Rule of law is that all laws apply to everyone. Courts' rulings have nothing to do with that.I can't disagree with that. Rule of Law is determined in the courts. Trump tried to make the case the election didn't follow the rule of law. The courts disagreed. You lost. Biden will be President. You should have started your investigation instead.
That's called equality or equal enforcement. And who decides if that has occurred? The courts. According to the rule of law.Rule of law is that all laws apply to everyone. Courts' rulings have nothing to do with that.
That's called rule of law.That's called equality or equal enforcement. And who decides if that has occurred? The courts. According to the rule of law.
It was covered in civics class.
I'm all for applying laws equally. That too is the rule of law. If you have questions whether something followed the rule of law, take it to court where judges make the determination.That's called rule of law.
Hypothetically, what good are laws that aren't applied equally?...Well, I contend, not applying laws equally to everyone is good for an authoritarian gov't (like the Biden administration).
Yes, and simply because there has to be a consequence for a sitting president to conduct himself in the manner Trump did during this entire election process. If there's no consequence, it can easily become a tactic that's used by future presidents or candidates to adversely affect the election process. If we accept the rationale that it will further divide the country, we're accepting the behavior witnessed simply out of fear of alienating its supporters.
"All Lives Matter" is just a way for white supremacists
to deflect away from and trivialize the murder-by-cop of black men.
Thanks for reminding us of that.
Do you think the senate will get a 2/3 conviction? If not, what does impeaching Trump accomplish?
Equality under the law is absolutely a facet of how we have established it here.Get it right. Rule of law means applying the law equally to all Americans.
The Times reports, " A day after the [Democratic] House impeached President Trump for inciting a violent insurrection at the Capitol, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate were developing plans on Thursday to try the departing president at the same time as they begin considering the agenda of the incoming one."
“It’s far from ideal, no question,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. But, he said, “a dual track is perfectly doable if there is a will to make it happen.”
The Democrats want to convict a Republican President of inciting an insurrection. Someone tell me why in the world would Republican Senators would cooperate with the Democrats in an impeachment trial?
Someone tell why they think Trump will be convicted in the Senate so that the trial isn't a complete waste of extremely valuable time. Americans are dying at the rate of over 4,000 per day and the economy is going in the tank.
Are House Democrats screwing over the Democratic President?
I have scoured hundreds of news stories. I have not found adequate answers to those questions. The media does wish to cover that aspect of the dilemma. So they avoid it entirely.
The hard part will be trying to redefine the party with the fear of losing that core Trump base that comprises so much of the party.
Biden has proposed bifurcation of these issues so the Senate can devote time to both if that's where things end up.
Judging from their comments on this forum and Trump's mob of supporters on the sixth, the GOP won't be losing much if thy lose these people.
I think Congress not responding is an even worse one.Yes, if that works, for weeks half of the Senate time will be devoted to Trump. He is not worth it. Let the justice system deal with Trump.
An impeachment trial is a very bad idea.
Is this what we've reduced this topic down to? Holding a despot responsible?Well, do you?
I don’t know about you, but it gave most of the rest of us Americans a warm fuzzy feeling.Do you think the senate will get a 2/3 conviction? If not, what does impeaching Trump accomplish?
Meh. It isn't constitutional to punish political speech you don't agree with.I'm curious to see how this plays out because the certainty around a trial and verdict aren't as set in stone as they were for the previous impeachment. The last time there were no GOP votes in the House to impeach Trump, while this time there were 10. The other factor to consider is GOP political strategy, since for the establishment it could be an easy way to back away from the damaged brand Trump placed on the party. While that might not seem obvious to party loyalists, it's the sentiment outside of it and the GOP can't afford to alienate the independents who swing in their favor depending on the viability of a GOP candidate.
Even without a conviction, it serves as a symbolic act that the kind of behavior we saw from Trump isn't without consequence. As I stated before, if this goes with no kind of punitive action, then it becomes an acceptable strategy for others to use. If that becomes the case, then elections will be crap shows when candidates who cannot accept a loss. This is about Trump's actions, but also about setting precedent; Trump broke the image of this country being the shining city on a hill as it relates to peaceful transitions of power.
Great. Let's dispose of the farce we have called elections that indicates an approval by the American people to change power in American gov't.Equality under the law is absolutely a facet of how we have established it here.
But, again, I don't accept but jimmy did it from my children, and I don't accept it as an excuse from grown ups, either.
It's a bit more than that, now isn't it? If we accept the premise that candidates can refuse to accept the outcome of elections after their legal recourse fails, how do you foresee that playing out for future elections?Meh. It isn't constitutional to punish political speech you don't agree with.
Nope The American people did decide. It was Trump and his cultists who tried and failed to steal the election.Great. Let's dispose of the farce we have called elections that indicates an approval by the American people to change power in American gov't.Elections will forever be rigged after the precedent of the 2020 election. And the American people won't have any confidence in American gov't because of your (far from being conservative) leaning.
Side note: Ya know, conservative means thinking like T. Jefferson or R. Paul and not thinking like W. Buckley, JR. (or G. Bush) .
Not accepting elections like Al Gore, ya mean? Like the socialist who lost in the governor race in Georgia?It's a bit more than that, now isn't it? If we accept the premise that candidates can refuse to accept the outcome of elections after their legal recourse fails, how do you foresee that playing out for future elections?
Yes. I think it would be terrible for the country to say that Trump is above the law.Well, do you?
Trump accepted his defeat before the crybaby Gore accepted his defeat. The crybaby lady who lost the Georgia governor race is still crying about losing that election.Al Gore did accept the result unlike the cry baby Trump
Al Gore pursued the legal means available to him, and once the election was called for Bush, he called and conceded. You would have an argument here if Gore then went on the airwaves and started making all sorts of conspiratorial claims, which he did not; the same goes for Abrams who eventually conceded the gubernatorial election. Trump continues to push baseless conspiracy theories unlike those you cited.Not accepting elections like Al Gore, ya mean? Like the socialist who lost in the governor race in Georgia?
That's called rule of law.
Hypothetically, what good are laws that aren't applied equally?...Well, I contend, not applying laws equally to everyone is good for an authoritarian gov't (like the Biden administration).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?