• 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!

Would you be fine if Trump formed a coup to be President for life?

ObamacareFail said:
Trump, if he loses re-election in a fair election will leave peacefully and he certainly will leave peacefully after a second term.
Click to expand...

That was not the question.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Sort of like the democrats who no longer believe in a peaceful transfer of power. They have been attempting to remove Trump from office since he was elected.
Click to expand...

Like both parties did to Nixon and the Repugs tried on Bill Clinton?
 
Questerr said:
Yet nowhere does the Constitution state that Congress must pull the crime in question from the US criminal code. They get to define what "all other high crimes and misdemeanors" means.

More to the point, The Senate voted to ACQUIT. Not dismiss the charges on the grounds they weren't crimes. So their actions verify that those are crimes that one can be found guilty or not-guilty of.
Click to expand...

Did I say anything about the US Code? All I said was "a crime." Littering is not a federal offense and therefore not part of the US Code. Laws against littering are at the State level, as are all other misdemeanors.

They are not crimes because there are no laws, at any level, prohibiting "abuse of power" or "obstruction of Congress." You do understand the meaning of "crime", right? It must violate an existing law.
 
Questerr said:
Yet nowhere does the Constitution state that Congress must pull the crime in question from the US criminal code. They get to define what "all other high crimes and misdemeanors" means.

More to the point, The Senate voted to ACQUIT. Not dismiss the charges on the grounds they weren't crimes. So their actions verify that those are crimes that one can be found guilty or not-guilty of.
Click to expand...

One thing that always needs to be explained.

At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent.

Trump was acquitted. He was not found innocent.
 
Glitch said:
Did I say anything about the US Code? All I said was "a crime." Littering is not a federal offense and therefore not part of the US Code. Laws against littering are at the State level, as are all other misdemeanors.

They are not crimes because there are no laws, at any level, prohibiting "abuse of power" or "obstruction of Congress." You do understand the meaning of "crime", right? It must violate an existing law.
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution state that there must be laws on the books for the crimes they charge the President with?

Why did the Senate vote to acquit rather than just dismissing the charges? If the charges weren't real, then clearly they can't acquit the President of them. You can't be not-guilty of something that doesn't exist.
 
Luckyone said:
One thing that always needs to be explained.

At the end of a criminal trial, a finding by a judge or jury that a defendant is not guilty. An acquittal signifies that a prosecutor failed to prove his or her case beyond a reasonable doubt, not that a defendant is innocent.

Trump was acquitted. He was not found innocent.
Click to expand...

Yep, I understand that. My point is that by acquitting, rather than simply dismissing the charges, they acknowledged that the charges were in fact crimes one could be found guilty or not-guilty of.
 
Questerr said:
Why would they not simply dismiss the charges instead? Voting to acquit means they could have also voted him guilty. Guilty or not-guilty are the options when one is charged with a crime. If the charges weren't crimes, they could have voted to dismiss, but they didn't.
Click to expand...

You are confusing impeachment with simple court cases. In regards to impeachment, acquittal is pretty much the same as "Not Guilty" Even if they chose guilty, the worst the Senate could do is toss the president out of office. The system is set up in a way that intends for the Senate to be the adults in the room and prevent a president getting tossed out of office merely on a political whim. The founders logic was that house members run for re-election every two years and the voters can toss them out if they abuse the process. The democrats in the house with their kangaroo court impeachment hearings made a mockery of the impeachment process. In my opinion, they will pay dearly for that in November.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are confusing impeachment with simple court cases. In regards to impeachment, acquittal is pretty much the same as "Not Guilty" Even if they chose guilty, the worst the Senate could do is toss the president out of office. The system is set up in a way that intends for the Senate to be the adults in the room and prevent a president getting tossed out of office merely on a political whim. The founders logic was that house members run for re-election every two years and the voters can toss them out if they abuse the process. The democrats in the house with their kangaroo court impeachment hearings made a mockery of the impeachment process. In my opinion, they will pay dearly for that in November.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said. Voting to acquit is same as voting him not-guilty. It acknowledges that the charges against him were in fact crimes.
 
ObamacareFail said:
The Senate voted to acquit because the articles of impeachment listed no actual crimes, just narratives such as "abuse of power" and "obstruction of justice". they did not even allow Trump due process rights. The house impeachment hearings were a kangaroo court. the articles of impeachment were based on nothing but second hand rumor. At least with Nixon and Clinton, there were actual crimes in the articles of impeachment, not just narratives. Those two clearly committed perjury and obstruction of justice, Trump did not.
Click to expand...

Crimes were indeed included in both Nixon's, Clinton's, and Andrew Johnson's Articles of Impeachment. Although in Nixon's case he resigned before the House passed the Articles of Impeachment.
 
Lfl said:
That was not the question.
Click to expand...

But then the question was stupid. Certainly no rational person would support a "president for life" scenario. That's why the 22nd amendment passed after FDR was elected to four terms as president. I just wish we could pass a similar amendment in regards to congress.
 
Lfl said:
Like both parties did to Nixon and the Repugs tried on Bill Clinton?
Click to expand...

Both Nixon and Clinton deserved to be removed from office. They committed actual crimes. However even with those two, our world renowned hallmark of "peaceful transfer of power" held strong. That sort of ended with the democrats going after Trump even before the 2016 election and they have not stopped.
 
Lfl said:
The question was not can he, reread the topic and answer the question.
Click to expand...

What's the point in addressing a theoretical that will never happen?
 
Questerr said:
That's exactly what I said. Voting to acquit is same as voting him not-guilty. It acknowledges that the charges against him were in fact crimes.
Click to expand...

No, it does not. the Senate only has two options. Acquittal or conviction.
 
ObamacareFail said:
But then the question was stupid. Certainly no rational person would support a "president for life" scenario. That's why the 22nd amendment passed after FDR was elected to four terms as president. I just wish we could pass a similar amendment in regards to congress.
Click to expand...

Well read this thread over because one Conservative here said they would be in favor of Trump as a dictator.
 
Questerr said:
Yep, I understand that. My point is that by acquitting, rather than simply dismissing the charges, they acknowledged that the charges were in fact crimes one could be found guilty or not-guilty of.
Click to expand...

Where do you think the Senate has the power to dismiss any legislation passed by the House? The Senate is required to vote on all bills passed by the House, the Senate schedule permitting. Many bills passed by the House never reach the floor of the Senate for a vote, and therefore disappear at the end of the session, but that clearly was not the case with the impeachment. The Senate did the only thing they could do - vote to either acquit or convict - the ONLY two options. The Senate does not have the authority to simply dismiss any bill passed by the House.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Just more TDS. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Is that the best answer you can give? That is simply a cop-out. You have totally failed to prove your point and the only thing you have is cheap words with which to fight. My 3-year old grandson can beat you at word fights. He can use words better than you can and that goes to show you have nothing, the same thing as my grandson has nothing. He can invent ideas better than you.

Let me show you how rare your Trump Derangement Syndrome is.

Mental illnesses are officially classified in a dense and dry book published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). This book contains 947 pages and lists hundreds of mental disorders; Trump Derangement Syndrome is nowhere to be seen. Similarly, a review of scholarly databases such as MEDLINE and Google Scholar reveal no academic papers on this alleged syndrome. Officially at least, Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a real, diagnosable, or treatable mental disorder.
Click to expand...

Hey, I just proved you don't have any idea of what you are saying. Just spouting BS.
 
ObamacareFail said:
No, it does not. the Senate only has two options. Acquittal or conviction.
Click to expand...

If the President is charged with a crime, correct? But you are arguing he was not charged with a crime, so they should not have been bound by those choices.
 
Glitch said:
Crimes were indeed included in both Nixon's, Clinton's, and Andrew Johnson's Articles of Impeachment. Although in Nixon's case he resigned before the House passed the Articles of Impeachment.
Click to expand...

True. Nixon saw the writing on the wall, knew he would not get enough support from republicans and chose not to put himself, his family, and the nation through the impeachment process. Clinton should have made the same choice.
 
Lfl said:
Well read this thread over because one Conservative here said they would be in favor of Trump as a dictator.
Click to expand...

That is one of the nuttiest claims I have ever read.
 
Luckyone said:
Is that the best answer you can give? That is simply a cop-out. You have totally failed to prove your point and the only thing you have is cheap words with which to fight. My 3-year old grandson can beat you at word fights. He can use words better than you can and that goes to show you have nothing, the same thing as my grandson has nothing. He can invent ideas better than you.

Let me show you how rare your Trump Derangement Syndrome is.



Hey, I just proved you don't have any idea of what you are saying. Just spouting BS.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am just getting bored with your TDS laced rants.
 
Glitch said:
Where do you think the Senate has the power to dismiss any legislation passed by the House? The Senate is required to vote on all bills passed by the House, the Senate schedule permitting. Many bills passed by the House never reach the floor of the Senate for a vote, and therefore disappear at the end of the session, but that clearly was not the case with the impeachment. The Senate did the only thing they could do - vote to either acquit or convict - the ONLY two options. The Senate does not have the authority to simply dismiss any bill passed by the House.
Click to expand...

Since impeachment requires a criminal charge, and you are asserting no criminal charge was made, the Senate could have ruled the bill had not legally passed the House and thrown it to the USSC.
 
Trump will lose and I don't think even he's insane enough to try and stay in power.
He'll try and contest the result but at the normal handover time he'll leave.

He will make it as painful a process as he possibly can though and throw many, many toys out of his pram.
 
Peter said:
Trump will lose and I don't think even he's insane enough to try and stay in power.
He'll try and contest the result but at the normal handover time he'll leave.

He will make it as painful a process as he possibly can though and throw many, many toys out of his pram.
Click to expand...

I would not bet heqavily on Trump losing if I were you.
 
ObamacareFail said:
It has not been squashed yet until we see how the lasuit against the state of Nevada turns out.



And just how are they doing that? Be specific. I am waiting.



You libruls massly overuse the term "traitor" much in the same way you massively overuse the term "racist". The result is that no objective person will ever take you seriously. What exactly has Trump done that you consider traitorous? Please include the statute.Perhaps a bit less TDS is in order.
Click to expand...

They killed in the courts here in Texas, we shall see about Nevada.

Trying to stop people from mail in voting, trying to kill off the post office, and closing down polling stations.

Did I say he was a Traitor, reading is fundamental, we are talking about him not stepping down if he lost. That would make him a Traitor, and I assume a hero in your eyes.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I am quite willing to have a rational discussion with anyone who responds in kind. In another posts, you claimed Trump is a traitor. One of your comrades on another thread claimed Trump is intentionally trying to kill people with covid 19. If you do not want to see the term "TDS tossed around, employ a bit less TDS. Make points and arguments that are policy and fact based rather then just spittle spewing hatred of Trump and his supporters. Your choice. Have a terrific weekend.
Click to expand...

I never called trump a traitor, please show where I did, as you say, I'll wait.

Don't care what someone else said, take it up with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom