Impeachment Round Two (3 Viewers)

[Yggdrasill]

I am in the camp that Trump must -not should- be impeached. If not this President, for this behavior, then what bar would have to be cleared to merit impeachment?

Impeachment not only sends a signal to the country and the world that fomenting a coup is unacceptable and will be punished, but it also removes much of the threat Trump could pose going forward as, I understand it, he would lose his pension, his access to daily security briefings, free medical care and other amenities and benefits afforded to former Presidents. If impeached, he would not meet the definition of a Former President under the Former Presidents Act. I don't think it is clear whether he would continue to receive Secret Service protection.

 

[wardorican]

Perhaps But the fact remains; he neither ordered, nor incited, the mob to attack the capital building.

He didn't order. But I think there is enough evidence to say he incited the mob. And whatever they deemed 'don't let them take your country" and other phrases I highlighted for your yesterday to mean.. he didn't exactly clarify.

 

[Roofgardener]

Did you read my post where I went through his entire speech and highlighted various things from it.

Are you going to tell me that context isn't something we use when reading and listening?

I did indeed read that Wardorican, and thanks for posting it. However, I was unconvinced. It mostly just looked like the standard political bluster beloved of all politicians, with the usual element of hyperbole and... umm.. is there a word for "over-simplifying issues to support a point" ? There really OUGHT to be, in my opinion.

Anyway, I digress. I did NOT find any incitement to physically attack the capitol building in that speech. I guess you COULD put up an argument about "readying between the lines... ", or ".. but consider what he was THINKING when he made that speech". But I can't see ANY of that standing up in court.

But then, I don't think that it WILL see the inside of a courthouse. The purpose of the Democrats - and the mainstream media - seems to be to utterly crush Trump. It is not enough that he be defeated in an election, he must be utterly destroyed, along with his family, pets, neighbours, and anyone unfortunate to be passing by at the time. A simple trial in court would not be sufficient, especially as he might be found not-guilty !

I've not seen anything like this in America before. In China, during Mao, yes. But not in America.

 

[wardorican]

Good point. Probably a little of both ?

But recall that impeachment is NOT a Judicial process, in which innocence or guilt are measured. It is purely a popularity contest, and usually a highly partisan one ?

Depends on how honest they want to run it. They mirror a court of law, but you're right, it doesn't have the same rules. However, currently the Department of Justice leans towards the idea of not charging a sitting president with crimes. So, it's not an option. This is what we have, as imperfect as it is.

But, what it requires is that often the situation has to be bad enough, or embarrassing enough to get both parties on board (or enough people from both parties). That generally prevents it from being too partisan.

 

[Roofgardener]

Depends on how honest they want to run it. They mirror a court of law, but you're right, it doesn't have the same rules. However, currently the Department of Justice leans towards the idea of not charging a sitting president with crimes. So, it's not an option. This is what we have, as imperfect as it is.

But, what it requires is that often the situation has to be bad enough, or embarrassing enough to get both parties on board (or enough people from both parties). That generally prevents it from being too partisan.

Hmm.. you say that, but every impeachment for the last two centuries has followed partisan lines ? If it is a democrat being impeached, then every democratic Representative or Senator stands against the impeachment, and MOST Republicans stand FOR the impeachment. And visa-versa if it is a Republican president being impeached.

It really is not an edifying sight !

 

[donato]

Is there an ignore button?

 

[RobF]

Is there an ignore button?

Yes, just click on their name, and the option is there.

 

[wardorican]

Is there an ignore button?

Yes.

 

[wardorican]

Hmm.. you say that, but every impeachment for the last two centuries has followed partisan lines ? If it is a democrat being impeached, then every democratic Representative or Senator stands against the impeachment, and MOST Republicans stand FOR the impeachment. And visa-versa if it is a Republican president being impeached.

It really is not an edifying sight !

ideals vs execution.

 

[Taurus]

Yes, just click on their name, and the option is there.

Thanks!

 

[wardorican]

I did indeed read that Wardorican, and thanks for posting it. However, I was unconvinced. It mostly just looked like the standard political bluster beloved of all politicians, with the usual element of hyperbole and... umm.. is there a word for "over-simplifying issues to support a point" ? There really OUGHT to be, in my opinion.

Anyway, I digress. I did NOT find any incitement to physically attack the capitol building in that speech. I guess you COULD put up an argument about "readying between the lines... ", or ".. but consider what he was THINKING when he made that speech". But I can't see ANY of that standing up in court.

But then, I don't think that it WILL see the inside of a courthouse. The purpose of the Democrats - and the mainstream media - seems to be to utterly crush Trump. It is not enough that he be defeated in an election, he must be utterly destroyed, along with his family, pets, neighbours, and anyone unfortunate to be passing by at the time. A simple trial in court would not be sufficient, especially as he might be found not-guilty !

I've not seen anything like this in America before. In China, during Mao, yes. But not in America.

You have recently complained about this being a 'debate forum' and you finding the debate lacking. Well, I posted most of his speech, outlines my points on it, you say you read it and disagreed with it. Ok. So, why didn't you reply then? Why ignore it until I challenged you? Maybe you can go over some of the lines he used and explain what you think it really meant?

What responsibility to the truth should a politician have? Knowing, that they always twist it a bit or use their "point of view".

 

[wardorican]

One other point. Why, after the Capitol was breached, did he not call for the Feds or National Guard (he's in Charge of the DC guard) to take control?

 

[Roofgardener]

You have recently complained about this being a 'debate forum' and you finding the debate lacking. Well, I posted most of his speech, outlines my points on it, you say you read it and disagreed with it. Ok. So, why didn't you reply then? Why ignore it until I challenged you? Maybe you can go over some of the lines he used and explain what you think it really meant?

What responsibility to the truth should a politician have? Knowing, that they always twist it a bit or use their "point of view".

I wasn't reffering to you in that comment, nor did I say that 'debate was lacking', merely that I was (and still am) being attacked by a couple of members for being.. well.. I'm not sure ? Some sort of intruder ?

I'm still trying to find my way about this forum.

 

[wardorican]

I wasn't reffering to you in that comment, nor did I say that 'debate was lacking', merely that I was (and still am) being attacked by a couple of members for being.. well.. I'm not sure ? Some sort of intruder ?

I'm still trying to find my way about this forum.

I think the point is that people don't take anyone seriously just by words, but by actions. i.e. engage in debate and reasonable discussion. You're mostly there, but then you seem to be ignoring some things or just too easily blowing them off.

Perhaps we can have a discussion on Brexit where I can just be equally dismissive of things I don't seemingly fully understand.

 

[NoPartyMike]

45% of the population wouldn't be disenfranchised by impeaching Trump. A majority of that 45% voted for Right leaning policies, not necessarily Trump.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

45% of the population wouldn't be disenfranchised by impeaching Trump. A majority of that 45% voted for Right leaning policies, not necessarily Trump.

0% of Trump voters voted for the winning candidate, so that would seem to be the correct figure for how many voters would be "disenfranchised." They cast their votes and their votes were accepted, counted and recorded. They just didn't win.

 

[zztop]

Well, I wouldn't read too much into what was essentially a symbolic vote because Pence already clearly stated he wasn't going to invoke. A few Republicans have already stated on the House floor they will vote to impeach Trump and vote against the 25th.

I get that it was symbolic, but apparently only one republican voted for it. Just one.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Oh, I grant you that Biden won. My point was that if Congress sought to maliciously impeach Trump PURELY to prevent him running for President again, then those 74 million voters WILL be potentially disenfranchised in the future, purely in the sense that they could not - in future - vote for Trump, even if they wanted to. This is not a lie, Saintamaniac, it is just a logical outcome of such an act.

Here's the thing, Congress isn't maliciously impeaching trump. I'm curious as to know why you would phrase it that way. The fact that trump lied to this country about the seriousness of Covid-19 is reason enough for impeachment. Trump spearheaded an insurrection on this nation's capital. His impeachment is fully warranted.

Trump supporters are fully able to vote for trump in future elections by using the write-in provision available to all voters. Trump supporters will NOT be disenfranchised in any way from voting to trump. If they choose to vote for someone who is ineligible to hold the office, well that's their problem. And because their ability to vote for trump will not be hindered in any way, it is indeed not true to say that they are being disenfranchised.

Your comment about de-citizenshipping people puts you, unfortunately, firmly in the camp of the zealots and authoritarians . If people have committed a crime, then let the courts decide. But inventing new and unprecedented (and illegal, by the way) punishments retroactively is extreme. Why not just burn them at the stake whilst you're at it ?

Are you not aware that in the US, if you commit a felony, you lose the right to vote? It's not made up and it's not illegal. Hell, the trump administration has deported US VETERANS. They lost their right to vote and their citizenship. So again, it's not unprecedented....at least it was until trump did it.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

I understand why they are doing it, but I wish Democrats would stop fighting against a commission on the election. I know the results won't change a single mind, but I think it would be good for the history books to have a commission validate there was no widespread fraud in the election. Yes, it's a crazy step, but we are in crazy and unprecedented times.

I'm ranting because right now they are voting down another attempt by Republicans to start an election commission.