tyranny - a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler

We left Great Britain to escape tyranny.

Hmmm.....

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Your political system is designed to divide you

And George Washington foresaw it...

I'm not sure he had a great alternative to it... but still - a two party system is doomed to fail. Eventually.

And the more divided we are, the more finger pointing we do; the more the political and financial elite can get away with whatever they want.

I don't like Donald Trump.. but I think he's an old man that sees death coming and wants his legacy to be that he tried to expose and clean up the system he saw firsthand being part of it for decades.

I think Washington and Madison both saw that permanent factionalism would be destructive, but they both also thought the system they designed provided safeguards against it.  Of the two, Madison lived longer and saw enough to start to question his own judgement on that matter.

The US system of selecting a President is unique in that it requires a large, credible organization to be in place in all 50 states before an electoral college majority becomes plausible.  This makes the two large parties basically permanent.

Neither of these parties is really obligated to hold public elections to choose its candidates, but they both do, so, though they are both permanent as an institution, they are extremely unstable in terms of ideology as new candidates invite new voters to participate in each successive primary election.

The inevitable result is both parties show a divide between their old guard and new guard, and both of them look like rank hypocrites over the medium term.  

The only way anything ever gets done is if one party is unified, and wins both chambers of Congress and the white house, or if the President is able to exploit regional or old/new divides within one or both parties in Congress.

Reforming the electoral college could allow one or both existing parties to die and new parties that appear less hypocritical to take their place. 

One solution to hypocrisy is to allow the whole system to be unstable. You could end up like Brazil or France where an inexperienced and unknown person can work his way to the top without any help from the old guard.  He can just create his own party from scratch.

Or you could formally require participation by individuals in the old guard before one can be a candidate for President.  If Trump needed an endorsement from a Senator before he could become a candidate, he would not be President today.  Obvious drawback there is that's an elitist system, and we have been mostly anti-elitist throughout our history

People in the US really seem to enjoy the two year long horserace process to select a new presidential candidate and then have the two candidates face off, and they really seem to enjoy making party loyalty part of their personal identity.  These two things are both ridiculous from an international perspective.  I don't like these things, but, it seems most Americans do like them.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It you abolish the electoral college, there would be no districts to redistrict.
One person, one vote.

Ideology aside, this would require a constitutional amendment, requiring approval by two thirds of the US House, two thirds of the US Senate, and ratification by three quarters of the states. The President plays no role in this process.

Alternatively, a constitutional convention can be called by two thirds of the states, but this has never been used.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Weird that Trump doesn't seem to realize, you cannot impeach a Congressperson or Senator. How can he not know this?

---

Weird that Trump doesn't seem to realize, you cannot impeach a Congressperson or Senator.  How can he not know this?

It was parody.

---

Weird that Trump doesn't seem to realize, you cannot impeach a Congressperson or Senator.  How can he not know this?

It was parody.

Seems more likely to me that you're the one who's joking, not him.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It was parody.

Seems more likely to me that you're the one who's joking, not him.

Surely you jest.

---

Weird that Trump doesn't seem to realize, you cannot impeach a Congressperson or Senator.  How can he not know this?

Umm, Article II, section 4, says they can. In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached and remains the only one to this day. Of course, you understand they (Congress) aren't going to support or push a rule of law that can be applied to them in a negative. Not going to cut off the nose despite the face. They like to lean towards "expulsion" nowadays and of course, change the rules every so often. 

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

---

Weird that Trump doesn't seem to realize, you cannot impeach a Congressperson or Senator.  How can he not know this?

Umm, Article II, section 4, says they can. In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached and remains the only one to this day. Of course, you understand they (Congress) aren't going to support or push a rule of law that can be applied to them in a negative. Not going to cut off the nose despite the face. They like to lean towards "expulsion" nowadays and of course, change the rules every so often. 

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Yeah, it's a confused topic in the Constitution.  Blount was both impeached and expelled, but his impeachment trial never took place. The only thing impeachment might have added was a ban on him holding office in the future. An expelled person can always be re-admitted at a future date, but impeachment can mean disqualification for life.  There was debate at the time of if senators counted as "civil officers" not.
There's no need for the House to impeach a Senator when that procedure requires the same 2/3 vote that expulsion requires.  But if more than 50% but less than 67% of the House wants to expel a congressperson,  they could in theory try impeachment instead of expulsion, and let the Senate decide it.  This has never happened that I've heard of.
I think if you look at the Constitution as a whole, the framers intended for members of Congress that were behaving badly to be expelled, and all other officers to be impeached.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Umm, Article II, section 4, says they can. In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached and remains the only one to this day. Of course, you understand they (Congress) aren't going to support or push a rule of law that can be applied to them in a negative. Not going to cut off the nose despite the face. They like to lean towards "expulsion" nowadays and of course, change the rules every so often. 

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Yeah, it's a confused topic in the Constitution.  Blount was both impeached and expelled, but his impeachment trial never took place. The only thing impeachment might have added was a ban on him holding office in the future. An expelled person can always be re-admitted at a future date, but impeachment can mean disqualification for life.  There was debate at the time of if senators counted as "civil officers" not.
There's no need for the House to impeach a Senator when that procedure requires the same 2/3 vote that expulsion requires.  But if more than 50% but less than 67% of the House wants to expel a congressperson,  they could in theory try impeachment instead of expulsion, and let the Senate decide it.  This has never happened that I've heard of.
I think if you look at the Constitution as a whole, the framers intended for members of Congress that were behaving badly to be expelled, and all other officers to be impeached.

Quite the opposite, actually. Most documentation argues all elected members were to fall into that impeachment/removal category. Unfortunately, since the 1700s, it has not been definitive. One has to question the lack of a process that incorporates the "people" who placed these officers in position to also not be a part of their removal. While not direct, that is how an impeachment is viewed and supported. That is why there is such turmoil right at this very moment. The Dem House is going against precedents, house rules, and founders' intent as written. No matter what side anyone supports, this is an issue that needs to be black and white, or the populace suffers from career politician buy-offs and corruption perception.

---

Yeah, it's a confused topic in the Constitution.  Blount was both impeached and expelled, but his impeachment trial never took place. The only thing impeachment might have added was a ban on him holding office in the future. An expelled person can always be re-admitted at a future date, but impeachment can mean disqualification for life.  There was debate at the time of if senators counted as "civil officers" not.
There's no need for the House to impeach a Senator when that procedure requires the same 2/3 vote that expulsion requires.  But if more than 50% but less than 67% of the House wants to expel a congressperson,  they could in theory try impeachment instead of expulsion, and let the Senate decide it.  This has never happened that I've heard of.
I think if you look at the Constitution as a whole, the framers intended for members of Congress that were behaving badly to be expelled, and all other officers to be impeached.

Quite the opposite, actually. Most documentation argues all elected members were to fall into that impeachment/removal category. Unfortunately, since the 1700s, it has not been definitive. One has to question the lack of a process that incorporates the "people" who placed these officers in position to also not be a part of their removal. While not direct, that is how an impeachment is viewed and supported. That is why there is such turmoil right at this very moment. The Dem House is going against precedents, house rules, and founders' intent as written. No matter what side anyone supports, this is an issue that needs to be black and white, or the populace suffers from career politician buy-offs and corruption perception.

Hilarious. 
What are you even trying to say?
The "people" who placed these officers in power?
The electoral college?
You think those guys should be called up again to consider removing Trump?

Of course whatever you're trying to say, it just means at the Democrats are wrong.

Now tell me about the magical thinking or special pleading you use to say that the impeachment in 1998 was correct.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Quite the opposite, actually. Most documentation argues all elected members were to fall into that impeachment/removal category. Unfortunately, since the 1700s, it has not been definitive. One has to question the lack of a process that incorporates the "people" who placed these officers in position to also not be a part of their removal. While not direct, that is how an impeachment is viewed and supported. That is why there is such turmoil right at this very moment. The Dem House is going against precedents, house rules, and founders' intent as written. No matter what side anyone supports, this is an issue that needs to be black and white, or the populace suffers from career politician buy-offs and corruption perception.

Hilarious. 
What are you even trying to say?
The "people" who placed these officers in power?
The electoral college?
You think those guys should be called up again to consider removing Trump?

Of course whatever you're trying to say, it just means at the Democrats are wrong.

Now tell me about the magical thinking or special pleading you use to say that the impeachment in 1998 was correct.

In 98 the independent prosecutor came back and made affirmative declarations that clinton was guilty on multiple FELONIES inclyding perjury, suborning perjury paid a settlement on sexual assault, was disbarred etc.  He should have been removed.

In this case there is no such declaration.  You have an anonymous complaint that doesn't meet the rules of evidence for a criminal proceeding and doesn't point to any criminal or illicit activity. Even still in 1998 the Republican majority in the house still allowed a floor vote to officially authorized the impeachment proceeding and gave the minority certain representation rights is for is issuing subpoenas interviewing Witnesses Etc. In this particular case the Democratic majority has not called for a floor vote to officially authorized and impeachment inquiry. Have also block the president's attorneys and certain members of the minority from participating in witness interviews. There is no comparison between the two processes.

---

Hilarious. 
What are you even trying to say?
The "people" who placed these officers in power?
The electoral college?
You think those guys should be called up again to consider removing Trump?

Of course whatever you're trying to say, it just means at the Democrats are wrong.

Now tell me about the magical thinking or special pleading you use to say that the impeachment in 1998 was correct.

In 98 the independent prosecutor came back and made affirmative declarations that clinton was guilty on multiple FELONIES inclyding perjury, suborning perjury paid a settlement on sexual assault, was disbarred etc.  He should have been removed.

In this case there is no such declaration.  You have an anonymous complaint that doesn't meet the rules of evidence for a criminal proceeding and doesn't point to any criminal or illicit activity. Even still in 1998 the Republican majority in the house still allowed a floor vote to officially authorized the impeachment proceeding and gave the minority certain representation rights is for is issuing subpoenas interviewing Witnesses Etc. In this particular case the Democratic majority has not called for a floor vote to officially authorized and impeachment inquiry. Have also block the president's attorneys and certain members of the minority from participating in witness interviews. There is no comparison between the two processes.

I would have voted to remove Clinton as well.  Inviting an employee to have sex with you in secret is always wrong.  It always implies an abuse of power.

As for this pleading to the "rules" - laughable.  The House makes and enforces its own rules at will.  Once a resolution has a majority vote out of the House, or a house committee issues a subpoena, then the Senate, the President, the Judges, etc. can all have their say about it.  While it's in the House, though, they can handle their business however they see fit.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In 98 the independent prosecutor came back and made affirmative declarations that clinton was guilty on multiple FELONIES inclyding perjury, suborning perjury paid a settlement on sexual assault, was disbarred etc.  He should have been removed.

In this case there is no such declaration.  You have an anonymous complaint that doesn't meet the rules of evidence for a criminal proceeding and doesn't point to any criminal or illicit activity. Even still in 1998 the Republican majority in the house still allowed a floor vote to officially authorized the impeachment proceeding and gave the minority certain representation rights is for is issuing subpoenas interviewing Witnesses Etc. In this particular case the Democratic majority has not called for a floor vote to officially authorized and impeachment inquiry. Have also block the president's attorneys and certain members of the minority from participating in witness interviews. There is no comparison between the two processes.

Facts Check

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury before a grand jury and for obstruction of justice. There was no felony committed. The federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

Now, as to the second paragraph of your post.

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."

As far as being present for witness interviews, whistleblowers have protections afforded to them under the law. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.

The White House is trying to obfuscate the facts, and it isn't working well. (Well, it's working with some of us). And in fact the irony is that in addition to his (alleged) high crimes and misdemeanors with respect to Ukraine, he is also, by all appearances, guilty of the same obstruction of justice that Clinton was impeached for. In fact, it is far worse because it involves national security. Also, the President may be guilty of violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act by threatening to take retaliatory action.

This is a fluid situation. Do not obfuscate. There is enough of that already.

Respectfully,

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Not sure why some of you are okay with a VP taking money from a foreign power illegally.... is it because he was Obama's pet?

---

Not sure why some of you are okay with a VP taking money from a foreign power illegally.... is it because he was Obama's pet?

#orangemanbad

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Quite the opposite, actually. Most documentation argues all elected members were to fall into that impeachment/removal category. Unfortunately, since the 1700s, it has not been definitive. One has to question the lack of a process that incorporates the "people" who placed these officers in position to also not be a part of their removal. While not direct, that is how an impeachment is viewed and supported. That is why there is such turmoil right at this very moment. The Dem House is going against precedents, house rules, and founders' intent as written. No matter what side anyone supports, this is an issue that needs to be black and white, or the populace suffers from career politician buy-offs and corruption perception.

Hilarious. 
What are you even trying to say?
The "people" who placed these officers in power?
The electoral college?
You think those guys should be called up again to consider removing Trump?

Of course whatever you're trying to say, it just means at the Democrats are wrong.

Now tell me about the magical thinking or special pleading you use to say that the impeachment in 1998 was correct.

Do the people not vote to elect these officers? In simple terms, that a dolt like you can understand...ALL representatives of the people should put to a vote to begin formal impeachment. Hell, the House even bypassed the Judicial Committee against their own House rules. Right now, this dog and pony is a one sided [BLEEP] show the likes of SNL!

1998 was on the straight and narrow compared to this hack job.

---

Hilarious. 
What are you even trying to say?
The "people" who placed these officers in power?
The electoral college?
You think those guys should be called up again to consider removing Trump?

Of course whatever you're trying to say, it just means at the Democrats are wrong.

Now tell me about the magical thinking or special pleading you use to say that the impeachment in 1998 was correct.

Do the people not vote to elect these officers? In simple terms, that a dolt like you can understand...ALL representatives of the people should put to a vote to begin formal impeachment. Hell, the House even bypassed the Judicial Committee against their own House rules. Right now, this dog and pony is a one sided [BLEEP] show the likes of SNL!

1998 was on the straight and narrow compared to this hack job.

Ferocious said it better than me, above.
The House can form committees without a floor vote. It's happened before.
And oh by the way,  if they had a vote, the motion would pass, so I don't understand why you want to die on that hill, other than Twitter or talk radio fed you that talking point this morning.
I would prefer they do this by yays and nays too.  I like to know who is for what.  But it's not required.
If this inquiry were not really the will of the house majority, Pelosi could be discharged by petition at any time.  That's the remedy. If Republicans in Congress thought your argument was serious and worthwhile, they would be putting that petition together.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In 98 the independent prosecutor came back and made affirmative declarations that clinton was guilty on multiple FELONIES inclyding perjury, suborning perjury paid a settlement on sexual assault, was disbarred etc.  He should have been removed.

In this case there is no such declaration.  You have an anonymous complaint that doesn't meet the rules of evidence for a criminal proceeding and doesn't point to any criminal or illicit activity. Even still in 1998 the Republican majority in the house still allowed a floor vote to officially authorized the impeachment proceeding and gave the minority certain representation rights is for is issuing subpoenas interviewing Witnesses Etc. In this particular case the Democratic majority has not called for a floor vote to officially authorized and impeachment inquiry. Have also block the president's attorneys and certain members of the minority from participating in witness interviews. There is no comparison between the two processes.

Facts Check

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury before a grand jury and for obstruction of justice. There was no felony committed. The federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes. There is actually a civil and criminal context to impeachment of which you point out quietly. Therefore, stating impeachment is only political in nature is disingenious. High crimes and misdemeanors right? Which is why the Judiciary Committee and a Chief Justice conduct impeachment "by law" according to the Constitution. Your felony portion is correct.

Now, as to the second paragraph of your post.

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote." What does Presidential Impeachment precedents show? What do the House Rules state? Was the House Judiciary Committee invloved? Why would the Pelosi refuse to hold a simple House vote? Affraid of another lopside failure? If you are honest with yourself, you know why no formal vote has taken place.

As far as being present for witness interviews, whistleblowers have protections afforded to them under the law. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Investigation was completed and determined no National Security issues and no Campaign Funding issues. One could argue the WPA does not hamper the ability to interview or question as a legally defined witness. There is also no identity protection beyond the determination of outcome and reporting to Congress, President, etc. One could also agrue this individual or individuals does not meet Whistleblower Status from the beginning, let alone now. In any case, The WPAs function is reprisal protection.

The White House is trying to obfuscate the facts, and it isn't working well. (Well, it's working with some of us). And in fact the irony is that in addition to his (alleged) high crimes and misdemeanors with respect to Ukraine, he is also, by all appearances, guilty of the same obstruction of justice that Clinton was impeached for. In fact, it is far worse because it involves national security. Also, the President may be guilty of violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act by threatening to take retaliatory action. The WH has been transparent with media inserting information beyond what is FACT. The obfuscating and word games strictly belong to the House and that weirdo Schiff. What are those high crimes and misdemeanors? Did Judiciary Committee vote on those? Where is that obstruction of justice? Was there some kind of fantom subponea ignored? National Security (FYI, not. Stop parotting. DOJ cleared that myth)? What retaliatory action and to whom? 

This is a fluid situation. Do not obfuscate. There is enough of that already. And yet here you are guilty of it.

Respectfully,

---

Not sure why some of you are okay with a VP taking money from a foreign power illegally.... is it because he was Obama's pet?

Since when do two wrongs make a right?
Prosecuting or investigating a single person, rather than a whole group of people, is not a valid foreign policy objective. 
Using foreign policy tools to further a personal or partisan interest is a naked abuse of power.
Trump's cabinet have plenty of tools at their disposal to try to investigate Biden - but only if probable cause for a violation of US law exists.
But they have skipped over using the tools they legitimately have, and have tried to use illegitimate tools. That should tell you all you need to know about whether or not there is probable cause the Joe Biden or Hunter Biden broke US law.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.