• 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!

v

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'. True or False?


  • Total voters
    20
In response to the attack of the US on Iran, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'.

True or False?

I think the answer should be 'False'. It is my understanding that the President needs approval from congress to declare war, but does not need to do so for military action on a one-off basis. Hence my own vote. Can some of you clarify what the real situation is?

I would like to add the following; though morally you may expect him to inform congress, this would also risk jeopardizing mission secrecy. And I think this last one is a clear indicator that it should be possible for a president to undertake military action without approval. Am I wrong in this logic?

Joey

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'. True or False?​


The correct answer to the question is absolutely "yes". Simply for the fact that Congress can impeach a US president for pretty much anything it wants. (Actual convictions from the impeachment trial are a lot harder to come by.)

If/when the democrats regain the Majority during the mid-term elections, they will almost certainly impeach Donald Trump. And this bombing of Iran that Trump ordered will very likely be one of several articles of impeachment that they file.

..
 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'. True or False?​


The correct answer to the question is absolutely "yes". Simply for the fact that Congress can impeach a US president for pretty much anything it wants. (Actual convictions from the impeachment trial are a lot harder to come by.)

If/when the democrats regain the Majority during the mid-term elections, they will almost certainly impeach Donald Trump. And this bombing of Iran that Trump ordered will very likely be one of several articles of impeachment that they file.

..
OH LORD I PRAY THEY WOULDN'T GO THAT ROUTE AGAIN!
 
In response to the attack of the US on Iran, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'.

True or False?

I think the answer should be 'False'. It is my understanding that the President needs approval from congress to declare war, but does not need to do so for military action on a one-off basis. Hence my own vote. Can some of you clarify what the real situation is?

I would like to add the following; though morally you may expect him to inform congress, this would also risk jeopardizing mission secrecy. And I think this last one is a clear indicator that it should be possible for a president to undertake military action without approval. Am I wrong in this logic?

Joey
I voted other. Like he would be the first President in office to be impeached? You have to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find the only President to actually have been impeached and removed from it. Clinton was impeached and Trump was twice during his first term, what was the result - nada.
 
To pick just one of many recent examples at random, Trump's recent efforts to get a personal jet from the Qatari government would be a career-ending scandal for any normal politician. But since he does this kind of shit every week, the story gets one news cycle at most and then it's forgotten.

That's fine, file all these corrupt acts in a drawer for now, and whenever Republicans decide they're ready to throw Trump under the bus, they can take their pick of whatever reason for impeachment they'll support.
WRONG !
Politicians have done these things for DECADES ! The media just manipulates the Sheep in to FEELING that ONLY Trump did it and it's a crime ......

Clinton's got a penthouse and a helicopter!

Trump's actions CAN NOT become Un-Criminal if the Media only does 1 cycle! That should show you how gaslighted you are!
Getting the Sheep riled up about something does not make something a Crime.
Hope this help you in the future!

And to PROVE I'm right! AGAIN ask yourself :
"WHY HAVEN'T THEY TAKE TRUMP TO JAIL"

And notice how many Judges have been jailed for "REAL CRIMES" and Abuse of Power!....
 
I voted other. Like he would be the first President in office to be impeached? You have to go all the way back to Andrew Jackson to find the only President to actually have been impeached and removed from it. Clinton was impeached and Trump was twice during his first term, what was the result - nada.

It was Andrew Johnson (not andrew jackson) who was impeached in 1868.

And he was not removed from office. (The Senate did not convict. They were one vote short.)

..
 
It greatly depends. And while I greatly dislike Trump and his mostly anti-American money grab that is his administration, some things do have to be considered.

The War Powers Act has never been directly addressed by the Supreme Court as they have refused to do so over the years...so its constitutionality has not actually been validated or invalidated. So, before folks start saying that it is or it isn't...the fact of the matter is that we don't have clear understanding if it is or it isn't. My point: don't make a claim on its constitutionality one way or the other since either claim can't be validated just yet.

The SC has said that there are responsibilities involved though. Most notable: the president can orders military action against other nations, those operations (if I remember correctly) can last up to one month before requiring Congressional approval is required to continue the ongoing operation. So, as it stands and until the SC actually makes a determination on the War Powers Act, Trump can order a single military strike without Congress' approval. However, Congress must be notified of said strikes.

Having said that, if Trump wants to invade Iran, or put boots on the ground for a prolonged operation...in theory, he could. But. When 30 days comes up, he MUST get authorization from Congress. Please note, authorization doesn't necessarily mean getting Congress to pass an act of war. That is a whole other animal.

What can get Trump into trouble is if he conducts operations that looks like one big operation (like daily, independent consecutive airstrikes for 29 days) where Congress CAN make the demand for authorization. W got into a little bit of trouble when his administration tried to make the claim they could invade Iraq with Congress' approval under the War Powers Act. If he had tried that, then it would have triggered a SC involvement where they would have had to make a ruling. Instead, they made their case (such as it was, and even Trump called it lies) and got Congressional approval. To be fair, I don't think Trump actually wants troops on the ground. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I think what AOC is getting at here...is basically pointing all the time that the right said the same about Clinton, Obama and Biden's strikes and use of the War Powers Act and calling out the hypocrisy of the right on this subject. Unless...

There is proof that Trump, or his business legacy, and his cronies will benefit from a war/military strikes and using national security as a pretext to do so. If that is the case, then AOC has every right to call for impeachment. But we've seen that the right will circle the wagons and protect a sexual predator and convicted felon, so we all know how ell that will fare.
 
In response to the attack of the US on Iran, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'.

True or False?

I think the answer should be 'False'. It is my understanding that the President needs approval from congress to declare war, but does not need to do so for military action on a one-off basis. Hence my own vote. Can some of you clarify what the real situation is?

I would like to add the following; though morally you may expect him to inform congress, this would also risk jeopardizing mission secrecy. And I think this last one is a clear indicator that it should be possible for a president to undertake military action without approval. Am I wrong in this logic?

Joey

I don't sniff her underwear so I can't ansewer.
 
It was Andrew Johnson (not andrew jackson) who was impeached in 1868.

And he was not removed from office. (The Senate did not convict. They were one vote short.)

..
Yep, got my "J's" mixed up, I did think I remembered him being removed but checking I see you are correct. Getting to the point I gotta check my memory.
 
Last edited:
Hi Checkerboard Strangler,

They were placed their because there is a high risk. I am not denying the risk level has now increased, but the idea is that the overall risk level will be reduced after this. But facing risks is kinda in their job description, isn't it? So the I think the question is whether or not the risks are justified. I think they are. I share many of the concerns, but for me the scale tips the other way.


Joey

Oh I totally understand that this IS the j.o.b.
But again, SOP for Trump is, create a problem (or destroy safeguards that help prevent it*), then announce he has solved the problem...the one he created.

*JCPOA
 
Well, he has already been convicted of 34 felonies. The answer to that question is "Because he's the president."
Again you so proudly display your gaslighting and brain washing !
Let help you out again!
Hope it helps, but history is proving that it won't !


Here's your sign !
 
Again you so proudly display your gaslighting and brain washing !
Let help you out again!
Hope it helps, but history is proving that it won't !


Here's your sign !

Yeah I'm definitely going to watch some video posted with zero commentary. :D
 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called the intervention 'grounds for impeachment'. True or False?​


The correct answer to the question is absolutely "yes". Simply for the fact that Congress can impeach a US president for pretty much anything it wants. (Actual convictions from the impeachment trial are a lot harder to come by.)

If/when the democrats regain the Majority during the mid-term elections, they will almost certainly impeach Donald Trump. And this bombing of Iran that Trump ordered will very likely be one of several articles of impeachment that they file.

..

Hi Pracmatic,

Curious to see what will happen. I agree the will impeach him again. They will even consider impeaching him for just this, but I think they will also agree that it would but but a futile attempt. Besides, they should spend more time on doing something and not just chase Trump all the time.

Don't get me wrong here, I hate the bastard. He should have had the death penalty years ago, but here we are, and this is not what is gonna 'Do' him.


Joey
 
If enough Republicans get on board with a vote for impeachment it has a chance.
If not then it doesn't.
 
WRONG !
Politicians have done these things for DECADES ! The media just manipulates the Sheep in to FEELING that ONLY Trump did it and it's a crime ......

Clinton's got a penthouse and a helicopter!

Trump's actions CAN NOT become Un-Criminal if the Media only does 1 cycle! That should show you how gaslighted you are!
Getting the Sheep riled up about something does not make something a Crime.
Hope this help you in the future!

And to PROVE I'm right! AGAIN ask yourself :
"WHY HAVEN'T THEY TAKE TRUMP TO JAIL"

And notice how many Judges have been jailed for "REAL CRIMES" and Abuse of Power!....

Hi No,

Sorry but it doesn't work like that. Just because they did not succeed, does not mean that they did not try. But I agree they should have done exactly that, and they could have. But they failure miserably.


Joey
 
Again you so proudly display your gaslighting and brain washing !
Let help you out again!
Hope it helps, but history is proving that it won't !


Here's your sign !



Hi No,

You're very answer is 'gaslighting, and for no reason. No point,


Joey
 
If enough Republicans get on board with a vote for impeachment it has a chance.
If not then it doesn't.

If the republican caucus had any interest or intent of impeaching Trump they would have done it when he pardoned all the January 6th convictions.

That pardoning action by Trump was such a travesty of justice it shocked even his most loyal supporters in Congress. But even then none of congressional republicans had the coconuts to even speak out against Trump, let alone take initiate any proceedings against him.

Elected republicans in Washington are terrified of Trump undermining their re-elections. The situation is sad.

..
 
Hi No,

Sorry but it doesn't work like that. Just because they did not succeed, does not mean that they did not try. But I agree they should have done exactly that, and they could have. But they failure miserably.


Joey
Joey,
If they play pretend and NOTHING EVER comes from all their PRETENDING, you need to be honest with yourself and realize that they are lying to you!

Didn't you ever read The Boy who cried wolf ?.....
It's kinda like that.
 
Every single Trump supporter, conservative, "libertarian", classical liberal, Republican, etc. who claims to believe in the U.S. Constitution and did not vote True is someone who does not actually believe in the U.S. Constitution.
 
Hi No,

You're very answer is 'gaslighting, and for no reason. No point,


Joey
Poor Joey......

These legal hearings FULLY layout the Facts of LAW and the case that prove that the Felonies charges against Trump were just Lawfare by the left to harm Trump !....

The FACT that people on the Left see this and are not concerned that the DEMOCRATS are going Full Fascist is not good for America !
 
Poor Joey......

These legal hearings FULLY layout the Facts of LAW and the case that prove that the Felonies charges against Trump were just Lawfare by the left to harm Trump !....

The FACT that people on the Left see this and are not concerned that the DEMOCRATS are going Full Fascist is not good for America !

Hi No,

Sorry mate, but if that's what you think, than there is no helping you anymore.

Joey
 
We did the right thing.

Obama would have done the same thing. Trump did it quicker. The two-week notice was brilliant and a masterclass in strategy.
So was ignoring 15 trucks hauling all the uranium away from Fordnow last week, right?
 
Hi No,

Sorry mate, but if that's what you think, than there is no helping you anymore.

Joey
LOL!!!!!
Well considering that Trump is still a FREE MAN and the President, it would TOTALLY seem that you are faulting in your thinking!

Have a nice day !
 
Back
Top Bottom