• 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!

Omarosa Says a President Pence Would Leave People Begging for Trump

Praxas said:
They won't dump trump for the fear of what happened with Clinton and Sanders. They know Trump has a solid 30% base that would protest that happening and possibly vote either Dem or not at all. The republicans cannot afford that so they will stick with Trump.
Click to expand...

I agree. They fear the hard right and will do nothing to anger them even though they all know it could take them and their party down in ruins. They are willing to take that chance.
 
haymarket said:
The Clinton campaign through attorney Marc Elias of the Perkins Coie law firm retained Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton presidential campaign. Fusion is an American company that does opposition research. This is something done by candidates in both parties for many elections now. And it is not illegal.
Click to expand...

Don Jr's meeting, to suppossedly obtain dirt on Clinton is opposition research. Nothing illegal there, either.
 
haymarket said:
Where are you getting this from?

Is not colluding with a foreign adversary - something the Founders warned about as the reason for the Electoral College - not an "injustice" to use your own term? Is not obstruction of justice not an "injustice? Is not a conspiracy to hide illegal interference in an election an "injustice"?
Click to expand...

Except, it didn't happen
 
haymarket said:
Opposition research is clearly an item of value that campaigns prize highly and accepting it from a foreign power is illegal.
Click to expand...

Show me where the law places a dollar value on information.

"Something of value" means something of value that be sold for cash, or bartered for something else.
 
apdst said:
Except, it didn't happen
Click to expand...

Trump Jr. own emails and admissions clearly show it did happen. Even a conservative FOX NEWS expert admitted that bungled collusion is still collusion. And that was noted conservative political commentator Charles Krauthammer.

So paddling up the Denial is not a real strategy as it denies reality and the actual experience of the top Trump campaign people.
 
haymarket said:
Trump Jr. own emails and admissions clearly show it did happen. Even a conservative FOX NEWS expert admitted that bungled collusion is still collusion. And that was noted conservative political commentator Charles Krauthammer.

So paddling up the Denial is not a real strategy as it denies reality and the actual experience of the top Trump campaign people.
Click to expand...

Those emails do not admit to any illegal activity.
 
apdst said:
Show me where the law places a dollar value on information.

"Something of value" means something of value that be sold for cash, or bartered for something else.
Click to expand...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20

(b)Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.
Click to expand...

Opposition research is certainly a thing of value. There is no doubt about that since campaigns pay lots of money for it and its value as something of worth is beyond dispute and only the most foolish of attorneys would go into court and argue otherwise.
 
apdst said:
Those emails do not admit to any illegal activity.
Click to expand...

I already gave you the federal law with the language that makes it illegal to accept anything of value and that is what they colluded to do and later did accept and use. In fact, the emails even speculated on the best time to accept and use the help so affirmative steps proving collusion and acceptance were already established and beyond dispute.
 
haymarket said:
Glad I asked you because you seem to be making it up as you go along much like Indiana Jones in RAIDERS.




The Constitution says



My students were tested on that and they got their answers direct from the US Constitution. Which is where I hope you start getting your information from as well.

Is says nothing about what you claim that it must involve an "injustice".

And I have already provided some crimes that would apply to the Trump case.
Click to expand...

Key words there..."Trump case". You're not applying it to Pence. You're applying a different standard to Pence. You're applying the "guilt by association" standard to Pence.

As for the Constitution, does it really have to empirically state "injustice" for you to believe that its about correcting an injustice? Not even the most linear of thinkers could be THAT disingenuous. Lets look at what it says.

"shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

What about that is not about correcting an injustice? Treason? Bribery? high Crimes? Misdemeanors? All of those words are about seeking justice in order to correct an injustice. All of those words, when combined with the rest of what the Impeachment Clause states, is about removing from office someone that has committed an injustice.

Now, lets put that aside and start using your own argument. There is nothing in what you quoted of the Impeachment clause that indicates its about a political move. By your own argument, since "political move" is not in there then you are the one that is incorrect.

And despite all of that, you have yet to prove how, Constitutionally speaking, removing Pence for Trumps misdeeds is in any way shape or form acceptable or would be allowed by the Constitution.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Key words there..."Trump case". You're not applying it to Pence. You're applying a different standard to Pence. You're applying the "guilt by association" standard to Pence.

As for the Constitution, does it really have to empirically state "injustice" for you to believe that its about correcting an injustice? Not even the most linear of thinkers could be THAT disingenuous. Lets look at what it says.

"shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

What about that is not about correcting an injustice? Treason? Bribery? high Crimes? Misdemeanors? All of those words are about seeking justice in order to correct an injustice. All of those words, when combined with the rest of what the Impeachment Clause states, is about removing from office someone that has committed an injustice.

Now, lets put that aside and start using your own argument. There is nothing in what you quoted of the Impeachment clause that indicates its about a political move. By your own argument, since "political move" is not in there then you are the one that is incorrect.

And despite all of that, you have yet to prove how, Constitutionally speaking, removing Pence for Trumps misdeeds is in any way shape or form acceptable or would be allowed by the Constitution.
Click to expand...


If Trump has to leave office because the Russians gave him illegal assistance - both he and Pence were elected by the same vote on the same ticket and are tied together in that election effort and should not be separated as illegal assistance to one was also illegal assistance to the other.

Again, the word INJUSTICE was something you made up that is not in the Constitution. And then you had the utter gall to be a wiseguy and suggest I look at the Constitution since I taught it.

Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
The Founders and the Constitution yourself. Being a history professor you should know this stuff.
Click to expand...

That was a cheap shot attempt at an insult that only backfired at you.

Since the Constitution DOES NOT define the terms it cites for impeachment and allows a political body to make that judgment, of course it is a political process and that is beyond doubt or argument. The word of the Senate is final and they can use any reason they damn well want to use.
 
haymarket said:
If Trump has to leave office because the Russians gave him illegal assistance - both he and Pence were elected by the same vote on the same ticket and are tied together in that election effort and should not be separated as illegal assistance to one was also illegal assistance to the other.

Again, the word INJUSTICE was something you made up that is not in the Constitution. And then you had the utter gall to be a wiseguy and tell me to look at the Constitution since I taught it. That was a cheap shot attempt at an insult that only backfired at you.

Since the Constitution DOES NOT define the terms it cites for impeachment and allows a political body to make that judgment, of course it is a political process and that is beyond doubt or argument. The word of the Senate is final and they can use any reason they damn well want to use.
Click to expand...

Hmm...you seem to have gotten a bit upset at what I stated there Haymarket. Don't like the fact that a non-professor showed you up and threw your argument right back in your face? :lol:

Plain fact of the matter is that yes, the impeachment process requires that the President, or those succeeding him, to have committed a crime. It plainly states so right there in the impeachment clause. "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." No where does it state that a President, or his/her successor, can be removed purely based on the whim of political expediency. And the founders would be rolling in their graves if such were done/attempted. You know it, and I know it. That you are quite willing to get rid of a political rival through disingenuous misinterpretation of the Constitution shows the type of character that you have.

Just remember one thing though. If what you wish to happen, and are advocating for, actually ever happened then it could be used against you the next time a politician that you favor is in office. That you're willing to open the door to that shows just how blinded by rage you are that Hillary lost and Trump won. It's sad and pathetic.

I'm done here.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
BUAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAAAAA!!!! no really, so if another country campaigns, and there is no collusion, that means the election should be thrown out?


Come on. read a civics book,.
Click to expand...



Except for big problem that we know for a fact that there wasn't only collusion but clear coordination.

Just see Jr's meeting and emails.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hmm...you seem to have gotten a bit upset at what I stated there Haymarket. Don't like the fact that a non-professor showed you up and threw your argument right back in your face? :lol:.
Click to expand...

All you did was show your own ignorance of what the Constitution actually says and embarrass yourself by lowering yourself to a petty personal level. I have noticed over my years here that there is a certain stripe of person on the right side of the political continuum who likes to get in a cheap shot dig by making some smart ass remark about my 33 year career teaching Government and US History or my years on the debate team in college or my years as Chief of Staff or a state legislator after I retired from teaching. It is a sign of their own feeling of inferiority at not having those credentials.

I would hope you are above that sort of thing and was surprised to see you sink to that petty level. But you do what you want to do as its your right.

Plain fact of the matter is that yes, the impeachment process requires that the President, or those succeeding him, to have committed a crime. It plainly states so right there in the impeachment clause. "Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." No where does it state that a President, or his/her successor, can be removed purely based on the whim of political expediency. And the founders would be rolling in their graves if such were done/attempted. You know it, and I know it. That you are quite willing to get rid of a political rival through disingenuous misinterpretation of the Constitution shows the type of character that you have.

Just remember one thing though. If what you wish to happen, and are advocating for, actually ever happened then it could be used against you the next time a politician that you favor is in office. That you're willing to open the door to that shows just how blinded by rage you are that Hillary lost and Trump won. It's sad and pathetic.
Click to expand...

Plain fact of the matter is that the political body of the Senate can define a crime just about any way they want and have demonstrated this clearly in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton and in the article of Impeachment drawn up for Nixon but never acted upon. That is simply historical reality. And there is no alternative as the Constitution fails to define what constitutes high crimes and then compounds it with the term that most people associate with petty offenses - misdemeanors.

The reality is there are crimes Trump can be accused of and I have already mentioned them quite specifically. So I am NOT advocated his removal purely for political reasons - but my reasoning is firmly based in the Constitution.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
1. not evidence of trump colluding with russia.

2. that is not the case, there was one email about one meeting which was quickly moved on from. It's not like they commissioned a foreign agent to make a fake dossier from russian agents on hillary or something.


You people and your cognitive dissonance are too much,.
Click to expand...

Here have a straw you are clearly running low on ones to grasp at...
 
Rexedgar said:
OK and then we have whom??????
Click to expand...

The speaker of the house. And depending on the timing of the impeachment’s and whether or not democrats do well in the midterms in 2018, we will either have a president Paul Ryan or a president Nancy Pelosi.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The speaker of the house. And depending on the timing of the impeachment’s and whether or not democrats do well in the midterms in 2018, we will either have a president Paul Ryan or a president Nancy Pelosi.
Click to expand...

I knew the answer, was trying to pull teeth. Cannot say I like the sound of your scenario much!
 
MrPeanut said:
I'm not going to comment on Omarosa because she is insane, but I have long believed that Pence would be a much more dangerous president than Trump. Imagine if all of the bad things Trump has done weren't covered that much. A big reason why the Muslim ban, the tax bill, and outrage over DACA is everywhere is because the man behind it all is openly horrible. Pence is secretly horrible. It would be business as usual from the networks, and everyone would still be getting screwed.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the establishment GOP would be more willing to work with Pence, and thus more damaging right wing policies would be getting passed at a quicker rate.

The fact that the GOP never liked Trump, or wanted him as their leader, has hindered Trump and the GOP from shoving their full agenda down the nation's throat.
 
Praxas said:
They won't dump trump for the fear of what happened with Clinton and Sanders. They know Trump has a solid 30% base that would protest that happening and possibly vote either Dem or not at all. The republicans cannot afford that so they will stick with Trump.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If there's one thing about a significant portion of Republican voters, is that they DESPISE liberals/Democrats with a seething passion. They will never EVER vote for a Democrat under any circumstances, regardless if the GOP abandons Trump or not. Would some of them stay home? Maybe, but I'm not convinced of that either. Hatred of anything Democrat or liberal is what drives the Republican voters to the polls, and that won't change even if the Republicans abandon Trump.
 
Always fun to read a thread when it goes off topic in just a few pages. I thought this one was about that fame seeker, Omarosa Manigault-Newman, and her recent attacks on Trump and the White House.

Just to stay on topic here's an interesting comment from a Democratic congress critter:
Omarosa’s Trump confessions are meant to help her bottom line — not her guilty conscience

Omarosa Manigault’s White House confessions on Big Brother have less to do with assuaging her guilty conscience and more to do with promoting her bottom line, one congressman argued Wednesday.

“Nobody wishes ill will to her,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) told TMZ, noting that although Manigault’s comments about her time working in the White House “echo” the Democrats’ concerns about the Trump administration, her intentions may not be pure.

She wants “back into stardom and back into the reality show world where it’s a business,” he continued. “No one ever said that Omarosa didn’t have good business skills.”

When asked if Manigault’s White House anecdotes inspire him to watch Big Brother, Richmond responded with an unequivocal “Hell no!”

“I’m too busy watching the president,” he said. “That’s a full-time job.”
Click to expand...
 
Of course Pence is a religious nutcase. Religious zealots are, by definition irrational.

He is also well versed in how to hide it, and would allow himself to be "managed" in such a way that he could do a job, without it "seeming" like all his personal baggage was getting in the way.
Contrast to the Trump, who brought in a mountain of baggage and proceeded to diligently put everyone in his reach to work making more baggage/scandals since day one.

Of course, Trump supporters are so stupid, they still claim things like it being a good thing that the president speaks with stream of consciousnesses, tweets at all hours while watching Fox news, and bullies everyone around him...it reminds them of their own stupid lives, or makes them feel their pathetic life is slightly better? I really don't know at this point....

Voting for Trump is one thing. Supporting him even today...it's certainly deplortable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom