• 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 kill impeachment effort against Trump

Moderate Right said:
You told me that my tax cuts were going to expire. Do you believe that or not? Republicans aren't going to let them expire. Will Democrats?
Click to expand...

At this point, I don't 'believe' anything, especially something that wont be an issue for five more years. We could all be a pile of cinder in five years. As I stated previously and will repeat, I hope the Democrats will leave the tax cuts in place and I hope the Democrats raise the taxes on the rich. And I have already given you proof that the tax cuts you got are going to expire in 2025.

"December 31st, 2025, will be a significant day for most taxpayers. Twenty-three provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act directly relating to individual income taxes will expire, meaning most taxpayers will see a tax hike unless some or all provisions are extended. A Look Ahead at Expiring Tax Provisions | Tax Foundation
 
HumblePi said:
At this point, I don't 'believe' anything, especially something that wont be an issue for five more years. We could all be a pile of cinder in five years. As I stated previously and will repeat, I hope the Democrats will leave the tax cuts in place and I hope the Democrats raise the taxes on the rich. And I have already given you proof that the tax cuts you got are going to expire in 2025.

"December 31st, 2025, will be a significant day for most taxpayers. Twenty-three provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act directly relating to individual income taxes will expire, meaning most taxpayers will see a tax hike unless some or all provisions are extended. A Look Ahead at Expiring Tax Provisions | Tax Foundation
Click to expand...

Many things Congress does "expire" and never do. If Republicans won't let them expire and Democrats won't let them expire then you are being dishonest when you say they are going to expire. Whichever party is in power, they won't let the tax cuts expire.
 
haymarket said:
It is a discussion. It has to begin somewhere. That is the way it works.
Click to expand...

No, what they're saying is that the $93T is the start of addressing the problem. (It's based on a percent of GDP, not any real estimate of costs).

The people promoting the new green deal have no clear definition of the problems they are trying to address, what they actually want to do, or the costs that may be involved. That makes it a very difficult place to begin a real conversation.
 
uptower said:
Why do the Trumplicans hate Pelosi so much when she's his biggest protector?

Hopefully as HumblePi suggested, they're waiting till there's an airtight case against him, but really, with the bar already so low, will anything be 'enough'?
Click to expand...

No. Lindsey Graham already publicly declared that any impeachment would die the moment it hit the Senate.
 
Moderate Right said:
Democrats said the Green New Deal was "just the beginning".
Click to expand...

What's wrong with saying it's just the beginning?
For many years Congress critters have been spoiled by the luxury of receiving polished "gavel ready" legislation put together by well funded think tanks and PAC's, often written by former Congress critters turned lobbyists or consultants, and backed by extensive public relations and well funded studies paid for by the PAC's and think tanks.

AOC had none of those luxuries or trappings, it's quite clear.
She had her little laptop and some paper and her thoughts and the thoughts of a few interested parties. And the GND isn't a bill, it's not any kind of legislation, it was a proposal, a conversation starter, with no teeth. And it was likely written at a kitchen table...by a rookie.

It looks, sounds and reads like it was written by a rookie.

The fact that it has several million people like yourself scared out of your wits or ready to take up tiki torches and pitchforks is very telling. Shall we dig up some of the clinkers your side has run up the flagpole, like the Defense of Marriage Act?

Or how about the recent abortion laws in Alabama, was it Alabama? So outrageous that even a growing number of Republicans think it goes way too far. Obviously written by rookies and clearly intended to spark a SCOTUS battle. It might just blow up in your faces, to be honest. It's guaranteed to provoke a huge backlash. We're not Mexico and we're not Ireland.
And pregnancies WILL continue to be terminated, only by wealthy people who can afford to skirt Alabama's ridiculous law.

The Green New Deal is a proposal, loosely drafted, sometimes sloppy proposal.
It started a lot of conversations, and even though parts of it are wholly unrealistic, the beauty of the GND is that it made people talk about what might be realistic.

So, you guys go ahead and run around with your hair on fire, talking about ninety-three trillion dollars. I realize that it is red meat for your base.
But I think you overestimate your base, its size and its power.
Of course that is why you feel compelled to exaggerate what the GND really is, because if you were forced to have an honest conversation about it, and people listened, some of the ideas in the GND would grow legs, much to your shock and chagrin.
And some of those ideas not only wouldn't cost 93 trillion dollars, some of them might even save money in the long run.
 
Last edited:
dcsports said:
No, what they're saying is that the $93T is the start of addressing the problem. (It's based on a percent of GDP, not any real estimate of costs).

The people promoting the new green deal have no clear definition of the problems they are trying to address, what they actually want to do, or the costs that may be involved. That makes it a very difficult place to begin a real conversation.
Click to expand...

Show me where in the text of the GND where it specifically says that

"$93T is the start of addressing the problem and that it is based on a percent of GDP, not any real estimate of costs."

If you can show me that, I'll publicly admit I was wrong, but I am pretty sure you will not find it, or I would have found it.
 
The only reason Trump has not been impeached, removed and imprisoned... is because the Right Wing GOP... won't upold the Constitution or the Laws, and they Ignore America's Historical Policy and have no regard or concern for Presidential Integrity and Decorum... and they cast a blind eye and blind mind, to High Crimes and Misdemeanors. When it comes to Republican, we've seen it before, the mess they allowed Cheney during the Bush Administration to lead us into madness, The same group were part of the Nixon Regime, and each time they had a Republican Administration they were part of "Damaged America Greatly"; Now we have the same bigots that came up with the Birther Madness and the Tea Party that has invoked a higher level of Rabid Savage Mentality in America's Governance System.

Those of us who don't buy into Republican Savagery, know how to call "EVIL" when we see it... no matter how much deflecting, denial and drama games that the Evil Regime of Republican Ideology Promotes.... People know how to see Savage Behavior and Call It for the Evil It Represents and the Evil it Invokes and the Evil it Promotes.

That's the simple reality.... and denial does not make it go away... If the follower's of this evilness were not so cult groomed, they see for themselves the exact same reality that those of us that are not cult groomed can and do so, of and throughout the Republican Ranks.

Never would decent minded Democracy Respecting people accept or support the vile that comes out of Trump's mouth on a daily basis... incessantly!!!
 
Lutherf said:
House votes to kill impeachment effort against Trump | TheHill



95 votes to vote to impeach is all the Democrats could muster. I wonder if this will take the wind out of the sails of the "squad" or if they'll simply take the vote count as a challenge.
Click to expand...

Not exactly... the vote was to bring impeachment based upon his racist comments. One could be favor of impeachment but against that particular reason to impeach. I, for one, would fall into that camp.

Timing is everything. While I believe impeachment ultimately is the right thing for the house to do, the time is not now.
 
Moderate Right said:
You told me that my tax cuts were going to expire. Do you believe that or not? Republicans aren't going to let them expire. Will Democrats?
Click to expand...

yes, many aspects of the tax cuts are indeed set to expire by 2024, particularly the tax cuts for the middle class.

A Look Ahead at Expiring Tax Provisions | Tax Foundation

From article: "...Twenty-three provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act directly relating to individual income taxes will expire, meaning most taxpayers will see a tax hike unless some or all provisions are extended..."

In fact, the middle class tax cuts were pretty paltry, with many actually having a negligible cut and some actually having an increase. When the change the tax rates in 2024, but do not change the structure, the net-net will likely be a significant middle class tax increase in 2025 compared to 2017. Won't that be special?

Sorry you were flim-flammed, but you were.

Expiring tax cuts means that congress need not do a thing. In fact, to actually NOT have them expire requires legislation (each party agree) The 2024 congress can merely do nothing, have the cuts expire and blame the Republicans for pulling a fast one on the middle class in the original bill.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Not exactly... the vote was to bring impeachment based upon his racist comments. One could be favor of impeachment but against that particular reason to impeach. I, for one, would fall into that camp.

Timing is everything. While I believe impeachment ultimately is the right thing for the house to do, the time is not now.
Click to expand...

Right. That's because you're choosing to impeach for purely political motives as you have no criminal basis on which to impeach. It's much better to impeach once the campaigns really get rolling because all the Democrats can say "Hey! Do you really want to vote for the guy we impeached"? I figure we'll see the impeachment process begin in earnest about a year from now.
 
CRModeration said:
The Senate will never convict.

The Democrats aren't going to use impeachment as a toy like what the GOP did to Clinton. The slow burn of gathering evidence worked spectacularly against Nixon and it will work well against Trump.

However, it is particularly sad that because of the abuse of the impeachment process in the 90s, we can virtually no longer use the process when it actually becomes necessary because the the political fallout would be catastrophic.

In other words, the most potent power in the Constitution to check a rogue president is all but null and void. That should concern every American.
Click to expand...

Excellent post!
 
Lutherf said:
Right. That's because you're choosing to impeach for purely political motives as you have no criminal basis on which to impeach. It's much better to impeach once the campaigns really get rolling because all the Democrats can say "Hey! Do you really want to vote for the guy we impeached"? I figure we'll see the impeachment process begin in earnest about a year from now.
Click to expand...

Sorry pal, but the "criminal basis" to impeach is profound. As has been pointed out more than 1000 former federal prosecutors have said the Mueller obstruction of justice case delineated in his report is prosecutable under federal prosecution guidelines, hence its impeachable. That said, what constitutes an impeachable offense is whatever the House deems to be an impeachable offense. It could author a rather lengthy Articles of Impeachment this afternoon, if it had the political will.

I do agree that now is the time to build the case and next year is the time to lay it out.
 
dcsports said:
No, what they're saying is that the $93T is the start of addressing the problem. (It's based on a percent of GDP, not any real estimate of costs).
Click to expand...

Not at all. The topic of the Green New Deal is merely the start of the discussion.
 
haymarket said:
It is a discussion. It has to begin somewhere. That is the way it works.
Click to expand...

No it's not. If you are serious about talking about a subject you don't start off with the cost being 93 trillion dollars and that is only the beginning. If 93 trillion dollars is only the beginning what is the final tally?
 
Moderate Right said:
No it's not. If you are serious about talking about a subject you don't start off with the cost being 93 trillion dollars and that is only the beginning. If 93 trillion dollars is only the beginning what is the final tally?
Click to expand...

The Green New Deal is by nature and design aspirational. It is intended as something to serve as a springboard for a national discussion.

Anyone who is truly concerned abut the fundamental problem does NOT get hng up on a dollar figure and use that as a sorry excuse to NOT discuss the major problem. And that is what many on the right have done from the very start when we first heard of it.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
What's wrong with saying it's just the beginning?
For many years Congress critters have been spoiled by the luxury of receiving polished "gavel ready" legislation put together by well funded think tanks and PAC's, often written by former Congress critters turned lobbyists or consultants, and backed by extensive public relations and well funded studies paid for by the PAC's and think tanks.

AOC had none of those luxuries or trappings, it's quite clear.
She had her little laptop and some paper and her thoughts and the thoughts of a few interested parties. And the GND isn't a bill, it's not any kind of legislation, it was a proposal, a conversation starter, with no teeth. And it was likely written at a kitchen table...by a rookie.

It looks, sounds and reads like it was written by a rookie.

The fact that it has several million people like yourself scared out of your wits or ready to take up tiki torches and pitchforks is very telling. Shall we dig up some of the clinkers your side has run up the flagpole, like the Defense of Marriage Act?

Or how about the recent abortion laws in Alabama, was it Alabama? So outrageous that even a growing number of Republicans think it goes way too far. Obviously written by rookies and clearly intended to spark a SCOTUS battle. It might just blow up in your faces, to be honest. It's guaranteed to provoke a huge backlash. We're not Mexico and we're not Ireland.
And pregnancies WILL continue to be terminated, only by wealthy people who can afford to skirt Alabama's ridiculous law.

The Green New Deal is a proposal, loosely drafted, sometimes sloppy proposal.
It started a lot of conversations, and even though parts of it are wholly unrealistic, the beauty of the GND is that it made people talk about what might be realistic.

So, you guys go ahead and run around with your hair on fire, talking about ninety-three trillion dollars. I realize that it is red meat for your base.
But I think you overestimate your base, its size and its power.
Of course that is why you feel compelled to exaggerate what the GND really is, because if you were forced to have an honest conversation about it, and people listened, some of the ideas in the GND would grow legs, much to your shock and chagrin.
And some of those ideas not only wouldn't cost 93 trillion dollars, some of them might even save money in the long run.
Click to expand...

Because if the beginning starts with a 93 trillion dollar price tag, where is the end? I mean the 93 trillion dollars is a non starter from the getgo. If the left wants to be serious about talking about these things then let's have a serious discussion, not something that doesn't have a snowball's chance at the sun's core.
 
upsideguy said:
yes, many aspects of the tax cuts are indeed set to expire by 2024, particularly the tax cuts for the middle class.

A Look Ahead at Expiring Tax Provisions | Tax Foundation

From article: "...Twenty-three provisions from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act directly relating to individual income taxes will expire, meaning most taxpayers will see a tax hike unless some or all provisions are extended..."

In fact, the middle class tax cuts were pretty paltry, with many actually having a negligible cut and some actually having an increase. When the change the tax rates in 2024, but do not change the structure, the net-net will likely be a significant middle class tax increase in 2025 compared to 2017. Won't that be special?

Sorry you were flim-flammed, but you were.

Expiring tax cuts means that congress need not do a thing. In fact, to actually NOT have them expire requires legislation (each party agree) The 2024 congress can merely do nothing, have the cuts expire and blame the Republicans for pulling a fast one on the middle class in the original bill.
Click to expand...

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that yes, if Democrats have enough power at that time, they will be perfectly fine with screwing the middle class and then blaming the expired cuts on Trump. Personally, I don't think the Democrats are as low as that. Yes, they are currently stooping pretty damn low but I refuse to believe they are that low.
 
haymarket said:
The Green New Deal is by nature and design aspirational. It is intended as something to serve as a springboard for a national discussion.

Anyone who is truly concerned abut the fundamental problem does NOT get hng up on a dollar figure and use that as a sorry excuse to NOT discuss the major problem. And that is what many on the right have done from the very start when we first heard of it.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true liberal when you say that we should not get hung up on spending 93 trillion dollars.
 
Moderate Right said:
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that yes, if Democrats have enough power at that time, they will be perfectly fine with screwing the middle class and then blaming the expired cuts on Trump. Personally, I don't think the Democrats are as low as that. Yes, they are currently stooping pretty damn low but I refuse to believe they are that low.
Click to expand...

We had a precedent for this... the 2003 Bush Tax Cut expired in 2013. The Dems had the power in the negotiation for the continuance of those cuts. They did make most of the 2003 tax cuts permanent while allowing the tax cuts to sunset on the high income earners. My guess is the Dems will allow something similar to happen to protect middle income earners while allowing the tax cuts to expire on the higher earners. They should, however, make sure the Republican are well outed for pulling a fast one in 2017.

Remember the Democrats voted against the 2017 bill. Why are you expecting them to fix it when it runs its natural course? The Republican bill was designed to expire. If you did not know that, you should have. Your issue is with them.

Meanwhile you look the other way when the Republicans attempt to dismantle the PPACA, which has helped millions, while attempting to blame Democrats. I suggest you take personal outrage inventory before worrying about what the Dems may or may not do in 2024.
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
Spoken like a true liberal when you say that we should not get hung up on spending 93 trillion dollars.
Click to expand...

Your response indicates someone deaf and dumb to what is written to them mentally and thick as a brick.

The is a war and you have picked the wrong side.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Show me where in the text of the GND where it specifically says that

"$93T is the start of addressing the problem and that it is based on a percent of GDP, not any real estimate of costs."

If you can show me that, I'll publicly admit I was wrong, but I am pretty sure you will not find it, or I would have found it.
Click to expand...

lol. The GND doesn't give an amount. That's the figure given by people talking about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom