• 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
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...

I think one needs both the extreme right and extreme left to come to something that works. A counter balance so to speak. One on the other. This country has swung back and forth since its beginnings. Usually ending up somewhere in-between the two extremes. If one or the other disappears, so too does the checks and balances. It's like Mars representing conservatism and Venus representing Liberalism. One is way to hot for humankind to exist, the other way too cold. What is needed is someplace between them that isn't too cold or too hot, too far left or too far right, then humankind and our form of government can prosper.
 
Perotista said:
I think one needs both the extreme right and extreme left to come to something that works. A counter balance so to speak. One on the other. This country has swung back and forth since its beginnings. Usually ending up somewhere in-between the two extremes. If one or the other disappears, so too does the checks and balances. It's like Mars representing conservatism and Venus representing Liberalism. One is way to hot for humankind to exist, the other way too cold. What is needed is someplace between them that isn't too cold or too hot, too far left or too far right, then humankind and our form of government can prosper.
Click to expand...

This is generally why I prefer a divided Congress and a split Supreme Court. There's value in both, but neither is absolutely correct. I don't want the extreme of either side running roughshod over the people.
 
Perotista said:
I think one needs both the extreme right and extreme left to come to something that works. A counter balance so to speak. One on the other. This country has swung back and forth since its beginnings. Usually ending up somewhere in-between the two extremes. If one or the other disappears, so too does the checks and balances. It's like Mars representing conservatism and Venus representing Liberalism. One is way to hot for humankind to exist, the other way too cold. What is needed is someplace between them that isn't too cold or too hot, too far left or too far right, then humankind and our form of government can prosper.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about extremism. I'm talking about irrationality. Conservatism has never existed under the ideals it espouses in my lifetime. Not once. Not ever on the federal level.
 
radcen said:
This is generally why I prefer a divided Congress and a split Supreme Court. There's value in both, but neither is absolutely correct. I don't want the extreme of either side running roughshod over the people.
Click to expand...

I always liked divided government. If the Democrats win back the House in 2018 as I think they will. That is fine with me. This roughshod as you put it was one reason I was adamantly against Senator Reid utilizing the nuclear option. Up and until then, to run roughshod a party not only had to control the presidency and both chambers of congress, it also had a 60 vote threshold in the senate to over come the minority party's objection to either legislation or appointments. With Senator Reid's nuclear option that check on abusive power evaporated.

Today, all it takes is 51 votes instead of 60. Being the minority party when one party controls the presidency, senate and the house, pretty much leave the minority party powerless and at the mercy of the party in power. One would think Senator Reid would know this as long as he has been around Washington. Either he was an ignorant fool or he thought the Democrats would control the White House and Senate forever hereafter. Either that or Senator Reid thought his use of the nuclear option would be a one time deal. But once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there is no putting it back. Senator Reid was way too partisan and way too shortsighted for my blood.

Senator Reid gave another way too partisan senator, Mitch McConnell the tool to run roughshod of this nation. At least until January of 2019.
 
Perotista said:
I always liked divided government. If the Democrats win back the House in 2018 as I think they will. That is fine with me. This roughshod as you put it was one reason I was adamantly against Senator Reid utilizing the nuclear option. Up and until then, to run roughshod a party not only had to control the presidency and both chambers of congress, it also had a 60 vote threshold in the senate to over come the minority party's objection to either legislation or appointments. With Senator Reid's nuclear option that check on abusive power evaporated.

Today, all it takes is 51 votes instead of 60. Being the minority party when one party controls the presidency, senate and the house, pretty much leave the minority party powerless and at the mercy of the party in power. One would think Senator Reid would know this as long as he has been around Washington. Either he was an ignorant fool or he thought the Democrats would control the White House and Senate forever hereafter. Either that or Senator Reid thought his use of the nuclear option would be a one time deal. But once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there is no putting it back. Senator Reid was way too partisan and way too shortsighted for my blood.

Senator Reid gave another way too partisan senator, Mitch McConnell the tool to run roughshod of this nation. At least until January of 2019.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking Reid was only concerned with the "then and now", get the victory today. I agree that he set a very bad precedent, and it came back to bite them (Dems) and the country in the butt.

Plus, I have serious issues with Congress changing the rules during a process. I don't care which side does it or for what reason, to me that's simply corrupt. Any rules changes should only take effect for future items.
 
reinoe said:
I'm not talking about extremism. I'm talking about irrationality. Conservatism has never existed under the ideals it espouses in my lifetime. Not once. Not ever on the federal level.
Click to expand...

I like to classify myself as a Goldwater conservative with a bit of Perot thrown in. That is more of a traditional conservative which also at times could be classified as a classic liberal instead of today's progressives. Being a traditional conservative has nothing to do with neo-conservatism or the religious right or religious conservatism. A traditional conservative believes in fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than what one takes in. Today's neo-conservatives thinks that means only low taxes. That isn't so with a traditional conservative. To get to where our outtake matches our intake, revenue matches spending, if one has to cut spending, one does that. If one has to raise taxes, one does that. More often it is a combination of both. Being fiscal responsible doesn't just mean low taxes or tax cuts.

We also believe in small government which means keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. It means with abortion, it is up to the woman to decide, not the government. Gay marriage, let love decide, not having the government tell one who they can or can't marry. Do not let government intrude into individual liberty or freedoms. Sure, we need controls, but we need to keep government interference to a minimum. Let government reign supreme with it powers given to it in the constitution in Article I, section 8 along with the amendments. Sections 9 and 10 states what the federal and states government can't do, adhere to that.

Finally, we believe this nation shouldn't go to war unless congress declares it and then when only when our national security is threaten. Congress hasn't declared war since December of 1941.
 
reinoe said:
I'm not talking about extremism. I'm talking about irrationality. Conservatism has never existed under the ideals it espouses in my lifetime. Not once. Not ever on the federal level.
Click to expand...
Has ANY political philosophy? Seriously.

Reps don't walk the walk. Dems don't walk the walk. Libertarians (if they were in power) wouldn't even be able to walk their walk, as practical reality would thwart them. Even communism in other parts of the world ends up being totalitarianism, and nowhere near the actual philosophy.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yep.....just the average citizens go to jail or prison. The political class is another matter.
 
Crosscheck said:
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.
Click to expand...

But then you are not Trump. Sooner or later, the librul nutjobs in congress and on the streets will get bored and tone it down. many of the brighter democrats in congress are now starting to downplay talk of impeachment.
 
ObamacareFail said:
But then you are not Trump. Sooner or later, the librul nutjobs in congress and on the streets will get bored and tone it down. many of the brighter democrats in congress are now starting to downplay talk of impeachment.
Click to expand...

Just read today that Democrats in California are piling on Trump. Who woulda ever thunk? I'm glad I read that Earth shattering news, otherwise I may have never known.
 
radcen said:
I'm thinking Reid was only concerned with the "then and now", get the victory today. I agree that he set a very bad precedent, and it came back to bite them (Dems) and the country in the butt.

Plus, I have serious issues with Congress changing the rules during a process. I don't care which side does it or for what reason, to me that's simply corrupt. Any rules changes should only take effect for future items.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. If one wanted the nuclear option in effect, it should have been done prior to any session of the senate. Both side agreed prior to the session to the rules that session would be operating under. Senator Reid in changing the rules midstream as you said, corrupted himself. This win at any cost did come back and bite the Democrats in the butt this year. Short term win and glory, long term pain and suffering, for this country at least. Thank you so much Senator Reid.

I do think it fitting that when the nuclear option is now used, it is the Senator Reid nuclear option. May it always be so.
 
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...
He is correct. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Congress has the power to fire the potus if they deem it appropiate for any reason they see fit

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
radcen said:
Has ANY political philosophy? Seriously.

Reps don't walk the walk. Dems don't walk the walk. Libertarians (if they were in power) wouldn't even be able to walk their walk, as practical reality would thwart them. Even communism in other parts of the world ends up being totalitarianism, and nowhere near the actual philosophy.
Click to expand...

Liberals walk the talk. They promise to take power away from the state and individuals and give it to the federal government. From nationwide wiretapping of their own citizens to global war with no end in sight: they never stop trying to make Orewell's 1984 a reality.
 
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
Click to expand...

Don't be offended by the fact that I am ignoring all of the opinion poll comparisons. One thing everyone should have learned from the 2016 election is that the pollsters blew it badly by weighting their polls based on previous models. And with 17 candidates for the republican nomination, attempting to score is nothing more then wild ass guesses. And you certainly do not get to speak for conservatives. I am one. I attended the first Trump rally because it was held in my area and I wanted to see what he had to say. I left with an open mind, but soon became a Cruz supporter .And at the time, I despised Trump at that time do to the way he treated his primary opponents. Once it became clear that Cruz was not going to get past Trump, I was ready to sit the 2016 race out. However when it came time for the debates between Trump and Hillary, I was impressed with his command on the issues as well as the promises he made. Those promises related specifically to what the conservative base has been demanding all along. Trump did not win because he was more conservative then Cruz...he won because he convinced the conservative base that he would actually follow through on those promises. And so far he has. He also tapped into a populist movement that the republican and democrat establishments attempted to brush off. As for the so-called "never trumpers", they were actually democrats with maybe a few RINOs thrown in.
 
reinoe said:
Liberals walk the talk. They promise to take power away from the state and individuals and give it to the federal government. From nationwide wiretapping of their own citizens to global war with no end in sight: they never stop trying to make Orewell's 1984 a reality.
Click to expand...
No they don't. Their talk is about the oppressed minority, and they don't even really do that.

They're real allegiance is to corporate America, like the Reps, just they are a little better about hiding it.
 
Perotista said:
I like to classify myself as a Goldwater conservative with a bit of Perot thrown in. That is more of a traditional conservative which also at times could be classified as a classic liberal instead of today's progressives. Being a traditional conservative has nothing to do with neo-conservatism or the religious right or religious conservatism. A traditional conservative believes in fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than what one takes in. Today's neo-conservatives thinks that means only low taxes. That isn't so with a traditional conservative. To get to where our outtake matches our intake, revenue matches spending, if one has to cut spending, one does that. If one has to raise taxes, one does that. More often it is a combination of both. Being fiscal responsible doesn't just mean low taxes or tax cuts.

We also believe in small government which means keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. It means with abortion, it is up to the woman to decide, not the government. Gay marriage, let love decide, not having the government tell one who they can or can't marry. Do not let government intrude into individual liberty or freedoms. Sure, we need controls, but we need to keep government interference to a minimum. Let government reign supreme with it powers given to it in the constitution in Article I, section 8 along with the amendments. Sections 9 and 10 states what the federal and states government can't do, adhere to that.

Finally, we believe this nation shouldn't go to war unless congress declares it and then when only when our national security is threaten. Congress hasn't declared war since December of 1941.
Click to expand...

No offense, but in my opinion, Ross Perot was and is a drooling nutjob....same as Ron Paul.
 
Perotista said:
I like to classify myself as a Goldwater conservative with a bit of Perot thrown in. That is more of a traditional conservative which also at times could be classified as a classic liberal instead of today's progressives. Being a traditional conservative has nothing to do with neo-conservatism or the religious right or religious conservatism. A traditional conservative believes in fiscal responsibility. Not spending more than what one takes in. Today's neo-conservatives thinks that means only low taxes. That isn't so with a traditional conservative. To get to where our outtake matches our intake, revenue matches spending, if one has to cut spending, one does that. If one has to raise taxes, one does that. More often it is a combination of both. Being fiscal responsible doesn't just mean low taxes or tax cuts.

We also believe in small government which means keeping government out of a citizens private business and lives. It means with abortion, it is up to the woman to decide, not the government. Gay marriage, let love decide, not having the government tell one who they can or can't marry. Do not let government intrude into individual liberty or freedoms. Sure, we need controls, but we need to keep government interference to a minimum. Let government reign supreme with it powers given to it in the constitution in Article I, section 8 along with the amendments. Sections 9 and 10 states what the federal and states government can't do, adhere to that.

Finally, we believe this nation shouldn't go to war unless congress declares it and then when only when our national security is threaten. Congress hasn't declared war since December of 1941.
Click to expand...

You say that you're a conservative, but has the type of conservatism you espouse existed in the past 40 years at the federal level? You're the outlier, the deviation, the non-standard conservative who isn't welcome in most conservative circles.
 
Moderate Right said:
Just read today that Democrats in California are piling on Trump. Who woulda ever thunk? I'm glad I read that Earth shattering news, otherwise I may have never known.
Click to expand...


Yep....the Socialist republic of California.
 
radcen said:
No they don't. Their talk is about the oppressed minority, and they don't even really do that.

They're real allegiance is to corporate America, like the Reps, just they are a little better about hiding it.
Click to expand...

Wealthy students at elitist liberal arts universities? I doubt anyone would agree that they're in any way oppressed despite their vapid and nonstop caterwauling. They certainly don't give a damn about actually oppressed minorities. Are you somehow implying that nationwide wiretapping did not expand under Obama? We are in more unnecessary military engagements than ever before under the previous administration. When was the last time you actually read 1984 because you seem a bit lost.
 
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...
I believe the party fractured internally thanks to GW and Co spend thrift ways. Cons put them in office to curb spending and they proved to be as carefree with our money as the dems.

The 1st reaction was to punish them politically by not showing up to the polls and giving the dems a total sweep of power. That only exacerbated the problem by adding a hard push for liberal social agendas and out of control spending.

The last 6 years have been a concerted effort to primary out establishment republicans. That left establishment voters the choice of either voting for the new type of republican or letting the dem win. Hence the freedom caucus emerged from that.

Donald Trump tapped into that and it carried him into the White House.

I dont believe this movement ends with Trump. Cons are rebuilding their party from within and next election cycle will be business as usaul. Establishment types that resist the movement will continue to primaried out.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
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...
There is a lot of truth in your post.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
reinoe said:
Wealthy students at elitist liberal arts universities? I doubt anyone would agree that they're in any way oppressed despite their vapid and nonstop caterwauling. They certainly don't give a damn about actually oppressed minorities. Are you somehow implying that nationwide wiretapping did not expand under Obama? We are in more unnecessary military engagements than ever before under the previous administration. When was the last time you actually read 1984 because you seem a bit lost.
Click to expand...
Ummm, that's exactly what I said in a previous response to you. They preach minority this and minority that, then don't follow through. And you're next point re surveillance and military entanglements also reaffirms what I said. Other than confirming everything I said I'm failing to see the point to your responses.

Are you just being argumentative to amuse yourself, maybe? :shrug:
 
trouble13 said:
He is correct. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one. Congress has the power to fire the potus if they deem it appropiate for any reason they see fit

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Please direct me to the Constitutional basis for this most ignorant statement.
 
countryboy said:
Please direct me to the Constitutional basis for this most ignorant statement.
Click to expand...

Yow. 20 posts after it has been fully explained to you, and you just reset the clock as if it never happened and revert back to your original goofy statement?
 
Paperview said:
Yow. 20 posts after it has been fully explained to you, and you just reset the clock as if it never happened and revert back to your original goofy statement?
Click to expand...

The last two years Republicans have had control of Congress and were rabid against Obama. If what you say is true, why didn't they impeach Obama? They would have loved to have gotten rid of him if it was so easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom