Topic: [POLL] WILL TRUMP BE ELECTED TO A SECOND TERM? - page 9. (Read 2836 times)
Trump will only be elected if he isn't assassinated. But if he isn't assassinated, nothing can stop him from being re-elected.
So if he's convicted, I don't think he could even run for the Mayor or West Palm Beach if he wanted. But he can't be disqualified by a simple majority.
The Senate imposed disqualification twice, on Judges Humphreys and Archbald. In the Humphreys trial the Senate determined that the issues of removal and disqualification are divisible, 3 Hinds’ Precedents Of The House Of Representatives § 2397 (1907), and in the Archbald trial the Senate imposed judgment of disqualification by vote of 39 to 35. 6 Cannon’sprecedents Of The House Of Representatives § 512 (1936). During the 1936 trial of Judge Ritter, a parliamentary inquiry as to whether a two-thirds vote or a simple majority vote is required for disqualification was answered by reference to the simple majority vote in the Archbald trial. 3 Deschler’s precedents ch. 14, § 13.10. The Senate then rejected disqualification of Judge Ritter by vote of 76–0. 80 Cong. Rec. 5607 (1936).
---
Vote Required for Disqualification
Sec. 13.10 The question of disqualification from holding an office of
honor, trust, or profit under the United States, following
conviction and judgment of removal in an impeachment trial, requires only a
majority vote of the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-DESCHLERS-V3-5.htm
Edited my post to clarify with some evidence.
Even if you're convicted by the Senate you're still able to run for a third term -- as he wouldn't be term limited at that point, just removed from office. Not saying he would win or anything, but just pointing something out.
This is only possible if the Senate doesn't hold a disqualification vote -- meaning that the Senate doesn't vote on if he's able to run for President again.
This happened in the past to Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge from Florida who was impeached and convicted from his post by the Senate by accepting a $150,000 bribe in return for a lenient sentence for a particular individual. Due to the fact that the Senate hadn't held a disqualification vote from another Federal office, he had been able to run for the House and had won his election -- he's been serving since 1993 in the House.
He's also the #1 Ranked in the House for Nepotism claims, see below quote from Wikipedia
So yeah, fun little tidbit of knowledge.
As I understand it a simple majority in a Senate impeachment trial means nothing. 2/3rds will vote to convict on one or more articles and the president will be removed from office, or the president will be acquitted. These are the only two possible outcomes.
If however, the president is convicted, I think it's up for debate on whether or not he's eligible to run again.
From the constitution:
So if he's convicted, I don't think he could even run for the Mayor or West Palm Beach if he wanted. But he can't be disqualified by a simple majority.
Trump will be disqualified by a simple majority in senate. Therefore, he won't be eligible to run for 2020. Therefore, he won't win a second term.
Even if you're convicted by the Senate you're still able to run for a third term -- as he wouldn't be term limited at that point, just removed from office. Not saying he would win or anything, but just pointing something out.
This is only possible if the Senate doesn't hold a disqualification vote -- meaning that the Senate doesn't vote on if he's able to run for President again.
This happened in the past to Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge from Florida who was impeached and convicted from his post by the Senate by accepting a $150,000 bribe in return for a lenient sentence for a particular individual. Due to the fact that the Senate hadn't held a disqualification vote from another Federal office, he had been able to run for the House and had won his election -- he's been serving since 1993 in the House.
He's also the #1 Ranked in the House for Nepotism claims, see below quote from Wikipedia
In 2012, Hastings was ranked #1 out of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives for paying salaries and fees to family members, according to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.[30] A state-by-state report on members of Congress published by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reported that Hastings paid his girlfriend, Patricia Williams, an attorney who worked as his deputy district director, $622,574 over the four-year period, from 2007 to 2010.[31]
So yeah, fun little tidbit of knowledge.
As I understand it a simple majority in a Senate impeachment trial means nothing. 2/3rds will vote to convict on one or more articles and the president will be removed from office, or the president will be acquitted. These are the only two possible outcomes.
If however, the president is convicted, I think it's up for debate on whether or not he's eligible to run again.
From the constitution:
Quote
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
So if he's convicted, I don't think he could even run for the Mayor or West Palm Beach if he wanted. But he can't be disqualified by a simple majority.
Rofl, so many fucking idiots.
So, there's impeachment and disqualification.
Two entirely different things.
Disqualification means you can NEVER hold public office again. It requires ONLY a simple majority in Senate. Not 2/3rd majority to DISQUALIFY someone.
Impeachment is removal from office. It's the process to kick someone out of office. Normally, impeachment and then disqualification are voted on in that order. However, if you don't have the votes for impeachment, you can move to just DISQUALIFY someone from holding office.
Precedence has already been set historical. If you want to argue constitutional law, you look at precedence.
But go on, keep arguing you fucking armchair lawyers.
So, there's impeachment and disqualification.
Two entirely different things.
Disqualification means you can NEVER hold public office again. It requires ONLY a simple majority in Senate. Not 2/3rd majority to DISQUALIFY someone.
Impeachment is removal from office. It's the process to kick someone out of office. Normally, impeachment and then disqualification are voted on in that order. However, if you don't have the votes for impeachment, you can move to just DISQUALIFY someone from holding office.
Precedence has already been set historical. If you want to argue constitutional law, you look at precedence.
But go on, keep arguing you fucking armchair lawyers.
Trump will be disqualified by a simple majority in senate. Therefore, he won't be eligible to run for 2020. Therefore, he won't win a second term.
Even if you're convicted by the Senate you're still able to run for a third term -- as he wouldn't be term limited at that point, just removed from office. Not saying he would win or anything, but just pointing something out.
This is only possible if the Senate doesn't hold a disqualification vote -- meaning that the Senate doesn't vote on if he's able to run for President again.
This happened in the past to Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge from Florida who was impeached and convicted from his post by the Senate by accepting a $150,000 bribe in return for a lenient sentence for a particular individual. Due to the fact that the Senate hadn't held a disqualification vote from another Federal office, he had been able to run for the House and had won his election -- he's been serving since 1993 in the House.
He's also the #1 Ranked in the House for Nepotism claims, see below quote from Wikipedia
In 2012, Hastings was ranked #1 out of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives for paying salaries and fees to family members, according to the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.[30] A state-by-state report on members of Congress published by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington reported that Hastings paid his girlfriend, Patricia Williams, an attorney who worked as his deputy district director, $622,574 over the four-year period, from 2007 to 2010.[31]
So yeah, fun little tidbit of knowledge.
Voted yes
Best Trump meme i saw recently
Best Trump meme i saw recently
Trump will be disqualified by a simple majority in senate. Therefore, he won't be eligible to run for 2020. Therefore, he won't win a second term.
These impeachment hearings are juicy as hell. Good chance Trump will get impeached by the house but it's doubtful that the Senate will elect to remove Trump from office. The optics of getting impeached are going to destroy his election chances which is pretty much what democrats want at this point. They have too much weight held in the primaries. If Biden doesn't get nominated and a far left progressive does, I'm not doubtful that Trump would win at that point.
Most polls have Biden up but if progressives take the plurality of the vote in almost all major polls. You run a progressive against Trump, Trump's in for a second term.
Most polls have Biden up but if progressives take the plurality of the vote in almost all major polls. You run a progressive against Trump, Trump's in for a second term.
Trump will be disqualified by a simple majority in senate. Therefore, he won't be eligible to run for 2020. Therefore, he won't win a second term.
More than 80% think he will be elected to a second term at this point. 18 to 4. A higher % than I was expecting.
EH I mean we do have to remember that the people taking this poll are mostly going to be libertarians. And while Trump isn't a libertarian by any means, he is the closest when you're comparing with Dems and other members of the GOP.
He's like -- the best of the many evils in the eyes of many libertarians / people that like less regulation, smaller gov, etc.
And also it's not a poll on who you want to win the election. I voted for Trump because I think he's more likely to win, but certainly won't be voting for him on election day. Although nobody can really respond to the poll honestly unless they have a crystal ball or are delusional enough to think they have the ability to see the future some other way.
More than 80% think he will be elected to a second term at this point. 18 to 4. A higher % than I was expecting.
EH I mean we do have to remember that the people taking this poll are mostly going to be libertarians. And while Trump isn't a libertarian by any means, he is the closest when you're comparing with Dems and other members of the GOP.
He's like -- the best of the many evils in the eyes of many libertarians / people that like less regulation, smaller gov, etc.
More than 80% think he will be elected to a second term at this point. 18 to 4. A higher % than I was expecting.
If he manages to survive to survive the onslaught of impeachment against him, I believe he will win. By the time the House finishes their processes which then moved to the Senate, that would be getting to mid 2020 which means with less than 6 months to the election. he moment the Senate shuts down the impeachment moves, and Trump is able to have some major wins in security and economy uplifting, his rating would be so high that the Democrats would have been the one doing the campaign for him. Only needs to go to few debates and slide into victory.
Does it matter if Trump is elected? We were warned about big bureaucratic government, way back at the formation of the country.
The Antifederalists Were Eerily Prophetic
The Antifederalists Were Eerily Prophetic
Most school kids are left with the impression that the US Constitution was the inevitable follow-up to the Declaration of Independence and the war with King George. What they miss out on is the exciting debate that took place after the war and before the Constitution, a debate that concerned the dangers of creating a federal government at all.
The Antifederalist Movement
Everyone knows about the Federalists who pushed the Constitution. But far less known are the Antifederalists who warned with good reason against the creation of a new centralized government, and just after so much blood had been spilled getting rid of one.
The first of the Antifederalist Papers appeared in 1789. The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution as it would create what would become an overbearing central government.
...
Antifederalists opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its checks on federal power would be undermined by expansive interpretations of promoting the “general welfare” (which would be claimed for every law) and the “all laws necessary and proper” clause (which would be used to override limits on delegated federal powers) creating a federal government with unwarranted and undelegated powers that were bound to be abused.
One could quibble with the mechanisms the Antifederalists predicted would lead to constitutional tyranny. For instance, they did not see that the Commerce Clause would come to be called “the everything clause” in law schools, justifying almost any conceivable federal intervention—because the necessary distortion of its meaning was so great even Antifederalists couldn’t imagine the government could get away with it.
The Antifederalist Movement
Everyone knows about the Federalists who pushed the Constitution. But far less known are the Antifederalists who warned with good reason against the creation of a new centralized government, and just after so much blood had been spilled getting rid of one.
The first of the Antifederalist Papers appeared in 1789. The Antifederalists were opponents of ratifying the US Constitution as it would create what would become an overbearing central government.
...
Antifederalists opposed the Constitution on the grounds that its checks on federal power would be undermined by expansive interpretations of promoting the “general welfare” (which would be claimed for every law) and the “all laws necessary and proper” clause (which would be used to override limits on delegated federal powers) creating a federal government with unwarranted and undelegated powers that were bound to be abused.
One could quibble with the mechanisms the Antifederalists predicted would lead to constitutional tyranny. For instance, they did not see that the Commerce Clause would come to be called “the everything clause” in law schools, justifying almost any conceivable federal intervention—because the necessary distortion of its meaning was so great even Antifederalists couldn’t imagine the government could get away with it.
He's going to win because the whole election in the US is just a theatre for the masses to make them think they have something to say. If Trump wins it will mean he struck a deal with 3 letter agencies and Jewish bankers. It's all about money and country leaders, especially in the US, are elected to make money for those who helped them get the chair.
I think trump won back then was only because his strongest opponent is Hillary. And a lot of americabs seem to have gotten tired of the conventional politician and Trump exudes an aura that hasn't been tested yet. I don't know about a reelection since there have been a lot of controversial decisions and statements during his term. Pretty sure though that a lot of those who voted for him them would still vote for him now.
My understanding is that many lobbyists (if not nearly all of them) meet the definition of a "foreign agent" but have not registered as such.
The "how" Russia interfered with the 2016 election is an unproven allegation, and more importantly an unchallenged allegation. The Russian interference was also only looked into with regards to how it benefited Trump, and potential Russian interference that potentially helped Clinton was not looked into, even though the Steele "report" is prima-face evidence of foreign interference that benefited Clinton.
According to the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page, many foreign governments have attempted to interfere with our elections for generations, so to say that "Russia interfered with our election" without additional context is dishonest. The intent of the Russian interference was not even to benefit Trump, it was to sow discord within the US.
The "how" Russia interfered with the 2016 election is an unproven allegation, and more importantly an unchallenged allegation. The Russian interference was also only looked into with regards to how it benefited Trump, and potential Russian interference that potentially helped Clinton was not looked into, even though the Steele "report" is prima-face evidence of foreign interference that benefited Clinton.
According to the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page, many foreign governments have attempted to interfere with our elections for generations, so to say that "Russia interfered with our election" without additional context is dishonest. The intent of the Russian interference was not even to benefit Trump, it was to sow discord within the US.
And what a wonderful job they are doing carrying out Putin's wishes as puppets engaging in sowing division and discord.
Forget the polls whereit claims that people really think that Trump should be impeached for the hullabaloo regarding the Ukrainian issue, this issue has even galvanised lots of people regarding the witch hunt that the Democrats have exhibited during the entirety of the Trump presidency, initially it was the alleged Election and Russian collusion and having spent close to 3 years and a whole lot of money, the whole thing wasn't determined and now they have moved on to this which is very absurd.
Just want to point out that the Mueller investigation was not all about Trump, despite Trump making it seem like it was. The investigation concluded that Russia did in fact interfere with the 2016 election. They also figured out how they did it, which will help to defend against it in the future.
Also, as of last week, 6 Americans directly involved with the Trump campaign are convicted felons for things like failing to register as a foreign agent and lying to congress about Trumps business deals in Russia. Many of these guys were also convicted of Bank/Tax fraud which resulted in the overall investigation being profitable for the federal government. This will discourage future campaigns from doing illegal things, or hiring people that do illegal, which is a good thing for the country as a whole.
Just sayin.
The "how" Russia interfered with the 2016 election is an unproven allegation, and more importantly an unchallenged allegation. The Russian interference was also only looked into with regards to how it benefited Trump, and potential Russian interference that potentially helped Clinton was not looked into, even though the Steele "report" is prima-face evidence of foreign interference that benefited Clinton.
According to the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page, many foreign governments have attempted to interfere with our elections for generations, so to say that "Russia interfered with our election" without additional context is dishonest. The intent of the Russian interference was not even to benefit Trump, it was to sow discord within the US.
^^^ Or, It's hard to feel like a wiener when all you put down is steaks?
Would vote "i have no idea" if I could.
I mean this is the most logical choice. None of us truly have no idea if Trump is going to be reelected because anything could fucking happen at this point. All of the current candidates are so old it wouldn't be surprising if someone dropped dead, dropped out due to health reasons, or finding dirt on Trump, finding dirt on Biden etc.
This is literally the weirdest timeline of politics which is possible, and we have the ability to live through it and see what's going on.
This is great, literally can't wait until Dem primary stuff starts. Pretty boring just seeing BS polls, annoying impeachment stuff, and no REAL races.
Its easy to feel like a winner when you don't put down any stakes eh?
Jump to: