• 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!

[W:121] Republicans for Impeachment

I am a Republican and:

  • I'm not fed up with Trump.

    Votes: 23 76.7%

  • I'm not fed up with Trump, but he should be removed from office.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I want Trump impeached, but not removed from office.

    Votes: 3 10.0%

  • I want Trump removed from office.

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Total voters
    30
tres borrachos said:
The answer that I would give is not in the poll. I'm fed up with Trump, don't want him impeached, and want him removed in 2020 by losing the election.
Click to expand...

Are you a Republican? One must be that before even getting to the answer options. If so, answer option 4 is the one to choose if that's your frame of mind.

If you're not a Republican, the poll's not intended to solicit your answer.
 
Xelor said:
Are you a Republican? One must be that before even getting to the answer options. If so, answer option 4 is the one to choose if that's your frame of mind.

If you're not a Republican, the poll's not intended to solicit your answer.
Click to expand...

Been a registered Republican since June of 1980.

No, I don't want him removed from office. I want him voted out of office. Those are not the same things.
 
Xelor said:
It appears there are Republicans for whom Trump's shenanigans, reprehensibility, banality, etc., topped off by the Mueller Report, is beyond the pale. Those GOP-ers are ready to see Trump impeached.

I wonder what proximate share of DP's participating GOP-ers they comprise, thus this thread. Do any such GOP-ers even participate here?


Poll Question (BTW, if you're not a Republican, don't vote in the poll.):

I am a Republican and:
​


  1. [*=1]I'm not fed up with Trump.
    [*=1]I'm not fed up with Trump, but he should be removed from office.
    [*=1]I want Trump impeached, but not removed from office.
    [*=1]I want Trump removed from office.
Click to expand...

Trump is actually doing a great job - unless you're a liberal.
 
Off-Topic:

Ryan Cramer said:
I'm sorry to say it, but you're country is full of spoiled idiots, living off their grandparents wealth.


One of the dumbest mistakes is not giving jobs to the homeless. You could be using their taxes to pay down the debt. Instead you spend money on prisons, to lock them up when they get desperate.
Click to expand...

Red:
What share of a population -- in this case, the US population -- corresponds, in your mind, to "full of?"

Frankly, people "living off[SUP]1[/SUP] their grandparents wealth" -- aka, people who benefit from income-producing assets their grandparents provided for, typically via a trust -- proportionally comprise so paltry a portion of the population that they aren't even worth mentioning, thinking about or alluding to.

One "back of the envelope" estimate puts the quantity of individuals having $60K/year or more (mind, $60K per year is just a bit above the US median income) in inherited income in the NYC tri-state area at ~150K persons, that's out of some ~8.6M persons, or ~1.74% of NYC's population. Another researcher didn't estimate the population of "trustafarians" but he notes that 75% of rich households have two or more income earners.

Moreover, it's quite typical for trust fund income recipients to work to either (1) earn the lion's share of their income or (2) to supplement their trust fund income, or (3) both. Are there some people who are high income earners ($350K+/year) on account of their trust fund and/or investments alone? Yes, there are, but there are so few folks in that category that I don't know why anyone even thinks about them. For many trust fund recipients, however, their trust income is more of a "security blanket" that ensures they can sustain a middle-class lifestyle than is it a "money tree" enabling them to live "the life of Riley," mainly because few people earned enough to set up for their heirs income providing trusts that payout large (350K+/year) sums.


From: How Many Kids Have Trust Funds?
  • Fewer than 2% of the US population receive inheritances (see endnote below).
  • Sources of inheritances:
    • 75% from parents.
    • 15%from grandparents
      • The average inheritance from a parent is worth more than twice as much as one from a grandparent
    • 6% from aunts and uncles
    • 2% from friends
    • 1% from siblings


Note:
  1. I've interpreted "living off" to mean "enough regular/monthly income that one could not work and one's income would still be at the US median income level." That's very different from simply inheriting assets that do not produce income and, as a result, the inheritor must use his/her own income to maintain them.



    datalab-chalabi-trust-funds-13.png



    datalab-chalabi-trust-funds-22.png
 
tres borrachos said:
Been a registered Republican since June of 1980.

No, I don't want him removed from office. I want him voted out of office. Those are not the same things.
Click to expand...

Red:
Um, did you not write that you "want him removed in 2020 by losing the election?" How does that statement not acknowledge that losing an election is a way of removing a POTUS from office?

As goes removal (or not) from office, substantively speaking, any lawful means will do.


Aside:
This likely doesn't matter specifically for you, but perhaps you'll find it useful to share with others, your mentees, kids or grandkids, perhaps....

One of the primary reasons people struggle on exams -- standardized tests such as the CPA exam, SAT/ACT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc. as well as in-class exams given in high school or college (grad school too, if the course even has exams) -- is because they give statements and/or questions more meaning than is actually contained in the question/statement and (2) disregard one or more aspects of the meaning in the statement/question. In other words, folks' reading comprehension skills move them to inaptly infer, or fail to aptly infer, "something" about the question/statement.

One way folks do that is by inferring there is some sort of relationship among the answer options on multiple choice "questions" such as the one posed in this thread's poll. Each answer option stands alone, yet I suspect that by reading "impeachment" in one of them, you inferred all of the options pertain to the impeachment and removal process described in the US Constitution. For the third answer option in this thread's poll, that's a somewhat reasonable inference, but not entirely.

I will illustrate what I mean....

​
If I'd have written the answer options as follows, the emboldened bits being what distinguishes them from the ones in the poll:​


  • [*=1]I am a Republican and I'm not fed up with Trump.
    [*=1]I am a Republican and I'm not fed up with Trump, but he should be removed from office, however that removal lawfully occurs.
    [*=1]I am a Republican and I want Trump impeached, but not removed from office, however that removal lawfully occurs.
    [*=1]I am a Republican and I want Trump removed from office, however that removal lawfully occurs.
The phrase "however that removal lawfully occurs" is what some readers might infer, but they don't need to. Why?​


  • [*=2]Because the "I'm a Republican and" portion is included at the outset and nothing in the "question" asks about how the removal happens. Whatever way one wants him removed will do as goes wanting Trump removed from office. The "removed from office" portion of the answer options pertains to whether one wants Trump removed from office, not to the process one wants the removal to occur.

    • [*=2]Removal via the Senate's, pursuant to the House's passing articles of impeachment, voting for such constitutes removal.
      [*=2]Removal via the cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment and Congress concurs constitutes removal.
      [*=2]Removal by losing an election constitutes removal.
      [*=2]Removal by death constitutes removal.
Impeachment is a first step in one removal process, but impeachment is not removal, nor is removal from office the inevitable outcome of Congress' impeaching a POTUS.​

Another thing to keep in mind is that a poll is not a multiple choice exam question. The main purpose of an exam question is for the student to provide information to a teacher (the teacher already knows the answer) about the nature and extent of his/her mastery of some subject matter. In contrast, the main purpose of a poll is for the inquirer to obtain information.

I didn't care by what means a Republican wants Trump removed from office, which is why I didn't tacitly ask about such by qualifying the phrase "removed from office."​

Hopefully the example above adequately illustrates the role apt inferential reasoning plays in reading comprehension, which goes far beyond merely knowing words' meanings and grammar's conventions. Inference is a "dangerous" thing for folks can and will conjure all manners of ideas, but not all they conceive is fitting in the instance(s) wherein they conceive them.​
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Um, did you not write that you "want him removed in 2020 by losing the election?" How does that statement not acknowledge that losing an election is a way of removing a POTUS from office?

As goes removal (or not) from office, substantively speaking, any lawful means will do.


Aside:
This likely doesn't matter specifically for you, but perhaps you'll find it useful to share with others, your mentees, kids or grandkids, perhaps....

One of the primary reasons people struggle on exams -- standardized tests such as the CPA exam, SAT/ACT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc. as well as in-class exams given in high school or college (grad school too, if the course even has exams) -- is because they give statements and/or questions more meaning than is actually contained in the question/statement and (2) disregard one or more aspects of the meaning in the statement/question. In other words, folks' reading comprehension skills move them to inaptly infer, or fail to aptly infer, "something" about the question/statement.

One way folks do that is by inferring there is some sort of relationship among the answer options on multiple choice "questions" such as the one posed in this thread's poll. Each answer option stands alone, yet I suspect that by reading "impeachment" in one of them, you inferred all of the options pertain to the impeachment and removal process described in the US Constitution. For the third answer option in this thread's poll, that's a somewhat reasonable inference, but not entirely.

I will illustrate what I mean....

​
If I'd have written the answer options as follows, the emboldened bits being what distinguishes them from the ones in the poll:​


  • [*=1]I am a Republican and I'm not fed up with Trump.
    [*=1]I am a Republican and I'm not fed up with Trump, but he should be removed from office, however that removal lawfully occurs.
    [*=1]I am a Republican and I want Trump impeached, but not removed from office, however that removal lawfully occurs.
    [*=1]I am a Republican and I want Trump removed from office, however that removal lawfully occurs.
The phrase "however that removal lawfully occurs" is what some readers might infer, but they don't need to. Why?​


  • [*=2]Because the "I'm a Republican and" portion is included at the outset and nothing in the "question" asks about how the removal happens. Whatever way one wants him removed will do as goes wanting Trump removed from office. The "removed from office" portion of the answer options pertains to whether one wants Trump removed from office, not to the process one wants the removal to occur.

    • [*=2]Removal via the Senate's, pursuant to the House's passing articles of impeachment, voting for such constitutes removal.
      [*=2]Removal via the cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment and Congress concurs constitutes removal.
      [*=2]Removal by losing an election constitutes removal.
      [*=2]Removal by death constitutes removal.
Impeachment is a first step in one removal process, but impeachment is not removal, nor is removal from office the inevitable outcome of Congress' impeaching a POTUS.​

Another thing to keep in mind is that a poll is not a multiple choice exam question. The main purpose of an exam question is for the student to provide information to a teacher (the teacher already knows the answer) about the nature and extent of his/her mastery of some subject matter. In contrast, the main purpose of a poll is for the inquirer to obtain information.

I didn't care by what means a Republican wants Trump removed from office, which is why I didn't tacitly ask about such by qualifying the phrase "removed from office."​

Hopefully the example above adequately illustrates the role apt inferential reasoning plays in reading comprehension, which goes far beyond merely knowing words' meanings and grammar's conventions. Inference is a "dangerous" thing for folks can and will conjure all manners of ideas, but not all they conceive is fitting in the instance(s) wherein they conceive them.​
Click to expand...

Sorry, this wall of text is too much.

I want him voted out of office. Simple as that. If you start a poll that asks about "impeachment", which yours does, then you should understand that someone who doesn't want him impeached is going to clarify that in her responses. Your 4 poll questions were about impeachment. You didn't offer a choice that said "I don't want him to be impeached; I want him to lose the election".
 
tres borrachos said:
Sorry, this wall of text is too much.

I want him voted out of office. Simple as that. If you start a poll that asks about "impeachment", which yours does, then you should understand that someone who doesn't want him impeached is going to clarify that in her responses. Your 4 poll questions were about impeachment. You didn't offer a choice that said "I don't want him to be impeached; I want him to lose the election".
Click to expand...

Red:
Correct; I did not. I didn't because, as I indicated in the post you found to be "too much," I am interested in whether any Republican DP members want Trump removed from office, and I'm not interested in the means by which they want Trump removed from office.
Xelor said:
I didn't care by what means a Republican wants Trump removed from office, which is why I didn't tacitly ask about such by qualifying the phrase "removed from office."
Click to expand...
What I'm not interested in, I don't ask about.


Blue:
One answer option in the poll asks about impeachment. The other three do not.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Cramer said:
I'm sorry to say it, but you're country is full of spoiled idiots, living off their grandparents wealth.


One of the dumbest mistakes is not giving jobs to the homeless. You could be using their taxes to pay down the debt. Instead you spend money on prisons, to lock them up when they get desperate.

Xelor said:
Off-Topic:



Red:
What share of a population -- in this case, the US population -- corresponds, in your mind, to "full of?"

Frankly, people "living off[SUP]1[/SUP] their grandparents wealth" -- aka, people who benefit from income-producing assets their grandparents provided for, typically via a trust -- proportionally comprise so paltry a portion of the population that they aren't even worth mentioning, thinking about or alluding to.

One "back of the envelope" estimate puts the quantity of individuals having $60K/year or more (mind, $60K per year is just a bit above the US median income) in inherited income in the NYC tri-state area at ~150K persons, that's out of some ~8.6M persons, or ~1.74% of NYC's population. Another researcher didn't estimate the population of "trustafarians" but he notes that 75% of rich households have two or more income earners.

Moreover, it's quite typical for trust fund income recipients to work to either (1) earn the lion's share of their income or (2) to supplement their trust fund income, or (3) both. Are there some people who are high income earners ($350K+/year) on account of their trust fund and/or investments alone? Yes, there are, but there are so few folks in that category that I don't know why anyone even thinks about them. For many trust fund recipients, however, their trust income is more of a "security blanket" that ensures they can sustain a middle-class lifestyle than is it a "money tree" enabling them to live "the life of Riley," mainly because few people earned enough to set up for their heirs income providing trusts that payout large (350K+/year) sums.


From: How Many Kids Have Trust Funds?
  • Fewer than 2% of the US population receive inheritances (see endnote below).
  • Sources of inheritances:
    • 75% from parents.
    • 15%from grandparents
      • The average inheritance from a parent is worth more than twice as much as one from a grandparent
    • 6% from aunts and uncles
    • 2% from friends
    • 1% from siblings


Note:
  1. I've interpreted "living off" to mean "enough regular/monthly income that one could not work and one's income would still be at the US median income level." That's very different from simply inheriting assets that do not produce income and, as a result, the inheritor must use his/her own income to maintain them.



    datalab-chalabi-trust-funds-13.png



    datalab-chalabi-trust-funds-22.png
Click to expand...
​
Click to expand...



Correction:
"Fewer than 2% of the US population receive inheritances (see endnote below)" should have said "Fewer than 23% of the US population receive inheritances (see endnote below)."

Apologies.​
 
Well, I was gonna write 6 or 8 pages, but then I remembered I'm not a Republican. Whew. That was close. I'll just get back to my knitting. Never mind.
 
humbolt said:
Well, I was gonna write 6 or 8 pages, but then I remembered I'm not a Republican. Whew. That was close. I'll just get back to my knitting. Never mind.
Click to expand...

Thanks for heeding the implied exhortation given by the thread's contextual constraints.
 
Impeach him for what?
 
There is simple strategy, that President Trump can employ, that can fend off any impeachment attempt. All President Trump has to do is join the Public Sector Union, and become a card carrying member. Once in the union, a union member can't get fired. Unions have been are set up in a way, that allows them to be out of the checks and balances loop, that is imposed on the three main branches of government. This is why union members can't be fired, except for only a small number of reasons, none of which is impeachment.

Here is the scenario. President Trump joins the union and now he has protection of union lawyers, as well as the rank and file. If Congress was to act in a self serving Political way, the union workers could block this with a strike. If there is a strike of all union members, government will shut down. Congress could not even turn on the lights, or empty the trash, less they compound union grievances.

Since unions tend to side with the Democrats, if they were to refuse to help the President, the union would run into a problem in terms of voiding their own charter, via a legal loophole. The unions, to maintain their continuity, will have no choice but turn on the angry Democrats, in favor of one of their own card carrying members.

If the Democrats wish to maintain their money laundering scam, with the public sector unions; tax dollars go to the unions, who then money launder some of this, back to Democrat candidates, they may need to rethink impeachment of a union member who is President.
 
in not a republican but I feel anyone that backs up trump is a traitor to this country... now he feels he is above the American law... you can hate Hillary all you want but during her hearings she went to them and answered questions under oath and anyone the republicans wanted to bring in concerning Hillary they testified. they did not want to im sure but that was the law witch hunt or not!!!now all of a sudden everything has changed because a republican is getting the same thing Hillary got.. Trump is not a god or a king ..he needs to know just one person does not run this country
 
Keridan said:
I see the question you are asking. Just wondering if limiting it to Repubs instead of the general right might limit your responses. I know why you want their specific opinion, but a lot of folks who are repubs don't admit it and might not vote.
Click to expand...

got that right!!!!
 
Superfly said:
Our country? :lol: Nyet.
Click to expand...
Yeah, our country, you commie pinko!

Now, what you doin outta the kitchen, woman? hick.gif

*Yes, you can steal my emoji's, but only because you're sweet and liberal.*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom