• 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!

McConnell should not take the oath

As pointed out earlier, many Republicans claimed that what Trump was accused of doing was very serious and could cause Republicans to support impeachment, so there was bi-partisanship. Once it was shown that he did what he was accused of saying, Republicans changed their minds, and now want to complain that its partisan

Their cation may be described as corruption.

I have a hard time seeing all the way into the alternate universe you are posting from.
 
I understand your argument; but I think the word coup more closely fits the abuse of impeachment than the electoral college, which has different motives, and is not aimed at a particular presidential candidate. I think a phrase like 'systemic violation of democracy' is more accurate than 'coup' for the electoral system.

I agree. I'm just addressing their logic.
 
I have a hard time seeing all the way into the alternate universe you are posting from.

Please explain, although I doubt you can. It doesn't make any sense.

My source quotes Republicans as evidence in this so-called alternative universe.
 
What about it?

Who is President? I'll play whatever game you think you can play.

Nobody changed their mind.

You can make up any facts you want, but don't expect people to accept them.

Arguing that he somehow reflects the will of the people by citing his popular vote total doesn't serve you well because his opponent received a greater vote total.
 
You literally do not understand what a coup is.

Look at Bolivia if you want to see a coup. Backed by the dominionist theocrats here, of course.

With Bibles and guns.
 
The GOP killed bi-partisanship when they changed their mind about and then refused to consider market-based reform for healthcare.
 
A constitutional process is not a coup.

This is the language of authoritarianism.

I think a coup describes what’s going on pretty well. We have a political faction that holds the majority in the house using that to falsely attempt to impeach a sitting president or at the very least taint the 2020 election.

One would need to be totally politically naive or so bias and partisan that it doesn’t matter, the end justifies the means. As for the constitutional process, this clown show is exactly what the founders were concerned about.
 
Impeachment Trials and the Senator’s Oath of Impartial Justice | Take Care
For McConnell will certainly violate that oath by the way he is handling the trial against Trump in the Senate. He will work with the defendant, Trump, to see that there is a little hurt to Trump's chances of re-election as possible and has stated that the outcome is already predetermined. All of which violates the oath he will take as a juror in the trial. Of course, we have seen that McConnell has never even taken his oath of office seriously, so I guess that violating this oath means even less to him. I wonder if he has gone to one knee and taken a solemn oath to subjugate himself to the will of Trump as it seems he must have done. Perhaps that is the oath he is really willing to obey?

What part of The Constitution, exactly, is McConnell violating?

Y'all keep insisting that impeachment is a political process. You can't be mad when congress critters take sides in a political process.
 
look in the mirror.....this is revenge for Clinton impeachment

I don't think that's true. The Clinton presidency is long over and done.

This is about another Clinton. The loser. And the people whut brung her there.
 
I don't think that's true. The Clinton presidency is long over and done.

This is about another Clinton. The loser. And the people whut brung her there.

No, this about obstruction of congress and abuse of power. And, if McConnell follows through on his threat, it will be a violation of his Constitutional obligations.

We know half of Kentucky won't care. But, Mitch Trump's Bitch better hope the side that does is not more energized to vote him out.
 
What part of The Constitution, exactly, is McConnell violating?

Y'all keep insisting that impeachment is a political process. You can't be mad when congress critters take sides in a political process.

Separation of powers: see Article One, Two and Three of that lovely document re: vesting clause.
 
First of all, y’all just want a easy walk to the end and I honestly hope that we impeach 46 the day after


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I particularly enjoyed watching your republican ankle-biters on the Judiciary Committee whining about the wording in the impeachment articles and then having the identical wording read back to them from the Clinton impeachment documents. Some of those moral and intellectual midgets were in Congress at the time and their massive hypocrisy had no effect on them. How does it feel to be in the party of complete immorality, cowardice and anti-Americanism?
 
Separation of powers: see Article One, Two and Three of that lovely document re: vesting clause.

You mean this?

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.

How does that support the OP"s argument? :lamo
 
A document that republicans are using for toilet paper right now.

A document that none of you have ever even read.

Calamity thinks the vesting clause is somehow a restriction on the Senate. :lamo
 
A document that none of you have ever even read.

Calamity thinks the vesting clause is somehow a restriction on the Senate. :lamo

No. Here's what Calamity said,

Separation of powers: see Article One, Two and Three of that lovely document re: vesting clause.

Which is true

Section 1 of Article Two establishes the positions of the president and the vice president, and sets the term of both offices at four years. Section 1's Vesting Clause declares that the executive power of the federal government is vested in the president and, along with the Vesting Clauses of Article One and Article Three, establishes the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Why do you lie about what I supposedly think?
 
I think a coup describes what’s going on pretty well. We have a political faction that holds the majority in the house using that to falsely attempt to impeach a sitting president or at the very least taint the 2020 election.

One would need to be totally politically naive or so bias and partisan that it doesn’t matter, the end justifies the means. As for the constitutional process, this clown show is exactly what the founders were concerned about.

Go look up Bolivia.

Then come back here and explain what you learned.

This is not a coup. It's a constitutional process. Dislike it? Change the constitution.
 
A document that none of you have ever even read.

Calamity thinks the vesting clause is somehow a restriction on the Senate. :lamo

McConnell is the equivalent of a jury foreman in a criminal trial so we have the jury foreman coordinating the trial with the defendant in order to make sure that defendant remains unscathed much less convicted. There's a particular oath senators will take at the beginning of the process to swear and affirm they will perform their duties honestly and with "due diligence." Every Republican going along with this travesty will have committed perjury the moment they finished taking that oath.
 
The impeachment is 100% partisan at this point. Zero republicans have signed on.

So why shouldn't he act partisan? Everyone else is.

Not only have no republicans signed on there are actually a few democrats against it.

So there is more bipartisan support being against it than for it.

At least we know that there are a few honest Democrats left. Not that many but a few.

I figure that there will be a few democratic senators vote in favor to acquit as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom