House Dem: Impeaching Trump on party lines would 'tear the country apart'

[haymarket]

Trump did not tear the nation apart. In fact he had nothing to do with as as neither did Obama. People are divided by political and ideological lines, not presidential. Some people are mad because others voted for Trump. Not Trumps fault, period. It will not matter if Trump loses in 2020 or not. Polarization will continue as it has been since Clinton.

Your statement and people making statements like that are either unaware of the reality what is really happening or they are lying to make a political statement.

Which is it?

Perhaps we see things differently than you do and it is neither of your phony choices.

 

[Objective Voice]

What's clear from the OP is congressional Democrats don't want to be scapegoats for impeaching Trump any more than Republicans want to look any inkling of evidence that Trump may have committed wrong-doing in the eye. He's their party leader. So, naturally they don't want to tear down their leader knowing full well if he goes down, they go down. Thing is, it doesn't have to be that way.

Integrity...that's the watch word. It should go alongside "innocent until proven guilty". The problem here is few Republicans were willing to show any integrity and hold Trump accountable. They'd much rather play "wait and see" or let the anvil fall squarely on the Democrats to impeach him.

I agree that the Mueller investigation would need to be convincing that Trump was more than merely a bad actor, but I don't think the country would be torn apart if only one side of the political divide were to impeach a sitting president of the opposition party. It would surely help if both sides saw criminality in Mueller's findings, but I think the country would survive an impeachment along party-lines. After all, most of us are more in the middle than people on either end of the extremes give us credit.

 

[Black Dog]

Perhaps we see things differently than you do and it is neither of your phony choices.

No. We don't see 2 different things. I have also already said my piece and I am good with it.

So you have a great day man.

 

[haymarket]

No. We don't see 2 different things. I have also already said my piece and I am good with it.

So you have a great day man.

you also have a great evening.... and we do see things very differently.

 

[iguanaman]

Reluctantly, Rep. Nadler is right. We should hold on to trump as an example of how not to to govern/boogyman. BUTT! …that doesn’t prevent New York State from going after him and his son-in-law. :2wave:

<Rep. Jerry Nadler warned Monday that any impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump that begin in the new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives would need to clear an obvious partisan bar.>


<Nadler, who is to take over as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and would oversee a potential impeachment process, outlined in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a three-pronged test that he said would make for a legitimate impeachment proceeding, including that the offenses in question must be so grave and the evidence so clear that even some supporters of the president concede that impeachment is necessary.>


<Once it’s determined that a president has committed an impeachable offense, Nadler said, lawmakers need to consider whether the offense will “rise to the gravity where it’s worth putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment proceeding.”>


<He indicated that he had yet to see evidence that impeaching Trump was warranted, but said that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election as well as future investigations into Trump by Nadler’s Judiciary Committee could yield material for an impeachment proceeding.>
<“If Mueller shows us that the president has committed impeachable offenses, we'll have to make judgments as to how serious those impeachable offenses are and whether we should undertake an impeachment. If we see evidence of impeachable offenses not from Mueller the same question will arise,” he said, noting that not all crimes are considered an impeachable offense and vice versa.>


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/nadler-evidence-impeachable-offense-trump-1014702

When the depth of Trump's crimes are revealed it will tear the country apart NOT to impeach him. He has undermined the credibility of his office enough already and keeping a criminal in office would be even worse. The truth is that we already know that Trump got the GOP nomination fraudulently by hiding his business dealings with the Kremlin. Does anyone think he would have been nominated if it was revealed the he was offering Putin a $50 million penthouse to sweeten the deal so he could to make millions in Russia? America first my ass.

 

[cpwill]

But that doesn't explain the big expansions, which are Medicare, Medicaid, social safety nets in general, worker safety and protections, labor laws in general, or environmental laws. All those can be traced directly back to an identifiable need, or a failure.



That's not specific. I have no idea what that means. The Civil Rights Act? Voting Rights Act? Gay marriage? I'd classify those things as the feds doing a core job which is protecting people's rights.

No, not requirements - desirements, by those who wanted more federal power in this area. There is no reason the States can't do these things - and, in fact, the states do do these things (w/exception of Medicare direct, though States have elderly-care programs as well).




Marriage policy certainly belongs with the states, along with battles over putting dudes in girls bathrooms (or not), education policy, etc. The Culture Wars are those that create the most anger in our society, because that's where one side's preferred style of living gets forced on the other - and they aren't Constitutionally the realm of the Federal Government, but that of the States. We actually do have a 10th Amendment, if we ever bothered to remember. In the meantime, the idea that the preferences of the President should be able to reach down to County Schools and force them to adopt policies the POTUS prefers is.... Constitutionally nuts, regardless of who the President is.


Ideally, healthcare policy additionally belongs with the States. If California wants to have a single-payer system :shrug: California can do that. If Texas wants to emphasize market forces :shrug: Texas should be allowed to do that. If California wants to have a crushing regulatory state (and, they do), then California should be allowed to do that. And, if Texas wants to strip away most regulation, they should be allowed to do that as well. If California wants to have a minimum wage of $25 under the belief that that will help end poverty, then they should be allowed to do that. If Texas wants to have a minimum wage of $5 under the belief that will allow low-skill workers to more easily access the job market, then they should be allowed to do that, too.


We have a sprawling, swollen, behemoth of a Federal government, most of which is doing things the States could and should be doing. Going back to a Federalist system will also reduce the anger and hatred in our politics, as it will lower the stakes in those contests where there is deeper disagreement (consider a world, for example, where the election of Trump was a disappointment, but not a disaster, because the President simply wasn't given as much power as he currently is).


That will focus our more contentious issues at those levels of government where we tend to have a greater consensus. We don't currently do this because we want to use federal power to force our preferences on people who don't want them, which inevitably invites backlash. If it's just a matter of wishing for government to reflect our preferences, then federalism offers us all a way to do that. If it's a matter of wanting to force our preferences on others..... well, then, we'll keep "tearing the country apart".

Maybe another salient example:

Let's say (God forbid) that the rumors that Justice Ginsburg is soon to retire because her cancer has returned are true, and Justice Thomas decides to retire, letting Trump pick two more SCOTUS Judges.

That shouldn't be a disaster for the left. But it will be. Because we've put too many decisions into our federal government's hands, and too many of those into the Judiciary's.

 

[JasperL]

No, not requirements - desirements, by those who wanted more federal power in this area. There is no reason the States can't do these things - and, in fact, the states do do these things (w/exception of Medicare direct, though States have elderly-care programs as well).

Correct, and the federal government funds a big share of them, which the states and especially POOR states find pretty desirable. But the point is these things weren't federalized out of some generalized desire by unknown people in and out of government for power, but because the electorate wanted them.

And, yes, government providing for the "desirements" of the people is....how it's supposed to work.

Marriage policy certainly belongs with the states, along with battles over putting dudes in girls bathrooms (or not), education policy, etc.

I see, so you're OK with laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage.

The Culture Wars are those that create the most anger in our society, because that's where one side's preferred style of living gets forced on the other - and they aren't Constitutionally the realm of the Federal Government, but that of the States.

"Culture war" is too vague to argue against, but what I consider "culture war" areas almost all involve basic rights, discrimination, access. In other words, you appear to want the 14th Amendment and the CRA repealed, or something resembling repeal, but maybe to enforce what you'd PREFER, but not what you don't care about such as LGBT issues, and/or the federal courts to go out of the business of enforcing those provisions involving rights.

We actually do have a 10th Amendment, if we ever bothered to remember. In the meantime, the idea that the preferences of the President should be able to reach down to County Schools and force them to adopt policies the POTUS prefers is.... Constitutionally nuts, regardless of who the President is.

Example?

Ideally, healthcare policy additionally belongs with the States. If California wants to have a single-payer system :shrug: California can do that. If Texas wants to emphasize market forces :shrug: Texas should be allowed to do that. If California wants to have a crushing regulatory state (and, they do), then California should be allowed to do that. And, if Texas wants to strip away most regulation, they should be allowed to do that as well. If California wants to have a minimum wage of $25 under the belief that that will help end poverty, then they should be allowed to do that. If Texas wants to have a minimum wage of $5 under the belief that will allow low-skill workers to more easily access the job market, then they should be allowed to do that, too.

We have a sprawling, swollen, behemoth of a Federal government, most of which is doing things the States could and should be doing. Going back to a Federalist system will also reduce the anger and hatred in our politics, as it will lower the stakes in those contests where there is deeper disagreement (consider a world, for example, where the election of Trump was a disappointment, but not a disaster, because the President simply wasn't given as much power as he currently is).

That will focus our more contentious issues at those levels of government where we tend to have a greater consensus. We don't currently do this because we want to use federal power to force our preferences on people who don't want them, which inevitably invites backlash. If it's just a matter of wishing for government to reflect our preferences, then federalism offers us all a way to do that. If it's a matter of wanting to force our preferences on others..... well, then, we'll keep "tearing the country apart".

But you're ignoring that when the federal government was weaker, we had a century of slavery, then a century in the South of Jim Crow, which was whites using their majority to strip rights from blacks. You say marriage should be at the states, but then interracial marriage was illegal and could get you thrown in jail. So could having consensual sex if you're gay. So from the 'culture war' standpoint, we have seen the movie and it's the majority imposing preferences on minorities, which you're OK with because I would guess you're a white, male, straight Christian whose rights haven't ever been at risk in this country and you're sort of indifferent to the rights of minorities being stripped by the majority. That might reduce

On the stuff like healthcare, SS, EPA, etc. again, they weren't federalized because the states were doing a good job but because there were massive failures, and the feds took over to serve the needs of the electorate, which isn't a bad thing. You are entitled to disagree with that, but I think there's a reason why these things are third rails - no one would seriously put them at risk, because they'd lose the next election.

 

[cpwill]

Correct, and the federal government funds a big share of them, which the states and especially POOR states find pretty desirable. But the point is these things weren't federalized out of some generalized desire by unknown people in and out of government for power, but because the electorate wanted them.

And, yes, government providing for the "desirements" of the people is....how it's supposed to work.



I see, so you're OK with laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage.



"Culture war" is too vague to argue against, but what I consider "culture war" areas almost all involve basic rights, discrimination, access. In other words, you appear to want the 14th Amendment and the CRA repealed, or something resembling repeal, but maybe to enforce what you'd PREFER, but not what you don't care about such as LGBT issues, and/or the federal courts to go out of the business of enforcing those provisions involving rights.



Example?



But you're ignoring that when the federal government was weaker, we had a century of slavery, then a century in the South of Jim Crow, which was whites using their majority to strip rights from blacks. You say marriage should be at the states, but then interracial marriage was illegal and could get you thrown in jail. So could having consensual sex if you're gay. So from the 'culture war' standpoint, we have seen the movie and it's the majority imposing preferences on minorities, which you're OK with because I would guess you're a white, male, straight Christian whose rights haven't ever been at risk in this country and you're sort of indifferent to the rights of minorities being stripped by the majority. That might reduce

On the stuff like healthcare, SS, EPA, etc. again, they weren't federalized because the states were doing a good job but because there were massive failures, and the feds took over to serve the needs of the electorate, which isn't a bad thing. You are entitled to disagree with that, but I think there's a reason why these things are third rails - no one would seriously put them at risk, because they'd lose the next election.

Look. I'm willing to have an honest conversation with you on this. But if you're just going to strawman, then there's no point.

 

[Vadinho]

Reluctantly, Rep. Nadler is right. We should hold on to trump as an example of how not to to govern/boogyman. BUTT! …that doesn’t prevent New York State from going after him and his son-in-law. :2wave:

<Rep. Jerry Nadler warned Monday that any impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump that begin in the new, Democrat-controlled House of Representatives would need to clear an obvious partisan bar.>


<Nadler, who is to take over as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and would oversee a potential impeachment process, outlined in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” a three-pronged test that he said would make for a legitimate impeachment proceeding, including that the offenses in question must be so grave and the evidence so clear that even some supporters of the president concede that impeachment is necessary.>


<Once it’s determined that a president has committed an impeachable offense, Nadler said, lawmakers need to consider whether the offense will “rise to the gravity where it’s worth putting the country through the trauma of an impeachment proceeding.”>


<He indicated that he had yet to see evidence that impeaching Trump was warranted, but said that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election as well as future investigations into Trump by Nadler’s Judiciary Committee could yield material for an impeachment proceeding.>
<“If Mueller shows us that the president has committed impeachable offenses, we'll have to make judgments as to how serious those impeachable offenses are and whether we should undertake an impeachment. If we see evidence of impeachable offenses not from Mueller the same question will arise,” he said, noting that not all crimes are considered an impeachable offense and vice versa.>


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/26/nadler-evidence-impeachable-offense-trump-1014702

It might drive his supporters nuts but until we have heard from the 50% who do not and will not vote, its all just speculation. If Trump is guilty of crimes, he should be impeached, end of story. We have a constitution, use it.

 

[JasperL]

Look. I'm willing to have an honest conversation with you on this. But if you're just going to strawman, then there's no point.

You can be specific if you want, so we can discuss actual issues.

You said marriage should be a state issue and I explained problems with that. You broadly said "culture war" issues should be state issues, but the biggest of those have to do with race, gender and sexual orientation. We KNOW what that meant for blacks and gays in many states - they were stripped of basic civil rights, jobs, etc.

Just take marriage. People in same sex relationships, even domestic partnerships, were at least sometimes denied visitation rights with their loved ones while seriously ill or dying. So, the Feds issued rules that required hospitals to essentially grant same sex partners with the same RIGHTS as married couples. The ACA strengthened those rules, and Obergfell allowed for SSM. Why should those rights be up to the whim of states? What is the harm in the feds using Medicare to force states, and hospitals in states, to provide gay couples with the same RIGHTS as straight couples? And if you want those rights to be at the whim of states, you're OK with disfavored minorities not having rights you take as a given - of COURSE your marriage is respected in all 50 states. Why shouldn't a gay couple's marriage be similarly respected?

Well, pre-Obergfell, a legally married couple in a state that recognized SSM could move to or visit for any reason a state that doesn't recognize SSM and, poof, they're not married. Why shouldn't marriage RIGHTS be handled nationally, so I can know if I am in Texas that Texas will treat me as, you know, MARRIED, for purposes of making healthcare decisions for my spouse? If you believe devolving it to the states will decrease acrimony, what you're saying is the states will treat marriages differently and that you think it's a good thing of I can be married in Tennessee and if I'm gay, when I cross to Texas, they might treat me like a roommate with respect to my loved on in the hospital, dying.

That's the problem in general with your vague concerns - when you start making them specific, there are obvious problems that arise, and those problems are serious and resolving them and granting couples certainty is exactly why they were federalized. So what might make anti-SSM people happy in Texas has a serious downside. We can look at Jim Crow laws for examples as well - civil rights were federalized because of Jim Crow, not because of some generalized quest for power. If you can't recognize that, you're just fooling yourself.

 

[JasperL]

Maybe another salient example:

Let's say (God forbid) that the rumors that Justice Ginsburg is soon to retire because her cancer has returned are true, and Justice Thomas decides to retire, letting Trump pick two more SCOTUS Judges.

That shouldn't be a disaster for the left. But it will be. Because we've put too many decisions into our federal government's hands, and too many of those into the Judiciary's.

First of all, I'm not one that believes a conservative court is a "disaster." They'll make a lot of decisions I don't agree with, but I don't see any way around it. Voting rights are a FEDERAL issue, a Constitutional issue, not a state issue. How do you leave voting to the states without giving states the power they had with Jim Crow to strip those rights?

But, again, it's not really possible to discuss this stuff in general terms. You want more issues decided by the states. GREAT!!!! What, exactly?

I proposed some actually reasonable problems with that when you get to specifics and you accused me of straw manning. I pointed out some ACTUAL problems with the one specific item you mentioned, which was marriage. You didn't respond. If you'd like to debate specifics, I'm willing, but you and the other person objected to my general comment with....nothing specific. Fine, I guess, but it's not an argument.

 

[cpwill]

You can be specific if you want, so we can discuss actual issues.

You said marriage should be a state issue and I explained problems with that.

No, you didn't. You responded with:

so you're OK with laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage.

Which is a strawman, since what I'm arguing is not "we should have laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage", but rather "marriage license issuance takes place at the State level, and belongs there". Instead, you pick a decision made at the State level and respond with "SO I GUESS YOU SUPPORT THIS, THEN, as though thinking that a level or branch of government is the correct one to make a particular decision therefore means one agrees with every decision that level or branch of government makes.

Look, I can do it too:

The federal government and Supreme Court is the better place to make decisions regarding civil and individual rights, and should enforce uniformity on those issues on the States

cpwill: "OH. So, given that it was SCOTUS that gave us the Dredd-Scott Decision, which forced anti-slavery states to become de facto pro-slavery states I GUESS YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF ENSLAVING AFRICAN AMERICANS, THEN!!!!. "


See how foolish that argument is?

 

[JasperL]

No, you didn't. You responded with:



Which is a strawman, since what I'm arguing is not "we should have laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage", but rather "marriage license issuance takes place at the State level, and belongs there". Instead, you pick a decision made at the State level and respond with "SO I GUESS YOU SUPPORT THIS, THEN, as though thinking that a level or branch of government is the correct one to make a particular decision therefore means one agrees with every decision that level or branch of government makes.

I didn't say you FAVORED those laws, but are, quote "OK" with them. If we push marriage laws down to the states, and if those laws somehow reduce acrimony somehow, then states will DIFFER on marriage laws, which if not the anti-miscegenation laws on the books for 200 years, then anti-SSM laws. And if you want the states to decide so those laws will DIFFER, then you are OK with them, indifferent to that outcome, because if the states decide marriage, and it MATTERS, then something has to change - gays, interracial couples, something is going to differ from one state to the next. If not, if marriage laws don't change, then the states in charge has no impact.

Look, I can do it too:

cpwill: "OH. So, given that it was SCOTUS that gave us the Dredd-Scott Decision, which forced anti-slavery states to become de facto pro-slavery states I GUESS YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF ENSLAVING AFRICAN AMERICANS, THEN!!!!. "

And I'll answer consistent with what I said. If I believe rights are a federal issue, Constitutional issues, and I believe that the issues ARE appropriately federalized, then I have have to be OK with the Supreme court blessing laws that are in fact consistent with the Constitution, or even those like Dred Scott that goes down as one of the worst in history. Well, guess what? If you know your history you know it took a Civil War and a CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE to rid ourselves of slavery, to resolve the questions decided by Dred Scott, because it's written right into the document, and in fact the Constitution contained this:

No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.[5]

Furthermore, the decision overrode an act of CONGRESS, so by ruling on a law by the feds, it had to have a national impact one way or the other.

See how foolish that argument is?

Yes, it was foolish, but I didn't have any problem addressing the argument. I'll go further - there was no possible way for the individual states to ever adequately address the RIGHTS of blacks. We don't have to guess, because even 100 years AFTER Dred Scott, if you were black, you STILL weren't a full citizen in the former CSA because of the same bull**** "states' rights" narrative you're pushing. Putting CONSTITUTIONAL rights up to the whim of the states means some states will stomp the ever loving **** out of those rights. That is the history of the United States.

And on the issue of marriage, I also had to be prepared to deal with a decision in Obergfell that I didn't agree with - the SC deciding that there is no right for SS couples to marry. I would have disagreed with that, but IMO it was an appropriate federal decision because it dealt with fundamental RIGHTS. And even if Obergfell came out differently on the RIGHT to marry, the federal courts would still have had to deal with conflicts in state laws, to answer question such as, "If I'm legally married in New York, and cross over into Virginia where SSM is not legal, what are my RIGHTS?" That's a legitimate role of the federal government, to resolve these differences in state laws, contradictions, provide legal certainty.

 

[SmartCat]

SO while Conservative's are running around all hyped about socialists talking over the Democrat party you are confirming it for them?

Gallup, AUGUST 13, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the first time in Gallup's measurement over the past decade, Democrats have a more positive image of socialism than they do of capitalism. Attitudes toward socialism among Democrats have not changed materially since 2010, with 57% today having a positive view. The major change among Democrats has been a less upbeat attitude toward capitalism, dropping to 47% positive this year
https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx

 

[Donc]

Pleading the Fifth is a well-known term in the U.S. justice system except in tRump world. I guess when Roger Stone invokes Fifth Amendment in Senate Russia probe he’ll warrant a tweet slapping his hand.:roll:

<Roger Stone invokes Fifth Amendment in Senate Russia probe>


<Washington (CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller told a federal court Tuesday that former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn has given "substantial assistance" to the Russia investigation and should not get jail time.>


<President Donald Trump's confidant Roger Stone is telling congressional committees that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in order to not testify in response to requests for documents and testimony.>

<Stone's attorney Grant Smith rebuffed a request from the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee this week for documents and an interview connected to 2016 Russian election meddling. And Smith said he sent a similar letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee in September invoking the Fifth after the committee -- which is still conducting its investigation into Russian meddling -- requested documents and an interview.>

<Stone's letter was sent as Trump tweeted on Monday that Stone had "guts" for saying that he wouldn't testify against Trump in Mueller's investigation. But Trump has also been critical of those who invoke the Fifth. "The Mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?" he said at a September 2016 rally..

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/04/politics/roger-stone-fifth-amendment/index.html