• 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!

"Removing History Is Wrong" (right???)

Bullseye said:
And found not guilty. Therefore the situation is mute.
Click to expand...
???????????? No, he was impeached, but not convicted in a senate vote. Clinton did the same, as did Andrew Johnson. So what is your point?? Are you saying that no president should be in history as being impeached???? Isn't that distorting history incorrectly??
 
Bullseye said:
And found not guilty. Therefore the situation is mute.
Click to expand...
See, if Trump wanted to ensure that the Smithsonian correctly identified the final Senate votes on the articles and acquittal, this would not be a problem. That would be about making sure the exhibit accurately depicted history not erasing history.

I think we both know that is not what this link discusses.
 
Last edited:
tshade said:
???????????? No, he was impeached, but not convicted in a senate vote. Clinton did the same, as did Andrew Johnson. So what is your point?? Are you saying that no president should be in history as being impeached???? Isn't that distorting history incorrectly??
Click to expand...
Exactly - you just illustrated the meaninglessness of impeachment - it WILL be history IF a president is actually "convicted".
 
Rexedgar said:
Impeachment is what happens whether there is a guilty verdict or not, and the word you are looking for is “moot.”
Click to expand...
Yes but if you think outside the box, rendering 'mute' is more what Trump is trying to accomplish here. 🤫
 
tshade said:
Trump Removes His impeachment History from the Smithonian...?????

MAGA has no defense.
Click to expand...
Well, depending on how it was displayed, it matters.

He was acquitted both times congress tried to impeach him.
 
Bullseye said:
Exactly - you just illustrated the meaninglessness of impeachment - it WILL be history IF a president is actually "convicted".
Click to expand...
????? No----it will be additional history. Being impeached means you go to trial (political trial)---that is fact, not opinion. What is wrong with facts??
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, depending on how it was displayed, it matters.

He was acquitted both times congress tried to impeach him.
Click to expand...
No-------he WAS impeached. No "try". The senate (extremely biased senate) did not convict him, however. History shows he was not convicted. Same with Johnson & Clinton. So why was it removed from the Smithon. ?????

You have no defense on this point ol' Lord of P......
 
Bullseye said:
Exactly - you just illustrated the meaninglessness of impeachment - it WILL be history IF a president is actually "convicted".
Click to expand...
The telling of History is not just about the battles that were won, because there is always a winner and a loser to every battle. History tells the story of battles that were fought. Legislative battles are exactly the same. Here 4 battles were fought in Congress. Two in the House to pass articles of impeachment, and two in the Senate when those articles failed to pass by the required supermajority.

Any history of Bill Clinton must include his articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction , even though they did not get enough votes to send an indictment over to the Senate.
 
btthegreat said:
The telling of History is not just about the battles that were won, because there is always a winner and a loser to every battle. History tells the story of battles that were fought. Legislative battles are exactly the same. Here 4 battles were fought in Congress. Two in the House to pass articles of impeachment, and two in the Senate when those articles failed to pass by the required supermajority.

Any history of Bill Clinton must include his articles of impeachment for perjury and obstruction , even though they did not get enough votes to send an indictment over to the Senate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fine. we're just going around in partisan circles. Bullseye out.
 
tshade said:
????? No----it will be additional history. Being impeached means you go to trial (political trial)---that is fact, not opinion. What is wrong with facts??
Click to expand...
Mostly means you're part of the minority in the House.
 
btthegreat said:
You are not this stupid. You know who runs the legislative agenda in Washington. If that 'Big Beautiful Bill' does not tell you what Trump will do to Republicans who balk him... The Smithsonian's budget, it's very existence is sitting in Trump's hands, because Donald Trump is the virtual chairman of every Congressional committee.
Click to expand...
Also, the bi-partisan immigration bill that the House was about to pass, until the not-even-president put the fear of Trump into effect and the House killed it.
 
ataraxia said:
But you are OK with this Executive order? What does it say about the executive who issues orders like that? “Most transparent administration in history”?
Click to expand...
Obama told DOJ to ignore federal marijuana laws. Was that a problem for you?
 
dockside said:
Also, the bi-partisan immigration bill that the House was about to pass, until the not-even-president put the fear of Trump into effect and the House killed it.
Click to expand...
Hardly an immigration bill. A bill to allow immigrants to continue to storm into the country by what were illegal means under US law.
 
Bullseye said:
Yeah, fine. we're just going around in partisan circles. Bullseye out.
Click to expand...
Its not partisan. It's the telling of actual history. Check out Wiki. President Andrew Johnson is described as being impeached and acquitted. The impeachment is not erased because the votes were not there, to convict. Check out Richard Nixon. Recorded history will include the 3 articles of impeachment drafted by the House Subcommittee even though they never got voted on. It's not erased either.
 
Integrityrespec said:
Obama told DOJ to ignore federal marijuana laws. Was that a problem for you?
Click to expand...
OK great. So let's just all agree then that we don't care what courts say anymore.

Yay freedom!
 
Integrityrespec said:
Hardly an immigration bill. A bill to allow immigrants to continue to storm into the country by what were illegal means under US law.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. I think this has been repeated so many times you may be starting to believe it. For many years, people have crossed into the U.S. without documentation, and it’s true that many of them were allowed to stay in the country while they waited for a court hearing. This wasn’t some rogue or illegal process — in fact, it’s been a standard practice for a long time, carried out under both Democratic AND Republican administrations. Technically, entering the U.S. without permission is against the law, usually treated as a civil violation, and sometimes a misdemeanor. But there’s an important legal distinction: even if someone crosses the border without papers, they still have the right to ask for asylum under U.S. law. That right is also protected by international agreements the U.S. has signed, like the Refugee Convention. So while the way someone enters might be unauthorized, the act of requesting asylum isn’t illegal.

Now, because the immigration system is so overwhelmed — with limited detention space, not enough judges, and a backlog of cases — immigration authorities often have to release people into the country while they wait for their hearings. This is sometimes called “catch and release,” but that term oversimplifies the situation. Releasing people isn’t about ignoring the law; it’s often about following it. Courts have ruled that the government can’t hold children or families in detention for long periods. Agreements like the Flores Settlement set strict limits on how long minors can be detained. So, especially when it comes to families and children, releasing them with a court date is usually the only legal and humane option.

Some people have claimed that this whole process is illegal or represents “open borders,” but that’s incorrect. What’s happening is that the U.S. is trying to balance border enforcement with its legal and moral obligations — especially toward people fleeing violence or persecution. There have been controversial decisions along the way, like the family separations under the Trump administration, which did raise legal challenges. But the overall policy of allowing people to wait in the U.S. for their court hearings has been part of the legal system for decades. It’s not lawbreaking — it’s the law trying to work under pressure.

So the only thing here that's been legally questionable have been the actions towards asylum seekers under the Trump administration. But that's just because the US is no longer a country which respects international agreements or its own laws. It's become a rogue state- thanks to "the party of law and order".
 
Down the Memory Hole at MiniTrue, Winston Smith has a busy week ahead of him but the chocolate ration has been increased, Doubleplusgood!

Unthink Boomers oldthought gone obsession with factslaws ungood makeway newday newthink blame Goldstein.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, depending on how it was displayed, it matters.

He was acquitted both times congress tried to impeach him.
Click to expand...
Clinton and Johnson were both impeached by the house and not convicted in the senate.

Just like Trump.

All three were impeached. None of the three were convicted in the senate.

Why did they treat Trumps differently?
 
Trump Removes His impeachment History from the Smithonian...?????

Is this really true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom