a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
That would be doing "the thing."
But she is a criminal and a crony capitalist of the worst sort. That Trump is worse doesn't make her better, or less deserving of prison.
If he felt he could do that don't you think he would have selected a choice in the poll? That's the whole point of this thread, is it not?
GasBandit
Staff member
I believe I said earlier in this thread, Trump would be worse for America as president than Hillary.
But that doesn't mean I support Hillary. She should be in prison, not in office. Any office. Neither major candidate would be placed on my ballot. Basically, mine would have gone Johnson, Sanders, the end.
Well this poll was framed as "who are you voting for" by charlie intentionally to remove third party commentary. I know gas is voting for Johnson, but I refuse to believe that if he magically had the sole ability to decide who wins, but had to choose Trump or Hillary, that he'd decline.
Edit: Got my answer.
Edit: Got my answer.
GasBandit
Staff member
I actually would. If I were magically granted the ability to determine who wins, but my choices were limited to Trump or Hillary, I'd decline.
Because whichever one of them wins, America picked 'em, America deserves what they get.
McMullin's response to the gay scare robocall: McMullin responds to Pro-Trump, white nationalist robocall
and the RNC reacts: Top GOP official: McMullin's response to white nationalist-sponsored robocall is 'almost as reprehensible'
#SMOD2016
and the RNC reacts: Top GOP official: McMullin's response to white nationalist-sponsored robocall is 'almost as reprehensible'
#SMOD2016
you guys do know that there's literally nothing in the Constitution that says you can't run for President if you're in jail, or convicted of anything, right? you can't vote for yourself in some states, but there is nothing stopping anyone from winning and pardoning themselves and going to work. so get the fuck out with your "she shouldn't be on the ballot", even if all your made-up crimes were true.
This was discussed on page 59, but I'm guessing you were too busy desperately hunting for crayons to notice.
Well, I assume there's an assumption that voters aren't idiots.
Uhhhhhh...
In America? Now that seems wrong.
It's never been tested, so we don't know. In theory it could be, but the supreme court could rule it unconstitutional if it ever came up.
A president cannot pardon themselves from an impeachment, though.
They also don't have to publish their pardons, and pardons can be given before conviction or before a trial begins.[DOUBLEPOST=1478100001,1478099940][/DOUBLEPOST]Here's a little depth with a president who might have wanted to pardon themselves.
I'm certain they would try to impeach you for it at least.
Pardons explicitly do not prevent someone from being impeached, so I suspect that Presidential self-pardons simply would not work without the explicit support of half of Congress for that act. Given how much bad publicity exists around pardons anyway, I sincerely doubt Congress would go along with any President self-pardoning themselves, even if that party had a majority.
The reactions to the various squabbles in congress suggest to me the opposite. You might as well suggest that Democrats agreed with the investigation into Bill Clinton and would have impeached him if it didn't go their way, or that the Republicans would have agreed with the investigation during the iran contra affair and would have impeached Reagan if it didn't go their way.
Congress is nothing but partisan.[DOUBLEPOST=1478101115,1478100695][/DOUBLEPOST]The president, like the governor of a state, is the head of the executive branch. While the court case case is labeled "State v criminal", the governor/president is the head of that state/government, and thus it could just as easily read "president v criminal". So if a president or governor chose to ignore the law or act in opposition, it would be "governor v self" and there'd be no point.
You can't really bring a president or governor to court for breaking the law - they are the ones executing it. The president/governor is literally, legally above the law.
The only real option is to impeach them, and that must be done by the legislative body.
It really is good to be the king.
So what you're saying is when the President does it, it's not illegal.
There are people I'd rather vote for than Clinton.
But I'd rather vote for people on this forum than vote for Trump. Many of us meet the same qualifications he does and most would probably do the job better, if still worse than someone with any governing experience.
But I'd rather vote for people on this forum than vote for Trump. Many of us meet the same qualifications he does and most would probably do the job better, if still worse than someone with any governing experience.
Even me?
Though the process never got far enough for the actual full vote, Nixon's impeachment proceedings had bi-partisan support within Congress by the time he actually resigned.
When Clinton was actually impeached by the House, while the first two articles followed fairly partisan voting lines, the third lost just enough Republican support that it failed, and the fourth article failed because a third of the Republicans thought it was BS. When the two remaining articles (perjury and obstruction of justice) came before the Senate, 10 Republicans voted against the the former and 5 voted against the latter so that the impeachment side didn't even get a majority, let alone 2/3.
So clearly voting on impeachment proceedings against party line has happened.[DOUBLEPOST=1478104909,1478104862][/DOUBLEPOST]
Dave 2016. Older But Spryer!
Which democrats, again, voted to impeach Clinton? Remember, we were talking about the president's own party acting against the president, not the president's opponents.
Then vote @Charlie Don't Surf. He was ATF. Or was that NSA? or FDA . . . and now I've Anarchy in the UK in my head.
Had 5 dems in the House voted along party lines for the obstruction of justice charge instead of defecting, it would not have passed and there would have been only a single impeachment article (the one that lost in the Senate 45-55 thanks to the defection of 10 GOP Senators).
I'm not suggesting that you'll see a general revolt against the president by his/her party (though it happened with Nixon at least at the committee level), but considering that such defections have happened in the past, and the general tenor of the public's view on high-profile self-serving pardons is usually negative (Ford's pardon of Nixon, Bush's pardon of SecDef Weinberger, and Clinton's of Marc Rich), a self-pardon would likely shake up the President's legislative support enough to push an impeachment.
dtf atm, bae
Well, it should be clear to most that the leadership of the FBI do NOT want Hillary in the white house.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...16/11/01/fbi-marc-rich-pardon-files/93136458/
[DOUBLEPOST=1478108138,1478107857][/DOUBLEPOST]Setting aside the specific case (which has been hashed and rehashed since Bill left office), why does the FBI prefer Trump? What do they have to gain?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...16/11/01/fbi-marc-rich-pardon-files/93136458/
[DOUBLEPOST=1478108138,1478107857][/DOUBLEPOST]Setting aside the specific case (which has been hashed and rehashed since Bill left office), why does the FBI prefer Trump? What do they have to gain?
Someone without the will or skill to resist their own political efforts? It's no secret that the CIA, NSA, FBI, ATF, and Homeland Security Agencies don't always see eye to eye and have different "visions" of America than even most Presidents.
I mean it mentions in the article that they also released a document about trump. This isn't ok by the FBI but it doesn't seem to be partisan.