magats take over congress | Page 33 | GTAMotorcycle.com

magats take over congress

nobbie48

Well-known member
Site Supporter
He really screwed his post presidency goals of becoming a media guy etc etc with the actions of the last 2 months - all the “stolen election” nonsense, the lawyers (Giuliani and that whackadoodle lady) fighting and getting thrown out repeatedly, and now, the riots.

Unless he’s going to fund the entire “media empire” himself and then even manages to find a carrier that will distribute what will surely be utter filth and conspiracy theories, he’s dead in the water. No advertiser short of the biggest crazies out there will touch him with a 100 foot pole anymore knowing that advertising on whatever media he tries to run with will instantly alienate a massive portion of the USA market. It has the potential to be business suicide.

As for pardons, it’s my understanding that the people they’ve rounded up so far are being held on token charges while they “investigate” more. The big charges will be laid after Trump is gone and can’t Pardon them anymore. And if he parsons them on the token charges, they’ll just come round em up again on the new charges on the 21’st.
IIRC Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for anything he may or may not have done. I don't know if Trump wants more hate mail for doing something similar or if he even cares. If a combat veteran is a loser what would he say about the chumps that failed to overthrow the government on his behalf?

I disagree on the Don Cherry comparison although Cherry's "Those people" comment was a self inflicted shot in the foot.

Trump IMO is more akin to Charles Manson. People actually died. His (Few) followers still worshiped him in jail.

Lock up his "Organics only" follower and at meal time tell him his food exists but someone has hidden it in his cell. Find it because it's there, just like the 11780 votes.
 

jc100

Well-known member
You're all acting like this is a court with an impartial judge presiding over a case.

The Senate is made up of 100 senators. They all vote on whether the impeached is found guilty or not. 2/3rds of the Senate need to agree on a guilty verdict for the conviction to stick.

There are currently 51 Republican senators and 46 Democrat senators.

Traditionally, senators vote along partisan lines. No US President has ever been convicted at their Senate trials. Senators typically have already made up their mind whether to convict or not before the trial even begins.

You are asking all Democrat senators to vote guilty (likely) and close to half of the Republican senators to vote guilty (next to impossible).

This is how Bill Clinton got off on his impeachment trial: 0 Democrat Senators voted guilty.

This is how Trump got off on his first impeachment trial: only 1 Republican Senator voted guilty - Mitt Romney.

This is how Trump will get off during his second Senate trial.

This is why this is nothing but a dog and pony show. Biden is a seasoned politician. He knows this is just a distraction.

There are reports that 17 republicans would convict Trump and possibly as many as 20. The Mitch effect is at play...they can somewhat hide behind him. They may also not want Trump to distract from 2024.
 

Lightcycle

Snowmadic
Site Supporter
There are reports that 17 republicans would convict Trump and possibly as many as 20. The Mitch effect is at play...they can somewhat hide behind him. They may also not want Trump to distract from 2024.

So many long-shot ifs.

And there is still the possibility that you can't convict a president who's no longer sitting. The trials won't finish until well after Biden is sworn in.

Biden has a sh!t ton of stuff he needs the Senate to do, like confirming his cabinet posts, all the critical duties for a successful transition. He knows the trial will take cycles away from the Senate. Previous trials have taken anywhere from weeks to months to conclude. That's a lot of time taken away from the new president's mission. And all on the ultra-slim chance of a conviction? Not worth it.

Politically, it was a bad decision to impeach. It leaves America and the new administration vulnerable during the critical first few weeks of transition.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
So many long-shot ifs.

And there is still the possibility that you can't convict a president who's no longer sitting. The trials won't finish until well after Biden is sworn in.

Biden has a sh!t ton of stuff he needs the Senate to do, like confirming his cabinet posts, all the critical duties for a successful transition. He knows the trial will take cycles away from the Senate. Previous trials have taken anywhere from weeks to months to conclude. That's a lot of time taken away from the new president's mission. And all on the ultra-slim chance of a conviction? Not worth it.

Politically, it was a bad decision to impeach. It leaves America and the new administration vulnerable during the critical first few weeks of transition.
Maybe the fix is in and the politicians have politiced and have an agreement for a speedy resolution. Line any other plea bargain, probably less sanctioning than a full trial would give, but sufficient to deter repeat offending and very quickly dealt with by the system.
 

Lightcycle

Snowmadic
Site Supporter
Maybe the fix is in and the politicians have politiced and have an agreement for a speedy resolution. Line any other plea bargain, probably less sanctioning than a full trial would give, but sufficient to deter repeat offending and very quickly dealt with by the system.

Objection. Calls for speculation, your honour.
 

jc100

Well-known member
Objection. Calls for speculation, your honour.

A trial is speculation since a given outcome isn’t necessarily a forgone conclusion. I think the impeachment conviction attempt is necessary simply to follow through with what impeachment was really designed for. Removing privileges from Trump are the penalty.

If they don’t impeach him the message is sent that “oh well, it’s just a bit of sedition, nothing to see here, no biggie”.
 

d4rktrooper788

Well-known member
Biden knows what's what. He knows the whole dog and pony show will amount to nothing, so he's focusing on the transition and unifying the country.

Don't hold your breath. The media (both traditional and social) is currently in the process of painting all Republicans/conservatives as traitors who need be "dealt with". History tells us that this strategy rarely ends in anything close to unity.

The democrats are still in denial about the fact that ~70 million Americans don't even remotely buy what they are peddling. A savvy statesman would realize:
  • America outside of urban centers is still quite conservative
  • Hard left "progressive" policies don't sit well, even with moderates
  • Pushing the opposing political spectrum off of social media and trying to censor/deplatform them will only encourage radicalization
There's certainly lots of room for Biden to unify, but it really depends on who is pulling the strings. Keeping Harris and the authoritarian left side of the party quiet is going to be difficult.
 

Mad Mike

Well-known member
I hold little hope of a conviction in the Senate - too much partisan politics. But - He has enough impending legal trouble to tie him up in the courts, bankrupt, for years. There was word going around yesterday that Trump wanted to hold back payments for Rudy Giuliani ... LOL ... that would fit Trump's historical pattern. And Giuliani is pretty likely to lose his license to practice law over all this. No lawyer with their reputation at stake will want to touch him. Deutsche Bank wants to cut ties - no bank wants to touch him. A growing list of companies don't want anything to do with this whole mess. No funding ... no go ... no Trump media outlet ... no Trump golf courses ... no nothing.

Right-wing media including Fox News will keep covering him. That's the bad news - there will continue to be a base of right-wing-extremist support. But ... I can see even Fox News turning away, even if slightly, if advertisers start deciding that they don't want to support anything that supports that mess. And I can see that happening. Sure, the local small businesses run by people in hard-red areas are still going to buy advertising on the local TV station that happens to be owned by Fox News. But if the big advertisers start staying "change your tune" ...
I agree with most of this.

Legal Trouble is a certainty.
So many long-shot ifs.

And there is still the possibility that you can't convict a president who's no longer sitting. The trials won't finish until well after Biden is sworn in.

Biden has a sh!t ton of stuff he needs the Senate to do, like confirming his cabinet posts, all the critical duties for a successful transition. He knows the trial will take cycles away from the Senate. Previous trials have taken anywhere from weeks to months to conclude. That's a lot of time taken away from the new president's mission. And all on the ultra-slim chance of a conviction? Not worth it.

Politically, it was a bad decision to impeach. It leaves America and the new administration vulnerable during the critical first few weeks of transition.
I agree. Politicians put things in the rear view mirror very quickly. Vengeance takes political capital, I doubt many will want to spend that on an ousted president.
 

jc100

Well-known member
In the interest of unity and with hopes of bringing the community together why do people insist in looking to punish the perpetrators of crimes? So divisive. Tsk.
 

800over

Well-known member
I'm not a Trump fan but question whether his speech qualified as inciting the Senate break-in. He talked trash and said fight but you also fight in court which is totally OK. From what I heard, which was clips, he made comments no different from those many, if not most people, have made. i.e. I'd like to wring his neck.

The point is whether he deliberately and intentionally pushed people over the line. If someone is angry at someone else and you say "Give him a kick in the head" not expecting him to do it are you an accomplice?

Obviously, if you know the angry person is mentally challenged with a history of violence and takes everything for face value you are in trouble.

I don't see it making him friends on any side of the Senate but if it was a simple trial for a lay person would the charges stick?

Trump's defence would likely be he didn't think his followers were that gullible. Is that believable?
He literally told them to go to the Capital...and that he would go with them. Does that huge group go to the Capitol without that? In such large numbers? He told them to go to the Capital and fight. He didn't say call your senator....he said go to the place that they are right down the street and scare some of the weaker Senators. How is this not clear to you? They did exactly what he told them to do.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
A trial is speculation since a given outcome isn’t necessarily a forgone conclusion. I think the impeachment conviction attempt is necessary simply to follow through with what impeachment was really designed for. Removing privileges from Trump are the penalty.

If they don’t impeach him the message is sent that “oh well, it’s just a bit of sedition, nothing to see here, no biggie”.
or..the Senate can simply disagree with the findings of the House.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
or..the Senate can simply disagree with the findings of the House.
More likely that they voted based on political agenda not guilt/innocence (in both the house and senate). The whole thing is a useless mess.
 

mimico_polak

Well-known member
Site Supporter
well the Maple Leafs go through the motions of trying to win the Stanley Cup every year but we all know it’s a waste of time...
This is the year....I can feel it in my bones.
 

mimico_polak

Well-known member
Site Supporter
More likely that they voted based on political agenda not guilt/innocence (in both the house and senate). The whole thing is a useless mess.
Would be nice if it was an anonymous vote. Im sure these things would go a whole lot different.
 

Evoex

The God
Site Supporter
More likely that they voted based on political agenda not guilt/innocence (in both the house and senate). The whole thing is a useless mess.
was somewhat sarcastic, but yeah.
 

GreyGhost

Well-known member
Site Supporter
Would be nice if it was an anonymous vote. Im sure these things would go a whole lot different.
Maybe, but maybe not. I think the vote would still be substantially based on each persons desired political outcome and have very little to do with whether they were guilty (or not) of the charges. It would remove the overt peer/voter/donor pressure though.
 

Top Bottom