Trump can get impeached AND reelected in 2020

[Lamb]

Wouldn't that be something? There is no law saying an impeached President cannot run for reelection. In order to prevent Trump from running again, if he were to be impeached, there would have to be a vote by Congress with a majority of the Senate.

Thoughts?

 

[NewCreation435]

I don't think that he will get reelected based on poll numbers I have seen. Congress should make it a law that an impeached President cannot run again

 

[psalms 91]

I think he is done just a question of how many he takes with him

 

[Lamb]

I don't think that he will get reelected based on poll numbers I have seen. Congress should make it a law that an impeached President cannot run again

Polls don't mean much anymore but I do agree that this should be a law to not allow an impeached President to run again. I wonder why it was never made into one yet? You'd think it would be obvious to have it in place?

 

[Bluezone777]

This is just all political maneuvering in a desperate attempt to win an election and nothing more. It will fail and Trump will see a second term. Republicans tried this with Clinton and failed and the Democrats apparently learned nothing from it as they will get the same result.They will probably put nothing up for a vote because they know it won't make it past the senate. This is just to fill the airwaves with negative news for Trump to mask over their weak candidates and lack of alternative plan should one of them get elected president. This batch of candidates is so weak that I am seriously considering not voting for president at all or throwing it to a third party candidate.

An impeached president has not been convicted of anything which is why being impeached doesn't stop them from running.It's pretty much the equivalent of determining probable cause that something happened which is a far lower bar to cross then actually proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed by the accused. It states there is enough reason to have a trial but not enough to prove they did anything wrong. That's what the trial is for which is held in the senate with the chief justice acting as judge and the senate as jurors. A man must have his day in court before being punished not before. What you are asking for is that a man be punished before his trial and even if the trial fails, he should still be punished even though the trial proved his innocence. Does that sound like the sort of justice you can get behind?

 

[Lamb]

This is just all political maneuvering in a desperate attempt to win an election and nothing more. It will fail and Trump will see a second term. Republicans tried this with Clinton and failed and the Democrats apparently learned nothing from it as they will get the same result.They will probably put nothing up for a vote because they know it won't make it past the senate. This is just to fill the airwaves with negative news for Trump to mask over their weak candidates and lack of alternative plan should one of them get elected president. This batch of candidates is so weak that I am seriously considering not voting for president at all or throwing it to a third party candidate.

I'd love to get a campaign going for a third party candidate. You know how quickly things spread through the internet. Who's with me?

 

[Josiah]

IF Trump is impeached in the manner of violating the Rule of Law and any sense of fairness (for example, the current SECRET "closed session" hearings where Trump has no defense).... and if there never is a law quoted that Trump clearly violated.... then I think many will simply conclude that the Democrats (in extreme despiration) simply are circumventing democracy and fairness and have opened a very dangerous "Pandora's Box." I think it could backfire.


But what I think this will do - whether or not there is an impeachment - is that it will simply harden the divide and both sides. The Libs (obviously believing no Democrat running can beat Trump) will be envigorated in their personal hatred of Trump and anger that he defeated a woman... and the Conservatives will be equally strengthened in their belief in the "swamp" and the libs - and the need for someone like Trump. The independents will look at this and be even more turned off.... and will consider the desperation of the Democrats and their circumvention of them and the election process


Look out for Romney.... I use to respect this man but he;s totally lost me in the past 3 years. He could arise as a challenger or even a third-party or write in challenger, and pull enough votes from Trump to permit some wacko Communist/Socialist to win.

 

[Albion]

I tend to think Romney will not go that far, in part because it would be a hopeless task, not likely to do much better than "Evan McMuffin" did when he was put up as an independent challenger to Trump in 2016.

More likely, Romney will try to play the role of the wise senior statesman sagely taking his potshots at the president from time to time. Besides, with three announced Republican challengers already declared and set to compete in the upcoming Republican primary elections, the role that you foresee for Romney has already been usurped, or at least damaged.

 

[hedrick]

Impeachment has no effect. Conviction by the Senate does not prevent running again. However after conviction the Senate may additionally bar the person from future office. Conviction requires a two thirds vote. Barring them from office requires a majority. So the answer to the original is that it depends upon the Senate.

 

[Josiah]

Impeachment has no effect. Conviction by the Senate does not prevent running again. However after conviction the Senate may additionally bar the person from future office. Conviction requires a two thirds vote. Barring them from office requires a majority. So the answer to the original is that it depends upon the Senate.

Obviously, no Democrat and no member of the Press has ever read the Constitution.


IF they did, they'd know that impeachment does nothing. To remove a person, that requires a 2/3's vote of the Senate (which has happened only once in US History), and since the Republicans control the senate, that ain't too likely. The press keeps saying "removing" so they are just ignorant.


IF they did, they'd realize impeachment requires proof of a "HIGH CRIME." That requires proof that he violated some high law (it is currently the understanding that this must be a felony). Before anything can happen, there needs to be reference to a LAW that the person is accused of violating (which would be a felony). So far, not a single Democrat, not a single person in the press has done this. With Bill Clinton, the very first thing that happened was the notation that he ADMITTED to lying under oath to a grand jury - a felony. With that established, the investigation could then BEGIN. The Democrats seem to believe a "HIGH CRIME" is anything the Libs don't like. Okay.... their establishing that protocol, then the Republicans can do the same thing when they control the House and a Democrat is President, "crime" having been defined as "anything not liked." "High" means "politically useable". Not only do Democrats not know the Constitution or history, they don't think how their ploy can backfire on them, the precedence they are setting and how it undermines democracy. Well, they probably just don't care. They HATE Trump and know they must get rid of him because they can't defeat him.

 

[Albion]

I'd love to get a campaign going for a third party candidate. You know how quickly things spread through the internet. Who's with me?

Well, there are third parties, and they all will be nominating their candidates for president.

Getting behind one of them should be no problem, although your point may be that you would like to see some willingness on the part of us here or voters in general to join in with you.

 

[NewCreation435]

I'd love to get a campaign going for a third party candidate. You know how quickly things spread through the internet. Who's with me?

3rd parties tend to favor the Democrats since they are the larger party in terms of sheer numbers. Ross Perot was one candidate who ended up helping the Democrats in the past

 

[tango]

3rd parties tend to favor the Democrats since they are the larger party in terms of sheer numbers. Ross Perot was one candidate who ended up helping the Democrats in the past

I remember people saying that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election.

 

[Albion]

jsimms and tango,

It does vary from election to election, however. In one election the independent candidates may help the Dems but in the next they may wind up benefitting the GOP. And it also depends on which state we are looking at, since the minor parties are not on all the state ballots (with the possible exception of the Libertarians).

As concerns 2020, it's hard to predict at this time who would be most benefitted by third party candidates being on the ballot. It probably depends on whether or not the "NeverTrump" Republican establishment types who never reconciled themselves to President Trump put up a spoiler candidate and, presumably, a better one than they had to settle for in 2016.

 

[Lamb]

Well, there are third parties, and they all will be nominating their candidates for president.

Getting behind one of them should be no problem, although your point may be that you would like to see some willingness on the part of us here or voters in general to join in with you.

I was thinking how the 2016 election went poorly because NO ONE really liked either candidate. If a 3rd party came along that was likeable, didn't lean too far one way or the other and millennials used social media, chats, memes, etc like they do to promote everything else that goes viral, we could have potentially had a different President in office. You know how fast memes catch on?

 

[Albion]

I was thinking how the 2016 election went poorly because NO ONE really liked either candidate. If a 3rd party came along that was likeable, didn't lean too far one way or the other and millennials used social media, chats, memes, etc like they do to promote everything else that goes viral, we could have potentially had a different President in office. You know how fast memes catch on?

So why have third-parties fared poorly in the past and not had much "staying" power? There are a number of reasons, and they are important to keep in mind.

For one, the Ds and Rs have made sure that the election laws in almost every state are so difficult for any minor party to comply with, that they usually cannot obtain ballot status. And their members are usually not even allowed to serve on election boards.

Second, the process of petitioning for a place on the ballot generally uses up most of the money that the new party in question has. Ross Perot's party sidestepped that only because he personally bankrolled it, but then he wanted his party to be him alone.

Third, the media have almost no interest in covering third party candidates or party activities. No debates, no interviews, etc. This naturally makes getting the party's ideas out to the voters extraordinarily difficult.

And most of all, there is the well-known rule of thumb -- if you vote third party, you are "throwing your vote away."

This is very significant as can be seen when pre-election polls are compared with election day votes cast. People may sympathize with the minor party, but when it comes to casting a vote, especially when the race is expected to be close (as in 2016), they can't bring themselves to do it.

This isn't to say "Don't support any minor party candidate." Conscience counts, and that might be reason enough. Another is that anything worth doing at all probably requires baby steps before we get to the running part! But it is a formidable task to create a successful new party. And of course there are third parties now. Anyone interested in this idea we are discussing probably is best advised to pick one of them and work for its nominee for president.

 

[Josiah]

I was thinking how the 2016 election went poorly because NO ONE really liked either candidate. If a 3rd party came along that was likeable, didn't lean too far one way or the other and millennials used social media, chats, memes, etc like they do to promote everything else that goes viral, we could have potentially had a different President in office. You know how fast memes catch on?

It's been over a century since any Third Party candidate had even a remote chance of actually winning. This is partly because of election laws and party because it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to run a successful campaign in the USA. The ONLY thing that has been accomplsihed is to pull enough votes away from one to cause the other to be elected, they can RUIN campaigns (as Ross Perot did) but not WIN them.

We're a year out from the election. NO ONE has risen to challenge Trump. Romney is making noise but he's not raising any money and can't even begin to bankroll the money needed to even challenge things (he's rich but not THAT rich). And if he did, there's just no way he'd get elected although he might get Warren into the White House by pulling just enough votes from Trump to get a socialist/communist elected (but probably not).


BTW, there are several parties in the USA. In 2016, I considered one even though I realized I'd be throwing away my vote. But I didn't really like ANY of them and so ended up not voting for anyone for President. Sadly, it doesn't matter in California anyway, this is a One Party State and the Democrat gets all the electoral votes from this State, truth is, EVERYONE'S vote for president here is irrelevant, all the electors will vote for the Democrat - if she were Satan incarnate. Truth is, NEITHER party candidate compains here much, we're mostly overlooked. They come here to raise money (even the Republican) but not much to campaign, it's certainly not a "swing" state and hasn't been for as long as I've been alive, the Democrats OWN it, the Republican party exists only in theory.



.

 

[tango]

And most of all, there is the well-known rule of thumb -- if you vote third party, you are "throwing your vote away."

I remember finding it quite curious during the campaign for the 2016 election when voices from both major parties were saying that a vote for Gary Johnson was effectively a vote for the other side.

It's easy to see the problem in an election like the last one. If you dislike your party's candidate but truly can't bear the thought of the other candidate winning, do you grit your teeth and vote along your normal party lines or vote for the third party candidate knowing that it could potentially be close enough that every vote counts? I guess in a way that's the advantage of living in a one-party state - if you're a Republican or a disgruntled Democrat in a state like California you can safely vote third party knowing the protest will be counted and you probably won't change the election result anyway.

Systems like a single transferable vote make a lot of sense in that they let people vote for smaller parties without having to eschew supporting a major party. That's probably why systems like that have never been introduced.

 

[Albion]

I remember finding it quite curious during the campaign for the 2016 election when voices from both major parties were saying that a vote for Gary Johnson was effectively a vote for the other side.

Why would that seem curious? Each party thought it had voters to lose if Johnson did well. But that is partly because Libertarian voters, according to studies, would split between the Ds or Rs if the Libertarian option were not available. That couldn't be said of, for example, the Green Party.

Systems like a single transferable vote make a lot of sense in that they let people vote for smaller parties without having to eschew supporting a major party. That's probably why systems like that have never been introduced.

Well, some sort of ranked voting system seems to gaining ground.

 

[tango]

Why would that seem curious? Each party thought it had voters to lose if Johnson did well. But that is partly because Libertarian voters, according to studies, would split between the Ds or Rs if the Libertarian option were not available. That couldn't be said of, for example, the Green Party.

I just thought it was funny the way the Democrats said voting Johnson was effectively voting Trump while Republicans said voting Johnson was effectively voting Clinton. There was silly old me thinking a vote for Johnson was effectively a vote for Johnson. I get the reasoning behind it - in a similar vein I guess the people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 were unlikely to have chosen Bush had they been forced to choose between the major parties - I just found it funny.

Well, some sort of ranked voting system seems to gaining ground.

In the UK if I recall we use transferable votes for at least some local elections, don't think they've made it to national elections yet.