2. There's a stronger case that impeachment "overturns an election" if it's (1) over something the voters knew when they voted and/or (2) aimed at conduct predating the election.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3. I think there was more force to the "overturning an election" argument with the Russia stuff, which was literally about challenging Trump's election in 2016 as illiegitimate (which this is not).
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
To be fair, if removal happens (not the same as impeachment) it only removes half of the voters' choice.
-
If removal happens that mean a large amount of senators that R voters trusted to represent them thought it was appropriate. I’d be comfortable with that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Probably best to do it when the President is threatening our elections themselves. Like if he invites a foreign power to interfere in an upcoming election on his behalf and withholds official action until he gets what he wants.
-
Yeah, should've stuck to giving them blankets and pies.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
It's not installing a dictatorship. There will continue to be elections. Britain gets rid of their leaders all the time and the sky doesn't fall. We don't even have to not do it lightly. May be we should do it much more often. Fuck up as POTUS and you're out. Elect the next one.
-
Been watching the screwed up mess they have over there. No thank you. A parliamentary system won’t make Dems more honest and less socialist.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is consistent with the arguments conservatives have made in favor of the Electoral College. Now where are all those NPV advocates who had no faith in the American model of representative democracy? I guess it's good enough to remove a President, but not choose one.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.