Octopus Overlords

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:14 pm Can we please start referring to him now simply as 'Florida man?'

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:16 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:14 pm Can we please start referring to him now simply as 'Florida man?'

Twice impeached Florida orange man.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:21 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:16 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:14 pm Can we please start referring to him now simply as 'Florida man?'

Twice impeached Florida Orange.

FTFY

stessier wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:38 pm

Max Peck wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:21 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:16 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:14 pm Can we please start referring to him now simply as 'Florida man?'

Florida Orange In Two Peaches

FTFY

FTFY

Brian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:29 pmTTY

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:36 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 1:14 pm Can we please start referring to him now simply as 'Florida man?'

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 4:09 pm

Brian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 22, 2021 3:29 pmTTY

ATDT5551212

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:12 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:39 pm Well, we'll be paying him $200+k a year for what life he has left, and gets $150k/year for 2.5 years for staff. It drops to $96k afterwards.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:05 pm Populated with "former White House aides" because they can't get a job anywhere else. I wonder who is paying for this shit because it sure isn't him.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:54 pm I'm pretty sure he's going to need to figure out a new logo; I don't think he gets carte blanche use of that moving forward.

But hey, enjoy what time you have left, Donald.

Tick-tock.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:54 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:05 pm Populated with "former White House aides" because they can't get a job anywhere else. I wonder who is paying for this shit because it sure isn't him.

This has to be a vehicle for money laundering.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:02 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:54 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:05 pm Populated with "former White House aides" because they can't get a job anywhere else. I wonder who is paying for this shit because it sure isn't him.

This has to be a vehicle for money laundering.

More like tax evasion. You know they'll run this out of a closet in Mar-a-Lago and charge it some ridiculous amount of rent and write off the whole thing as a loss.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:46 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:39 pm Well, we'll be paying him $200+k a year for what life he has left, and gets $150k/year for 2.5 years for staff. It drops to $96k afterwards.

All of which combined pales in comparison to their travel budget of $1.5M annually.

A viral tweet claims that impeaching President Donald Trump for a second time would mean he would lose the ability to run for president in 2024.

That's not true. Nor are other claims in the tweet.

The tweet was posted on Friday, two days after a Capitol insurrection by a mob of Trump supporters sparked a new impeachment push from House Democrats.

As of early Monday, it had more than 181,000 retweets and 725,000 likes. It says the following: "For those wondering if it's worth impeaching him this time, it means he:
1) loses his 200k+ pension for the rest of his life
2) loses his 1 million dollar/year travel allowance
3) loses lifetime full secret service detail
4) loses his ability to run in 2024"

Facts First: The tweet is inaccurate in multiple ways.
1) Trump would lose his post-presidency pension only if both the House voted to impeach him and then the Senate voted to remove him from office; impeachment itself, without removal, would not result in Trump being denied any benefits.
2) The law makes clear that presidents who have lifetime Secret Service protection never get a $1 million travel allowance.
3) It is unclear that Trump would lose lifetime Secret Service protection even if the Senate voted to remove him and prohibit him from running.
4) Even a Senate vote to remove Trump would not prohibit him from running in 2024; for the Senate to ban him from the presidency, it would have to hold an additional vote on this question.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:34 am I have heard that the ban from holding future office (after a successful conviction vote of 2/3) is a simple majority.

Neither a second House impeachment nor even a Senate vote to convict Trump and remove him from office would prevent him from running again, in 2024 or beyond.

Rather, after two-thirds of senators present voted to remove Trump, a simple majority of senators present would have to approve an additional vote to bar him from the presidency in the future.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:37 pm Is the vote on that ban contingent on Trump being convicted by the Senate or can that vote be taken even if he is acquitted?

stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:38 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:37 pm Is the vote on that ban contingent on Trump being convicted by the Senate or can that vote be taken even if he is acquitted?

Has to be convicted first. It's basically the penalty phase of the trial.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:41 pm The GOP is in quite the pickle. They can't stop him from screwing up the 2024 election unless they find him guilty. But if they find him guilty, they risk their own necks and the brand of the party. But if they don't stop him from running, they risk him fracturing the party. What to do!

YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:12 pm I must say, seeing the Republican party in a "no-win" situation is quite satisfying after the last 4 years.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:46 pm

stessier wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:38 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:37 pm Is the vote on that ban contingent on Trump being convicted by the Senate or can that vote be taken even if he is acquitted?

Has to be convicted first. It's basically the penalty phase of the trial.

FWIW there's an argument that they can use the anti-insurrection parts of the 14th amendment, aside from impeachment:



I doubt that they would, but it is a potential option.