[W;622]Please... Be honest. Do you really think a second impeachment is good for the country?

[cabse5]

I can't disagree with that. Rule of Law is determined in the courts. Trump tried to make the case the election didn't follow the rule of law. The courts disagreed. You lost. Biden will be President. You should have started your investigation instead.

Rule of law is that all laws apply to everyone. Courts' rulings have nothing to do with that.

 

[less right]

Rule of law is that all laws apply to everyone. Courts' rulings have nothing to do with that.

That's called equality or equal enforcement. And who decides if that has occurred? The courts. According to the rule of law.

It was covered in civics class.

 

[cabse5]

That's called equality or equal enforcement. And who decides if that has occurred? The courts. According to the rule of law.

It was covered in civics class.

That's called rule of law.

Hypothetically, what good are laws that aren't applied equally?...Well, I contend, not applying laws equally to everyone is good for an authoritarian gov't (like the Biden administration).

 

[less right]

That's called rule of law.

Hypothetically, what good are laws that aren't applied equally?...Well, I contend, not applying laws equally to everyone is good for an authoritarian gov't (like the Biden administration).

I'm all for applying laws equally. That too is the rule of law. If you have questions whether something followed the rule of law, take it to court where judges make the determination.

The "rule of law" is much more than just seeing the laws are equally applied.

 

[trixare4kids]

Yes, and simply because there has to be a consequence for a sitting president to conduct himself in the manner Trump did during this entire election process. If there's no consequence, it can easily become a tactic that's used by future presidents or candidates to adversely affect the election process. If we accept the rationale that it will further divide the country, we're accepting the behavior witnessed simply out of fear of alienating its supporters.

Do you think the senate will get a 2/3 conviction? If not, what does impeaching Trump accomplish?

 

[HangLow]

"All Lives Matter" is just a way for white supremacists
to deflect away from and trivialize the murder-by-cop of black men.
Thanks for reminding us of that.

​

 

[ElChupacabra]

Do you think the senate will get a 2/3 conviction? If not, what does impeaching Trump accomplish?

I'm curious to see how this plays out because the certainty around a trial and verdict aren't as set in stone as they were for the previous impeachment. The last time there were no GOP votes in the House to impeach Trump, while this time there were 10. The other factor to consider is GOP political strategy, since for the establishment it could be an easy way to back away from the damaged brand Trump placed on the party. While that might not seem obvious to party loyalists, it's the sentiment outside of it and the GOP can't afford to alienate the independents who swing in their favor depending on the viability of a GOP candidate.

Even without a conviction, it serves as a symbolic act that the kind of behavior we saw from Trump isn't without consequence. As I stated before, if this goes with no kind of punitive action, then it becomes an acceptable strategy for others to use. If that becomes the case, then elections will be crap shows when candidates who cannot accept a loss. This is about Trump's actions, but also about setting precedent; Trump broke the image of this country being the shining city on a hill as it relates to peaceful transitions of power.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The Times reports, " A day after the [Democratic] House impeached President Trump for inciting a violent insurrection at the Capitol, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate were developing plans on Thursday to try the departing president at the same time as they begin considering the agenda of the incoming one."

“It’s far from ideal, no question,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. But, he said, “a dual track is perfectly doable if there is a will to make it happen.”

The Democrats want to convict a Republican President of inciting an insurrection. Someone tell me why in the world would Republican Senators would cooperate with the Democrats in an impeachment trial?

Someone tell why they think Trump will be convicted in the Senate so that the trial isn't a complete waste of extremely valuable time. Americans are dying at the rate of over 4,000 per day and the economy is going in the tank.

Are House Democrats screwing over the Democratic President?

I have scoured hundreds of news stories. I have not found adequate answers to those questions. The media does wish to cover that aspect of the dilemma. So they avoid it entirely.

 

[cpwill]

Get it right. Rule of law means applying the law equally to all Americans.

Equality under the law is absolutely a facet of how we have established it here.

But, again, I don't accept but jimmy did it from my children, and I don't accept it as an excuse from grown ups, either.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The Times reports, " A day after the [Democratic] House impeached President Trump for inciting a violent insurrection at the Capitol, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate were developing plans on Thursday to try the departing president at the same time as they begin considering the agenda of the incoming one."

“It’s far from ideal, no question,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut. But, he said, “a dual track is perfectly doable if there is a will to make it happen.”

The Democrats want to convict a Republican President of inciting an insurrection. Someone tell me why in the world would Republican Senators would cooperate with the Democrats in an impeachment trial?

Someone tell why they think Trump will be convicted in the Senate so that the trial isn't a complete waste of extremely valuable time. Americans are dying at the rate of over 4,000 per day and the economy is going in the tank.

Are House Democrats screwing over the Democratic President?

I have scoured hundreds of news stories. I have not found adequate answers to those questions. The media does wish to cover that aspect of the dilemma. So they avoid it entirely.

1. The answer to your first question is one the GOP has to contemplate because for them it's an opportunity to jettison Trump's negative press from the party. The party leaders have to look at the future of the party, and right now Trump and Trumpism's future is in question. The hard part will be trying to redefine the party with the fear of losing that core Trump base that comprises so much of the party. The other aspect is protecting the election process, which was dealt a blow with the current fiasco. Both parties should look at this as a scenario which suffers direct consequences, lest both parties be saddled with candidates from both their ranks pulling the same stunt at all levels of elections.
2. As for your second question, the value in terms of time and effort is based on protecting the election system from this kind of challenge. Biden has proposed bifurcation of these issues so the Senate can devote time to both if that's where things end up. It's hard to argue that addressing all of these issues isn't critical.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The hard part will be trying to redefine the party with the fear of losing that core Trump base that comprises so much of the party.

Judging from their comments on this forum and Trump's mob of supporters on the sixth, the GOP won't be losing much if thy lose these people.

Biden has proposed bifurcation of these issues so the Senate can devote time to both if that's where things end up.

Yes, if that works, for weeks half of the Senate time will be devoted to Trump. He is not worth it. Let the justice system deal with Trump.

An impeachment trial is a very bad idea.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Judging from their comments on this forum and Trump's mob of supporters on the sixth, the GOP won't be losing much if thy lose these people.

It would be a sizable amount of support, but that depends if there's somewhere for them to go. A Trumpist party is not going to have much of a future because they're a subset of the GOP, so you'd have a fracturing of the vote for any GOP/Trumpist candidate.

Yes, if that works, for weeks half of the Senate time will be devoted to Trump. He is not worth it. Let the justice system deal with Trump.

An impeachment trial is a very bad idea.

I think Congress not responding is an even worse one.

 

[Airyaman]

Well, do you?

Is this what we've reduced this topic down to? Holding a despot responsible?

Retrumplicans have told us to **** our feelings for 4 years.

OK.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Do you think the senate will get a 2/3 conviction? If not, what does impeaching Trump accomplish?

I don’t know about you, but it gave most of the rest of us Americans a warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[brianpatrick]

It’s like getting a boot in your ass on the way out the door. Reminds you not to come back, unless you want another one.

 

[cabse5]

I'm curious to see how this plays out because the certainty around a trial and verdict aren't as set in stone as they were for the previous impeachment. The last time there were no GOP votes in the House to impeach Trump, while this time there were 10. The other factor to consider is GOP political strategy, since for the establishment it could be an easy way to back away from the damaged brand Trump placed on the party. While that might not seem obvious to party loyalists, it's the sentiment outside of it and the GOP can't afford to alienate the independents who swing in their favor depending on the viability of a GOP candidate.

Even without a conviction, it serves as a symbolic act that the kind of behavior we saw from Trump isn't without consequence. As I stated before, if this goes with no kind of punitive action, then it becomes an acceptable strategy for others to use. If that becomes the case, then elections will be crap shows when candidates who cannot accept a loss. This is about Trump's actions, but also about setting precedent; Trump broke the image of this country being the shining city on a hill as it relates to peaceful transitions of power.

Meh. It isn't constitutional to punish political speech you don't agree with.

 

[cabse5]

Equality under the law is absolutely a facet of how we have established it here.

But, again, I don't accept but jimmy did it from my children, and I don't accept it as an excuse from grown ups, either.

Great. Let's dispose of the farce we have called elections that indicates an approval by the American people to change power in American gov't. Elections will forever be rigged after the precedent of the 2020 election. And the American people won't have any confidence in American gov't because of your (far from being conservative) leaning.

Side note: Ya know, conservative means thinking like T. Jefferson or R. Paul and not thinking like W. Buckley, JR. (or G. Bush) .

 

[ElChupacabra]

Meh. It isn't constitutional to punish political speech you don't agree with.

It's a bit more than that, now isn't it? If we accept the premise that candidates can refuse to accept the outcome of elections after their legal recourse fails, how do you foresee that playing out for future elections?

 

[Quag]

Great. Let's dispose of the farce we have called elections that indicates an approval by the American people to change power in American gov't. Elections will forever be rigged after the precedent of the 2020 election. And the American people won't have any confidence in American gov't because of your (far from being conservative) leaning.

Side note: Ya know, conservative means thinking like T. Jefferson or R. Paul and not thinking like W. Buckley, JR. (or G. Bush) .

Nope The American people did decide. It was Trump and his cultists who tried and failed to steal the election.

 

[cabse5]

It's a bit more than that, now isn't it? If we accept the premise that candidates can refuse to accept the outcome of elections after their legal recourse fails, how do you foresee that playing out for future elections?

Not accepting elections like Al Gore, ya mean? Like the socialist who lost in the governor race in Georgia?

 

[Quag]

Not accepting elections like Al Gore, ya mean? Like the socialist who lost in the governor race in Georgia?

Al Gore did accept the result unlike the cry baby Trump

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Well, do you?

Yes. I think it would be terrible for the country to say that Trump is above the law.

 

[cabse5]

Al Gore did accept the result unlike the cry baby Trump

Trump accepted his defeat before the crybaby Gore accepted his defeat. The crybaby lady who lost the Georgia governor race is still crying about losing that election.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Not accepting elections like Al Gore, ya mean? Like the socialist who lost in the governor race in Georgia?

Al Gore pursued the legal means available to him, and once the election was called for Bush, he called and conceded. You would have an argument here if Gore then went on the airwaves and started making all sorts of conspiratorial claims, which he did not; the same goes for Abrams who eventually conceded the gubernatorial election. Trump continues to push baseless conspiracy theories unlike those you cited.

 

[Variant]

That's called rule of law.

Hypothetically, what good are laws that aren't applied equally?...Well, I contend, not applying laws equally to everyone is good for an authoritarian gov't (like the Biden administration).

The Biden administration is an authoritarian government BEFORE being in power?