2020 Embalmden HQ

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1319274192211247104?s=19

When we'll see? in 2 weeks?

[spurraider21]

trump thinks he's leading in every state?

[Spurtacular]

You and Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615) need to get on the same page. You say they're fake, derp claims they are now legit.

:lol

I've not claimed the polls are legit. You're lying your tranny ass off again.

Chris

[Spurtacular]

fake polls

They always are.

[spurraider21]

They always are.
so whats the purpose of creating a fake poll showing the gap tighten?

and what was the point of you sharing it if its all fake?

[Spurtacular]

so whats the purpose of creating a fake poll showing the gap tighten?

Well, I've probably only said this twenty times or so; that the polls have to tighten to save face.
Because Biden was never going to win places like PA and FL by ten points.

[Spurtacular]

and what was the point of you sharing it if its all fake?

Showing that they're following the script. I called it. It was never in doubt.

[Reck]

I've not claimed the polls are legit. You're lying your tranny ass off again.

Chris (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=1656)

You posted on another thread bragging about Trump leading in your preferred pollster. lol

[Spurtacular]

You posted on another thread bragging about Trump leading in your preferred pollster. lol

He wasn't leading in the poll. You'll should go and review it and find out how you erred. I just gave Lite enlightenment on this.

[SpurSpike]

so whats the purpose of creating a fake poll showing the gap tighten?

You act like its close to drum up a sense of urgency.

The point of showing it tightening is to get voters to go out and vote.

[Spurtacular]

1313583449383419905

Joe ain't winning PA.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRj4jsCmtI

[Reck]

1313583449383419905

Joe ain't winning PA.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufRj4jsCmtI

Give a well thought out reason that's the case and I'll give you my take.

[Spurtacular]

Give a well thought out reason that's the case and I'll give you my take.

Trump won the PA cookie poll overwhelming 4100-1650 of Pennsylvanians on who they thought would win the commonwealth.
They have their finger on the pulse. I'm sure your take is :cry muh fake polls :cry.

[spurraider21]

You act like its close to drum up a sense of urgency.

The point of showing it tightening is to get voters to go out and vote.
should have done that all along if that was really the motive

[Chris]

I've not claimed the polls are legit. You're lying your tranny ass off again.

Chris

I genuinely feel sorry for him like Faramir had pity for Smeagol.

I've never seen someone get EVERYTHING wrong every time :lol

[ElNono]

I've never seen someone get EVERYTHING wrong every time :lol

I have. You post here after all...

[Reck]

Trump won the PA cookie poll overwhelming 4100-1650 of Pennsylvanians on who they thought would win the commonwealth.
They have their finger on the pulse. I'm sure your take is :cry muh fake polls :cry.

What is a cookie poll?

I hope you have a better reliable source and not basing this on superstition. :lol

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1319374423644917761?s=19

Spurtacular

[Spurtacular]

What is a cookie poll?

I hope you have a better reliable source and not basing this on superstition. :lol

Soy boys are full of fury. :lmao


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4d4KqUqNDk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMSMl1hyC48

[Reck]

Soy boys are full of fury. :lmao


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4d4KqUqNDk


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMSMl1hyC48

Ok so you're going with retarded predictions like these, confirmed?

[Spurtacular]

Ok so you're going with retarded predictions like these, confirmed?

Repubs beat Dems in voter registration.
You put up literally the worst candidate you could've found.
Biden is sh** on so many levels.

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1319374423644917761?s=19

Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615)

"Nobody has said he has done anything wrong."

If that were a solid defense, lawyers like Lite would be out of a job.

[Reck]

Repubs beat Dems in voter registration.
You put up literally the worst candidate you could've found.
Biden is sh** on so many levels.

Democrats have a seven hundred thousand voter registration advantage in pennsylvania. :lol

Let me guess your next reply. They will all vote for Trump. Is that it?

[Reck]

Spurtacular I dare you to read this to the very end.

https://www.goerie.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/22/how-voter-registration-pa-could-affect-trump-biden-election/3734135001/

Spoiler alert: It will break your little heart.

[Spurtacular]

Democrats have a seven hundred thousand voter registration advantage in pennsylvania. :lol

Let me guess your next reply. They will all vote for Trump. Is that it?

A good number of them do vote for Trump. A good number won't vote. And independents vote Trump.

They didn't vote for her in 2016 to make history. I don't know what you think has changed.

[Spurtacular]

Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615) I dare you to read this to the very end.

https://www.goerie.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/10/22/how-voter-registration-pa-could-affect-trump-biden-election/3734135001/

Spoiler alert: It will break your little heart.

Do you see which way the wind is blowing?


State voter records show Pennsylvania is 46.6% Democrat, 38.9% Republican and 14.4% independent/other voters.


Four years ago, Pennsylvania was is 48.34% Democrat, 37.84%, Republican and 13.8% independent/other voters, records show.

Trannies suck at math.

[Reck]

Do you see which way the wind is blowing?





Trannies suck at math.

That they both decreased a tick in voter registration?

And no, Independents are breaking for Biden by the tune of 10 points.

Keep reading derp. :lol

[Spurtacular]

That they both decreased a tick in voter registration?

And no, Independents are breaking for Biden by the tune of 10 points.

Keep reading derp. :lol

Oh, we're back to :cry Muh fake polls :cry :lol

They were doing the Penn. double digits ploy with Hillary too.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html#polls

[Reck]

Oh, we're back to :cry Muh fake polls :cry :lol

They were doing the Penn. double digits ploy with Hillary too.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html#polls

Note the averages. 2 Points

That's well inside the margin of error. Tell me what's Biden's average lead...

[Chris]

"Nobody has said he has done anything wrong."

If that were a solid defense, lawyers like Lite would be out of a job.

Democrats have a way with words and media is happy to repeat it.

[Spurtacular]

Note the averages. 2 Points

That's well inside the margin of error. Tell me what's Biden's average lead...

Moar 2+2=3 from leftards



Poll #

Difference For Her



1
-1


2
6


3
0


4
2


5
2


6
2


7
4


8
2


9
6


10
5


11
11


12
3


13
8


14
5


15
7


16
5


17
3


18
4


19
6


20
9


21
4


22
8


23
12


24
12


25
10


26
5


27
3


28
3


29
2


30
3


31
1


32
9


33
5


34
8


35
3


36
7


37
8


38
11


39
10


40
10


41
11


42
4


43
9


44
-2


45
9


46
2


47
4


48
1


49
0


50
1


51
15


52
0


53
3


54
13


55
8


56
5


57
-2


58
2


59
5


Total

311


Average

5.27

[Reck]

Moar 2+2=3 from leftards



Poll #
Difference For Her


1
-1


2
6


3
0


4
2


5
2


6
2


7
4


8
2


9
6


10
5


11
11


12
3


13
8


14
5


15
7


16
5


17
3


18
4


19
6


20
9


21
4


22
8


23
12


24
12


25
10


26
5


27
3


28
3


29
2


30
3


31
1


32
9


33
5


34
8


35
3


36
7


37
8


38
11


39
10


40
10


41
11


42
4


43
9


44
-2


45
9


46
2


47
4


48
1


49
0


50
1


51
15


52
0


53
3


54
13


55
8


56
5


57
-2


58
2


59
5


Total
311


Average
5.27




Hey dummy, it's in the link you provided and it wasn't no 5 points.

[Spurtacular]

Hey dummy, it's in the link you provided and it wasn't no 5 points.

I posted the same numbers from that link, dip shit.

[Reck]

I posted the same numbers from that link, dip shit.


ummk.

https://i.imgur.com/Fcfa6HB.jpg

2 is the aggregated average of all those same polls up to election day as you can see there.

[Spurtacular]

ummk.

https://i.imgur.com/Fcfa6HB.jpg

2 is the aggregated average of all those same polls up to election day as you can see there.

I didn't fail to see their lie, dip shit.

I did the real math for you.

But go ahead and show me how you do the math if you think they're somehow right.

[Spurtacular]

Nobody's buying it.
Democrats deserve this embarrassment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz0-1FONl08

[Spurtacular]

I didn't fail to see their lie, dip shit.

I did the real math for you.

But go ahead and show me how you do the math if you think they're somehow right.

Reck

So no math, huh?

Didn't think so.

[Reck]

Reck (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=14412)

So no math, huh?

Didn't think so.

I screenshotted the reality for you. Sorry you’re not doing so hot coping.

[Spurtacular]

I screenshotted the reality for you. Sorry you’re not doing so hot coping.

You screenshotted the lie that I already disproved.

They lie straight to your face. That's the kind of people you think are serving you. :lol

You got no math. :lmao

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRil-QdqE0o

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6hesrYuoE4

[Reck]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6hesrYuoE4

:lol your tears.
:lol mullet man tears

=wins.....for me

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR7jFq2NVQs

[Spurtacular]

California Latino support jumps 8 percent in Cali for Trump.

https://geopolitics.news/anglo-america/latino-support-for-trump-in-california-jumps-8-points-in-one-month/

[Reck]

California Latino support jumps 8 percent in Cali for Trump.

https://geopolitics.news/anglo-america/latino-support-for-trump-in-california-jumps-8-points-in-one-month/

What makes it the most respectable?

Because this guy says it?


Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News

:lol Breitbart

[Spurtacular]

What makes it the most respectable?

I don't know what your tranny brain thinks it's seeing.


:lol Breitbart

And laughing at Breitbart is not an effective tool in the wake of the MSM implosion.

[Ef-man]

What makes it the most respectable?

Because this guy says it?


:lmao


:lol Breitbart

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1320402343188439042?s=19
Spurtacular

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1320442314326769667?s=19

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1320402343188439042?s=19
Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615)

If Biden doesn't win Pennsylvania, he has to hope virtually everything else goes his way.
They're trying really hard in Philadelphia to rig it.

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1320442314326769667?s=19

Sucks that all those votes are going the wrong way. They'll know better for next time at least.

[Chris]

Sucks that all those votes are going the wrong way. They'll know better for next time at least.

:tu people are waking up

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1320442314326769667?s=19

They want to change it from Trump to Biden. :tu

[Winehole23]

1320433230160535560

[Spurtacular]

1320433230160535560

Looks like everybody else's Mexico, tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

Looks like everybody else's Mexico, tbh.:lol you hate Hispanics.

[ElNono]

1320433230160535560

First Biden fans I see in the wild, tbh

[Reck]

When I saw that pickup truck and American flags I thought we were going to see a trumper run over some mejicanos over. :lol

[Spurtacular]

:lol you hate Hispanics.

Not at all.

[Chris]

:lol you hate Hispanics.

lol brown people

[Spurtacular]

lol brown people

:lol

[ElNono]

Imagine losing to brown people... :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Imagine losing to brown people... :lmaolol white people

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p21-OC1G-Kg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu9ShccG_SU

[RD2191]

1320433230160535560
:sombrero::sombrero::tu:tu

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1320560921022849024?s=19

Spurtacular :lmao

[Winehole23]

it was a senior moment for sure in today's gerontocracy.

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1320560921022849024?s=19

Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615) :lmao

Biden gonna show us how much the Democrats are able to ballot box stuff. This guy is a joke.

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-jD5cXcE8w

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGRD4guBGAo

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Uw4XGxi7w

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1321157762445922305?s=19

wtf is that music? :lol

[Joseph Kony]

you fags having fun stroking each others tiny dicks? :lol

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1321157762445922305?s=19

wtf is that music? :lol

This was an actual rally, Chrissy
1321179431260532739

Still I find the drive in rallies dumb. Any rallies in a pandemic is stupid, period.

[Spurtacular]

This was an actual rally, Chrissy
1321179431260532739

Still I find the drive in rallies dumb. Any rallies in a pandemic is stupid, period.

Looks like the colleges gave out extra credit for anyone attending. :lol

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1321157762445922305?s=19

wtf is that music? :lol

Guarantee you Biden's handlers started putting staffers in those circles.

It was getting pretty embarrassing having empty circles. :lol

[Reck]

Looks like the colleges gave out extra credit for anyone attending. :lol

See, this is why it doesn't matter what he does. He makes circles or whatever, then they must be staffers. There is a sizeable crowd of cars and they must be paid. lol derp

[Spurtacular]

See, this is why it doesn't matter what he does. He makes circles or whatever, then they must be staffers. There is a sizeable crowd of cars and they must be paid. lol derp

I know all the scams and I call them out. That hurts your feelings.

Your overlords didn't want real excitement or they would've selected Bernie.

[Spurtacular]

SMH. This guy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSQygNC6NLM

[Reck]

SMH. This guy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSQygNC6NLM

I would've called them retards, like you.

[Spurtacular]

I would've called them retards, like you.

Would you have then cried out that we got to be unified? :lol

[Spurtacular]

Biden definitely giving Hillary a run for her money.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtXziddC1ps

[Spurtacular]

:lol Moar bunker bitching.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY_mW14aS2s

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ-XuQRn1nw

[Spurtacular]

Deplorable talk. Good strategy. :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EOjJ60RuYM

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1321892919645626368?s=19

[Chris]

:lol Moar bunker bitching.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY_mW14aS2s

lmao they are so scared of getting exposed

[Spurtacular]

https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1321892919645626368?s=19

:lol You know nobody is showing up when the dude is just sitting there having a conversation with the patriot. :lmao :rollin

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1321892919645626368?s=19

Nothing else has worked so let's give heckling a good try. :lmao Chrissy

[Spurtacular]

Nothing else has worked so let's give heckling a good try. :lmao Chrissy

Dude's doing what "reporters" aren't allowed to do. :lmao

[Chris]

:lol You know nobody is showing up when the dude is just sitting there having a conversation with the patriot. :lmao :rollin

Joe lying his ass off :lol

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/KamVTV/status/1321883602930569217?s=19

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/KamVTV/status/1321883602930569217?s=19

lol legal problem

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/KamVTV/status/1321902646706528256?s=19

Spurtacular :lmao

[Leetonidas]

https://twitter.com/KamVTV/status/1321883602930569217?s=19

Fake news

[Reck]

https://twitter.com/KamVTV/status/1321902646706528256?s=19

Spurtacular (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=49615) :lmao

Exhibit #152245 on why Trump is getting curb stomped everywhere.

[Spurtacular]

Damn, this idiot is actually promising lockdowns for all. :lmao


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgK5_D67_M8

[Chris]

Exhibit #152245 on why Trump is getting curb stomped everywhere.

bless your little heart

[Chris]

Damn, this idiot is actually promising lockdowns for all. :lmao


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgK5_D67_M8

I love how his eyes get super wide when he's lying his ass off :lol

[Spurtacular]

I love how his eyes get super wide when he's lying his ass off :lol

He does the whisper voice when he's being devious. He made the exact same voice when he was boasting about his crime bill.

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD9KfmrDrsY

[pgardn]

https://youtu.be/FjtRbz1LE4Y


And they question Joe and his sanity.
Look at this btch sweat.

[Ef-man]

Even though he is shown as being totally unprepared and exposed as liar, some here will not remove their rose-colored glasses.


And they question Joe and his sanity.
Look at this btch sweat.

[pgardn]

Even though he is shown as being totally unprepared and exposed as liar, some here will not remove their rose-colored glasses.

I watched that whole thing.
Chris Wallace just batted him around.
The compilation is very nice.
Thanks for putting it up.

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMcvh-yURVw

[Chris]

https://i.ibb.co/23mgMb6/IMG-20201030-030057.jpg

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1322082023867998209?s=19

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1322082023867998209?s=19

:tu

[TimDunkem]

James Woods is still alive? :lmao

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/hollandcourtney/status/1322239388324032512?s=19

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlfKv3KNxDE

[Chris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlfKv3KNxDE

lol

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1322425842052567040?s=19

[Spurtacular]

pgardn

Here's an article for you. You begged for it. Enjoy the hammer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saving-private-biden-11603749110


Saving Private Biden
The press standard for 2020: No tough questions for the former vice president.

In the thick of the 2016 presidential campaign, the front page of the New York Times (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/NYT) handed down the word from on high: In the era of Donald Trump, press objectivity was a luxury America could not afford.It turned out that biased press coverage wasn’t enough to keep Mr. Trump from winning. So for 2020 the press introduced a new corollary: Joe Biden must never be asked a tough question.


In the past the media’s competitive juices, plus a presidential candidate’s interactions with the American people along the campaign trail, would have rendered this impossible. But Covid-19 gave Mr. Biden the excuse to stay in his basement, and the press corps has run interference for Mr. Biden rather than tackle the story.At the moment, the hard questions Mr. Biden is avoiding are about the lucrative deals his son made with politically connected Chinese and Ukrainian businesses, sometimes while riding alongside his father in Air Force 2. This past week, one of Hunter Biden’s former business partners, Anthony Bobulinski, accused the former vice president of lying when he said he never discussed his son’s overseas business dealings—and the Hunter Biden story became a Joe Biden story.

The elder Mr. Biden dismisses it all as Russian disinformation, though both the director of National Intelligence and the Federal Bureau of Investigation say there’s no evidence for that. Specifically, Mr. Biden has yet to say that the emails are phony and the laptop isn’t his son’s. Then again, he has never had to say that because the media won’t press him on it.

And not only the press. When the New York Post published texts and emails from the laptop, along with an explanation of how they came into the Post’s possession, Twitter (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/TWTR) and Facebook (https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/FB) ran interference by suppressing the story—and the Post—on their platforms. The rationale appears to be that Mr. Biden can’t handle the questions and the American people can’t be trusted to handle the answers.

This see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach to Mr. Biden started with Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer who accused the candidate of having sexually harassed her in 1993, when she’d worked for him. When Julie Swetnick asserted in 2018—without any corroboration—that she witnessed Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh participating in gang rapes at high-school parties, the Times ran the story the same day. But when Ms. Reade accused Mr. Biden of sexual assault, the previous believe-the-woman standard was given the heave-ho, and the Times waited 19 days to report it.

Meanwhile, Mr. Biden’s press conferences sometimes become a contest between reporters and the candidate to see who can hate Mr. Trump most. In August, after an anonymously sourced story in the Atlantic accused Mr. Trump of disparaging dead American soldiers from a World War I cemetery, the magazine’s Edward-Isaac Dovere asked Mr. Biden, “When you hear these remarks—‘suckers,’ ‘losers,’ ‘recoiling from amputees,’ what does that tell you about President Trump’s soul and the life he leads?”

Ed O’Keefe of CBS News noted Mr. Biden had said he was trying to restrain himself about Mr. Trump and then served up this hardball: “Aren’t there a lot of people out there who are supporting you or inclined to not vote for the president who would say, ‘Why isn’t Joe Biden angrier about all of this?’ ”

Or what about the Associated Press? In September it revised its stylebook to say reporters should use the term “unrest” instead of “riots” to describe the criminal violence in cities from Portland, Ore., to Kenosha, Wis. The AP now frowns on “looting” as well, urging greater sensitivity because President Trump has used the term.

It’s the job of the press to ask the hard questions and insist on answers, even at the risk of looking obnoxious. It isn’t biased, for example, to ask President Trump why, with polls showing more than half of the American people saying they are better off today than before he was elected, so many will still vote against him because they don’t like his personality and temperament.

But the toughness should apply equally. And no honest observer could say that, for example, of the recent and dueling town halls, where on ABC Mr. Biden had a leisurely chat with George Stephanopoulos while on NBC Savannah Guthrie savaged Mr. Trump. Not to mention the constant calls from reporters for the president to denounce white supremacists while studiously avoiding asking Mr. Biden about his condescending remark that anyone who doesn’t support him can’t be black.

The best summary of the new standard in election coverage was given by Mark Hemingway of RealClearInvestigations. After a particularly fawning news conference, he relayed the assessment of a friend: Watching the press handle Joe Biden is “like watching someone make sure a 3 year old wins Candyland.”

[Chris]

azPe_n2gOJQ

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1322604314305695749?s=19

[Reck]

^Weird coping mechanism.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1322611396392210432?s=19

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/ChanelRion/status/1322648357228085248?s=19

[Reck]

Oh look who wants to talk about taxes now. :lol

[Chris]

Oh look who wants to talk about taxes now. :lol

If you're referring to Trump, he did nothing wrong.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1322643443722657794?s=19

Spurtacular

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCVaAEWRjk

[ElNono]

You need control of the House to start an impeachment process...

Also, impeachment is for removal from office. In other words, if he loses there's no office to remove him from.

[Chris]

You need control of the House to start an impeachment process...

Also, impeachment is for removal from office. In other words, if he loses there's no office to remove him from.

Obama can still be impeached. :lol

[ElNono]

Obama can still be impeached. :lol

Not really. Anything else?

[Spurtacular]

You need control of the House to start an impeachment process...

Also, impeachment is for removal from office. In other words, if he loses there's no office to remove him from.

You really don't know that a person need not be holding office to be impeached?

And you tried to shit talk me on not knowing Constitutional law well enough to engage me, just the other day.

:lolK

[ElNono]

You really don't know that a person need not be holding office to be impeached?

And you tried to shit talk me on not knowing Constitutional law well enough to engage me, just the other day.

:lolK

Article II, Section 4 provides:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Any other questions?

[ElNono]

Too late derp :lol

[Spurtacular]

Article II, Section 4 provides:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Any other questions?

What's your point?

[Spurtacular]

Too late derp :lol

Not at all. You're wrong. I just wasn't eager to argue this in the margins.

[ElNono]

What's your point?

The Constitution clearly states who is subject to impeachment and what's the penalty for impeachment (removal from office, disqualification from holding federal office in the future).


Not at all. You're wrong. I just wasn't eager to argue this in the margins.

Nothing I've said so far in my previous posts is wrong or really arguable. I'm sure there are 'creative' interpretations of constitutional law in the matter, but none of which have actually been tested.

All the 20 impeachments in US history involved Presidents, a Senator, judges at different levels, or cabinet members.

[Spurtacular]

The Constitution clearly states who is subject to impeachment and what's the penalty for impeachment (removal from office, disqualification from holding federal office in the future).


The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Yup, no restriction stating that a person must currently be holding office to be impeached.

[Chris]

Not really. Anything else?

Yes really.

[Spurtacular]

Nothing I've said so far in my previous posts is wrong or really arguable. I'm sure there are 'creative' interpretations of constitutional law in the matter, but none of which have actually been tested.

All the 20 impeachments in US history involved Presidents, a Senator, judges at different levels, or cabinet members.

[smug bitch] Not wrong; not even arguable. [/smug bitch] : A person can be impeached at any federal office level. You conveniently take the positions that have garnered impeachment and obfuscate a text that just isn't there. A dude in federal mail room could be impeached. But it simply isn't going to be realistic for the House to dig that low.

[Chris]

The Constitution clearly states who is subject to impeachment and what's the penalty for impeachment (removal from office, disqualification from holding federal office in the future).



Nothing I've said so far in my previous posts is wrong or really arguable. I'm sure there are 'creative' interpretations of constitutional law in the matter, but none of which have actually been tested.

All the 20 impeachments in US history involved Presidents, a Senator, judges at different levels, or cabinet members.

"In the 1870s, Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War, William Belknap, was impeached on charges of corruption and bribery. He resigned his cabinet post before the House could actually vote to impeach him, but the House went ahead and impeached him anyway. There was a lengthy debate in the Senate over whether it had the power to put Belknap on trial for the charges brought by the House, since Belknap had resigned. In the end the trial went forward, but Belknap fell short of the 2/3 majority needed for conviction even though the evidence of his corruption was clear; most of the Senators who voted against conviction did so because they believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to try him now that he was out of office. But the fact that he was impeached and put on trial after resigning nevertheless could serve as a precedent for doing so to someone else again in the future."
-William Murphy - Professor of American History

[ElNono]

Yes really.

No, not really. Go ahead, make your point.

[ElNono]

"In the 1870s, Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War, William Belknap, was impeached on charges of corruption and bribery. He resigned his cabinet post before the House could actually vote to impeach him, but the House went ahead and impeached him anyway. There was a lengthy debate in the Senate over whether it had the power to put Belknap on trial for the charges brought by the House, since Belknap had resigned. In the end the trial went forward, but Belknap fell short of the 2/3 majority needed for conviction even though the evidence of his corruption was clear; most of the Senators who voted against conviction did so because they believed the Senate lacked jurisdiction to try him now that he was out of office. But the fact that he was impeached and put on trial after resigning nevertheless could serve as a precedent for doing so to someone else again in the future."
-William Murphy - Professor of American History

Exactly. Let's pretend the trial did go through. The penalty was removal from office, which he already did by resigning. Thus, why the impeachment was, for all intents and purposes, null and void.

[ElNono]

Yup, no restriction stating that a person must currently be holding office to be impeached.

It must be in order to start impeachment proceedings. And, as I stated, the House starts that process.

[Spurtacular]

It must be in order to start impeachment proceedings. And, as I stated, the House starts that process.

Okay, the House starts the process. That doesn't put a restriction on a person having to be currently holding office to be impeached.

[ElNono]

BTW, William Belknap was a cabinet member when the impeachment proceeding started. He resigned before the House voted to send it to trial to the Senate.

[Chris]

Exactly. Let's pretend the trial did go through. The penalty was removal from office, which he already did by resigning. Thus, why the impeachment was, for all intents and purposes, null and void.

Being banned from holding future office is not "null and void".

Stop flailing about and admit you were wrong.

[ElNono]

Okay, the House starts the process. That doesn't put a restriction on a person having to be currently holding office to be impeached.

I'll give you that the Constitution is vague on what a "civil Officers of the United States" is.

However, impeaching a non-member of government would be a first. Thus why I mentioned 'creative' interpretations of the Constitution.

Again, on logic alone, the penalty of impeachment is removal from office and inability to have a federal job again. If you're not holding office, there's nothing to remove. The only caveat would be precluding from holding a federal job again.

[Spurtacular]

Exactly. Let's pretend the trial did go through. The penalty was removal from office, which he already did by resigning. Thus, why the impeachment was, for all intents and purposes, null and void.

You say exactly like he's proving your point rather than shitting on it. :lol

It's not null and void. I'd have to see the wording of the impeachment as to whether it prohibits him from having that position or all federal positions. That's significant because if it's the latter, it stops him from slithering back into govt. And if it's the former, it prevents him from reattaining his post. In either event, many members of Congress thought he was so despicable that they went through with the impeachment.

By your argumentation, there would be no need to have went through with impeachment proceedings. But your argument is wrong, as this case shows.

[ElNono]

Being banned from holding future office is not "null and void".

Stop flailing about and admit you were wrong.

He was a member of government when his impeachment proceeding started. Period.

Impeaching a citizen not holding office would be a first. Sorry, history doesn't agree with you.

[Spurtacular]

Being banned from holding future office is not "null and void".

Stop flailing about and admit you were wrong.

Bam.

[ElNono]

You say exactly like he's proving your point rather than shitting on it. :lol

It's not null and void. I'd have to see the wording of the impeachment as to whether it prohibits him from having that position or all federal positions. That's significant because if it's the latter, it stops him from slithering back into govt. And if it's the former, it prevents him from reattaining his post. In either event, many members of Congress thought he was so despicable that they went through with the impeachment.

By your argumentation, there would be no need to have went through with impeachment proceedings. But your argument is wrong, as this case shows.

What you're obviating is that he was a member of government when impeachment proceedings started. He didn't quit before then, he quick AFTER the proceedings against him started, but before the vote.

Thus the notion you can impeach a non-member of government is indeed a 'creative' interpretation of the Constitution.

[ElNono]

I admit that in that particular case it was not null and void.

[ElNono]

However, I'm also pretty sure I'm correct about who can be impeached, and Obama could not be, unless he becomes part of Biden's government.

Biden himself couldn't be either, unless he wins.

[Spurtacular]

What you're obviating is that he was a member of government when impeachment proceedings started. He didn't quit before then, he quick AFTER the proceedings against him started, but before the vote.

Thus the notion you can impeach a non-member of government is indeed a 'creative' interpretation of the Constitution.

Belknap no longer held a position in government and he was still being impeached.

What is the point of impeachment? To keep corrupt individuals out of government. That is the endgame. If the concern rises to that level of needing to keep a person out, then the impeachment power is there. No restriction on holding office is in place as Belknap found out.

[Spurtacular]

However, I'm also pretty sure I'm correct about who can be impeached, and Obama could not be, unless he becomes part of Biden's government.

Biden himself couldn't be either, unless he wins.

Based on nothing but your feelings. No restriction is in place to stop him from being impeached tomorrow if impeachable offenses are determined.

[ElNono]

Belknap no longer held a position in government and he was still being impeached.

What is the point of impeachment? To keep corrupt individuals out of government. That is the endgame. If the concern rises to that level of needing to keep a person out, then the impeachment power is there. No restriction on holding office is in place as Belknap found out.

Not really. A guilty verdict by the Senate means removal, which is the actual point of impeachment. The keeping them away from federal office in the future is actually optional, and a separate vote from conviction.

[ElNono]

Based on nothing but your feelings. No restriction is in place to stop him from being impeached tomorrow if impeachable offenses are determined.

Nope, as I already explained, you have to be holding office when impeachment proceedings start. Per the Constitution you seemingly know and love so much.

Like I said, show me an impeachment proceeding started on a private citizen. I'll wait.

[Spurtacular]

Not really. A guilty verdict by the Senate means removal, which is the actual point of impeachment. The keeping them away from federal office in the future is actually optional, and a separate vote from conviction.

He already self-removed. I read about this a couple years back in Chernow's biography on him; but I don't remember all the details now. Apparently Belknap was such a sh** head that they impeached to keep him out for good. I hazily remember that it would went through except for something or other. Wish I remember; it was a good story. Either way; this shows the practical value of impeaching someone not in government.

I think your problem is you're worried about your heroes being impeached before or after the fact. You shouldn't worry though; the cowards in Congress don't want to go down that road. Too many of them will find themselves out on their asses if they start getting super moral like that. You should wish they had/do though. Impeachments of Hillary/Joe could've saved the Democrat Party from themselves. Instead, you're stuck with sh** for dinner.

[Spurtacular]

Nope, as I already explained, you have to be holding office when impeachment proceedings start. Per the Constitution you seemingly know and love so much.

Like I said, show me an impeachment proceeding started on a private citizen. I'll wait.

Sure. Belknap. He was a private citizen after his resignation. But that's really of no matter. There's still no prohibition listed in the Constitution on doing it. Any eligible office holder can be impeached if they've committed the applicable offenses.

[ElNono]

He already self-removed. I read about this a couple years back in Chernow's biography on him; but I don't remember all the details now. Apparently Belknap was such a sh** head that they impeached to keep him out for good. I hazily remember that it would went through except for something or other. Wish I remember; it was a good story. Either way; this shows the practical value of impeaching someone not in government.

There was never any doubt Belknap was extremely corrupt. But he was in government when impeachment proceedings were started on him.


I think your problem is you're worried about your heroes being impeached before or after the fact. You shouldn't worry though; the cowards in Congress don't want to go down that road. Too many of them will find themselves out on their asses if they start getting super moral like that. You should wish they had/do though. Impeachments of Hillary/Joe could've saved the Democrat Party from themselves. Instead, you're stuck with sh** for dinner.

Obama is not my hero, sorry to disappoint you. Now point me to one instance, in the long history of the US, and the 20 impeachment processes so far, when any of them were started on a private citizen.

[Spurtacular]

There was never any doubt Belknap was extremely corrupt. But he was in government when impeachment proceedings were started on him.

And that is of no consequence to the Constitutionality of it all. That is just something you're trying to apply. Again, nothing in the Constitution that hamstrings the House into only impeaching someone who has served.


Obama is not my hero, sorry to disappoint you. Now point me to one instance, in the long history of the US, and the 20 impeachment processes so far, when any of them were started on a private citizen.

Well, for whatever reason you are very protective to a point that you're making up conditions / parameters that are not there. So, I think there's more #StillWithWhomever than you're willing to admit.

[ElNono]

And that is of no consequence to the Constitutionality of it all. That is just something you're trying to apply. Again, nothing in the Constitution that hamstrings the House into only impeaching someone who has served.

Says who? I actually quoted the Constitution. It clearly states all civil Officers of the United States. That's not a private citizen.

Now, you can argue somebody can have a creative interpretation of that to include private citizens, but it would be a first.


Well, for whatever reason you are very protective to a point that you're making up conditions / parameters that are not there. So, I think there's more #StillWithWhomever than you're willing to admit.

What parameters are not there? You claim private citizens not holding office can be impeached. I'm asking you to provide me with one, just one impeachment proceeding that backs up that contention in the long history of this country.

You won't find it, and there's a reason you will not.

[Spurtacular]

Says who? I actually quoted the Constitution. It clearly states all civil Officers of the United States. That's not a private citizen.

Yes, in a separate article/section from the one that states the House has the power to impeach, it says circumstances in which civil officers may be impeached. That is still not a prohibition of a non office holder from being impeached. Not at all.

[Spurtacular]

What parameters are not there? You claim private citizens not holding office can be impeached. I'm asking you to provide me with one, just one impeachment proceeding that backs up that contention in the long history of this country.

You won't find it, and there's a reason you will not.

And I already named Belknap. Your argument is that he had held office. Well, he was still a private citizen at that point and not an office holder. By your logic, he was no longer applicable to be impeached. He was NOT a civil officer at that point.

[ElNono]

Yes, in a separate article/section from the one that states the House has the power to impeach, it says circumstances in which civil officers may be impeached. That is still not a prohibition of a non office holder from being impeached. Not at all.

I actually quoted the section that clearly stipulates who can be impeached. Again, just prove me wrong. 200+ years of this country, 20 impeachments, list me one started against a private citizen.

The whole argument is illogical and stupid. If Obama goes back to government, then he automatically becomes impeachable. So what's the point?

[Spurtacular]

I actually quoted the section that clearly stipulates who can be impeached.

Article? Section?

[Spurtacular]

200+ years of this country, 20 impeachments, list me one started against a private citizen.

Bellknap. Was no longer an officer and was a private citizen. Or are you arguing that he somehow wasn't a private citizen following his resignation?

[Spurtacular]

The whole argument is illogical and stupid. If Obama goes back to government, then he automatically becomes impeachable. So what's the point?

The point is to tell corrupt persons who may seek office that they're no longer worthy of conducting the affairs of the American people. It's a very strong point if you think about it.

[ElNono]

Article? Section?


Article II, Section 4 provides:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.


Bellknap. Was no longer an officer and was a private citizen. Or are you arguing that he somehow wasn't a private citizen following his resignation?

When the House started impeachment against him, he was Secretary of War. Those proceedings would not have started against him if he was not a government official (ie: a private citizen).

His resignation came AFTER impeachment proceedings started against him, but before the House actually voted to put him on trial via the senate.


The point is to tell corrupt persons who may seek office that they're no longer worthy of conducting the affairs of the American people. It's a very strong point if you think about it.

Never argued otherwise.

[Spurtacular]

*

Article II Section IV just stipulates the misdeeds for which those specific higheste officers shall be removed. It does nothing to diminish the powers of the House to diminish the House's power of impeachment granted in Article 1, Section 2.

[Spurtacular]

When the House started impeachment against him, he was Secretary of War. Those proceedings would not have started against him if he was not a government official (ie: a private citizen).

His resignation came AFTER impeachment proceedings started against him, but before the House actually voted to put him on trial via the senate.



Never argued otherwise.

Belknap was a private citizen by virtue of his resignation. He was still impeached.

This was done as there's no prohibition on impeaching a private citizen.

[Winehole23]

Somewhat counterintuitive, wonder what the calculation is here.

1322956473681481737

[Spurtacular]

Somewhat counterintuitive, wonder what the calculation is here.

1322956473681481737

You really don't understand this, Pakman?

[Reck]

You really don't understand this, Pakman?

Ohio is supposed to be Trump by at least 4-5 points. :lol

[Spurtacular]

Ohio is supposed to be Trump by at least 4-5 points. :lol

It'll be 7-12 points; but either way Biden doesn't have a chance there.

Keep trying, tranny.

[Winehole23]

You really don't understand this, Pakman?what's your gloss?

[Spurtacular]

what's your gloss?

Biden is winning no hearts and minds with his coffee shop greets and in fact doing damage in many cases.

Going to Ohio is just a sad attempt to psych out Repubs / get the soy boy left pumped up.

[Spurtacular]

Biden is winning no hearts and minds with his coffee shop greets and in fact doing damage in many cases.

Going to Ohio is just a sad attempt to psych out Repubs / get the soy boy left pumped up.

:lmao Called it.

1322957301397905409

[Ef-man]

https://twitter.com/calgirl98765/status/1322199795931344896

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1322970055009726465?s=19

Spurtacular

[Reck]

Is it a midget or does that chung guy has down syndrome?

[ElNono]

Belknap was a private citizen by virtue of his resignation. He was still impeached.

This was done as there's no prohibition on impeaching a private citizen.

His resignation came AFTER his impeachment proceeding started.

Read the snippet Chris posted, you can see how the Senate had misgivings as to whether they had standing at all.

Again, just prove me wrong. 200+ years of this country, 20 impeachments, list me one started against a private citizen.

[ElNono]

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1322970055009726465?s=19

Spurtacular

Good for Ian :tu

[Spurtacular]

His resignation came AFTER his impeachment proceeding started.

Read the snippet Chris posted, you can see how the Senate had misgivings as to whether they had standing at all.

Again, just prove me wrong. 200+ years of this country, 20 impeachments, list me one started against a private citizen.

They impeached a private citizen. Clearly the misgivings passed. :lol

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icUaWOFi3CY

:lmao :rollin

[Spurtacular]

https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/B27CDAEA-1962-4871-9596-93085B1B6161.jpeg?quality=80&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1

Califoria plates, Karrins-DarrinS (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042)

[ElNono]

They impeached a private citizen. Clearly the misgivings passed. :lol

Nope, they impeached a the Secretary of War. Again, read the snippet Chris posted.

Stop beating around the bush, just prove me wrong. 200+ years of this country, 20 impeachments, list me one started against a private citizen.

[Spurtacular]

Nope, they impeached a the Secretary of War. Again, read the snippet Chris posted.

Stop beating around the bush, just prove me wrong. 200+ years of this country, 20 impeachments, list me one started against a private citizen.

Did the impeachment trial against a private citizen. Your feelings are hurt on this one.

[ElNono]

Did the impeachment trial against a private citizen. Your feelings are hurt on this one.

You can't have the trial without the House starting the process and bringing the articles of impeachment, period.

This is where this conversation started: you need control of the House to start any impeachment process.

[Ef-man]

Nope, they impeached a the Secretary of War. Again, read the snippet Chris posted.

Stop beating around the bush, just prove me wrong. 200+ years of this country, 20 impeachments, list me one started against a private citizen.

:lmao
Derp is having moar coping issues and cannot bear to read qchrisy’s post.

W for ElNoNo just for pointing out derp’s failure to read.

[Spurtacular]

You can't have the trial without the House starting the process and bringing the articles of impeachment, period.

This is where this conversation started: you need control of the House to start any impeachment process.

If you're saying they had impeached already fine. He resigned and was a private citizen. They continued with the impeachment anyways. Precedent set to go along with no prohibition on it in the first place. :tu

[Spurtacular]

Oh how the mighty have fallen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDWpJ2lJ73U

[Chris]

Oh how the mighty have fallen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDWpJ2lJ73U

You love to see it.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1323106901760987136?s=19

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1323123762489921542?s=19

[Spurtacular]

Hot off the press.
Published 47 seconds ago...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy_2ueH6EKs

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IryA5fV74jc

[spurraider21]

Hot off the press.
Published 47 seconds ago...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy_2ueH6EKs
:lmao yes we all knew you constantly refresh youtube to get your marching orders from hivemind

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZG6rkrMj28

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImmJRrGt3mg

[Spurtacular]

1322625496434110464

[Reck]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImmJRrGt3mg

derp playing the what if game. :lol

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZlGEjAi2Ns

[Ef-man]

Is qchris a man of his word?

I doubt it!



If Trump loses, I will log out and you wil never see me again.

Bet on that.

[Spurtacular]

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBV0gtE.img?h=582&w=1119&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=f&l=f

Uh, turns out...

[spurraider21]

If Trump loses, I will log out and you wil never see me again.

Bet on that.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/de/9e/38de9ea933036b54871fe1fe61cc87c0.gif

[Spurtacular]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/de/9e/38de9ea933036b54871fe1fe61cc87c0.gif


It'd be your loss, not his.

[spurraider21]

It'd be your loss, not his.
he got Jimmer'd

https://media0.giphy.com/media/dBg5oV2gEyKAmNvpcp/giphy.gif

[ElNono]

that's terrible, tbh...

Imagine losing to that guy though :lol


If Trump loses, I will log out and you wil never see me again.

Bet on that.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/80/93/7e80931494d5e1e0285082189f244a25.gif

[spurraider21]

If Trump loses, I will log out and you wil never see me again.

Bet on that.
we see you, daboom1

[Spurtacular]

we see you, daboom1 (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=54188)
Chris really hurt you.