A man who doesn't know what hyphens or apostrophes are and can't spell "describe" is definitely a guy I trust to navigate complex global issues.
I mean the only other alternatives are 1) soulless billionaire or 2) absolute fucking moron. Racist traitor is just playing the percentages.
Also the narrative that he adopted that name for political reasons despite proof that contradicts that lie, unless Beto had political aspirations at a very young age.
You're a sycophantic dullard like the rest of them. Your faux principles are nothing more than a budget paper tiger.
I’m speaking to a reality. The impeachment process was intended to be political, and in the current political climate, it will be very partisan
Once again, yes, that's likely correct, but you're completely oblivious to your sycophantic defense of such a flawed system (in the current day). You also fail to recognize that your comment regarding decisions based on ideology and not evidence applies to no one more than you.
On a general allegation he “personally profits” from office? No. I would vote to impeach on the merits of a specific charge. I do think he should resign and have maintained that pretty much since the beginning of his presidency
He’s trying to force world leaders to stay at his resort and pay him money to attend next year’s G-7. It appears he’s directing the US military to prop up his hotel at Turnberry. He’s profiting off of the presidency
He admits to asking a foreign government with help investigating a potential political rival. That Is Illegal
He asked that same foreign government to come up with some proof that Russia didn’t hack the DNC in 2016. He asked Ukraine to make Russia look good. Then told them to work something out with Putin who he knows wants the fighting to stop.
You said you think he is using being potus to personally profit. If that’s what you believe, he is IYO breaking the emoluments clause. You say that isn’t enough for you to vote to impeach, I can’t wrap my head around that.
Stagger Lee literally said he believes that. That means he literally believes trump is breaking the emoluments clause. Yet that’s not enough for him to say trump should be impeached.
Yeah just imagine if someone that other countries liked, like say Biden, asked the UK to investigate the Trump fuckery with his money laundering golf courses. Or asked Merkel to check with Deutsche Bank which Trump seems to have to use for anything because no real bank would work with him. Yeah those results would be neat.
All this points to one thing: he's the kind of guy who steals office supplies and eats other people's lunches thinking it's ok to do.
I asked you knowing what you know would you vote to impeach. Not sure what is ambiguous about that question, I honestly trying to keep this civil because enough are calling you a stupid disingenuous cunt. You’re twisting yourself into knots trying to seem normal.
That’s not what you asked. Let’s do it this way. Tell me your specific charge. I’ll assume each piece of the allegation as true, and I’ll then answer yes or no whether I would vote to impeach under the circumstances. It will be my last response on this matter. Go.
He is profiting off the presidency every time he stays at one of his properties and that is a fact so I'm not sure why that is the line
That is what I asked. You originally said having read the memo you wouldn’t vote to impeach. You then said you think he is using the office of president of the United States to personally profit. So I asked (believing that) would you still “not vote to impeach”. Here are the things I think he has done to warrant impeachment. Not only impeachment but removal from office. 1. Breaking the emoluments clause. Remember you literally said this is what you believe. 2. Blackmailing a foreign government into interfering in our elections by having them investigate a political rival. 3. Using being potus to cover up #2.
I can’t keep up. With Daniel, we’re jumping from “personal profit” to emoluments clause, to the standard of impeachment, to my belief, to what I know ... Everyone here seems to insist on a yes or no answer from me, so I’m trying to oblige.
He is in violation of the emoluments clause and has been since day one. He uses the office of the presidency to enrich himself every time he stays at one of his hotels or golfs on one of his course. And you don't even need to assume the facts because they're a matter of public record. Would you vote to impeach?
What do you think the “emoluments clause” is if not personally profiting from being potus? I never asked you what the “standard for impeachment” was. I have simply asked you if your original opinion “that you wouldn’t vote to impeach” has changed. I have never asked you what you know. JFC stop trying to pretend you’re the smartest dude in this thread.
a violation of the Constitution is not the standard of impeachment. Never had been. If it was, you could make a case to impeach every president. Daniel says blackmail and violation of the emoluments clause as to charges above. These are conclusions, not factual allegations. That said, I would impeach over the blackmail allegation and obstruction. Maybe on the emoluments clause depending on facts and circumstances.
FWIW while all the self-dealing is problematic, only the foreign government enrichment of Trump is an emoluments clause violation
If the queen of England gave him honorary gold medal, which he kept without congressional approval. No. If she wired him $10,000,000, and he kept it without congressional approval. Yes.
So the Ukraine president telling trump he has stayed in his properties? The Saudi government buying trump properties? The Chinese government granting Ivanka trade marks (iffy). Countless foreign dignitaries staying at his properties? Would those count?
A foreign leader on official business with the US govt stays at one of Trumps properties when hundreds of other options are available that do not enrich Trump?
Yes, yes, no, yes imo, although in part, particularly for the second and fourth, it would probably depend on factors like whether fair market value was paid.
It looks shitty. Very shitty. The appropriate thing to do is to tell the leader not to stay there. He should have also divested his holdings, as is customary. It’s not in and of itself a violation of the emoluments clause though.
I assumed when Stagger Lee mentioned trump personally profiting we were talking about everything not just him forcing his administration to stay in his properties or forcing the secret service to rent golf carts at his courses. There are countless examples of foreign governments lining his pockets.
Here's an easy one to get things back on track for yes/no answers: Is Donna Jean Godchaux the worst thing in the history of the grateful dead?