• 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!

Should Trump Be Impeached?

Should Trump Be Impeached?

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 43.2%

  • No

    Votes: 37 45.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 11.1%
  • Total voters
    81
countryboy said:
Is this a serious question? How can you be convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors is you haven't broken any laws? Just admit you are being contrarian.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.


"Congress has very broad latitude to define “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and the only check on that power is that 2/3 of the Senate must agree that the charges in question justify removal in order for a president to be convicted. This by itself is meant to protect against a purely politically-motivated impeachment, as it’s unlikely a 2/3 majority in the Senate would support removal in such a case.

But the House can define the terms “high crimes and misdemeanors” however it wants to."

Quora Question: Impeachable Offenses? Congress Defines What's Worthy

Like I said.
 
"The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers [it] to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office. " - Gerald Ford, remarks in the House (April 15, 1970), Congressional Record, vol. 116, p. 11913.
 
lurchadams said:
Actually I would have been fine with a special prosecutor investigating Clinton or Obama. If truly independent, they would have been much less partisan than the countless GOP inquisitions. Even the GOP inquisitions yielded nothing.

Finally I don't want anyone destroyed, but if guilty of crimes against the country, the convicted should get what's coming to them.
Click to expand...

You are at least the third librul to claim that the so-called GOP inquisitions yielded nothing. The truth is that the Benghazi hearings led to the discovery of Hillary's email scandal. And I doubt that you would be silly enough to claim that did not hurt her chances in 2016. It also led to the discovery of the Clinton's peddling influence through the Clinton Foundation.
 
Paperview said:
No, I'm not.


"Congress has very broad latitude to define “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and the only check on that power is that 2/3 of the Senate must agree that the charges in question justify removal in order for a president to be convicted. This by itself is meant to protect against a purely politically-motivated impeachment, as it’s unlikely a 2/3 majority in the Senate would support removal in such a case.

But the House can define the terms “high crimes and misdemeanors” however it wants to."

Quora Question: Impeachable Offenses? Congress Defines What's Worthy

Like I said.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say. I guess I understand your confusion, libs aren't exactly fans of the Constitution. There's no way any reasonable, thinking person can glean "Impeachment does not require the POTUS to actually break a law", from "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
 
Crovax said:
Yes it is a witch hunt and of course Trump knows exactly what a witch hunt looks like because he led one against both Obama and Hillary.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There was actual guilt in regards to Hillary and "Hussein".
 
And the only "conviction" a Senate can hand down after the House impeaches, is removal from office.

Congress is a political body, not a criminal adjudicator.

After removal from office, if specific laws warrant it - a criminal court can take up the matter.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
You can say it Loud. You can say it Proud. Don't expect your Asinine Comment to stop the Chatter. In the House, impeachment requires the support of a Majority of Representatives present and voting. Thereafter, the Senate, to convict, requires the support of a two-thirds Super Majority of Senators present and voting.

Given Trump's obvious Lack of Character and Colossal Incompetence, in spite of GOP Control of the House and Senate, he would surely Resign and declare Victory before the Senate convicted him... and probably even before the House impeached him.
Click to expand...

And at the least, it requires some evidence that is not leaked gossip.
 
countryboy said:
Whatever you say. I guess I understand your confusion, libs aren't exactly fans of the Constitution. There's no way any reasonable, thinking person can glean "Impeachment does not require the POTUS to actually break a law", from "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Click to expand...

You can keep on swinging that dead cat around, but eventually, you'll have to come around and admit I am right.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Nice try, however many have been convicted and imprisoned for less then what Hillary Von Pantsuit did.
Click to expand...

But were these other people above the law upper class or just average citizens. In our caste system rules only apply depending on your status, who you know, and your political connections.

A young black male drives a car into a lake killing a couple rich important people, fails to notify authorities, and goes home acting like it never happened will end up in jail for life. Now a Kennedy will be worshipped like a god for the exact same actions. What is really sick is these are the same people who act as though they are for equal treatment of all people. Right.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You don't need evidence. Just enough sick people with no regard for justice or individual rights to impose their will. The KKK have done it for years why not the democratic party.
Click to expand...

Because the Democratic Party, like the KKK, are in the minority.........in the House, Senate, and the Supreme Court.

A small minority of zealots can make noise and spew hatred.......but they can't actually DO anything.

:ind:
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are fantasizing.
Click to expand...


Stay tuned.

What you or I say has no impact on anything. We are like dogs barking in the backyard just to be barking.

I just find it hard that Trump would want to go another 3 years and 8 months of this. Time will tell.
 
ObamacareFail said:
What the republican establishment should learn is that it is not really about Trump. Just considering him an interloper or opportunist would be a fatal mistake. The republican establishment effectively created the movement that elected Trump by way of their own failings. The conservative base has felt ignored nearly since the previous populist president...namely Ronald Reagan left office. The establishment politician rut since Reagan has been: "Give lip service to conservative philosophy during convention time every four years, then ignore the base and strictly obey the party's big donors. Trump came along and ran on an outsider label and made the promises that the conservative base wanted to hear. And he has so far worked at following through on them....for instance nominating and getting confirmed, originalist justices to the US Supreme Court. If the republicans establishment goes back to business as usual after Trump leaves office, they will never regain the trust of the party's base voting base.
Click to expand...

It was actually the conservatives who were against Trump during the primaries. The conservative faction is the only faction within the GOP that Trump didn't gain a plurality in. He lost conservatives to Cruz. It was also the conservatives who formed the anti-Trump or never-Trump coalition which went no-where. Trump never received a Majority of any Republican faction, by that I mean 50% plus one vote. Besides, it is the traditional conservatives within the GOP that have become the new RINO's

Conservatives Are The New RINOs

All during the primaries and the general election, quite a few of Trump supporters wouldn't label him a conservative. They labeled him a populist, a nationalist, even a nativist. But few called him a conservative. Sure Republican conservatives voted for Trump in the general. They would have voted for any Republican, living or dead against Hillary Clinton. But let's look at how conservatives voted in this election and in past elections.
Trump won the conservative vote 81-16 over Hillary Clinton with 3% voting for Johnson
Romney won the conservative vote 82-17 over Obama
McCain 78-20 over Obama
Bush 84-16 over Kerry
Bush 82-17 over Gore
Dole 72-20 over Clinton with 8% voting for Perot
Bush the elder 64-18 over Clinton with 18% voting for Perot
Bush the elder 81-19 over Dukakis
Reagan 82-18 over Mondale
Reagan 73-23 over Carter with 4% voting for Anderson
Ford 70-30 over Carter

That's as far back as Roper research takes it. Trump did about average in recent elections. G.W. Bush bested Trump twice and Romney narrowly did. I think you're misreading conservatives within the GOP. I seen the term Alt-Right used on this site, I never have been sure what exactly alt-right is outside they supported Trump. Perhaps that is the better term to use for Trump supporters than the traditional Republican conservative.

One last point, exit polls show that 50% of the votes Trump received were anti-Clinton voters. Any Tom, Dick or Harry on the Republican side would have received their votes. Romney, McCain, either Bush, perhaps even Pataki as long as the last name wasn't Clinton. Only 41% of all Trump voters strongly supported Trump. I would say the Democrats definitely choose the wrong candidate.
 
Crosscheck said:
No, the impeachment process will consume two years of our time. Most importantly could interfere with the Winter Olympics in South Korea.

Trump will soon lose interest in this soap opera and will step away. More importantly he single-handely has killed the chance of any other reality TV star to run for president.
Click to expand...
Where did that come from, and how is it important AT ALL?
 
Paperview said:
Show me where it does.

Grounds for Impeachment are anything the majority in Congress say it is.

You need to read up.
Click to expand...

countryboy said:
Is this a serious question? How can you be convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors is you haven't broken any laws? Just admit you are being contrarian.
Click to expand...
Is one of you arguing impeachment and the other removal from office? They are two separate steps.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
It is hard to justify a witch hunt unless you are amongst a crowd of like minded sick people.
Click to expand...
It's impossible to take the accusations of 'witch hunt' seriously when so many of the same people were doing the same thing as recent as a year ago.
 
Perotista said:
It was actually the conservatives who were against Trump during the primaries. The conservative faction is the only faction within the GOP that Trump didn't gain a plurality in. He lost conservatives to Cruz. It was also the conservatives who formed the anti-Trump or never-Trump coalition which went no-where. Trump never received a Majority of any Republican faction, by that I mean 50% plus one vote. Besides, it is the traditional conservatives within the GOP that have become the new RINO's

Conservatives Are The New RINOs

All during the primaries and the general election, quite a few of Trump supporters wouldn't label him a conservative. They labeled him a populist, a nationalist, even a nativist. But few called him a conservative. Sure Republican conservatives voted for Trump in the general. They would have voted for any Republican, living or dead against Hillary Clinton. But let's look at how conservatives voted in this election and in past elections.
Trump won the conservative vote 81-16 over Hillary Clinton with 3% voting for Johnson
Romney won the conservative vote 82-17 over Obama
McCain 78-20 over Obama
Bush 84-16 over Kerry
Bush 82-17 over Gore
Dole 72-20 over Clinton with 8% voting for Perot
Bush the elder 64-18 over Clinton with 18% voting for Perot
Bush the elder 81-19 over Dukakis
Reagan 82-18 over Mondale
Reagan 73-23 over Carter with 4% voting for Anderson
Ford 70-30 over Carter

That's as far back as Roper research takes it. Trump did about average in recent elections. G.W. Bush bested Trump twice and Romney narrowly did. I think you're misreading conservatives within the GOP. I seen the term Alt-Right used on this site, I never have been sure what exactly alt-right is outside they supported Trump. Perhaps that is the better term to use for Trump supporters than the traditional Republican conservative.

One last point, exit polls show that 50% of the votes Trump received were anti-Clinton voters. Any Tom, Dick or Harry on the Republican side would have received their votes. Romney, McCain, either Bush, perhaps even Pataki as long as the last name wasn't Clinton. Only 41% of all Trump voters strongly supported Trump. I would say the Democrats definitely choose the wrong candidate.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that conservatism is the new RINO. Conservatism is a ridiculous ideology and needs to be destroyed. The sooner the GOP abandons conservatism the better.
 
reinoe said:
I'm glad that conservatism is the new RINO. Conservatism is a ridiculous ideology and needs to be destroyed. The sooner the GOP abandons conservatism the better.
Click to expand...

Why is conservatism a ridiculous ideology?
 
nota bene said:
Why is conservatism a ridiculous ideology?
Click to expand...

Because conservatives constantly espouse "freedom of association" then want to regulate who you spend time with in the bedroom. Now if conservatives want to exercise the demons of social conservatism from their ranks then maybe it'll gain some respectability. There are signs of that conservatism will gain more respectability again with the rejection of JESUS FREAK politics and the election of Trump, a man who couldn't care less about religion and social conservatism.
 
Paperview said:
Which is the political equivalent of an indictment.
Click to expand...

That may be true in the 21st century where the left has literally lost their collective mind. But Constitutionally speaking, no.
 
radcen said:
It's impossible to take the accusations of 'witch hunt' seriously when so many of the same people were doing the same thing as recent as a year ago.
Click to expand...

Except that they weren't.
 
countryboy said:
That may be true in the 21st century where the left has literally lost their collective mind. But Constitutionally speaking, no.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? Of course it is, and it has always been the case: Articles of Impeachment are the political equivalent of an indictment.

It's a two step process. The House lays out the charges.

If enough votes in the House (simple majority) to Impeach, it then goes on to a trial in the Senate. If two thirds in the Senate vote to remove him from office, then that's it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom