• 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!

Trump may cheat and pay off women, but that won't get him impeached

I don't expect that Trump would be impeached at all. If Trump were a D instead of an R and did the same thing, then of course the Republicans would be clamoring for impeachment and would be upset at him. But as it is, they'll defend them and the Dems won't really have enough power to push impeachment. So we'll have the investigations, and they may turn up some things, but I put zero stock into Trump being impeached. Hopefully defeated in 2020, since I doubt the Republic could come out of a 2-term Trump without some significant damage.
 
I don't expect that Trump would be impeached at all. If Trump were a D instead of an R and did the same thing, then of course the Republicans would be clamoring for impeachment and would be upset at him. But as it is, they'll defend them and the Dems won't really have enough power to push impeachment. So we'll have the investigations, and they may turn up some things, but I put zero stock into Trump being impeached. Hopefully defeated in 2020, since I doubt the Republic could come out of a 2-term Trump without some significant damage.

Yes, both sides have become rabid, using nonstop investigations as a political tool. However, even if Trump were to serve two terms, I don't agree there would be significant damage. In fact, we would be better off than if we had had Hillary for two terms, or even one term. I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief when she lost. Other than the stock market, the country has been running really well so far under Trump. Any significant damage will come from both sides putting their jobs aside to do nothing but investigate the other side.
 
Yes, both sides have become rabid, using nonstop investigations as a political tool. However, even if Trump were to serve two terms, I don't agree there would be significant damage. In fact, we would be better off than if we had had Hillary for two terms, or even one term. I breathed a HUGE sigh of relief when she lost. Other than the stock market, the country has been running really well so far under Trump. Any significant damage will come from both sides putting their jobs aside to do nothing but investigate the other side.

The GOP made that the new normal from 2010-2016. Trump clamoring for everyone that's not a bootlicker to be investigated isn't helping anything. If the dems prove they can't walk and chew gum at the same time, bad on them, but that remains to be seen.
 
This is an article from USA Today (not Fox News) and this person is also a CNN contributor (not Fox News):



https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-may-cheat-pay-092257738.html

The Obama whataboutism in the op-ed puts Trump's hush payoffs to two women into proper perspective, doesn't it?
The left now knows they can't get Trump on collusion or obstruction charges, the original reason Mueller was summoned to investigate, so "they've" decided to whine about the above for the next two years.

It never ends. :lol:
 
The Obama whataboutism in the op-ed puts Trump's hush payoffs to two women into proper perspective, doesn't it?
The left now knows they can't get Trump on collusion or obstruction charges, the original reason Mueller was summoned to investigate, so "they've" decided to whine about the above for the next two years.

It never ends. :lol:

Show us where "the left" claim that, instead of just posting dishonest comments as usual. Looks like dishonest comments are all you can post.
 
Personally, I don't want Trump impeached. I want him bounced out on his fat, ignorant, tub o' lard rear end in the 2020 election which at the rate he is going could be accomplished by any candidate from Bugs Bunny to a cadaver they pull out of the morgue.
 
The Obama whataboutism in the op-ed puts Trump's hush payoffs to two women into proper perspective, doesn't it?
The left now knows they can't get Trump on collusion or obstruction charges, the original reason Mueller was summoned to investigate, so "they've" decided to whine about the above for the next two years.

It never ends. :lol:

Trump will very likely be indicted. He may even face jail time. But before that can happen he must either be impeached or serve out his term. The question of whether or not he will be impeached is up in the air. From a liberal politics standpoint, impeaching Trump would merely be icing on the cake. Donald Trump has already done enormous damage to the Republican party. Impeachment would be a just, but ultimately unnecessary, conclusion to his presidency. A conservative argument for impeachment would be to avoid giving the democrats the ammo that would result from blocking impeachment and allowing him to serve out his term only to have the extent of his crimes publicized afterward and have him end up in prison anyway once his term is up. This would be yet another stain on the judgement and trustworthiness of the Republican party.

At this point it's less a question of whether or not he did anything wrong than it is a question of when he will face justice: Before or after his term is over.
 
I don't expect that Trump would be impeached at all. If Trump were a D instead of an R and did the same thing, then of course the Republicans would be clamoring for impeachment and would be upset at him. But as it is, they'll defend them and the Dems won't really have enough power to push impeachment. So we'll have the investigations, and they may turn up some things, but I put zero stock into Trump being impeached. Hopefully defeated in 2020, since I doubt the Republic could come out of a 2-term Trump without some significant damage.

They didn't do it to Obama when he broke the same law.
 
Trump will very likely be indicted. He may even face jail time. But before that can happen he must either be impeached or serve out his term. The question of whether or not he will be impeached is up in the air. From a liberal politics standpoint, impeaching Trump would merely be icing on the cake. Donald Trump has already done enormous damage to the Republican party. Impeachment would be a just, but ultimately unnecessary, conclusion to his presidency. A conservative argument for impeachment would be to avoid giving the democrats the ammo that would result from blocking impeachment and allowing him to serve out his term only to have the extent of his crimes publicized afterward and have him end up in prison anyway once his term is up. This would be yet another stain on the judgement and trustworthiness of the Republican party.

At this point it's less a question of whether or not he did anything wrong than it is a question of when he will face justice: Before or after his term is over.

That isn't going to happen. As soon as he's out of office, this will all go away.
 
The notion that he won't be impeached for defrauding the American public and criminal campaign violations is only because Republicans wouldn't go along with impeachment; not because those aren't impeachable offenses.

How did he defraud the public?
 
Since you can't answer the question, you put words into my mouth. :lamo

You didn't challenge the criminal campaign violations, just the defrauding part. I think we all took note of that.
 
You didn't challenge the criminal campaign violations, just the defrauding part. I think we all took note of that.

That's already been debunked. The "defrauding the public" claim doesn't even exist yet? :lamo
 
That's already been debunked. The "defrauding the public" claim doesn't even exist yet? :lamo

But you personally accept the crimes Trump already committed. One thing I've learned here is that you don't have to convince a trump supporter all the way in order to have still gained something.
 
Is Clinton under investigation?

By a number of people who think that the previous official investigations were somehow flawed. The other side doesn't like to let things "go away," even when they cease to be a political threat.
 
Show us where "the left" claim that, instead of just posting dishonest comments as usual. Looks like dishonest comments are all you can post.

Do you hear anything about collusion or obstruction of justice in the article linked below?
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/420913-house-dems-talking-more-about-impeaching-trump

Exactly... nothing about it at all, but you will read about this:

House Democrats said the most explosive and potentially damaging revelation from last week is that Trump was, for the first time, directly implicated in a crime by prosecutors, who allege that the president directed the payments in violation of campaign finance laws to boost his presidential campaign.

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) called the allegations “shocking” and the most “serious criminal issue facing a president since Watergate.”

“The president is now under enormous pressure, because as he looks at this, he knows that he’s in great potential legal jeopardy and very serious political jeopardy,” said Deutch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, which will have the power to start impeachment proceedings.

“It’s much more difficult to wave this off and say there is nothing there,” added Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “There’s something there. We just need to see exactly what it is.”
Although leading Democrats say they are willing to wait to read Mueller's final report, the emphasis has turned away from collusion to alleged "campaign finance violations."
You might want to actually read the original article in the thread. Nothing about collusion or obstruction of justice mentioned, is there?

But you're entitled to disagree with my opinion, I can assure you that my opinion is grounded in reality and yours in denial.
 
Do you hear anything about collusion or obstruction of justice in the article linked below?
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/420913-house-dems-talking-more-about-impeaching-trump

Exactly... nothing about it at all, but you will read about this:

House Democrats said the most explosive and potentially damaging revelation from last week is that Trump was, for the first time, directly implicated in a crime by prosecutors, who allege that the president directed the payments in violation of campaign finance laws to boost his presidential campaign.

Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) called the allegations “shocking” and the most “serious criminal issue facing a president since Watergate.”

“The president is now under enormous pressure, because as he looks at this, he knows that he’s in great potential legal jeopardy and very serious political jeopardy,” said Deutch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, which will have the power to start impeachment proceedings.

“It’s much more difficult to wave this off and say there is nothing there,” added Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “There’s something there. We just need to see exactly what it is.”

Although leading Democrats say they are willing to wait to read Mueller's final report, the emphasis has turned away from collusion to alleged "campaign finance violations."
You might want to actually read the original article in the thread. Nothing about collusion or obstruction of justice, is there?

But you're entitled to disagree with my opinion, I can assure you that is grounded in reality.

who cares what an "article" mentioned, the Mueller report is not out and we don't know. Still waiting for you to show how "The Left" claim what you are claiming. Since when is "the hill" the ENTIRE left you mention?
 
But you personally accept the crimes Trump already committed. One thing I've learned here is that you don't have to convince a trump supporter all the way in order to have still gained something.

Why do you always debate like this?
Put words in the mouths of others?
 
who cares what an "article" mentioned, the Mueller report is not out and we don't know. Still waiting for you to show how "The Left" claim what you are claiming. Since when is "the hill" the ENTIRE left you mention?

Don't agree with the article or didn't read it? Which is it?
You might want to read my last sentence again...

If you don't think the Democrat's emphasis has gone from collusion to campaign finance violations, I don't know what to tell you.
 
Back
Top Bottom