International Current Affairs (Trump Sackwatch)

[Davo]

Woman trampled in Capitol riots had 'don't tread on me' flag

One of the Trump supporters who died at the Capitol went with the Gadsden flag, i.e. the coiled up rattlesnake with the "don't tread on me" caption. Her friend is claiming that she died when she was trampled by the crowd.

While its easy to laugh at her being killed by irony, accounts from her friends and family say that she was an otherwise normal, decent person that just went down the Qanon rabbit hole.

Quote

“She had some demons and she had some problems, but she found a purpose in taking care of her little nieces. And she’s been good to them and she was real good to my children, and she was real good to me when I needed her. … I just want to remind everybody she is a human being. She’s not a ‘psycho Trump supporter,’ she’s not a drug addict, she’s a human being. And she was closer to me than a sister.”

 

[sonar]

There are some interesting theories regarding the impeachment of Trump by the senate. I'll try and link to some here if I can but it seems the Dems may not need 67 votes.

A quorum in the US senate is 51. Impeachment requires a supermajority which is 67 if all members are present and vote. If the Republicans are not present it is 35. 

Would be an interesting ploy for the Repubs not to show up, let the idiot be impeached, and they could rightly claim to their constituents they didn't vote for impeachment. Highly improbable but being canvassed.

[sonar]

26 minutes ago, sonar said:

There are some interesting theories regarding the impeachment of Trump by the senate. I'll try and link to some here if I can but it seems the Dems may not need 67 votes.

A quorum in the US senate is 51. Impeachment requires a supermajority which is 67 if all members are present and vote. If the Republicans are not present it is 35. 

Would be an interesting ploy for the Repubs not to show up, let the idiot be impeached, and they could rightly claim to their constituents they didn't vote for impeachment. Highly improbable but being canvassed.

 

Edited yesterday at 12:24 AM by sonar

[Davo]

21 hours ago, Davo said:

I believe it's a separate vote. The article of impeachment asks for "removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States." The senate decides whether he should be removed from office (kind of pointless when it won't happen until after he's gone anyway) and then they vote again as to whether he should be disqualified from future office. I read somewhere that while a President has never been removed from office through impeachment federal judges have. In those cases it needed a two thirds majority to find them guilty but only a simple majority to disqualify from future office once they've been found guilty.

This article from the Washington Post by an expert of constitutional law is refuting the argument being made by some that once Trump is out of office impeachment can’t be applied to him. In there he talks about the separation of votes for conviction and for disqualification from future office.

“To be sure, a former officer may no longer be “removed” even upon conviction by a two-thirds vote. But that has no bearing on whether such an ex-officer may be barred permanently from office upon being convicted. That separate judgment would require no more than a simple majority vote.”

[Midfielder]

13 hours ago, sonar said:

You can take a side in politics and still not wish hate on opponents. You can take a side in debates such as climate change, health care, child care, aged care,education  or whatever and be absolutely resolute in what you believe without touting any hate or wish harm on others. That's what the ballot box is for.

It's when ( as in the US ) that the validity of the ballot box is falsely questioned and then those falsehoods are being championed by one side that trouble starts........as we saw in Washington. Funnily enough it is being championed by the losers whose figurehead is a Narcissistic c**t who doesn't take well to losing and amplified by media backers. ( Fox/Newsmaxx/OAN )

I have never implied you can't take sides ... and like almost everyone including many of my posts I have attacked Trump...

My points are two, first is decades of me thinks rating chasing talk back followed by decades of right wing broadcast networks pushing the west generally from centre right position to hard right and then harder right...

My second point is increasingly people as a whole are debating less and taking sides... often resulting in  everything they do and everything they say is wrong ... for the other side...

[sonar]

57 minutes ago, Midfielder said:

I have never implied you can't take sides ... and like almost everyone including many of my posts I have attacked Trump...

My points are two, first is decades of me thinks rating chasing talk back followed by decades of right wing broadcast networks pushing the west generally from centre right position to hard right and then harder right...

My second point is increasingly people as a whole are debating less and taking sides... often resulting in  everything they do and everything they say is wrong ... for the other side...

Firstly Midi I'm not having a go at you personally here. Secondly I was pointing out that when you vote you HAVE to chose a side.  Whether it's Lib/Nat/Lab/Green/Ind  etc or in the case of the US Dem or Repub......you're picking a side. Thirdly ,as I said you can be absolutely resolute in what you say, you can steadfastly refuse any point someone is trying to make without inciting violence whether it's on the Left or Right ......whether someones listens or refuses to listen is mute, it's action afterwards that matter.

It's only when a side decides that after all the debating ( or non debating )  it will not accept the voters verdict and goes down the path of violence on the back of a lie supported by a leader and enabled by the media that we have trouble. ....as they did in Washington. 

 

Edited 23 hours ago by sonar

[Davo]

 

[Sithslayer1991]

Sooo maybe Trump should of just won the election. Can see now why 1 term presidents are a rarity. The US literally implodes onto itself

[sonar]

52 minutes ago, Sithslayer1991 said:

Sooo maybe Trump should of just won the election. Can see now why 1 term presidents are a rarity. The US literally implodes onto itself

That's the problem....he's incorrectly saying he did.....lol

[sonar]

 

[sonar]

 

[Paul01]

And the rich tax dodgers funded the overthrow 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/15/trump-republicans-election-defeat-club-for-growth?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Paul01]

And the corporates are finally stopping funding to Trump and the fascist collaborators 

Corporate donors flee Republican Party following Capitol Hill riot, and it's only the beginning http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-16/us-political-donations-dry-up-after-capitol-insurrection/13062376

[sonar]

The NRA has filed for bankruptcy ...........moral or financial......we're not quite sure.....lol

 

[Paul01]

18 minutes ago, sonar said:

The NRA has filed for bankruptcy ...........moral or financial......we're not quite sure.....lol

 

Morally corrupt. They were there years ago.

I think that Chapter 11 bankruptcy could actually save them, just like multi-national companies do regularly 

[wendybr]

Fascinating...