Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Amita

Impeachment Amendment

117 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RavenHawk
4 hours ago, Amita said:

Math is the same,

No, the math is not the same.

 

2/3rds Dems + 2/3rds Reps ≠ 2/3rds House.  I thought my example was clear enough??  So let’s say for argument’s sake, that the House is split 290 Dems and 145 Reps.  Yes of course, not every Congressman is going to vote down party lines, but there will be times when that is the case.  If it is down party lines, you achieve 2/3rds requirement for impeachment.

 

which is what I meant.  

No it wasn’t.  Now let me point out that I agree with you in that it should be a 2/3rds vote in the House as it is in the Senate for removal.

 

The idea is to reduce the likelihood of impeachment of any President.  

It’s not to reduce the likelihood of impeachment but reduce the likelihood of a political impeachment.  When you don’t cover all possibilities, they have a tendency to start occurring.  It’s sort of a corollary of the Anthropic Principle.  Things occur around us because the rules controlling the environment enable certain things to happen.  I.e. with a rule established to require 2/3rds vote, then every possible exception will show itself.

 

If ⅓ of the House voters, never mind party, do not vote to impeach, then it fails.  Those are better odds than now.  

Using my example, again if the vote is straight down party lines, all Reps vote no, impeachment still occurs.  The point is that my addition sends a message that partisan, political impeachment will not be tolerated.

 

You are also assuming that partisan voting pattern in the House are fixed for all time.  

No I’m not.  I’m considering just a special case where the voting pattern is down party lines with a certain composition of members (where one party controls 2/3rds majority).

 

That there will never be any members who do not follow the party leaders orders - that is not true now and will continue, I believe.

No, that is not an absolute.  There will be plenty of times that members will break from their party.  But of recent Administrations, that’s more of the exception than the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Man so we've slid so far now that election results you dont like are just accepted as proof of cheating?

How about an alternative explanation that fits within what we know as established fact? Ranches along the border are generally quite well off financially. That generally means educated. That generally means more independent and democrat voters come from that demographic. So we're talking about long entrenched old money with multiple generations of educated families. Not just voting but acting as the driving political forces in their areas.

 

That's a lot of assumptions and generalities posing as fact.  If Democrat voters are all that you claim they are, how do you explain all of the worst run cities in the country being bastions of Blue?  Democrats are known more as the party of poor ghetto dwellers than rich ranchers.  I live in an area of farms and horse ranches.  During the last election it was a sea of Trump signs.  The only time I saw signs for Hillary was when I had to go to the core of a nearby city.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

That's a lot of assumptions and generalities posing as fact.  If Democrat voters are all that you claim they are, how do you explain all of the worst run cities in the country being bastions of Blue?  Democrats are known more as the party of poor ghetto dwellers than rich ranchers.  I live in an area of farms and horse ranches.  During the last election it was a sea of Trump signs.  The only time I saw signs for Hillary was when I had to go to the core of a nearby city.

Damn man it wasnt a personal attack LOL. Im just talking about  possibilities. It is a possibility that those facts regarding voting demographics are a factor in the blue areas that andthen attributed to illegal alien voting.

Of course not all voters in any party are educated and I in no way was saying that is the case. You guys arent always being attacked I promise.

Anyways its been conventional wisdom in political circles for quite a while , based on exit polling, that educated voters tend to lean democrat. Im not saying anything shocking here. Here is an article from the Hill discussing the issue in 2018

Educated voters breaking hard against GOP

Quote

Voters who have attained a bachelor’s degree favored Democrats by a 20-point margin in this year’s midterm elections, according to exit surveys. Those without a bachelor’s degree told pollsters they split their ballots evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

 

Here is a nice article discussing voting demographics in general from Pew : Party affiliation among voters: 1992-2016

 

Again though my point wasnt that those ranchers are for sure democrats but that there are viable alternatives to the illegal alien panic that do have a basis in actually truly established reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
12 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

It is not "more electoral votes" it is more representation.  The electoral votes are a product of the determination of poplation to evenly distribute representation.  You don't even live in the U.S. so why are you acting like you know anything?  I know very little about your politics and I find it strange that all the other UK colony countries pay more attention to our politics than their own.

Ah.. yes... I mis-spoke myself there. But you agree that an influx of illegal immigrants CAN be used as a form of political gerrymandering for electoral advantage ? 

As for why I'm interested in US politics; it's because they are WAY more fascinating than UK politics. 

2 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Usually people tend not to vote for the guy that's going to use Eminent Domain to seize parts of their land and build an ugly wall across it- no matter what party they are. 

Hmmm... is it seizure if the owner is given just compensation ? 

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

As for going  there? Of course I understand what happens when Americans lose faith in elections thats why I support impeaching a POTUS who has invited foreign interference into our election and proven himself to have no regard for American history , institutions or rule of law.

So you reject the findings of the Mueller report ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

So you reject the findings of the Mueller report ? 

LOL thats cute.

"I would like you to do us a favor though"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL thats cute.

"I would like you to do us a favor though"

I'm assuming that is a refference to the Ukranian telephone call ?

In what way was that an invitation to interfere with a US election ? :unsure2: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

I'm assuming that is a refference to the Ukranian telephone call ?

In what way was that an invitation to interfere with a US election ? :unsure2: 

LOL coercing a foreign head of state to publicly announce an investigation into a political opponent is um exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL coercing a foreign head of state to publicly announce an investigation into a political opponent is um exactly that.

Funnily enough, you have just addressed an issue I was going to ask a question about. 

In the UK, the BBC preface all of their impeachment coverage stating that one of the Articles related to President Trump trying to pressurise the Ukranian PM to investigate Joe Biden, who is Trumps political rival. 

But here's the thing..... 

He was asking for an investigation into Burisma and its board of directors. But none of the board of directors was Joe Biden. Indeed, Joe Biden had nothing to do with Burisma ? It was his son, Hunter Biden, that was a director. 

Am I missing something ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Funnily enough, you have just addressed an issue I was going to ask a question about. 

In the UK, the BBC preface all of their impeachment coverage stating that one of the Articles related to President Trump trying to pressurise the Ukranian PM to investigate Joe Biden, who is Trumps political rival. 

But here's the thing..... 

He was asking for an investigation into Burisma and its board of directors. But none of the board of directors was Joe Biden. Indeed, Joe Biden had nothing to do with Burisma ? It was his son, Hunter Biden, that was a director. 

Am I missing something ?

Yes. The "investigation" request is because Trump claims Biden got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect Hunter and the company he worked for while he was VP.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yes. The "investigation" request is because Trump claims Biden got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to protect Hunter and the company he worked for while he was VP.

Except.. the investigation wasn't anything to do with that - or with Joe Biden - was it ? So why is everyone saying that he was trying to spike a political rival ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Except.. the investigation wasn't anything to do with that - or with Joe Biden - was it ? So why is everyone saying that he was trying to spike a political rival ? 

Except I just told you exactly why it was wholly about Biden. The requested "investigation" was entirely about whether Biden used his office to help his son avoid the law.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Except I just told you exactly why it was wholly about Biden. The requested "investigation" was entirely about whether Biden used his office to help his son avoid the law.

ahhh... right.. I've just read the transcript.. fair enough. 

Of course, is there anything WRONG with asking for an investigation as to whether Biden used his office to help his son avoid the law ? It seems a very ODD thing to impeach somebody over. 

Ah well, I'll guess the Senate will decide THAT one. But then... so will The People in November ? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Of course, is there anything WRONG with asking for an investigation as to whether Biden used his office to help his son avoid the law ? It seems a very ODD thing to impeach somebody over. 

In theory no had he gone through appropriate channels and not used congressionally appropriated funds to coerce the nation into looking into it. Even then I personally am not comfortable with any POTUS acting in such a manner when the basis for the request is so flimsy but I wouldnt necessarily consider it impeachable.

You should dive a little further than just the transcript of the call to get the whole picture. The text messages between those chucle****s are quite revealing.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
40 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

In theory no had he gone through appropriate channels and not used congressionally appropriated funds to coerce the nation into looking into it. Even then I personally am not comfortable with any POTUS acting in such a manner when the basis for the request is so flimsy but I wouldnt necessarily consider it impeachable.

You should dive a little further than just the transcript of the call to get the whole picture. The text messages between those chucle****s are quite revealing.

 

Text messages ? How on EARTH did we get hold of THOSE ? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

Text messages ? How on EARTH did we get hold of THOSE ? 

 

Ambassadors Volker and Sondland who were caught up in it all voluntarily turned them over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Just now, Farmer77 said:

Ambassadors Volker and Sondland who were caught up in it all voluntarily turned them over.

And how did THEY get hold of text messages between Trump and Zelenskyy ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

And how did THEY get hold of text messages between Trump and Zelenskyy ? 

LOL im assuming youre playing dumb here but I got an hour left so why not. The conversation between Trump and Zelinsky was just a small part of the effort to pressure Zelinsky into announcing investigations into the Bidens. Thats why Zelinsky so quickly and accurately acquiesced to the request to start investigations in the transcript. He had known for a while what it was Trump wanted.

Interestingly in those texts and in the testimony itself the announcement of the investigation is the priority over any actual investigative details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL im assuming youre playing dumb here but I got an hour left so why not. The conversation between Trump and Zelinsky was just a small part of the effort to pressure Zelinsky into announcing investigations into the Bidens. Thats why Zelinsky so quickly and accurately acquiesced to the request to start investigations in the transcript. He had known for a while what it was Trump wanted.

Interestingly in those texts and in the testimony itself the announcement of the investigation is the priority over any actual investigative details.

You havn't answered my question. How did you get hold of the text messages between Trump and Zelinskyy that you mentioned earlier ? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

You havn't answered my question. How did you get hold of the text messages between Trump and Zelinskyy that you mentioned earlier ? 

LOL we didnt. What we got were the texts between the ambassadors dispatched to put pressure on Zelensky and Giuliani. 

Of course we also have Lev Parnas and his associate providing texts and info now and that whole shady ass part of the saga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Ah.. yes... I mis-spoke myself there. But you agree that an influx of illegal immigrants CAN be used as a form of political gerrymandering for electoral advantage ?

Too many false assumptions.

1) Illegals will side with Democrats.  Having actually talked to quite a few, most are actually fairly conservative.  Especially regarding the whole government regulation (immigration laws) interfering with their business (working in the US).  Most are Christian, pro-life, etc. 

2) Illegals will migrate to blue areas.   Here in Iowa they move to rural red areas where they work at the meat packing plant and in agriculture.  Republicans seem to have no problem hiring illegals as evidence by Trump, Nunes, etc.

3) This "gerrymandering" helps only Democrats.  Iowa would have a negative population growth if it weren't for the immigrants.  Trump may have gotten us 3 Democrat Representatives, but it is fairly red.

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 As for why I'm interested in US politics; it's because they are WAY more fascinating than UK politics.

I watch UK politics as well.  It's just been meh as of late.  At the rate you guys are going, I'll die of old age before you Brexit.  Never cared about paparazzi-level stuff so the whole Meghan thing bores me.

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm... is it seizure if the owner is given just compensation ?

What is just compensation for property that has been in your family for generations?  Does the compensation consider loss of income from splitting ranches in half?  Does it consider loss of property value from it's new proximity to a wall?  It's just plain easier to vote against the guy that wants to do it.  

 

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

So you reject the findings of the Mueller report ? 

  The Mueller report found that there was foreign interference.  It also documented numerous instances where Trump requested it (On TV, Trump Tower, etc.).  What they couldn't prove was a chain of communication to prove "Conspiracy". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

And how did THEY get hold of text messages between Trump and Zelenskyy ? 

There are no text messages between Trump and Zelensky.  Trump doesn't have a well enough grasp on Ukranian (or English for that matter) to send a coherent text message.  Any messages would have to be sent by intermediaries like Volker, Sondland, and Guiliani.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
9 hours ago, and then said:

Some Blue states are issuing Driver licenses when the only ID needed to vote is a DRIVER'S LICENSE.  If that action tipped races consistently toward Rs you blow a gasket.  

What you are describing is voter suppression.  Voter fraud is perpetrated by the voter; voter fraud is perpetrated by those in charge of elections, election rules, etc.

Also, state-issued ID cards are sufficient for voting in most states (all?).

Now check and see what ID is needed to get one of those new Federally-approved driver's licenses.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL we didnt. What we got were the texts between the ambassadors dispatched to put pressure on Zelensky and Giuliani. 

Of course we also have Lev Parnas and his associate providing texts and info now and that whole shady ass part of the saga.

Ah right. It's just that earlier you suggested that the ambassador's somehow had access to the text exchange between Trump and Zelenskyy. 

So DO we know ANYTHING about the alleged text exchanges between Trump and Zelenskyy ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
14 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Except.. the investigation wasn't anything to do with that - or with Joe Biden - was it ? So why is everyone saying that he was trying to spike a political rival ? 

The investigation was neither begun nor even announced and the aid flowed AHEAD of schedule.  Leaving aside the FACT that Ukraine wasn't even aware it had been held or that aid to other governments had been held at times for the same reasons, and these clown's arguments just become so much screeching by the monkeys in a media zoo.  Thankfully, this idiotic media spectacle should be over in a few more days.  At least we can then move on to the NEXT tiresome DeMedia outrage du jour.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 hour ago, and then said:

The investigation was neither begun nor even announced and the aid flowed AHEAD of schedule. 

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

1 hour ago, and then said:

Leaving aside the FACT that Ukraine wasn't even aware it had been

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense

 

Yeah bro you are poorly informed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.