warren g. harding, us grant, richard nixon and gerald ford were all republican presidents?
warren g. harding, us grant, richard nixon and gerald ford were all republican presidents?
who were corrupt (ford because he made a deal to pardon nixon), can anyone name a democratic administration that was corrupt, with links and proof (i am not talking misconduct or disproved allegations , so don't even bother saying bill clinton).
don't forget george w. bush's white house, with the allegations against his vp.

harry truman had lots of support, early in his career, from a kansas city mob-ring. kennedy may have owed his presidency to the daley political machine in chicago (whose remnants are attempting to besmirch our current president elect). lbj may have been in deep with various members of the military-industrial complex (though i don't think he had anything to do with jfk's assassination). 

but these are all rumours. the gop has a lot of 'splainin' to do, especially when they always take the moral high ground!

btw, andrew johnson was acquitted (as was clinton), and grant's scandal was not teapot dome (that was harding) but various kick-backs and short-changing of the indians. and he was a republican. the question was about democratic party abuses, and i'm sure there are plenty there to go around. just no so's you'd notice.
if i may be permitted. i have worked in politics for over 30 years, including time as a legislative director and/or press secretary for four members of the house and - via the u. s. commission on security and cooperation in europe - two senators. my credentials and my sins thereby confessed i offer the following - 1) senate majority leader mitch mcconnell. though not an ideas guy, he is a shrewd and effective parliamentary operator who knows the senate rules perhaps as well or better than any senate majority leader in recent memory. temperate and highly effective, he is a superb coalition builder with an exquisite sense of timing. 2) senator john neely kennedy. also not necessarily an ideas guy, though solidly grounded in his principles, kennedy has a rapier wit that he is not afraid to deploy against both sides. an acid tongue, he calls 'em as he sees 'em, and yet somehow manages to maintain - maybe it is the southern accent - an air of civility and reasonableness. 3) senator ben sasse. a former college president, sasse is one of the most intellectual and thoughtful senators. a man who takes ideas seriously and who understands the consequences of ideas. he is the soft-spoken - and frankly much underestimated - intellectual giant of the senate. 4) senator joe manchin. from west virginia, manchin is a temperate thinker and coalition builder. not given to inflammatory language, he seeks balance and compromise. 5) senator dianne feinstein - although lately i must admit her conduct has disappointed, generally feinstein sticks to her principles - which i, more often than not, do not share - but does so in modulated tones and thoughftully. no fire breather, she makes her case soberly and intellectually. (though to add, of late, some of her actions - particularly in recent kavanaugh supreme court confirmation - have not been at her historically high standard.) 6) former representative trey gowdy - actually, not an active politician any longer and is now a fox commentator, gowdy is a former criminal prosecutor and house member. he knows the law better then most know there own name and brings to his thinking a piercing intellect and consistency of principle like few others. he is sorely missed by me in the house. suffice to say, i could go on, but those figures stand out as my, "if you wake me in the middle of the night and ask me out of the blue, these pop to mind" answers. however, my experience in politics is that, contrary to also the populist contempt, most of those who go into politics are intelligent and civic minded, hard working and eager to make the country better and the people they serve happier. like any large group of human beings, they have their foibles, none are perfect and some are downright awful. however, overall, the american public gets better than it appreciates. there is already enough evidence to either require another election in some states (which there may not be time for) or require the state party convention (which are often controlled by republicans) to make a decision due to the issues laid out in the legal arguments. trump's team has very valid points and evidence to back up those points. legal process is necessary for legitimacy, but any judge who strictly interprets the law will side with trump’s team. due to the media’s propaganda campaign, i’m sure many judges would be concerned about the ramifications of the legal outcome, but ultimately they have to do their job as arbiters of the law. so trump should win his lawsuits even if the supreme court has to make the final decision. republicans are likely, but not guaranteed to be loyal to their party. trump will likely win in the end... either way, as of now no votes have been certified. if we examine those states that have generally finished their vote counts and have no legal contest at the moment then the current electoral vote count would be 227 biden vs 229 trump. so technically trump is currently winning even if the mainstream media wants to brainwash you into believing something else. electoral college. trump lost the popular vote. out votes don’t matter because of the electoral college. he should have never won in the first place and the only way we can get him out is if the blue voter turnout is high enough to swing the electoral vote in favor of biden donald trump demanded to stay at buckingham palace during a state visit to get the same treatment as barack obama, according to reports. the royal household was under renovation during the american... in order to have the election process more democratic there are few pre-requisites like:a. one vote, one value: to choose/elect the representative everyone must have one note with equal value. this is to avoid any type of conflicting situation.b. regular election: there should be regular elections in every democratic country so that people have their choice at regular intervals.c. free and fair election: in order to ensure a fair chance to the people there should be a free and fair election in every democratic country.d. political competition: in order to have democratic election parties, candidates should be free to contest elections and should offer some real choice to the voters. i am far more concerned with people soft on crime yet want to make criminals out of legal gun owners. i am more concerned about people who think any loser should be allowed in america. if anyone has hid out for so many years they should be allowed to stayand if they breed a litter of kids on our tax dollars they should stay. i think i got it.

thanks for your help richard. everyone was willing to speak against the impeachment to encourage discussion on it. hi [@jonathonk.afbyws](/u/jonathonk.afbyws),

yes the g7 linked there is republic compatible. impartial, tolerant, fair, happy, nice, unprejudiced, patient.