The Libertarian Party and Current Candidates

I keep checking in on the people running for presidency as Libertarian, and each time I am disappointed. It seems more like it is being taken over by moderate democrats or just plain idiots. There is support for things like open borders, medicare for all, and even restrictions on guns like requiring training courses. While some may argue that open borders are okay, I disagree for reasons around private property. There also to be some banking on the idea that they can simply dissolve bits of the government away with little to no transition outlined. It almost seems like the only sane person running is Vermin Supreme.

I did see on Arvin Vohra in his mention of removing all restrictions on immigration he also mentions eliminating social welfare programs. That deals with a big problem a lot of people have, but it still ignores the obvious security problem of some people just hate other people and want to do harm for next to no reason. It would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where people only did things for incentive. The fact of the matter is, we don't.

If I had to pick a Libertarian candidate, it would probably be Arvin Vohra based on his stances on issues. I won't though, because I highly doubt any of the candidates have real solid plans for what they can accomplish. I'm more inclined to vote for Trump, mostly as a big middle finger to all the stupid pandering going on. I may disagree with a lot of what he does, but I don't think we're done shaking things up yet.

As for the Libertarian party, I don't know if it was taken over by the homeless moderate dems, or if that is just a target group they are trying to get support from to gain more recognition. Either way, it is annoying. Before the gatekeepers of who is libertarian and who is a fakertarian/lolbertarian try to say I am not really libertarian, here's a quick shot of my results from isidewith.com.

I'm a fairly right wing libertarian, but a libertarian nonetheless.

Maybe next presidential election, people will get their heads out of their backsides and actually gain some perspective. I think for now we are stuck because the DNC is having its own internal war between the career dems and the socialists, leaving many politically homeless with no place to go on the left.

Is a President Impeached if it Does Not Go to The Senate

I have seen a few things arguing back and forth about if Trump is impeached or not. Most of them contain legal terms, metaphors, or references to the British laws around all the house of lords stuff that we got the impeachment stuff from. I notice this more and more, but the real problem in my opinion, stems from language changes. People now do not speak like people from them. Writing is also different than how we speak, and that has changed as well. I am no legal expert or language expert, but I am an IT person who hinges everything on logic. So let us look at things from a logical computer perspective because why not.

The argument seems to stem over whether impeachment is a process or a declaration by vote. It is being compared to the term indicted, but by logic different words are used for a reason. Let's check out the etymology first.

formerly also empeach, late 14c., empechen, "to impede, hinder, prevent;" early 15c., "cause to be stuck, run (a ship) aground," also "prevent (from doing something)," from Anglo-French empecher, Old French empeechier "to hinder, stop, impede; capture, trap, ensnare" (12c., Modern French empêcher), from Late Latin impedicare "to fetter, catch, entangle," from assimilated form of in- "into, in" (from PIE root *en "in") + Latin pedica "a shackle, fetter," from pes (genitive pedis) "foot" (from PIE root *ped- "foot"). In law, at first in a broad sense, "to accuse, bring charges against" from late 14c.; more specifically, of the king or the House of Commons, "to bring formal accusation of treason or other high crime against (someone)" from mid-15c.  The sense of "accuse a public officer of misconduct" had emerged from this by 1560s. The sense shift is perhaps via Medieval Latin confusion of impedicare with Latin impetere "attack, accuse" (see impetus), which is from the Latin verb petere "aim for, rush at" (from PIE root *pet- "to rush, to fly"). The Middle English verb apechen, probably from an Anglo-French variant of the source of impeach, was used from early 14c. in the sense "to accuse (someone), to charge (someone with an offense)."

So what does all that mean? Well it says to accuse, bring charges against when talking about law. Specifically, formal charges. This is where the little logic loop is coming from. The president is accused, but since the Senate does not have the stuff, the charges have not been brought. This still is not a definitive answer, as this is the word generically which to me seems like it could be interpreted both ways right now. He is accused, but there are no charges being brought up yet.

In one of the videos I watched, the key piece being brought to say he is impeached is where it states the House of Representatives has the "sole power of impeachment." This is where language is going to get annoying. The law also says that the Senate has the sole power to try the impeachment. So let's put these side by side and compare with logic.

"SOLE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT" and "SOLE POWER TO TRY ALL IMPEACHMENTS"

To try an impeachment would, to me, indicate that it is being used in the form of an accusation. This falls in line with the result if the charges go through, that being the point a president would actually be removed from office. If that works well, let's apply it backwards. Sole power of accusation (impeachment). This to me means that the main separation for the "sole power of impeachment" means they are the only ones who can start the ball rolling.

So back to the question, is he impeached after a vote if it has not reached the Senate yet? If I were programming something to give an answer on that, legally, sure? I can see an argument for either direction, but the bigger argument I see is that unless it goes to the senate and has a trial and results in actually going through, it's purely a moot point. The impeachment in a legal sense is nothing more than a formal accusation.

I think another problem we are having is people in our system are doing things that make no sense to drag out the dog and pony show that just frustrates everyone. I blame career politicians.

Concerns About Impeachment Talk

While people are focused on President Donald Trump being impeached, it seems to me that the way things are being worded and done by the democrats should be raising red flags all over. There is plenty to criticize Trump on, there should be a big focus on how things are conducted and stated.

We have had private phone records made public. This is the major red flag that got me paying attention to what was going on. It seems insane to me that people would be okay with a person having their privacy violated just because it might take care of someone you don't like.

We have had it stated twice now that I have seen that they want to get Trump impeached because they think if they don't he will get re-elected. Despite there being no findings of Trump colluding, they say he will cheat AGAIN. They say we cannot rely on an election to solve our problems. The whole point of elections is to show the will of the people, and if they want Trump, then why would they go against that.

There are three different reactions I have seen so far to all of this. I have heard people call Schiff a hero and "the greatest speaker of all time," and that the evidence is obvious and overwhelming. I have seen people say nothing will happen and are just wanting to ride it out. I have seen people outraged by the democrats disregard for the process and think it's absolutely ridiculous. It should be shocking, but that is also pretty much in order of the age of people from youngest to oldest as well.

In the end, I doubt anything will actually come out of all of this except a big helping hand to getting Trump re-elected.