Even if Trump loses he wins

Author: WyIted
MAGA

Posts

Total: 30
Topic's author
#1
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,910
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Even if Trump loses he can still win
If the house and senate end up a majority, the moment that babbling bitch takes the oath they can impeach her on the grounds she was not elected as a candidate by her party, she was installed and that was not following the legal process. 

If she is impeached and tampon boy with her, then the speaker of the house becomes president...which would be Speaker Johnson...then Speaker Johnson picks Trump as his VP, he resigns, Trump becomes President, picks JD Vance as his VP. 

This would put Trump back into the White House...and since he was selected as VP by Johnson he could run for President in 2028 and if he won he'd technically have 3 terms. 

FUCKING MAGA.
#2
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
Well you've captured the 'creativity' of the lawfare enemy from within quite well with this story but it's not like it's a fair playing field.

A simple majority in the senate can't remove anyone.

That's why they play in different sandboxes these days. Judges and AGs, you can do all sorts of shit with only a few people that way. You can do friendly lawsuits. "Oh you nasty you better remove all semblance of an actual election" "Oh no the humanity I guess we have no choice. What do you say judge?"
#3
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@WyIted
 they can impeach her on the grounds she was not elected as a candidate by her party
that's not grounds for impeachment. It is not illegal. Each party makes their own rules on how their candidate should be picked. The rules were followed. 

 she was installed and that was not following the legal process. 
untrue. She was elected the dem primary. 

If she is impeached and tampon boy with her, then the speaker of the house becomes president
I think you've forgotten that impeachment requires 2/3rds of the senate to vote to convict. There is no scenario in which that happens. 

This would put Trump back into the White House...and since he was selected as VP by Johnson he could run for President in 2028 and if he won he'd technically have 3 terms. 
this would effectively be the death of democracy. Thank god it isn't possible. 
#4
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 367
Posts: 11,096
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Even if Kamala loses, she wins.
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 367
Posts: 11,096
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
We all know Kamala will win.

May Kamala forever reign,
And oppress MAGA with her name!
#6
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,871
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Even if Trump loses he can still win
If the house and senate end up a majority, the moment that babbling bitch takes the oath they can impeach her on the grounds she was not elected as a candidate by her party, she was installed and that was not following the legal process. 

If she is impeached and tampon boy with her, then the speaker of the house becomes president...which would be Speaker Johnson...then Speaker Johnson picks Trump as his VP, he resigns, Trump becomes President, picks JD Vance as his VP. 

This would put Trump back into the White House...and since he was selected as VP by Johnson he could run for President in 2028 and if he won he'd technically have 3 terms. 

FUCKING MAGA.
A concession speech, spoken like a true LOSER
#7
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
 they can impeach her on the grounds she was not elected as a candidate by her party
that's not grounds for impeachment. It is not illegal.
That's what Dershowitz said about Trump's impeachments. The house didn't care.

#8
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That's what Dershowitz said about Trump's impeachments. The house didn't care.
This is what he said:
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment,”


basically his argument is that if a politican abuses the power of his office to help him get elected, that isn't ground for impeachment. That's incredibly stupid. But not even really related to what we are talking about. You want to impeach Kamala for something that isn't, in any way, illegal or against the rules. That's also incredibly stupid.
#9
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
That's what Dershowitz said about Trump's impeachments. The house didn't care.
This is what he said:


You want to impeach Kamala for something that isn't, in any way, illegal or against the rules.
Just like they impeached Trump for organizing a rally.


That's also incredibly stupid.
Deshowitz and Justice Curtis agree.
#10
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just like they impeached Trump for organizing a rally.
no, they impeached him for inciting an insurrection for the purposes of overthrowing democracy. which he did. 

Deshowitz and Justice Curtis agree.
Dershowitz is trump's lawyer. The man would defend him if trump murdered people. So his statements opinions mean very little. And do you mean the justice curtis that has been dead for over 100 years? Somehow I don't think he has an opinion on what trump did. 
#11
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
Just like they impeached Trump for organizing a rally.
no, they impeached him for inciting an insurrection for the purposes of overthrowing democracy. which he did. 
Right, and Kamala Harris conspired to subvert democracy and destroy the constitution. It's easy when you can just make stuff up.


Deshowitz and Justice Curtis agree.
Dershowitz is trump's lawyer.
You are a cultist who has proven you are immune to facts on multiple occasions. Top examples:

You claimed Trump would not condemn nazis. Then you doubled down several times before pretending that you missphrased your claim when there is no plausible typo or grammar that could have made your claim true.

You claimed that "European sensibilities" were not what ended the European slave trade and then as an example you gave a European king apparently having to moderate his mistreatment of slaves because the news of such mistreatment reached his populace. You never admitted the contradiction, you will never admit you're wrong no matter how clearly it is proven.


So his statements opinions mean very little.
To you, but as proven by your history on this site; you are a irrational dishonest cultist.


And do you mean the justice curtis that has been dead for over 100 years?
Yep, the one who interacted with founders and whose judgement some of those founders agreed with.


Somehow I don't think he has an opinion on what trump did. 
He has an opinion about whether there needs to be a crime to impeach, and it is a different opinion from Maxine Waters who said:


"Impeachment is whatever congress says it is, there is no law."

The reason she said that is because there was no law Trump broke. If they could find a law, they would surely have cited it. If they had tried to cite a law, all the precedent of instances where that law was used before would come into it and that makes it hard to make shit up. That is why they cited no law.

Wylted's plan requires only that congress and the supreme court follow Maxine Water's claim.
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The reason she said that is because there was no law Trump broke. If they could find a law, they would surely have cited it. If they had tried to cite a law, all the precedent of instances where that law was used before would come into it and that makes it hard to make shit up. That is why they cited no law.

Almost every case where Trump was convicted had zero precedent. Defrauding a bank that claimed it was never defrauded....felony convictions for a QuickBooks drop-down click....
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
no, they impeached him for inciting an insurrection for the purposes of overthrowing democracy. which he did. 
Right, and Kamala Harris conspired to subvert democracy and destroy the constitution. It's easy when you can just make stuff up.
he did incite an insurrection. This is common knowledge. 


Deshowitz and Justice Curtis agree.
Dershowitz is trump's lawyer.
You are a cultist who has proven you are immune to facts on multiple occasions. Top examples:
so you're going to quote something I said and then start rambling about something completely unrelated? I will skip that thanks. 

He has an opinion about whether there needs to be a crime to impeach
Inciting an insurrection is a crime. did you not know that?


#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Inciting an insurrection is a crime

The SCOTUS ruled in the Colorado case to remove him from the ballot that Trump wasn't an insurrectionist. He was never charged for it either.

They just made shit up.
#15
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
I will skip that thanks. 
There was never much hope you'd do anything else.


Inciting an insurrection is a crime. did you not know that?
I wonder why no one has been charged?
#16
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I wonder why no one has been charged?
tons of people involved in the insurrection. Many have gone to prison. 

And trump is currently awaiting trial for his crimes around the election. He will likely be going to prison for them after he loses the election. 

#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
I  don't trust a system that waits 4 years to charge someone with a crime.

You shouldn't either.
#18
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
I  don't trust a system that waits 4 years to charge someone with a crime.
why? That isn't unusual for complicated investigations. And a criminal conspiracy involving the president of the united states is complicated. 

#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Justice delayed is justice denied. I won't support that system for any reason.
#20
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Justice delayed is justice denied. I won't support that system for any reason.
that's stupid. Some crimes are easy to charge. A guy walks into a bank with a gun, it's easy to charge him with bank robbery. But if a guy is engaging in a criminal conspiracy to rob a bank, you need to prove the different pieces of the conspiracy before you can charge him. This is much harder. Trump engaged in a conspiracy with dozens of co-conspirators spanning multiple states and in different branches of government. It takes a long time to fully investigate that. You're basically saying that if someone can make their crimes sufficiently complicated to investigate, then they shouldn't ever be able to be charged. This would make polticians and the super rich even more immune to having to abide by the law. 
#21
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 367
Posts: 11,096
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
 You're basically saying that if someone can make their crimes sufficiently complicated to investigate, then they shouldn't ever be able to be charged.
Thats how it works in Russia.

Law is like spider's web. Small insects are caught in the web easily, but big creatures just pass through it.
#22
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@HistoryBuff
I wonder why no one has been charged?
tons of people involved in the insurrection. Many have gone to prison. 
There was no insurrection and no one has been charged with the "crime of insurrection".

#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,830
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

Yes,  Jan. 6 as a “day of love”!
#24
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Yep, sequel to the ever popular "summer of love".

All the "love" and "freedom" fills graveyards.
#25
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,830
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

#26
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,269
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Duh, it was a fake election. They swore to defend the constitution and pretending fake elections are real elections is failing to defend.
#27
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,288
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
You can still charge someone while you are investigating. Again, I refuse to support a system that waits 4 years to decide someone has committed a crime.

You should too.
#28
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,213
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
All of Congress should be hanged for treason and spending this country into oblivion.
#29
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 367
Posts: 11,096
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@sadolite
All of Congress should be hanged for treason and spending this country into oblivion
Thats kinda strange, given that majority agreed to be spent into oblivion.

Minority maybe disagreed, but votes of the many outweigh votes of the few.
#30
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 2,027
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@WyIted
Check back with me 11/6