US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Last edited:
People are muttering that the impeachment articles delay and refusal to call witnesses is to keep Hunter and Joe Biden off the witness stand and have Biden's politicial rivals in the senate have to leave the campaign trail to be at impeachment hearings 6 days a week...
Right in time to be happening mere weeks before the first caucus.
I wonder if this ever gets revealed as a strategy in some sort of Donna Brazille tell-all book?
Jesus fucking christ......if this is genuinely the DNC's "grand strategy" to ensure a biden candidacy then this may legitimately be the most dumb fucking conspiracy in recent human history

Doing all this....burning so much political capital....humiliating themselves so utterly....just to put this senile fucking child fondling retard in front of the Trump Train?!
CPTmPeJUwAA-3br.jpg


If this is true then the only explanation that doesnt prove the DNC to be the most buttshittingly stupid political organisation in history is if this is all a long game by Hillary Clinton to discredit all her remaining rivals and clear a path for a 2024 run with zero risk of losing to Trump again
 
Jesus fucking christ......if this is genuinely the DNC's "grand strategy" to ensure a biden candidacy then this may legitimately be the most dumb fucking conspiracy in recent human history

Doing all this....burning so much political capital....humiliating themselves so utterly....just to put this senile fucking child fondling retard in front of the Trump Train?!
View attachment 1092848

If this is true then the only explanation that doesnt prove the DNC to be the most buttshittingly stupid political organisation in history is if this is all a long game by Hillary Clinton to discredit all her remaining rivals and clear a path for a 2024 run with zero risk of losing to Trump again
Or the neolibs in the DNC realize that they've rolled snake eyes for their own candidates, and the only people with a snowball's chance in hell of winning are died-in-the-wool socialists. Therefore the DNC donor class is intentionally throwing the 2020 election to stop said socialists from gaining power and potentially taxing the shit out of them.
 
If this is true then the only explanation that doesnt prove the DNC to be the most buttshittingly stupid political organisation in history is if this is all a long game by Hillary Clinton to discredit all her remaining rivals and clear a path for a 2024 run with zero risk of losing to Trump again
Not so fast shillary...you will have Kanye to contend with!
 
Which republicans are banned from challenging because of a consent decree.

Oh wait! That expired in 2018. Which means 2020 could be VERY interesting indeed.

Only if the RNC has the balls to actually fight back when the DNC tries it again. Because the second they do, the DNC will scream bloody fucking murder and call them every name in the book. "You're just racists! You're trying to SUPPRESS THE BLACK VOTE! You're TRYING TO STEAL THE ELECTION!!!!11!!1one THIS IS A DNC DISTRICT IT'S OUR TURN!!!!!!!!!"

The way the social engineering in the bubble works is the DNC has convinced their base the RNC cheats at every step, so the DNC cheating is just making it "fair."

Trump and the New Right -- the grant Shitposter alliance -- has started rebuilding the right's spine, but the NeoCons and oldfag Republicans are still cucked and flinch every time the left threatens to bring up a social issue. Will they cave when the DNC freaks out on them, demanding the right to cheat at elections?

Edit: For a preview of this, look at the general aneurysm Twitter had when Christian Conservative New-Righties pointed out that porn is a vice and it's kinda sick that people (including chidlren) have free unlimited access to it nowadays.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 1092393
View attachment 1092392
This is fucking insane. When she first announced they were going to pull this move I thought "wow, that seems like a terrible idea. They must have some kind of plan or something, nobody could be dumb enough to do that without a plan." Never giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt ever again. They gloated for 2 weeks straight and then the second McConnell tells them to get fucked they immediately capitulate. How the fuck did they expect this to end? Why would they set themselves up to look like huge morons like this?
I'm pretty sure that, anytime after 6:30 or so in the evening, Rep Pelosi begins to forget where and when she is.
 
Which republicans are banned from challenging because of a consent decree.

Oh wait! That expired in 2018. Which means 2020 could be VERY interesting indeed.
There's got to be a better way to do this than direct returns on snail mail.
 
Do the Dems really care about winning the white house that much this term? It's pretty unlikely and a waste of money. The smart move is hyping their base up with all this theater and trying to parlay it into local down ballot stuff.
Yes they do, Biden and Warren will defeat Orange Hitler as all guns are banned and this country will resemble a degenerate western Europe where the rich whites live in comfort while the poor whites get fucked by illegals and immigrants. Leading to a future potential Haiti style revolution or the maybe the western style Iranian Revolution as the Mahdi defeats the Jewish Gay Nigger Troon alliance.
 
Do the Dems really care about winning the white house that much this term? It's pretty unlikely and a waste of money. The smart move is hyping their base up with all this theater and trying to parlay it into local down ballot stuff.

It's more that they can't stop, because their base is running on pure unbridled emotion, and if they're ever given a chance to calm down, they might realize Trump isn't actually Orange Hitler and they've been played for saps.

They will not stop the panic until a Democrat gets in power again, be that in 2021, 2025, 2029... doesn't matter. Until they have power again, it's going to be all panic, all the time.

This will, of course, not work. Eventually, their base is either going to escalate into more extreme acts of domestic terror, or they're going to start having breakdowns.
 
How long until the left claims not allowing illegals to vote is voter suppression?
San Francisco already lets them vote in local elections.

San Francisco will allow noncitizens to vote in a local election, creating a new immigration flashpoint

Los Angeles Times Article (Archive)

San Francisco in November will become the largest city in the nation to allow noncitizens the chance to vote in a local election, making the city once again a flashpoint in the debate about immigration.
Noncitizens, including those without legal status, will be allowed to vote only in a school board race and just a little more than 40 have registered to vote so far.
Still, the decision carries major symbolic force and has become the latest punching bag for conservatives who already are using California’s efforts to protect people in this country illegally from President Trump’s immigration crackdown as a political issue in the midterm election.
California has gone further than any other state in offering opportunities to those here illegally, including providing special driver’s licenses, college tuition breaks and child healthcare. Voting has been a more sensitive topic, but experts said it fits both the larger political trends in California as well as the conservative backlash.

“It will speak to that sort of sense that change is coming to the United States and that change is being done extralegally somehow,” said Louis DeSipio, a professor of political science at UC Irvine.
It’s no surprise San Francisco’s action will further rally conservatives, who are also using the exodus of thousands of Central Americans headed to the U.S. border en masse as an issue, said Robin Hvidston, executive director of We the People Rising, a Claremont organization that lobbies for stricter immigration enforcement.
“Noncitizen voting is a very contentious issue,” Hvidston said. “The move to extend voting rights to those illegally residing in San Francisco has the potential to backfire among citizens with a moderate stance on illegal immigration.”
In the last week, alt-right publications, anti-illegal immigration activists and nationalist online chat rooms have grabbed on to the issue. A tweet posted this week by World Net Daily to promote a story about the election reads: “The gates have now been opened to letting non-citizens to vote. Is this the beginning of the end?”

Conservative Assemblyman Travis Allen chimed in, tweeting: “****ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS NOW VOTING in @GavinNewsom‘s San Francisco**** Non-citizens now ‘eligible’ to vote in November’s local election due to Democrat ordinance. The CA Democrat Party has gone too far. It’s time we TAKE BACK CALIFORNIA!!”
Shamann Walton, a San Francisco Unified School District commissioner who introduced a resolution to the school board in support of the measure in 2016, said he doesn’t buy into the rhetoric from the right.
“At the end of the day, for me it’s important that families who have children in our schools … have a say,” he said.

The San Francisco Unified School District doesn’t keep track of how many of its students or parents are noncitizens. The district website reports that 29% of its 54,063 students are English-language learners — an indication of the size of the district’s immigrant population. An estimated 35,000 people without legal status live in San Francisco, according to a 2017 Pew Research report.
The city’s voters approved the measure two years ago during the same election as Donald Trump’s presidential victory that would lead to an immigration crackdown and intensified rhetoric against people living in the country illegally.
As a result, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance in May requiring a notice to be included with every registration affidavit and other election material that informs voters that their information could reach U.S. immigration officials, said John Arntz, director of San Francisco’s Department of Elections.
“I share the same fear [as] our undocumented residents,” Walton said. “I don’t expect people to rush to the polls and give the federal government the opportunity to attack our city residents.”

As of Tuesday afternoon, 42 noncitizens had registered to vote in the local election, Arntz said. The registration deadline was Monday, but the state also allows people to conditionally register and vote on election day.
Noncitizens who register to vote in the school board race must give their name, address and date of birth. They can’t vote in state or federal elections and are listed on a separate roster from U.S. citizens. Noncitizens are given a ballot with only the school board contest.
Noncitizen voting has been an issue for the last several years, especially in communities with large immigrant populations.
Advocates who support giving noncitizens the right to vote in local elections have said it gives this population more of a stake in their communities. Voter apathy is high in some of these areas, a condition that can allow corruption to run rampant, as shown in the Southern California city of Bell, which was marred by scandal and criminal convictions of city leaders nearly a decade ago.
Los Angeles and Orange counties are home to an estimated 1 million people who are in the country illegally, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center study. In California, it’s about 2.35 million.
San Francisco’s expansion of voting rights follows similar actions in several other cities, said Joshua A. Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law who specializes in election law and voting rights
For years, Takoma Park in Maryland has allowed noncitizens to vote in all city elections. Two years ago, the Hyattsville City Council in the same state unanimously voted to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, Douglas said.
Some Massachusetts towns, such as Amherst and Cambridge, have passed resolutions to support noncitizen voting in local elections, though the changes haven’t gone into effect. They are still waiting for approval of state lawmakers, he said.

Noncitizen voting is nothing new, and has a long history in the United States.
“Noncitizen voting was not considered at all that radical until a backlash during post World War I,” Douglas said. “It was really the anti-immigrant sentiment that pulled back against noncitizen voting.”
Ever since the nation’s founding up to the 1920s, many states allowed noncitizens to vote in all elections. States amended their laws to take away voting rights in the aftermath of World War I. Still, noncitizens could participate in city and school board elections in many areas.
Slowly, there’s been a resurgence to allow noncitizens to vote in more local races, Douglas said.
For now, it seems, San Francisco’s move turned out to be largely symbolic. Walton said the resolution was supposed to lead to real change. He said he never imagined the American people would elect Trump, who has been so stridently against both legal and illegal immigration. But, Walton said, it won’t always be this way.
“Trump will not always be president,” he said. “Hopefully we’ll have leaders who are inclusive and really believe that if you are a resident of this country, you should have the same rights as other people. I’m looking forward to a time when our families will have a bigger voice.”https://archive.li/8Be0p/f0023e02f39447a5699b61fe433606576237e5c7
 
Last edited:
San Francisco already lets them vote in local elections.

San Francisco will allow noncitizens to vote in a local election, creating a new immigration flashpoint

Los Angeles Times Article (Archive)

San Francisco in November will become the largest city in the nation to allow noncitizens the chance to vote in a local election, making the city once again a flashpoint in the debate about immigration.
Noncitizens, including those without legal status, will be allowed to vote only in a school board race and just a little more than 40 have registered to vote so far.
Still, the decision carries major symbolic force and has become the latest punching bag for conservatives who already are using California’s efforts to protect people in this country illegally from President Trump’s immigration crackdown as a political issue in the midterm election.
California has gone further than any other state in offering opportunities to those here illegally, including providing special driver’s licenses, college tuition breaks and child healthcare. Voting has been a more sensitive topic, but experts said it fits both the larger political trends in California as well as the conservative backlash.

“It will speak to that sort of sense that change is coming to the United States and that change is being done extralegally somehow,” said Louis DeSipio, a professor of political science at UC Irvine.
It’s no surprise San Francisco’s action will further rally conservatives, who are also using the exodus of thousands of Central Americans headed to the U.S. border en masse as an issue, said Robin Hvidston, executive director of We the People Rising, a Claremont organization that lobbies for stricter immigration enforcement.
“Noncitizen voting is a very contentious issue,” Hvidston said. “The move to extend voting rights to those illegally residing in San Francisco has the potential to backfire among citizens with a moderate stance on illegal immigration.”
In the last week, alt-right publications, anti-illegal immigration activists and nationalist online chat rooms have grabbed on to the issue. A tweet posted this week by World Net Daily to promote a story about the election reads: “The gates have now been opened to letting non-citizens to vote. Is this the beginning of the end?”

Conservative Assemblyman Travis Allen chimed in, tweeting: “****ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS NOW VOTING in @GavinNewsom‘s San Francisco**** Non-citizens now ‘eligible’ to vote in November’s local election due to Democrat ordinance. The CA Democrat Party has gone too far. It’s time we TAKE BACK CALIFORNIA!!”
Shamann Walton, a San Francisco Unified School District commissioner who introduced a resolution to the school board in support of the measure in 2016, said he doesn’t buy into the rhetoric from the right.
“At the end of the day, for me it’s important that families who have children in our schools … have a say,” he said.

The San Francisco Unified School District doesn’t keep track of how many of its students or parents are noncitizens. The district website reports that 29% of its 54,063 students are English-language learners — an indication of the size of the district’s immigrant population. An estimated 35,000 people without legal status live in San Francisco, according to a 2017 Pew Research report.
The city’s voters approved the measure two years ago during the same election as Donald Trump’s presidential victory that would lead to an immigration crackdown and intensified rhetoric against people living in the country illegally.
As a result, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance in May requiring a notice to be included with every registration affidavit and other election material that informs voters that their information could reach U.S. immigration officials, said John Arntz, director of San Francisco’s Department of Elections.
“I share the same fear [as] our undocumented residents,” Walton said. “I don’t expect people to rush to the polls and give the federal government the opportunity to attack our city residents.”

As of Tuesday afternoon, 42 noncitizens had registered to vote in the local election, Arntz said. The registration deadline was Monday, but the state also allows people to conditionally register and vote on election day.
Noncitizens who register to vote in the school board race must give their name, address and date of birth. They can’t vote in state or federal elections and are listed on a separate roster from U.S. citizens. Noncitizens are given a ballot with only the school board contest.
Noncitizen voting has been an issue for the last several years, especially in communities with large immigrant populations.
Advocates who support giving noncitizens the right to vote in local elections have said it gives this population more of a stake in their communities. Voter apathy is high in some of these areas, a condition that can allow corruption to run rampant, as shown in the Southern California city of Bell, which was marred by scandal and criminal convictions of city leaders nearly a decade ago.
Los Angeles and Orange counties are home to an estimated 1 million people who are in the country illegally, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center study. In California, it’s about 2.35 million.
San Francisco’s expansion of voting rights follows similar actions in several other cities, said Joshua A. Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law who specializes in election law and voting rights
For years, Takoma Park in Maryland has allowed noncitizens to vote in all city elections. Two years ago, the Hyattsville City Council in the same state unanimously voted to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, Douglas said.
Some Massachusetts towns, such as Amherst and Cambridge, have passed resolutions to support noncitizen voting in local elections, though the changes haven’t gone into effect. They are still waiting for approval of state lawmakers, he said.

Noncitizen voting is nothing new, and has a long history in the United States.
“Noncitizen voting was not considered at all that radical until a backlash during post World War I,” Douglas said. “It was really the anti-immigrant sentiment that pulled back against noncitizen voting.”
Ever since the nation’s founding up to the 1920s, many states allowed noncitizens to vote in all elections. States amended their laws to take away voting rights in the aftermath of World War I. Still, noncitizens could participate in city and school board elections in many areas.
Slowly, there’s been a resurgence to allow noncitizens to vote in more local races, Douglas said.
For now, it seems, San Francisco’s move turned out to be largely symbolic. Walton said the resolution was supposed to lead to real change. He said he never imagined the American people would elect Trump, who has been so stridently against both legal and illegal immigration. But, Walton said, it won’t always be this way.
“Trump will not always be president,” he said. “Hopefully we’ll have leaders who are inclusive and really believe that if you are a resident of this country, you should have the same rights as other people. I’m looking forward to a time when our families will have a bigger voice.”https://archive.li/8Be0p/f0023e02f39447a5699b61fe433606576237e5c7
1906 was not enough. For those who get it, NERDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.
 
In my state it's the LAW to purge voter rolls after sending notice and not receiving replies. But the appeal to a decision to block the purge is on hold waiting for the state Supreme Court to hear it (or something like that). Of course it's the Dems who are against it, probably because most of their constituents are idiots and can't read.
Link
 
The level of denial the left is on currently is unbelievable. The mental gymnastics a good chunk of them are doing to turn this capitulation of Pelosi into a win are outright schizo.
Denial.png
This whole "She is a master strategist with plans within plans that we mere mortals cant ever understand, we are totally going to win guyzzzz" is getting old quick
 
In my state it's the LAW to purge voter rolls after sending notice and not receiving replies. But the appeal to a decision to block the purge is on hold waiting for the state Supreme Court to hear it (or something like that). Of course it's the Dems who are against it, probably because most of their constituents are idiots and can't read.
Link
Well obviously all the dead people need representation, and how are we going to have that if we don't let them vote?
 
Back