“Some of Trump’s defenders have said that if he is impeached by the House but not convicted in the Senate and removed from office, he’s eligible to run for two more terms because the impeachment itself nullifies his first term in office.”
That’s not true, of course, but if it were
1) the Democrats could run Bill Clinton!
2) since the House will probably keep impeaching Trump, he could stay in office forever, possibly even after his death.
Try Falwell Jr., clown. Is that big enough?
I haven’t heard a single Trump supporter try to claim that he should be eligible for a 3rd term.
On the other hand, Trump himself has tweeted that he could be president for the next 100+ years, and the left freaked out. He is the ultimate troll.
Ultimate hole, you mean.
The only question that needs to be answered here, is if any citizen of the US would be okay with their dad, brother, or son sent off to the line of duty and risk their lives because the military leader of the United States of America risked their lives based on his own personal gain. That’s the line Trump crossed, his personal benefit versus the welfare of our citizen’s armed forces and the armed forces of our allies.
That’s it. If you can’t answer that question honestly and agree this calls for ANY leader of ANY party to be removed making that decision, then you’re a hypocrite, and have no moral or ethical right to be voting or making decisions about the country in the future. Nor should you pretend yourself a supporter of the armed forces.
Citizens of this country live and die off of those decisions, and if you’re so deep up a cult-figure’s ass you can’t separate that from politics, then you’re just as bad as those who make decisions to attack our country – because that’s exactly what Trump’s decision was. If something helps him personally – his wealth, his ego, his power – he wouldn’t give a damn about a dead soldier to meet his ends. .
Agreed but given this logic you also must lump Biden into this as well. And if Trump is guilty w/o trial then Biden must be as well and this not electable in your eyes correct?
I don’t even care about Biden to be honest.
I don’t get this whole ‘both sides’ thing – like assuming most liberals care about Biden and the Clintons. Most don’t, and the Southern states that aren’t voting Democrat anyway have determined these ridiculous candidates for the Democratic party. There is a ton more free thinking and dissension within liberal thinking by default, because conservatives are just hivemind, “rally around the dictator” thinkers by their own conservative design.
Yet, the entire Republican party has completely staked EVERYTHING to Trump. It’s like if one person even says one disparaging word about him, he’s a cult leader.
Look at the last several Republican Presidents or Presidential candidates with a ton more integrity than Trump. Both Bush Sr and Jr hated him. McCain hated him. Romney hates him. So it’s probably not just ‘both sides’ logically right?
If you’re referring it to being the same thing, what part of what Biden did is the same to dedicating military aid? The equal and same would be how Trump got his sons and Kushner into all of these foreign investment placements, if that’s what you’re referring to.
Sorry, both sides is not picking out the #1 ‘worst’ thing someone did and saying it’s equal just because it’s the worst thing for each. That’s like saying ‘well Ted Bundy is equal to that guy who shoplifted, they both did a crime.’ Just because the best that can be pushed by FOX News bullshit is information classification on email servers and a son of a candidate working on a foreign energy board doesn’t mean its equal.
On question two, the only one I am certain of is G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., unless the wording of your question allows Bush, Clinton and Obama to be correct.
You got all 4, almost nobody gets Porteous.
I have no clue on question three. I guess I don’t see the “hook,” in that I don’t know the significance of “after 1952,” since the major parties ran the same guys in 1952 that they ran in the next election immediately after 1952. I know that the 22nd Amendment was ratified just before that election year, but I can’t figure out whether that could be relevant and if so, how. I am stumped.
A comment and two trivia questions.
1. None of the people who said this are lawyers, if I am not mistaken.
2. There are 4 people total in the United States ineligible to run for President who otherwise meet the requirements laid out in the Constitution.
Who are they?
3. There are two people who ran for President after 1952 who were likely not eligible to run.
who are they, and why is 1952 relevant?
This is such a Trumpian understanding of the U.S. Constitution.
One of the biggest idiot Trump cultists in the U.S House, no doubt pushing this nonsense, is Louie Gohmert, aka Gohmert Pyle. Gohmert is facing a Republican primary opponent, Jonathan Kyle Davidson, so, you might think this is a chance to restore sanity. So, what does Mr Davidson have to say for himself?
“Johnathan and fellow neighbors, plus former coworkers, and even celebrities and politicians, are stranded on the government satellite and wireless cellular tower surveillance networks, due to a group of misfits at a former employer, XTO ENERGY, creating accounts to track and stalk beautiful women and other “pretty people,” plus any person, who they fancy; which, nonetheless, is terrorism by state law.”
https://www.jdavidsonforcongress.com/reasons-for-running-for-congress
So by this reasoning if impeachment (which in and of itself carries no lasting impact other than the ignominy of it happening) means that Trumps term is invalidated does that also mean that everything that he has signed into law, negotiated etc. are also no longer standing?
My logic says no, no impact on bill’s or exec. orders signed into law. This is about a technicality on this being counted as a term not on his being elected and or his powers at time of his impeachment passing the house.
You’re full of it…
OK…….
This isn’t about your ‘logic’ this is about the law, and the law is pretty clear on this.
Midwest Conservative said “My logic….”
You don’t have logic. You have the ability to rationalize ANYTHING Trump does as being perfectly OK. That is so different you can’t see one from the other, which is how you made this mistake.
You don’t know me, how can you rationally make this statement? I am an educated self made business owner that pays an exorbitant amount in taxes and feels a total responsibility for my 250+ families that rely on my umbrella of companies to provide. I am in my early 40’s but have seen and lived thru more than most should in their life and be it that I may not be as old as some on this board I do work my ass off, care about all of those that I surround myself with and really try to look at all sides of these matters and with that I disagree with your stance but that is yours and was formed by all that you have experienced and lived thru but to that I have not ever name called or insulted you or any of the others on here that like to push close mindedness and follow the herd mentality that you so clearly push.
I am agreeing with you in that this has no basis top the claims that this , once again your blind hatred for anything conservative is blocking your ability to understand what I am saying here.
Just so that you understand, 1) I don’t see any way that this would grant Trump another term 2) I still am of belief that this is just a way to control the news cycle or Pelosi would have released to the senate ad it would be a slam dunk 3) This debate is over a 3rd term (or 4th if they try to impeach again after next Nov) and would have no bearing on laws or exec orders signed into law.
My only question to you is why do you think conservatism is pro-small business?
Conservatives for a long time claim to be pro small business, but then give gigantic corporate tax cuts to your competitors. How can you say Trump or the Republican party are on your side when then only thing they seem to do is hedge the smaller guy out of the market?
If they wanted to promote small businesses, why did Trump reduce the corporate take rate by 15% when that 15% could have been used virtually ANYWHERE else – lowering taxes for small businesses, lower income families, anything.
It’s not ‘liberal overrreach’ that destroyed the middleman, it’s been years and years of Republican tax breaks for the rich to allow this corrupt corpocracy to run amok to monopolize markets and either buy or hedge out competitors.
I notice no matter how educated someone who adheres to conservative philosophy is, they can’t think outside of their own anecdotal world. It’s like blaming an alcohol or gambling tax for your casino losses, instead of the owners and the games who’s rules are created with the odds to cause you to lose.
Midwest Conservative, I can rationally make the statement I did based on your posts here, which are the only real evidence I have about you. Your claims about yourself do not constitute proof that you are what you claim to be, because on the Internet, anyone can claim to be anything. Trump can claim to be a stable genius, for example. See how that works?
What you have shown is an endless ability to believe that Trump is wonderful, no matter how awful he is. I rest my case.
Some of Trump’s defenders have said that if you get a Tootsie Pop and the wrapper has a picture of an Indian shooting an arrow, you can turn it in and get an extra term for Trump.
Also not true, but why let that slow them down when it’s what they want to hear.
Pelosi just wants McConnell to promise to have an actual trial. Bets?
It will be drug out for another week+ so that everyone hears the left’s cries then will make it and no matter what happens foul will be cried.
Ultimately will fail and nothing will happen
You mean it will succeed and nothing will happen. Turtle-Head wants it down the toilet, it’s going down the toilet. He’s probably already working on the Mission Accomplished banner.
I would love to see the one liners that came out of Bill vs the Don election!
Interested to see if and when this impeachment circus is released to the Seanate?
Does that say anything about the chances that Pelosi feels these charges carry? Just a way to control the media play for a few more weeks?
Time will tell …
> I would love to see the one liners that came out of Bill vs the Don election!
It would probably quickly become a jocular discussion of which girls in the audience they would bang.