Impeachment for Trump

[Lighthouse]

If it's shown that there are sufficient constitutional grounds for impeachment, would this apply? As far as I know, it's unconstitutional to impose further limitations on candidacy - nothing about applying law to them post-election. Or am I unaware of something?

I think it's a different ballgame when it comes to the violation of rights. There are many violations of rights that are legally performed by ones in power. Most are not even enlightened to many of these violations because of blind faith in government and other things, or are just currently ignorant because government does its best to keep certain things low-profile and out of the limelight.

Impeachment would be a separate story.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I like what Pence says. Reading the RFRA as opposed to listening to what media sources say regarding it.

I've read the bill. As it originally was, it was indeed vague enough, and intentionally so, to legally protect the Religious Right and provide them a legal shield to discriminate with. That caused enough of a controversy that the front page of the Indianapolis Star read "FIX THIS BILL!!!," Comic Con and the NCAA threatened to pull operations out of the state, individual states would not fund business trips to Indiana, and some of the most powerful corporations in the world were not pleased. Thus, as the bill reads now, it was amended to make clear it doesn't allow for discrimination.

 

[Parchment]

I wonder if Bill Cosby ever wonders what he did wrong to not get the character assassination resistance that Trump has developed over his own accusations of sexual deviancy?

Ahh.. sexual deviancy:

 

[Lighthouse]

Religious freedom doesn't work that way otherwise we would have work places saying they don't want satanists, atheists or certain denominations to work with them. Religious people can't choose to not work with people of different orientations same as they can't choose whether they work with minorities or women. LGBT struggle for rights is the same as the rights women struggle for due to religious and cultural hypocrisy.

You chose to give an example of discrimination, and does the RFRA actually make it legal for companies to do this?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You chose to give an example of discrimination, and does the RFRA actually make it legal for companies to do this?

As Pence originally wrote it into law, yes. What remains of the bill is a watered-down version that does more resemble Clinton's RFRA, making the one of Indiana nothing more than a moot token gesture towards the Religious Right.

 

[Lighthouse]

I've read the bill. As it originally was, it was indeed vague enough, and intentionally so, to legally protect the Religious Right and provide them a legal shield to discriminate with. That caused enough of a controversy that the front page of the Indianapolis Star read "FIX THIS BILL!!!," Comic Con and the NCAA threatened to pull operations out of the state, individual states would not fund business trips to Indiana, and some of the most powerful corporations in the world were not pleased. Thus, as the bill reads now, it was amended to make clear it doesn't allow for discrimination.

Nobody is perfect, some things are progressively in need of modification, and I'm happy that Pence signed into law the amendment. Even if some religious bigots are pissed off about it.

 

[Lighthouse]

As Pence originally wrote it into law, yes.

Time to consider moving out of the past and appreciating the modification? Everyone had their part, and it's pretty safe to say that it will not be changed in the future.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nobody is perfect, some things are progressively in need of modification, and I'm happy that Pence signed into law the amendment. Even if some religious bigots are pissed off about it.

The other thing about Pence that concerns me is his opposition towards the Supreme Court - as it was with Scalia - who interjected over the state's gay-marriage ban as the state Republicans were moving to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. The Supreme Court struck down the state law, making same-sex marriage legal in Indiana. Pence would not stop there though, as he made it clear state officials did not have to wed same-sex couples. A Trump win means Pence will have influence over the next Supreme Court nomination.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Time to consider moving out of the past and appreciating the modification? Everyone had their part, and it's pretty safe to say that it will not be changed in the future.

Pence only changed it because there would have been dire economic and business ramifications for the state. His history is solid anti-LBGT, and it shows no signs of changing, be he is, as he puts it, "A Christian. A Conservative. And a Republican, in that order."

 

[Lighthouse]

Pence only changed it because there would have been dire economic and business ramifications for the state. His history is solid anti-LBGT, and it shows no signs of changing, be he is, as he puts it, "A Christian. A Conservative. And a Republican, in that order."

Pence strikes me as the guy who wants things to work for everybody, and being a Christian(if he is, traditional/fundamental) he strikes me as the guy that while believing marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman, would also not be anti-LGBT and discriminatory towards LGBT's.

There is no way at this point that the states can strip away these wonderful rights from LGBT's unless certain state(s) seceeded from the US. There are no way any Supreme Court justices will overturn these rights. I think we've discussed before, that even if they pass an amendment to define marriage, rights for LGBT's union with their partner will not be taken away. Crap would hit the fan swiftly.

 

[Lighthouse]

The other thing about Pence that concerns me is his opposition towards the Supreme Court - as it was with Scalia - who interjected over the state's gay-marriage ban as the state Republicans were moving to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage. The Supreme Court struck down the state law, making same-sex marriage legal in Indiana. Pence would not stop there though, as he made it clear state officials did not have to wed same-sex couples. A Trump win means Pence will have influence over the next Supreme Court nomination.

I think that most politicians have always been that way in the past while it was much less popular. Even the ones whom have more recently changed their minds when it has gained traction and popularity.

I do agree that there are some that are having a hard time letting go. I don't believe that Pence is one of them. Just my thoughts though.

 

[Parchment]

Seems like another one of those clouds floating like dreams across the sky blue mind

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I do agree that there are some that are having a hard time letting go. I don't believe that Pence is one of them. Just my thoughts though.

He hasn't changed though. He's still doing his "Christian. Conservative. Republican" thing, and he is still considered a champion of the Religious Right.

 

[The Enlightened One]

Because the ones doing the impeaching would also be ones with the dirty hands in violating human rights.

There are many violations of rights that are legally performed by ones in power.

So you're talking about the people in power being guilty of prior rights violations, and not Trump's civil rights per se?

 

[Lighthouse]

So you're talking about the people in power being guilty of prior rights violations, and not Trump's civil rights per se?

Correct.

Separately, if he is impeached, it would have to be for good reason. Can kind of see the foreshadow with the whole Russian treason thing perhaps. (Whether there is actual merit or not.)

 

[Laika]

Tyranny by the minority is just as destructive.

I think we should let the old white men decide that one....

 

[Revoltingest]

Never pegged you for a pence man.

Ew!
I hadn't considered that consequence.
Ew!

OK, I have it figured out....
Impeach, but don't convict.
And you can impeach him regularly.

 

[fantome profane]

Ew!
I hadn't considered that consequence.a
Ew!

I find it interesting how we (me included) make a big deal about when and how Trump denounces people like David Duke. Did he denounce them quickly enough and when did he do it etc. But no one seems to bring up the point that Donald Trump has never denounced bigots like Mike Pence. And make no mistake about it, Mike Pence is just as much a bigot as David Duke. The only difference is that sadly Pence's flavour of bigotry is more socially acceptable than Dukes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find it interesting how we (me included) make a big deal about when and how Trump denounces people like David Duke. Did he denounce them quickly enough and when did he do it etc. But no one seems to bring up the point that Donald Trump has never denounced bigots like Mike Pence. And make no mistake about it, Mike Pence is just as much a bigot as David Duke. The only difference is that sadly Pence's flavour of bigotry is more socially acceptable than Dukes.

It would be highly unusual for a candidate to denounce his running mate.
And sure Pence has shortcomings, but so does Kaine.

 

[fantome profane]

It would be highly unusual for a candidate to denounce his running mate.
And sure Pence has shortcomings, but so does Kaine.

This is a highly unusual campaign.