Impeachment Amendment

[Nicholas]

How about a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congress to two terms.

Rather see a limit set at 18 years - 3 terms for Senate & 9 for House. This gives enough time to learn the ropes well, yet not a perpetual gig.

 

[PureX]

(shaking head)

that's the ticket. When told that one has been rude, double down. You have just proven why an entire generation of people have made 'adult' into a verb complete with conjugation..."to adult," "adulted" "adulting" "will adult" "did adult" "might have adulted," "should have adulted," It's to turn something expected of everybody of a certain age into something one may choose to do, or not to do, according to one's whim, mostly so that one can get out of being an adult without being criticized for it.

And all you've done so far in response to my post, is pout. Because your whole position is based on ignorance and bias. So you have nothing to respond, with.

 

[dianaiad]

There are none more intolerant than those who so loudly preach tolerance at us, eh.

Yep. I will never forget the sign outside a yarn shop in LA. It said that it welcomed every race, religion, gender or gender identification; that it was a safe place to be.

Except that when I walked in and saw all the "***** hats" and the "F*ck Trump" banners, I made the mistake of asking for a "MAGA" hat pattern. I was told to leave.

 

[dianaiad]

And all you've done so far in response to my post, is pout. Because your whole position is based on ignorance and bias. So you have nothing to respond, with.

Isn't it interesting that the one figuring that he is the most intelligent and 'woke' of the two of us doesn't understand that using insults as the basis of his post means that response to the content of his post means responding to the insults?

Or that the one figuring that he is the most intelligent and "woke' of the two of us hasn't figured out yet what the problem is?

Here. I'll be blunt.

If you call me, personally, an idiot, ignorant and biased just because I disagree with you, the conversation is over. You aren't worth responding to, except to point out that you ARE using ad hominem fallacies in a failed attempt to support your points.

 

[PureX]

If you call me, personally, an idiot, ignorant and biased just because I disagree with you,...

I didn't call you an idiot because you "disagreed with me". I called you an idiot because you were unable (unwilling) to recognize Trumps 'abuse of power'. And because you were absurd enough to complain about the democratic candidate's lack of ethics while you support the most dishonest, bigoted, selfish, ignorant, offensive ogre that has ever entered the cesspool of modern politics.

You aren't worth responding to, except to point out that you ARE using ad hominem fallacies in a failed attempt to support your points.

You have no response because you have no defense. All you can do is pout, now, because someone dared to call you out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep. I will never forget the sign outside a yarn shop in LA. It said that it welcomed every race, religion, gender or gender identification; that it was a safe place to be.

Except that when I walked in and saw all the "***** hats" and the "F*ck Trump" banners, I made the mistake of asking for a "MAGA" hat pattern. I was told to leave.

It's so odd.
I've never hated anyone just for voting
for politicians I opposed or even despised.
They had their reasons, & we just disagreed.

 

[dianaiad]

I didn't call you an idiot because you "disagreed with me". I called you an idiot because you were unable (unwilling) to recognize Trumps 'abuse of power'. And because you were absurd enough to complain about the democratic candidate's lack of ethics while you support the most dishonest, bigoted, selfish, ignorant, offensive ogre that has ever entered the cesspool of modern politics.

In other words, because I disagree with you.

 

[dianaiad]

It's so odd.
I've never hated anyone just for voting
for politicians I opposed or even despised.
They had their reasons, & we just disagreed.

I know, right?

Like that kid who is suing (quite correctly) everybody because of the abuse HE took...for simply wearing a hat. I hope he wins millions and millions and millions. Not because HE deserves millions, but because the bigots who ran with the story about him need to get a lesson that sticks.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How about a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congress to two terms.

I would also like to limit The Supreme Court as well.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Nah.
The left is quite abusive towards Trump voters because of their vote.
But Trump voters don't abuse Hillary fans simply for voting for her.
And it's not just here.....I see (experience) it IRL.
Dem friends are furious that I voted for Trump.

I don't disagree that the left can be abusive towards Trump voters, but the right can be just as vicious towards those on the left. Both sides are pretty mired in political tribalism right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't disagree that the left can be abusive towards Trump voters, but the right can be just as vicious towards those on the left. Both sides are pretty mired in political tribalism right now.

Oh, I agree that being abusive over disagreements is universal thing.
But the last few years have been unique in the one sidedness of
Dems hating anyone who voted for Trump because of their (our) vote.
I've seen the more common hatred for the other side's politicians,
& hatred for the other party....but this is different, being not about party.
This is typical....
The Pitifully Flawed, Unreliable Judgment Behind Voting for Trump for "No War"

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Oh, I agree that being abusive over disagreements is universal thing.
But the last few years have been unique in the one sidedness of
Dems hating anyone who voted for Trump because of their (our) vote.
I've seen the more common hatred for the other side's politicians,
& hatred for the other party....but this is different, being not about party.
This is typical....
The Pitifully Flawed, Unreliable Judgment Behind Voting for Trump for "No War"

I do admit to feeling frustrated by Democrats and their inability to understand any beyond party issues, but I've seen some pretty scary behavior from right-wingers that makes me question their sense of morality.

For what it's worth, I tend towards the left due to environmental and social justice concerns, but I don't objectively hate all Trump supporters. I don't understand their viewpoint 100% of the time, but I am willing to listen.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do admit to feeling frustrated by Democrats and their inability to understand any beyond party issues, but I've seen some pretty scary behavior from right-wingers that makes me question their sense of morality.

For what it's worth, I tend towards the left due to environmental and social justice concerns, but I don't objectively hate all Trump supporters. I don't understand their viewpoint 100% of the time, but I am willing to listen.

You set a good example for all.
(Better than mine, at least.)

 

[Nicholas]

Senator Scott starts the process...

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., is calling for an amendment to the Constitution that would make it more difficult for presidents to be impeached.

Scott's amendment would require a super-majority of three-fifths of the House of Representatives in order to approve articles of impeachment, instead of the current standard which is a simple majority.

"An act as divisive as impeachment must have bipartisan backing and overwhelming support. It should be harder – much harder – for either political party to take the process our Founders created as a last resort against a tyrannical leader and use it instead as a tool for the tyranny of a political majority," Scott said in a statement. "I look forward to all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, joining me in this effort to protect the integrity of our nation and our constitution."

In order to pass, a constitutional amendment must receive approval from two-thirds of the House and Senate, as well as ratification from three-fourths of all states, or 38 out of 50.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Senator Scott starts the process...

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., is calling for an amendment to the Constitution that would make it more difficult for presidents to be impeached.

Scott's amendment would require a super-majority of three-fifths of the House of Representatives in order to approve articles of impeachment, instead of the current standard which is a simple majority.

"An act as divisive as impeachment must have bipartisan backing and overwhelming support. It should be harder – much harder – for either political party to take the process our Founders created as a last resort against a tyrannical leader and use it instead as a tool for the tyranny of a political majority," Scott said in a statement. "I look forward to all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, joining me in this effort to protect the integrity of our nation and our constitution."

In order to pass, a constitutional amendment must receive approval from two-thirds of the House and Senate, as well as ratification from three-fourths of all states, or 38 out of 50.

The irony of **him** making such statements? Is without limit.

 

[Ebionite]

Trump has been impeached. Not for any felony, but for 'abuse of power,' which means...what, precisely? I haven't figured that one out myself. ANYway, 'impeach' means 'accused.' "Indicted."

He was impeached for asking about the Biden family connection to a corrupt Ukranian gas company. Rudy Guiliani and Glen Beck have done some great investigative work ... but that's just a conspiracy theory, so move along, there's nothing to see here.