• 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!

If the Republicans take back the house should they impeach Biden?

If the House goes Red should Republicans impeach Biden?


  • Total voters
    89

btthegreat

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
4,568
Reaction score
2,332
Location
Lebanon Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The House will have nothing to do, but pass a bunch of symbolic bills that everyone knows won't come close to passing the Senate by a 2/3 vote, so it does not matter how the damn things are written. They can be full of holes, full of legal challenges and not worth more than their propaganda value back home. Doing half assed work does not take any time at all. Might as well feed their base more Qnon crack in the form of impeachment articles.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
1,147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This comment is a lie. I never said "criminal collusion", nor did I ever hint at it. Why are you posting lies?

All I've said is that there was collusion. Which there was. I'm guessing the fact you're now posting obvious lies about what I said shows that you know I'm right and you were wrong.

I never said anything about criminal collusion at all.

Are you really trying to knock down a strawman based on YOUR false statements?

Do you even know what conversation we are having?

Why are you posting obvious lies about my position? My entire position has simply been that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Which they did. If you were ignorant of the fact that collusion was not only criminal in nature, then that's a you problem. But it doesn't change the fact I've been right the entire time and I've exposed you as either being incredibly ignorant to the definition of the word "collusion" or outright posting lies about the actions of the Trump campaign.

So, which is it? Were you ignorant or were you posting lies?

This comment is a lie. I never said "criminal collusion", nor did I ever hint at it. Why are you posting lies?

All I've said is that there was collusion. Which there was. I'm guessing the fact you're now posting obvious lies about what I said shows that you know I'm right and you were wrong.

I never said anything about criminal collusion at all.

Are you really trying to knock down a strawman based on YOUR false statements?

Do you even know what conversation we are having?

Why are you posting obvious lies about my position? My entire position has simply been that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. Which they did. If you were ignorant of the fact that collusion was not only criminal in nature, then that's a you problem. But it doesn't change the fact I've been right the entire time and I've exposed you as either being incredibly ignorant to the definition of the word "collusion" or outright posting lies about the actions of the Trump campaign.

So, which is it? Were you ignorant or were you posting lies?

Your 151 post makes clear that you have always been speaking of criminal collusion, because you stated therein that by Trump’s action for an investigation, he was trying to protect Russia from the accusation that Putin hacked the DNC. You did not go as far as Mad Lib Dems, who claimed that Trump had also colluded with Russia to attempt hacking the American voting process and to circulate anti Hilary political ads— at least you did not do so on this thread. But you have never spoken of collusion in any benign sense, which means that you were ignorant of the distinction. You’re trying to deflect by hijacking the meaning of words for your partisan purposes, just as you did with your fatuous untruths about the word “testify.”

So I don’t have to ask if you are a liar or just ignorant, because you’ve been good enough to show that you are both. Thanks ever so.🤣
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Excuse me, I have not heard a Republican in Congress state they were going to impeach anyone.
You should pay more attention to the news then.

However, I do see it possible for members of Biden's administration where hearings will be held that could result in them being impeached.
As I asked you before...

For?

See, when Republicans say they are going to impeach because *we'll make up a reason here*, it kind of undermines any legitimacy.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Your 151 post makes clear that you have always been speaking of criminal collusion
Only if someone is a liar.

Here's a link to post 151. Show me where I even so much as insinuated the word "criminal": https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...y-impeach-biden.483517/page-7#post-1076085649
, because you stated therein that by Trump’s action for an investigation, he was trying to protect Russia from the accusation that Putin hacked the DNC. You did not go as far as Mad Lib Dems, who claimed that Trump had also colluded with Russia to attempt hacking the American voting process and to circulate anti Hilary political ads— at least you did not do so on this thread. But you have never spoken of collusion in any benign sense, which means that you were ignorant of the distinction. You’re trying to deflect by hijacking the meaning of words for your partisan purposes, just as you did with your fatuous untruths about the word “testify.”
None of this is even remotely close to truth and your desperate attempt to post as many lies as possible is the actual deflection here. So, let's bring it back to what really matters.

You now admit that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, correct? Whether it was criminal or non-criminal, you agree there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, yes?
So I don’t have to ask if you are a liar or just ignorant
That's true because I haven't blatantly lied about anything you've said. You, on the other hand, have posted numerous lies about my words (to the point where you're literally arguing with me over what I meant) and are now trying to deflect from the fact that you have admitted the truth, which is that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

So, admit it. Craft an honest post which says, "I, Ouroboros, do solemnly acknowledge there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia." You don't even have to type it out, feel free to copy and paste. But just admit the truth and quit posting lies about what I've said to deflect from it.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
19,576
Reaction score
12,826
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I mean, we were assured by the Democrat faithful throughout the Trump administration that impeachment was political and didn't need to be connected to a criminal act, which they used to justify the lopsided rules they formulated for Trump impeachments... so basically, by Democrats own arguments, yes, he should be impeached, and no the Democrats should be denied witnesses, and left out of key meetings and hearings.
Not correct. You are not understanding impeachment. Impeachment is a political process; not a criminal process, but no one ever said impeachment was a political move, like a fillibuster or gerrymandering. It remains a serious matter, to be used as last resort. There is still the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors", but "high crimes and misdemeanors" are defined by congress, not necessarily criminal code. For example, a high crime for a POTUS is abuse of power. Abuse of Power is not defined in the criminal code, but it is one of the most serious crimes a POTUS can commit.


Trump was impeached for two acts of abuse of power .... using the powers of the office for personal gain. Each were righteous impeachments.

If Biden should commit an egregious act of abuse of power, he should be impeached. Impeaching him for the sake of impeaching him, however, would be an abuse of power by Congress. This is not a game.
 
Last edited:

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Not correct. You are not understanding impeachment.
I think you're being generous here.
Impeachment is a political process; not a criminal process, but no one ever said impeachment was a political move, like a fillibuster or gerrymandering. It remains a serious matter, to be used as last resort. There is still the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors", but "high crimes and misdemeanors" are defined by congress, not necessarily criminal code. For example, a high crime for a POTUS is abuse of power. Abuse of Power is not defined in the criminal code, but it is one of the most serious crimes a POTUS can commit. Trump was impeached for two acts of abuse of power .... using the powers of the office for personal gain. Each were righteous impeachments.

If Biden should commit an egregious act of abuse of power, he should be impeached. Impeaching him for the sake of impeaching him, however, would be an abuse of power by Congress. This is not a game.
Well said.
 

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
30,029
Reaction score
15,665
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Not correct. You are not understanding impeachment. Impeachment is a political process; not a criminal process, but no one ever said impeachment was a political move, like a fillibuster or gerrymandering. It remains a serious matter, to be used as last resort. There is still the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors", but "high crimes and misdemeanors" are defined by congress, not necessarily criminal code. For example, a high crime for a POTUS is abuse of power. Abuse of Power is not defined in the criminal code, but it is one of the most serious crimes a POTUS can commit.


Trump was impeached for two acts of abuse of power .... using the powers of the office for personal gain. Each were righteous impeachments.

If Biden should commit an egregious act of abuse of power, he should be impeached. Impeaching him for the sake of impeaching him, however, would be an abuse of power by Congress. This is not a game.

You have a self defeating argument.

"high crimes and misdemeanors" are defined by congress, not necessarily criminal code.

Which is of course why the Democrats justified an impeachment hearing and impeachment based on assumed wrong doing, and denied the President the ability to mount a defense by controlling witnesses, and GOP participation.

It would be no different with a GOP lead house and Joe Biden. They could accuse him of anything they want, hold a one sided hearing and impeach him in the same way the Democrats did.

Because the Democrats, as always, play scorched earth with the Constitution and the rules of Congress and then act shocked when the GOP returns the favor.

By the way, I wouldn't even support the GOP if they decided to behave like the Democrats, but the ****ing Democrats, as always, lowered the bar.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
1,147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Only if someone is a liar.

Here's a link to post 151. Show me where I even so much as insinuated the word "criminal": https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...y-impeach-biden.483517/page-7#post-1076085649

None of this is even remotely close to truth and your desperate attempt to post as many lies as possible is the actual deflection here. So, let's bring it back to what really matters.

You now admit that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, correct? Whether it was criminal or non-criminal, you agree there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, yes?

That's true because I haven't blatantly lied about anything you've said. You, on the other hand, have posted numerous lies about my words (to the point where you're literally arguing with me over what I meant) and are now trying to deflect from the fact that you have admitted the truth, which is that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

So, admit it. Craft an honest post which says, "I, Ouroboros, do solemnly acknowledge there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia." You don't even have to type it out, feel free to copy and paste. But just admit the truth and quit posting lies about what I've said to deflect from it.

I, Ouroboros, state that there was nothing illegal about emissaries of an American President interviewing Russian operatives in order to ferret out illegal or unethical activities by the corrupt Democrat party. Lawyers of different persuasions may choose to label such interviews as either benign or criminal collusion. I Ouroboros will not use that term in public discourse because in public discourse partisans like Slyfox have made their use of collusion inextricable from criminal activity. Therefore I will not use the term when speaking to persons who are guilty of both lying and flaunting ignorance.
 

redbeer

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
6,835
Reaction score
2,169
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative



Many on the Right see Trump's impeachment as unfair persecution of an innocent man.

Given that they take back the House, should they impeach Biden for retribution?

A part of me says, "hell yeah, impeach the SOB"......yet another part is saying, "don't follow the democrats lead and impeach for political expediency".......don't use "impeachment" as a weapon as did the democrats, please don't be like the democrats".

Realistically though, it's probably going to happen, then Kamala, so the most important thing is who will be Speaker once republicans take control?
 

slick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
6,629
Reaction score
2,059
Location
Nassau County, Long Island
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative



Many on the Right see Trump's impeachment as unfair persecution of an innocent man.

Given that they take back the House, should they impeach Biden for retribution?
Biden deserves impeachment but before they impeach him they must impeach Harris first. They then should make sure
that they proceed very quickly before the democrats can replace Harris as VP to transfer power to the third in line the leader
of the House McCarthy as president.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I, Ouroboros,
That was a good start, but you went off the rails quickly. So let's try it again:

So, admit it. Craft an honest post which says, "I, Ouroboros, do solemnly acknowledge there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia." You don't even have to type it out, feel free to copy and paste. But just admit the truth and quit posting lies about what I've said to deflect from it.

Or you can admit you've been blatantly posting lies this entire time. Whichever suits you better, I suppose.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
1,147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That was a good start, but you went off the rails quickly. So let's try it again:

So, admit it. Craft an honest post which says, "I, Ouroboros, do solemnly acknowledge there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia." You don't even have to type it out, feel free to copy and paste. But just admit the truth and quit posting lies about what I've said to deflect from it.

Or you can admit you've been blatantly posting lies this entire time. Whichever suits you better, I suppose.
I did a quick check to see exactly what you said about Trump's criminal collusion with Russia. I'll note in passing that I was the first one to use the word "collusion" in this exchange, since I was the only one of us interested in the background behind the Zelensky call.
But when you got into the subject, you revealed a slavish allegiance to all of the corrupt DNC's talking points. From post #206:

Trump is 100% seeking to defend Russia. Whether it was because it would personally benefit him or because he feels some allegiance to Russia for some reason is irrelevant.

Neither of these motivations can be deemed "benign collusion," which I'm sure you knew nothing about until I posted a legal definition. So in the sense that you mean "collusion"-- the same sense used by the liberal MSM-- Trump did not commit collusion.

He did, as I have said before, seek to get dirt on the corrupt DNC. But in your complete and total dishonesty, you failed to respond to my earlier point-- that Trump looked for dirt, and when he didn't find it, he didn't claim that he did have dirt, beyond continuing to rail against "the swamp" in a general sense. In contrast, the DNC knowingly paid for a dossier full of unverified information and blatantly lied to the American public about the dossier's truth-value.

But yes, go ahead and continue to prate about the Zelensky quid pro quo, for which you have no evidence, and to ignore the DNC's corruption, for which the evidence is beyond question. I don't think you've said Word One about the Dossier here-- so now that I've answered your question, let's see you respond with at least a tiny bit of honesty.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I did a quick check to see exactly what you said about Trump's criminal collusion with Russia. I'll note in passing that I was the first one to use the word "collusion" in this exchange, since I was the only one of us interested in the background behind the Zelensky call.
But when you got into the subject, you revealed a slavish allegiance to all of the corrupt DNC's talking points. From post #206:



Neither of these motivations can be deemed "benign collusion," which I'm sure you knew nothing about until I posted a legal definition. So in the sense that you mean "collusion"-- the same sense used by the liberal MSM-- Trump did not commit collusion.

He did, as I have said before, seek to get dirt on the corrupt DNC. But in your complete and total dishonesty, you failed to respond to my earlier point-- that Trump looked for dirt, and when he didn't find it, he didn't claim that he did have dirt, beyond continuing to rail against "the swamp" in a general sense. In contrast, the DNC knowingly paid for a dossier full of unverified information and blatantly lied to the American public about the dossier's truth-value.

But yes, go ahead and continue to prate about the Zelensky quid pro quo, for which you have no evidence, and to ignore the DNC's corruption, for which the evidence is beyond question. I don't think you've said Word One about the Dossier here-- so now that I've answered your question, let's see you respond with at least a tiny bit of honesty.
All these postings of lies, deflections, and red herrings and you still can't admit the truth. So let's try it again:

So, admit it. Craft an honest post which says, "I, Ouroboros, do solemnly acknowledge there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia." You don't even have to type it out, feel free to copy and paste. But just admit the truth and quit posting lies about what I've said to deflect from it.

Or you can admit you've been blatantly posting lies this entire time. Whichever suits you better, I suppose.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
1,147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
All these postings of lies, deflections, and red herrings and you still can't admit the truth. So let's try it again:

So, admit it. Craft an honest post which says, "I, Ouroboros, do solemnly acknowledge there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia." You don't even have to type it out, feel free to copy and paste. But just admit the truth and quit posting lies about what I've said to deflect from it.

Or you can admit you've been blatantly posting lies this entire time. Whichever suits you better, I suppose.
I am indeed happy to admit that you have been posting lies all this time, with the slight excuse that, having been infected with TDS, you literally cannot tell truth for falsehood.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I am indeed happy to admit
Then do it. Admit the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. You've given every partisan hack excuse in the world to avoid directly admitting it, even as you have specifically acknowledged actions of collusion.

So, again, will you admit the Trump campaign colluded with Russia? Or are you going to keep posting lies about it?
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
1,147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Then do it. Admit the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. You've given every partisan hack excuse in the world to avoid directly admitting it, even as you have specifically acknowledged actions of collusion.

So, again, will you admit the Trump campaign colluded with Russia? Or are you going to keep posting lies about it?

I admitted that you are a liar who can’t even mount a halfway logical defense of his words. Why you wish me to repeat that fact, I do not know.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I admitted
No, you haven't. Well, you actually have admitted the Trump campaign colluded with Russia when you acknowledged Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner secretly met with Russian government officials, but I want to see you say the words "The Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election".

It's okay, you can do it. We all know it is true.
 

Ren

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2020
Messages
4,009
Reaction score
1,148
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative



Many on the Right see Trump's impeachment as unfair persecution of an innocent man.

Given that they take back the House, should they impeach Biden for retribution?
Not for retribution. How petty and stupid does a group have to be? If there's an impeachable offense, go for it. Otherwise get your attention on the country where it belongs.
 

Winston

Dead Voter
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
16,682
Reaction score
11,352
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
No, you haven't. Well, you actually have admitted the Trump campaign colluded with Russia when you acknowledged Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner secretly met with Russian government officials, but I want to see you say the words "The Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election".

It's okay, you can do it. We all know it is true.

It may take them another 30-40 years to admit it.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
1,147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, you haven't. Well, you actually have admitted the Trump campaign colluded with Russia when you acknowledged Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner secretly met with Russian government officials, but I want to see you say the words "The Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election".

It's okay, you can do it. We all know it is true.

I want to see you admit how your TDS has distorted your understanding of matters too complex for you, but I won’t waste space here kidding myself, as you do.

Repeating posts obsessively is the hallmark of the loser.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
1,147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It may take them another 30-40 years to admit it.

Nobody’s denied meetings. Meetings are part of Presidential affairs; just ask Joe Biden about his VP meetings with China. But only an idiot would automatically label meetings as legal collusion.
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Repeating posts obsessively is the hallmark of the loser.
No, it is pinning down those who would dishonestly say things. You repeatedly claimed collusion did not happen, then you acknowledged it did. So I want to see you explicitly state that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. All you have to do is say what we all already know to be true.

So I guess the real question is why will you not admit what we all know to be true? Why is sticking to the lie everyone knows is a lie more important to you than the truth? You can post honestly or you can post dishonestly. To post honestly, all you have to do is say what we all know to be true, which is that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. But you're still posting dishonestly in claiming it didn't happen, even as you acknowledge acts of collusion.

So why won't you admit the truth?
 

Slyfox696

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
12,882
Reaction score
9,607
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Nobody’s denied meetings.
Well this is a lie:








Why are you posting lies?
Meetings are part of Presidential affairs
Donald Trump was not President in 2016.

Why are you posting lies?
But only an idiot would automatically label meetings as legal collusion.
I'm sure English is not your first language, but the thing you just said here actually hurts your position.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
8,042
Reaction score
1,147
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, it is pinning down those who would dishonestly say things. You repeatedly claimed collusion did not happen, then you acknowledged it did. So I want to see you explicitly state that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. All you have to do is say what we all already know to be true.

So I guess the real question is why will you not admit what we all know to be true? Why is sticking to the lie everyone knows is a lie more important to you than the truth? You can post honestly or you can post dishonestly. To post honestly, all you have to do is say what we all know to be true, which is that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it. But you're still posting dishonestly in claiming it didn't happen, even as you acknowledge acts of collusion.

So why won't you admit the truth?

Repeating your already disproven points really makes you less the sly fox and more the dull bird.

What was your counter to the argument that Presidents and their agents have the authority to meet with foreign representatives without the act meriting the legal definition of collusion? That’s right, you had none, just like you mounted no defense for the DNC’s dirty tricks. Yet you presume to demand truth from me. Well, at least you’re a funny dull bird.
 
Top Bottom