Impeachment charges: — 1. Undermining the Senate — 2. Being IG — 3. Being inactive — 4. Being cringe — 5. Being unfunny —

I'm upvoting, but I don't know why, since I'm generally anti-impeachment.

I just upvoted.
I didn't vote to support impeachment.

1. Undermining the Senate

This is straightforward. BritishMormon's policies amount to contempt for this constitutional office. He's sought to have barely-active henchmen representing tiny/unknown streams appointed to Senate. He's proposed bills that would further strip the Senate of power. He's otherwise allowed this key check-and-balance institution to wither.

Can anyone even name the Senators who are supposedly representing us now? Exactly.

We just formally announced who are senators are...

imgflip.com/i/6vlbkk

I'm sorry, was that in your opinion?

You're midway through your term and have expressed an intention to run for re-election. Perfect time to take stock of your record.

You're less active than a typical President - Congress activity has dwindled to minimal - the Senate is a nonentity - there are multiple credible data-points that suggest you're a formerly deleted user - you clearly intend to secure power once again with your base of barely-active users that have been memorably described as "mail-in voters."

Add it all up and it's a solid case for impeachment.

Yea

Now that’s a lotta damage! I highly doubt impeachment will go anywhere, considering the votes just aren’t there for it to pass, but it has my support.

3. Being inactive
4. Being cringe
5. Being unfunny

Being inactive, being cringe, and being unfunny are weak bases for impeachment in and of themselves - things we're all guilty of from time to time. Scar can toss these charges out if they don't apply. But I'm throwing them in anyway, because they're true.

Cry about it!

Bottom-line, impeachment is a political process, and boils down to one question: Do the users of I_P (the actually active users) want BritishMormon as President again?

I think it's time to ask.

“If President announces leave or has been inactive for 3 days, then the VP steps in, and so on and so forth” idk that’s how I remember it

Much like the U.S. Constitution, the way Congress seats are allocated here, plus the high 2/3 supermajority requirement, gives any impeachment effort very steep odds - but that's no reason not to pursue it where evidence exists.

Come to think of it, I think sometime soon we ought to consider an amendment that establishes a "recall election" pathway that could be used to remove unpopular Presidents by a simple majority vote - similar to what they have in California and other states.

2. Being IG

The similarities between this long-ago deleted user and BritishMormon are so numerous at this point - including about core policies like the Senate (see #1). Other items: the near-identical political quiz results & political bingo cards, the rampant LGBTQphobia, the modding of the same streams, the similar political base of barely-active users, the lack of a funny-bone, the bickering over obscure trivia, the overall cringe factor.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if he just admitted his identity and said that he's come back a changed man. What irks me is the fact that he's IG and constantly lies about it. This has created a dynamic here of gaslighting and definitely undermines overall interest and activity in the stream.

Alt-accounting isn't a terms violation in itself. Ask anyone who has an alt.

But repeatedly and brazenly lying about not being a formerly-deleted user, in order to stage a comeback in this esoteric roleplay politics game? It sure provides ample justification for an impeachment, within the rules of the game, for removal from office, for future disqualification from a second term.

Not to mention, by my count, 4/4 Community Mods who pay any attention to this stream (including 2 recently-promoted ones, RMK and SurlyKong69) think you're IG.

Don't you find that significant?

You've reined it in a little bit when it comes to the harassment - which is why your latest account hasn't been deleted - but that doesn't mean all the other telltale aspects of your personality and your pattern of Imgflip usage have disappeared. You've swapped out Catholicism for Mormonism (incidentally, how are you aware IG was Catholic?), but your arch-conservative dogmatism hasn't changed at all.

I'm not convinced that your attachment to either faith is particularly deep, but you evidently enjoy how the steeple gives you a perch from which to snipe at those you don't like.

The "terrible things" I've said about Mormonism and its founder are a simple matter of historical record. It can't be erased any more than you can erase the Catholic Church's history of child abuse/cover-ups, or any more than you can erase the Founder of Islam's deviant sexual practices and lust for conquest.

https://medium.com/ex-mormon-haven/mormonism-debunked-by-the-internet-yet-still-practiced-5b47cb54132d

That doesn't mean individual practitioners of these faiths, or any other faith, can't be sincere and good people. But it behooves all believers of any faith to consider the good, the bad, and the ugly in their history.

Anywho. Mixing your faith and your politics inevitably leaves you open to charges of politicizing your faith. James Madison understood this, other Founders understood this. They had a big chance to enshrine Christianity as an official religion in the U.S. Constitution, and they chose not to. They ran the totally other way - see: First Amendment, Establishment Clause.

Our Founders understood an insight that has been lost on many today - that America is and has always been diverse, pluralistic, multi-faith, incompatible with theocracy and "theodemocracy," whatever that is.

The exact provenance of the Book of Mormon is of less interest to me than the Church's history of polygamy, misogyny, racism. That said, when I deny that the Book of Mormon is the true Word of God, I am simply stating a proposition that all non-Mormons would agree with.

Individual Mormons? Great people overall. No one should be persecuted for their religion. I have no problem accepting the idea that some of the persecution that Mormons have endured was a product of bigotry, and unjustified.

But nor should society allow Mormonism, or any other faith, to be invoked as a shield against legitimate criticism of practices that otherwise violate American law and decency. Like polygamy - easy example. So-called "Fundamentalist" Latter-Day Saints still practice it. Mainstream Mormons no longer do - and they've taken steps against institutional racism as well - but it would be folly to deny that these toxic ideas and practices haven't affected LDS history.

Your explanation of theodemocracy may make sense to you, but you're failing to persuade me that it isn't an underhanded attempt to erode the principle of separating church and state (which is a natural reading of the term "theodemocracy").

The Founders' views on this are clear. Neither Christianity (whose Christianity?) nor any other religion is enshrined in the Constitution.

With the pornographic content Slobama posts, he reckons that you should be impeached for no reason except personally hating you because he believes in Surly's toxic myth.

If anything Slobama should be impeached for spamming borderline porn as well as being too personal in attacking you. I wouldn't get him impeached because that's censorship

Nay, we can't impeach BritishMormon considering your approval rating is so low. You haven't even bothered to shadow BritishMormon properly.

The role of an opposition leader is to criticise the president DAILY on his presidency. You seem to follow Surly's myth and have been quiet on his myth for months until BritishMormon was half way through presidency.

Also, would you be any different?

Another side bar, you didn't realise that we were still searching for senate and we finally found our senate as I posted on another comment. And when you say the BritishMormon is...

3. Being inactive
4. Being cringe
5. Being unfunny

You got at least two of those wrong. And when someone is unfunny, you just can't impeach someone because of their lack of humour. That's pretty much censorship.

If you censor someone, you're violating Article 14, Section 1...

Article 14: The Rights of Citizens
Section 1: The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or restricting the freedom of speech of the press or the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, protest, or petition the government for a redress of grievances. Imgflip TOS still applies.

That's the reasons why I vote Nay to impeach our president. If you're unhappy about him being president, wait until the end of the month and vote against him. I even wanted to take over from being president from BritishMormon but his fans didn't see my activity and don't see that I'm can do better at being president.