself.
 
If Trump looks after #1, which we know he does, none of them will be getting pardons.

#1 is the only one he looks after.

If Trump had a choice between one of his family going to jail rather than him, I'm thinking the odds would be on the family member going to jail.

The evidence is his speech, that's pretty much the only evidence that will or won't convict him.
If he was responsible for other acts, they would only add to that, not take away. All this calling for more evidence, there isn't more evidence, that speech is the only thing that will attempt to convict him. It's already in the public domain. He can say what he will about the speech. It was at the very least a careless thing to put out there, but everybody knows that was calculated. If it was not a political trial in the senate, but a normal trial in a normal court, the only issue of it being carelessly said would be involuntary or voluntary manslaughter.
 
Gmoney4WW said:
If Trump looks after #1, which we know he does, none of them will be getting pardons.

#1 is the only one he looks after.

If Trump had a choice between one of his family going to jail rather than him, I'm thinking the odds would be on the family member going to jail.

The evidence is his speech, that's pretty much the only evidence that will or won't convict him.
If he was responsible for other acts, they would only add to that, not take away. All this calling for more evidence, there isn't more evidence, that speech is the only thing that will attempt to convict him. It's already in the public domain. He can say what he will about the speech. It was at the very least a careless thing to put out there, but everybody knows that was calculated. If it was not a political trial in the senate, but a normal trial in a normal court, the only issue of it being carelessly said would be involuntary or voluntary manslaughter.
Click to expand...
Why give someone the opportunity to complain that the system is being rigged against them? That plays to his base even more. As of today, his approval rating is 51%. Even if the presentation of evidence was just for optics, it still would have shown the people that he was given the opportunity to defend himself but the result was the same. It’s reckless, foolish, and unconstitutional and I think it will come back to bite them.
 
Don’t mind the logic but wouldn’t Obama be responsible for the looting, burning and murders from the riots during his administration if we applied the same ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: shon46
lawpoke87 said:
Don’t mind the logic but wouldn’t Obama be responsible for the looting, burning and murders from the riots during his administration if we applied the same ?
Click to expand...
Justice is supposed to be blind!
 
Who is saying that won't be presented in the senate? Not me. I think it needs to be.

_____________________________________________________
"This time, the Senate could go a few different ways:

— A traditional trial with similar lengths of argument that would extend a couple of weeks and consume the Senate's focus during the early days of the Biden administration.

— A truncated trial that includes significantly briefer presentations, an acknowledgment of the more public nature of the evidence against Trump.

— A lengthier half-day-at-a-time trial that permits the Senate to focus on its other business for large parts of the day. Biden has suggested this approach as a compromise that will allow him to govern with Congress in his early tenure even as the Senate considers the charge against Trump."
-------------------------------
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/12/trumps-second-impeachment-458506
 
False comparison, but compare Obama's first reaction to Ferguson and the most egregious excerpt from Trump's speech.
________________________________________
Obama,

Five days after Michael Brown was killed, Mr Obama asked America to "take a step back" and think about how to move forward. Urging calm, the president said he'd already directed his justice department and the FBI to investigate Michael Brown's death while guiding local law enforcement on handling demonstrations without "unnecessary escalation".
As he highlighted the "heart-breaking" circumstances of the black teen's death, he also emphasised there was "never an excuse for violence against police" or, likewise, "excessive force against peaceful protest".

Trump,

Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections. But whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time. Far longer than this four-year period. We’ve set it on a much greater course. So much, and we, I thought, you know, four more years. I thought it would be easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 04Watu
lawpoke87 said:
Don’t mind the logic but wouldn’t Obama be responsible for the looting, burning and murders from the riots during his administration if we applied the same ?
Click to expand...


Gmoney4WW said:
Trump should be up for the charge of sedition.
Click to expand...

Like's by TUMe, CMullins, aston martin, watu, weatherdemon, lawpoke.

Did you change your mind?

Sedition is in my mind more serious than impeachment.
 
Gmoney4WW said:
Like's by TUMe, CMullins, aston martin, watu, weatherdemon, lawpoke.

Did you change your mind?

Sedition is in my mind more serious than impeachment.
Click to expand...

No. My post wasn’t a defense of Trump. Simply pointing out the similarities regarding the encouragement of riots. Both Obama and his AG encouraged the “protests” to continue even after the looting, burning and murders which were occurring with them.
 
The only up or down vote on Trump was in the house, when they called on Pence to strip him of his powers. And that wasn't an up or down vote to strip him, that was a request to have Pence begin the process. There would have had to have been further decisions by his cabinet on whether to continue with the process to strip him. (The executive officers the United States of America must vote by majority to remove a President under the 25th amendment.)

I haven't seen any calls of consequence to impeach him without evidence put forth before the Senate or even suggested.

As far as I know they can't really even do that. Brief truncated is not no evidence, and most politicians are not even calling for that. The politicians that want him out know that would only make the situation worse, even with him being removed from office.
 
Gmoney4WW said:
The only up or down vote on Trump was in the house, when they called on Pence to strip him of his powers. And that wasn't an up or down vote to strip him, that was a request to have Pence begin the process. There would have had to have been further decisions by his cabinet on whether to continue with the process to strip him. (The executive officers the United States of America must vote by majority to remove a President under the 25th amendment.)

I haven't seen any calls of consequence to impeach him without evidence put forth before the Senate or even suggested.

As far as I know they can't really even do that. Brief truncated is not no evidence, and most politicians are not even calling for that. The politicians that want him out know that would only make the situation worse, even with him being removed from office.
Click to expand...

There was a vote to Impeach in the House. Also, the intent of the 25th Amendent is not to remove so much as to suspend because they can ask to come back. However, when you have less than a week left it is, de facto, permanent.
 
Last edited:
TUMe said:
There was a vote to Impeach in the House.
Click to expand...
And the trial is going to be in the Senate. So?

Shon is screaming about no evidence. Showing no evidence in the House is not showing no evidence in an impeachment. If the evidence is there, but is only going to be showed for optics, then why show it in both places. I seriously doubt the House members would have voted not to impeach him with evidence. The house is like a Grand Jury on whether to have a trial in the Senate. If you get a trial in the Senate with evidence and get 'convicted', then you can't complain about no evidence in the House,(grand jury) when the evidence is being used in the trial.
 
Just like it would have taken a further action by Pence and the cabinet to act on the House's request for Trump's removal, it will take further action by the Senate to impeach him.(with evidence) Nobody can legitimately scream no evidence when it occurs somewhere in the process, and it is looked at fully.
 
The 25th Amendment is not about removal. It is about declaring someone incapable of governing. There is left open the chance of getting well and coming back. Except that with a week left you aren't going to get to come back. The 25th is much more detailled than would be needed for this situation.
 
TUMe said:
The 25th Amendment is not about removal. It is about declaring someone incapable of governing. There is left open the chance of getting well and coming back. Except that with a week left you aren't going to get to come back. The 25th is much more detailled than would be needed for this situation.
Click to expand...
Edited:

I thought you were alluding to my saying there was no up or down vote, so I related my description of the request for Pence to remove Trump, because I said there was no up or down vote. I brought that up as an example of no up or down vote which would take Trump out of office for whatever the reason. Just like in the request, and the impeachment, there was no up or down vote which would automatically 'convict' or remove. I was simply relating the two to an up or down vote to remove, determine incapable of governing, convict, impeach. Was not getting confused and/or mis-speaking as to the differences. I was simply clarifying that it took further processes to 'convict'/remove from office and/or determine incapable/remove from office.

But the 25th is about removal, it is just up to how and why you were removed, whether that is permanent or not. Removal does appear in the wording of the 25th amendment in detailing the person being incapable of governing and them subsequently being removed from office. It actuallly states it in steps. It is very detailed in many respects, and not so detailed in others. We have yet to determine what other bodies for instance are involved.

We are getting into semantics here.

I think you were getting the entire premise of what I was stating a little confused as to the reasons I stated them individually.
 
TUMe said:
The 25th Amendment is not about removal. It is about declaring someone incapable of governing. There is left open the chance of getting well and coming back. Except that with a week left you aren't going to get to come back. The 25th is much more detailled than would be needed for this situation.
Click to expand...
Just suffer through it /\ TUMe. I don't feel like spending any more time editing. If you slowly read my post, I think your'll get it's meandering journey to a meaning. It's there, but not easily/quickly interpreted/conveyed.(after reading it two or three times 😁 )
 
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Section 1. Talks about removal from office, death, or resignation.
Section 4. This is a much more involved process and what Pence would have to have done. It is not "removal from office." Pence would have been "Acting President."
 
Gmoney4WW said:
Just suffer through it /\ TUMe. I don't feel like spending any more time editing. If you slowly read my post, I think your'll get it's meandering journey to a meaning. It's there, but not easily/quickly interpreted/conveyed.(after reading it two or three times 😁 )
Click to expand...
No, you are wrong. Get over it.
 
TUMe said:
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Section 1. Talks about removal from office, death, or resignation.
Section 4. This is a much more involved process and what Pence would have to have done. It is not "removal from office." Pence would have been "Acting President."
Click to expand...
Even if I were wrong about the word remove, it still wouldn't change the meaning of my post. It doesn't matter whether I said remove incorrectly or not.

There is no up or down vote to remove from office, stop from running for office, permanently/temporarily be declared as unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, be convicted of sedition in a court of law, etc. etc., without evidence being presented or some other complex process involving many individuals analyzing the presidents abilities. That was my point. It wasn't changed by the use of the word remove. You want to argue bout the 25th amendment go do it with somebody else. I'm tired of talking semantics when it wasn't really germane to the point I was making. All that other stuff is moot to the point. So glad you read my post to prove yourself right, instead of trying to ascertain what I was saying.
 
This is the 2nd time you have said you are not going to argue about it anymore.
 
shon46 said:
That would be another false statement 😂
Click to expand...
Nope. I never lost my temper with you.

I just calmly, cooly, and collectedly destroyed you.

I did it because I could,
because it was easy,
and most importantly because you are wrong on about 98% of what you post on here.(unlike TUMe)
 
Gmoney4WW said:
Nope. I never lost my temper with you.

I just calmly, cooly, and collectedly destroyed you.

I did it because I could,
because it was easy,
and most importantly because you are wrong on about 98% of what you post on here.(unlike TUMe)
Click to expand...
Is that what you think you do 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
 
lawpoke87 said:
Don’t mind the logic but wouldn’t Obama be responsible for the looting, burning and murders from the riots during his administration if we applied the same ?
Click to expand...
Obama never invited those people to a rally where he spoke to them and directed them to a certain place to (paraphrasing) ‘show strength’ or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 04Watu
“.....We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. …
“You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. …
“We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore
.......Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you. … We are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote, but we are going to try — give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re try — going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.”
Click to expand...

Trump returns to his office to watch the news coverage.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Obama never invited those people to a rally where he spoke to them and directed them to a certain place to (paraphrasing) ‘show strength’ or whatever.
Click to expand...

Correct. He met with them after the looting, burning and killing and encouraged them to continue the protests which led to that activity.
 
04Watu said:
Trump returns to his office to watch the news coverage.
Click to expand...
And watch his poll numbers crash. He remarked about the looks of the "protesters" and his remarks showed that he should have recalcutated. Yet he still was cheering for them early on. These were entirely different from his normal rally crowds. He stirred them up for a fight and suffered the consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 04Watu
04Watu said:
A surprising number of people continue to approve and question the election outcome.



projects.fivethirtyeight.com

How Popular Is Donald Trump?

FiveThirtyEight is tracking Donald Trump’s approval ratings throughout his presidency.
projects.fivethirtyeight.com projects.fivethirtyeight.com
Click to expand...

Gmoney4WW said:
As of today, first term approval rating(An average of recent polls) finds Trump with a 38% approval rating and 59% disapproval rating. Hasn't been lower since the last half of 2017. You picked the highest outlier poll.(Or should I say Newsmax picked it.)
Click to expand...
Earlier in this topic.

Jinx on you...
 
04Watu said:
The number of supporters are still surprising to me. Think about 38% convinced that an incompetent and liar both did a good job and won an election despite the totality of evidence otherwise.

I found this Scientific American article a reasonable attempt at explaining this phenomena.
Click to expand...
Cracls me up that peoples like shon try to play the psychology game, without even being aware of the aforementioned ties they fall under. They aren't even aware, and probably won't be aware how they are being played with intentionally or unintentionally, till the day they die. Completely unselfaware is one of the main categories just about every one falls under that is manipulated by things like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W

No one ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American people

Replies
8
Views
837
Crossfire
watu05
W
T

Possible Social Security Fix

Replies
47
Views
1K
Crossfire
lawpoke87
L
T

Bill Self Article - Changes He’s Made Post Health Episode

Replies
0
Views
881
TU Basketball
TUMU
T
C

Rick Dickson

Replies
166
Views
6K
TU Football
rusty-c
R
G

Georgia Trials

Replies
5
Views
297
Crossfire
drboobay
D
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back