• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House votes to impeach Trump

Nalu said:
What side would that be? In any event, good luck with your "seething anger". You're demonstrating behavior that you criticize in others.
Click to expand...

lol


If you want to pretend you're anything but a flaming liberal, go right ahead.
 
Pound4abrown said:
The difference, though, is that Republicans such as Mitch don't give ****-all about polling on such actions, whereas the Democrats do. Much to their determent most times. If they do this, they really need to hold strong and stick the landing, or it is going to be an abysmal failure.
Click to expand...
It's already proving to be a failure which is why Nancy is backing off from immediately sending the Impeachment articles over to the Senate. I think she sees the trap waiting for her and is very aware of Mitch McConnell's address to the Senate this morning.
 
Pound4abrown said:
I honestly don't know how it will play out, but concede that it may very well back-fire, as the Democratic party is often maimed by "friendly fire". I suppose it will depend on how they go about it and communicate that to the public. That said, we could really use the wood you have yourself nailed to in regards to being petty and partisan. There is not one Republican member of congress that could honestly state that they wouldn't be impeaching a democratic POTUS over this. Because they would burst into flame for heresy.
Click to expand...

The entire body would.....hell you see it in comments that were made by both sides on Clinton's impeachment...and now on Trump's impeachment.....

They say whatever they can to stay in office, it's repulsive, and people don't care enough they just buy it up....
 
OpportunityCost said:
So could Burisma...
Click to expand...

And as the Democratic lawyer, my first question would be, Republicans had the house and senate, if this were such a big deal, why did it take until 2019 for anyone to ask for an investigation?
 
Pound4abrown said:
And as the Democratic lawyer, my first question would be, Republicans had the house and senate, if this were such a big deal, why did it take until 2019 for anyone to ask for an investigation?
Click to expand...

Simple, it didn't become a big deal until Biden announced his Presidency, and we wanted to make sure that he was free from the corruption that was rampant in Ukraine, during his and his son's time there....
 
JasperL said:
I saw that - a real Profile in Cowardice.

My goodness. I'd say, 'what a disappointment' but I've never been impressed at all by her, so maybe it's good she was even more of a gutless POS that I thought before hand.
Click to expand...

I really wish I knew who she was hoping to impress by this tactic. It completely escapes me.
 
bradt99 said:
The popular vote DOESN'T COUNT!!! The electoral college is the one that counts idiot and she was a bad candidate.
Click to expand...

Ok. Fine. Then why is everyone on the right bringing up the 63mil people who voted for Trump?
I mean, if the popular vote "DOESN'T COUNT!!!" then it doesn't count.
 
Pound4abrown said:
And as the Democratic lawyer, my first question would be, Republicans had the house and senate, if this were such a big deal, why did it take until 2019 for anyone to ask for an investigation?
Click to expand...
A good question, and one of the reasons why Paul Ryan was encouraged to leave.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Ok. Fine. Then why is everyone on the right bringing up the 63mil people who voted for Trump?
I mean, if the popular vote "DOESN'T COUNT!!!" then it doesn't count.
Click to expand...

And why do Trumpists constantly bleat about the will of the people? The people didn't elect Trump, the States did. Same with this impeachment process- the representatives of the people voted to send the old fraud packing but the representatives of the States will let him off scot-free.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Ok. Fine. Then why is everyone on the right bringing up the 63mil people who voted for Trump?
I mean, if the popular vote "DOESN'T COUNT!!!" then it doesn't count.
Click to expand...
Because those 63 million formed the basis of the Electoral College, the system on which the Constitution rests. If the system is changed then the majority of the population will rule, and not the majority of the States.
 
PeteEU said:
LOL the selective memory you conservatives have... must be genetic or indoctrinated.. Clinton was investigated for what exactly? Why was he even asked the question that caught him in a white lie? His whole situation was purely political from start to finish and it was done by Newt and Co as political payback for defeating Bush SR.
Click to expand...

In this country lying under oath is a violation of the law regardless of the issue, that is reality and obviously it sucks to be a liberal like you, Clinton's dishonor of the Oval Office is another issue compared to that person you hate now so let me share his results

Trump's Leaner White House 2019 Payroll Has Already Saved Taxpayers $20 Million
 
Screer said:
Democrats are happy about impeachment because Donald Trump is their political rival, and they think it is nice to see their political rival get a stain on his record. Regardless of what happens in the Senate, he will forever go down as just the third president to be impeached.

However, the more important reason that Democrats are happy is probably because they think this will help them win in 2020—and perhaps it will. It was a political gamble taken by Speaker Pelosi.

Conventional political wisdom dictates that impeachment is bad for the party that impeaches because it fires up the opposition and makes it look like your party has no interest in governing. This wisdom is confirmed by the fact that during the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton, Republicans lost seats in the midterms. Most political scientists have looked back at the 1998 Clinton impeachment as a losing battle for Republicans.

But there is one thing that these political scientists and historians seem to forget...

While Republicans lost the 1998 midterms, two years later, they won the prize that really matters—the White House! Democrats won the battle, but Republicans won the war. With a thriving economy, a budget surplus, and years of remarkably low unemployment, the 2000 election should have been a slam dunk for Democrats. But it wasn't. While Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote by less than a half percent, George W. Bush won the White House, and Republicans held onto both chambers of Congress, giving them full control of government. The reasons for this are many, but not the least of which is that Al Gore needed to distance himself from Clinton after all of the scandals that plagued his presidency. When then-Governor George W. Bush campaigned, he always ended his rallies with a line to the effect of "I want to make a promise to every American that if given the chance to serve as your President, I will uphold the honor and the dignity to the office of which I'd been elected." That was a subtle reference to the whole Clinton impeachment. Americans didn't think President Clinton should be removed from office, but they also didn't think that having an affair in the Oval Office with a White House intern was appropriate conduct for the highest office in the land. They felt Clinton was not upholding the honor and dignity of the office. In other words, Republicans managed to make his affair with a White House intern enough of an issue that it created a scandal.

There is an American University professor that built a model that has correctly predicted every single presidential election since 1984. It uses 13 true/false statements with the basic premise of this: if the country is doing well, the incumbent party remains in office, and if the country is doing poorly, the opposition party is elected. One of the true/false statements is this: "The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal." With this impeachment, this will have to be marked as a false. In other words, Democrats have managed to create a scandal just as Republicans did in 1998 and 1999.

We know that the Senate will vote to acquit. The real vote will take place in November of next year, and that will be when we determine whether or not President Trump will be removed from office.

So to answer your final question, I think it will certainly look bad for Democrats if they impeach Trump and then he is re-elected, and history will likely remember their impeachment the same way it remembers the Clinton impeachment—as political grandstanding. Personally, I don't think that Democrats are impeaching because they think next year will be a slam dunk. I think it's actually quite the opposite. Democrats are acknowledging the very real possibility of Trump's re-election, and Democrats want to do everything they can to give themselves every advantage possible come next November to avoid a repeat of 2016. Democrats hope it will turn off his base and fire up their own base.

We will find out next November if they were right:)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply. I think the Trump impeachment, like the Clinton impeachment, is going to fail on the level that the President involved isnt really going to be shamed on the level the other party had anticipated. Clinton was a two term President that had the highest approval rating ever when he left office regardless of the impeachment. Trumps impeachment will be just as irrelevant in the scheme of things going forward. While most Democrats seem to be ecstatic in thinking Trumps name is now stained by the impeachment, I feel he will use it as ammunition for the election and turn it into a positive somehow. As for history, a partisan vote like Trumps impeachment will raise the eyes to anybody inquiring about it and people will no doubt question the validity of it.
 
Harshaw said:
Then point to any expert anywhere saying she's better at political calculations than every member of Debate Politics. I'm not even asking for "reputable, objective, bipartisan groups," just any expert, anywhere.
Until then, you're just declaring it.
Click to expand...

That's your standard of proof? You're attempting to argue that members of an inconsequential internet board might be better at political calculations than the successful House Speaker until and unless real people opine that they know more than people posting on a site they've never heard of? Hang on tight to that twig.

It is 100% in Pelosi's power to submit the articles any time she wants. The longer she delays, the stronger the question becomes.

You may not wish it to be so, but it's so.

There are no strong spots. Only the most partisan of the left thinks it's a good idea.

She took the worst electoral loss in Congressional history to the Republicans (or at least one of them). As for "losing" when it comes to impeachment, well, she had all the cards, so she couldn't lose. Just like McConnell does now.
Click to expand...

We'll see.

Of course you would have.



Weird, the "non-partisan" thing to say here isn't that McConnell can tell her to kick rocks, it's that YOU tell her to kick rocks just like you would have had it been McConnell making the demands -- which of course you adamantly won't do.

You're for it when it's Pelosi against McConnell. You admit you'd have been against it the other way around. That's partisan, my friend.

Me? I'd have laughed at McConnell for demanding the House do things his way.
Click to expand...

You took a characteristic dive into Crazy Land here. I told you exactly what I think and you rephrased it as something completely unlike what I said. You're a partisan. I'm not.

Being a doctrinaire libertarian, more interested in process than outcome (as I have said over and over and over the many years I've been posting here at DP, having been here for only weeks, you know nothing about), I generally agree. :shrug:

I've never seen him try to overstep his authority on any occasion. You may not always have liked what he's done with the authority he had (or ever, even), but everything he's done, he's done within the purview of the Constitutional powers he has. You note he isn't demanding Pelosi hand over the articles.
Click to expand...

When did I say McConnell overstepped anything? Everything you write is only tangentially related to anything I wrote. You're having a conversation with yourself.

Where did I express any anger at anything she's done? You seem to think my astonishment at doing something stupid is anger. But it's not. It's astonishment.

If I were a Trump partisan, like you think I am, I'd be have brass band playing encouraging exactly this strategy, because it's so colossally stupid and doomed to dismal failure. But instead, if anything, I've warned against it.

You keep conflating my calling the tactic stupid with calling Pelosi stupid. They aren't the same thing. Why do you keep doing that? It's quite dishonest.

I didn't just "say so;" I explained why numerous times.
Click to expand...

You seem to think so, but you're [let me add a word that will appeal to your verbose incompetence] colosally [that did it] unaware that your argument is based on the fact that Pelosi made a bad strategic decision. You might be right. You're probably wrong. Americans continue to permit Pelosi's strategy. If she overplays her hand, her party will be gutted next election. Your problem is that the people on your side have been saying she's been overplaying her hand for months. Most people don't listen to either party or their supporters anymore. They control a vast amount of the media coverage, but at the end of the day, no matter how wrong she is, Pelosi tends to be more right than Republicans. Sucks for them.
 
Fred C Dobbs said:
There are many who favor impeachment only because there will then be a trial in the Senate. Any Senate trial means they can call Adam Schiff, Gerry Nadler, James Comey, and the dozens of other shysters who have put the country in this position.

An open Senate trial is one of the few ways that the public can really get to the bottom of how this impeachment charade began, and began well before Donald Trump was even inaugurated as President. This should never happen again and an open trial, shaming and charging those involved, will help prevent that..
Click to expand...

The trial will not have witnesses based on what McConnell has stated. It's also important to note that witnesses called will be those relevant to the events in question, and not an open forum to launch all sorts of side investigations. The results of the Durham report will address any issues regarding the origins of the original investigation, and from that other hearings may result. I still come back to the question of the administration not cooperating if there was indeed nothing to hide and the inquiry was indeed a sham. There's no doubt in my mind that if Trump had nothing to hide and knew proving the Democrats wrong by being transparent would damage them, he would have sent everyone to testify. There's likely more there that the administration doesn't want out in the open, and after Mulvaney's blunder, they're likely afraid someone is going to say something they're not supposed to. I out no stock in Trump's credibility given his past liberties with the truth, and shady dealings. This is why I think there's more to all of this than it being just a sham on the part of the Democrats.
 
Nalu said:
That's your standard of proof? You're attempting to argue that members of an inconsequential internet board might be better at political calculations than the successful House Speaker until and unless real people opine that they know more than people posting on a site they've never heard of? Hang on tight to that twig.
Click to expand...

It was YOUR standard. :shrug: Apply what you said above to your own statement about "experts." Then you might understand my point.


You took a characteristic dive into Crazy Land here. I told you exactly what I think and you rephrased it as something completely unlike what I said. You're a partisan. I'm not.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. You're rooting for Pelosi to do something you say you'd tell McConnell to "kick rocks" for, namely, trying to dictate to the other house how to proceed.

Please explain how that's "completely unlike" what you said.

Just because you keep accusing me of calling Pelosi stupid when I'm actually calling a tactic stupid, and you did it repeatedly, it doesn't mean I mischaracterized you.

Please do explain exactly what makes me "partisan," though. Be sure you include examples of things I actually said, not what you assume I think.



When did I say McConnell overstepped anything? Everything you write is only tangentially related to anything I wrote. You're having a conversation with yourself.
Click to expand...

You said:


If McConnell thought he had public support to railroad the House process, you and I both know he would have cloned himself just to dedicate 48 hours a day to ****ing with Pelosi.
Click to expand...

But now you're getting indignant when I say he has no history of any such overstep. If you agree he doesn't, then fine; your statement that he would overstep is baseless.


You seem to think so, but you're [let me add a word that will appeal to your verbose incompetence] colosally [that did it] unaware that your argument is based on the fact that Pelosi made a bad strategic decision. You might be right. You're probably wrong. Americans continue to permit Pelosi's strategy. If she overplays her hand, her party will be gutted next election. Your problem is that the people on your side have been saying she's been overplaying her hand for months. Most people don't listen to either party or their supporters anymore. They control a vast amount of the media coverage, but at the end of the day, no matter how wrong she is, Pelosi tends to be more right than Republicans. Sucks for them.
Click to expand...

My argument does not, in fact rest on the premise that Pelosi made a bad strategic decision. Again, you continue to claim my calling a tactic stupid is somehow personal to Pelosi. It's not. It's a stupid tactic having nothing at all to do with Pelosi. It's a stupid tactic all by itself, for reasons I have stated.

If I say Pelosi is making a bad strategic decision because of it, that's a conclusion, not a premise.

It's you, actually, who are basing your defense of the tactic on how brilliant you say Pelosi is. Pelosi is irrelevant. It's a stupid tactic no matter who does or doesn't sign on, and it's not rescued because Pelosi adopts it.
 
Harshaw said:
It was YOUR standard. :shrug: Apply what you said above to your own statement about "experts." Then you might understand my point.

Nonsense. You're rooting for Pelosi to do something you say you'd tell McConnell to "kick rocks" for, namely, trying to dictate to the other house how to proceed.

Please explain how that's "completely unlike" what you said.
Click to expand...

Again? Pelosi can kick rocks too. I don't care. You do. That's why my opinion is more objective than yours.

Just because you keep accusing me of calling Pelosi stupid when I'm actually calling a tactic stupid, and you did it repeatedly, it doesn't mean I mischaracterized you.

Please do explain exactly what makes me "partisan," though. Be sure you include examples of things I actually said, not what you assume I think.
Click to expand...

You're in the bag for Trump and to me, that makes you less worth the time than it takes me to tell you over and over again.

You said:

But now you're getting indignant when I say he has no history of any such overstep. If you agree he doesn't, then fine; your statement that he would overstep is baseless.
Click to expand...

I never said that. This is the 3rd or 4th time you've completely fabricated something that was never said by anyone and then patted yourself on the back for refuting it.

My argument does not, in fact rest on the premise that Pelosi made a bad strategic decision. Again, you continue to claim my calling a tactic stupid is somehow personal to Pelosi. It's not. It's a stupid tactic having nothing at all to do with Pelosi. It's a stupid tactic all by itself, for reasons I have stated.

If I say Pelosi is making a bad strategic decision because of it, that's a conclusion, not a premise.

It's you, actually, who are basing your defense of the tactic on how brilliant you say Pelosi is. Pelosi is irrelevant. It's a stupid tactic no matter who does or doesn't sign on, and it's not rescued because Pelosi adopts it.
Click to expand...

Do I seem like someone that gives one flying rip about what you think about Pelosi as a person? I'll repeat myself again, although I know from experience that stone doesn't absorb much water. Your argument that Pelosi made a mistake is utterly, horrifically, thoroughly (I know you like adverbs) baseless except for your opinion about it, which is soaking in a bucket of partisanship. Same message. Multiple times. You're spinning your wheels aimlessly and messing up my lawn.

I have a feeling in your world that you think what you say carries weight cuz your voice said it. I could not care less. Pelosi is making a strategic decision that is at least possible to succeed. You keep saying it can't like your opinion is conclusive. As I and a number of other posters have already published, no matter how stubbornly you type words into the abyss, you're not making a difference in the way anyone thinks.
 
Nalu said:
Again? Pelosi can kick rocks too. I don't care. You do. That's why my opinion is more objective than yours.
Click to expand...

This is the first time you've said Pelosi can kick rocks. Until now, you've sharply defended her attempt to dictate to the other house how to conduct its business.

Your dishonesty is becoming quite rank.



You're in the bag for Trump and to me, that makes you less worth the time than it takes me to tell you over and over again.
Click to expand...

Weird; I asked you to provide examples of my partisanship from things I actually said, not what you assume I think. You couldn't do that, unsurprisingly.



I never said that. This is the 3rd or 4th time you've completely fabricated something that was never said by anyone and then patted yourself on the back for refuting it.
Click to expand...

So McConnell HAS overstepped? Which is it? Yes or no?

I quoted your words to you.



Do I seem like someone that gives one flying rip about what you think about Pelosi as a person? I'll repeat myself again, although I know from experience that stone doesn't absorb much water. Your argument that Pelosi made a mistake is utterly, horrifically, thoroughly (I know you like adverbs) baseless except for your opinion about it, which is soaking in a bucket of partisanship. Same message. Multiple times. You're spinning your wheels aimlessly and messing up my lawn.

I have a feeling in your world that you think what you say carries weight cuz your voice said it. I could not care less. Pelosi is making a strategic decision that is at least possible to succeed. You keep saying it can't like your opinion is conclusive. As I and a number of other posters have already published, no matter how stubbornly you type words into the abyss, you're not making a difference in the way anyone thinks.
Click to expand...

And here you are again pretending that I claimed my saying something alone makes it so, and pretending I never explained my reasoning.

Why do you continually choose dishonesty?
 
Conservative said:
In this country lying under oath is a violation of the law regardless of the issue, that is reality and obviously it sucks to be a liberal like you, Clinton's dishonor of the Oval Office is another issue compared to that person you hate now so let me share his results

Trump's Leaner White House 2019 Payroll Has Already Saved Taxpayers $20 Million
Click to expand...

That's a Joke (Trump spent more than that paying for Melania to Stay in New York, and Flying to His Golf Course in the First 6 months he was in office) Trump has FAILED to fill vital Cabinet Position (Because he wants to be a dictator) Department Position have been un-staffed and the MUSICAL CHAIRS has left seats un-occupied, and other seats filled by unqualified people. HUD is nonperforming, The Energy Department, the EPA has been stifled and the list can go on throughout this Administration. (We do not have "selective amnesia" like Conservatives, We Remember, Trump making the statement, that "He is the ONLY one who can Fix America - "those are words from a dictator mentality)

Trump Worship has blinded you from PERSPECTIVE, and selective amnesia is what have you missing the truths, and PERSPECTIVE such as FACTS has never concerned the Conservative, unless they think they can find some means to attack something, and they do that with half backed information. We Remember: BENGHAZI, We Remember 6 yrs and $MILLIONS$ wasted attacking ACA... trying to strip everything that can and will benefit the people.
Click to expand...

Hitler thought he could "divide the people against each other, and build a white race blue eye'd society, and we know how that turned out !!!!! Trump is trying every thing he can to use the Hitler Model, of DIVIDE THE PEOPLE, he attacked the Muslim American, the Mexican American, the Black American and American Governance Systems. Hitler Attacked Other Nations and only wanted to deal with those he could control, and Trump has Attacked Other Nation, and only want to deal with Nations that have Dictatorial Leaders.
This is the mentality that Every Atrocious Megalomaniac has adopted in trying to be Dictatorial, they disrespect "everything", "attack everything about government and society, and then


Obama was MUCH SMARTER AND HAD MORE INTEGRITY AND WAS MORE DIGNIFIED IN MANNER AND CONDUCT.. He said: LET'S REBUILD AMERICA FROM THE BOTTOM UP, WITH A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR ALL, AND HE SAID... He Can't Do It Alone, that it would take the help of EVERYONE".

(That's the Mindset of a Real American President!!!!)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
azgreg said:
Donald Trump has finally achieved something Barack Obama didn’t.
Click to expand...

Thank God...I was afraid they were going to base this on what the constitution says, and just because someone claimed they heard a phone call through the wall would be inadmissible in a court of law, doesn't mean it's not good grounds for impeachment. Heck walking the dog without a leash inside is grounds.
 
TomFitz said:
The deed is done.
Click to expand...

Here are 17 reason why it should not have been done!

1) impeachment must be non-partisan or it replaces general elections and is abuse of power

2) a phone call in not a high-crime or treason

3) withholding aid* within legal requirements is a not high- crime or treason4) opposing corruption is an unimpeachable and long-standing* American policy toward Ukraine

5) opposing corruption in Ukraine does not interfere with American elections so is not high crime
6) high-crime: President Musharraf was just convicted of treason and given death penalty for arresting judges.

7) Convicting Trump before he does it again? We convict after crimes, not before, in America.

8) Obstruction of Congress does not occur when one branch refuses to be submissive to another

9) Any investigator* personally, and professionally,* benefits from* investigating, if successful.

10) No evidence of quid- pro-quo or that Trump would have ignored requirement to release money on time

11) The national interest is well served by exposure of Biden mafia-like operations in Ukraine12) an impeachment* that can't possibly succeed is abuse of power merely designed to smear reputation

13) Trump did not ask for crooked investigations but rather one to expose truth and enhance democracy*

14) Abuse of power is, for example,* when Jefferson doubled size of country or when FDR packed Supreme Court, or when LBJ faked attack to start Vietnam War, not when Trump asked for a tiny favor.15) Chalupa and Democratic Senators dug for dirt on Trump in Ukraine too. Impeachable too?

16) Trump is threat to National security when he gave Javelins to Ukraine multiple times while Obama only gave bedding to his ally Putin?

17) Biden apparently took $50k/ month and laundered it through his son . Democrats are obstructing justice and abusing power by covering up this crime for personal gain.
 
James972 said:
Here are 17 reason why it should not have been done!

1) impeachment must be non-partisan or it replaces general elections and is abuse of power

2) a phone call in not a high-crime or treason

3) withholding aid* within legal requirements is a not high- crime or treason4) opposing corruption is an unimpeachable and long-standing* American policy toward Ukraine

5) opposing corruption in Ukraine does not interfere with American elections so is not high crime
6) high-crime: President Musharraf was just convicted of treason and given death penalty for arresting judges.

7) Convicting Trump before he does it again? We convict after crimes, not before, in America.

8) Obstruction of Congress does not occur when one branch refuses to be submissive to another

9) Any investigator* personally, and professionally,* benefits from* investigating, if successful.

10) No evidence of quid- pro-quo or that Trump would have ignored requirement to release money on time

11) The national interest is well served by exposure of Biden mafia-like operations in Ukraine12) an impeachment* that can't possibly succeed is abuse of power merely designed to smear reputation

13) Trump did not ask for crooked investigations but rather one to expose truth and enhance democracy*

14) Abuse of power is, for example,* when Jefferson doubled size of country or when FDR packed Supreme Court, or when LBJ faked attack to start Vietnam War, not when Trump asked for a tiny favor.15) Chalupa and Democratic Senators dug for dirt on Trump in Ukraine too. Impeachable too?

16) Trump is threat to National security when he gave Javelins to Ukraine multiple times while Obama only gave bedding to his ally Putin?

17) Biden apparently took $50k/ month and laundered it through his son . Democrats are obstructing justice and abusing power by covering up this crime for personal gain.
Click to expand...

Learning Might Help...if you can invest yourself in doing so... House votes to impeach Trump
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom