• 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!

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

ElChupacabra said:
That's up to the Senate to decide now. There are different ways of looking at it, and part of it might depend on wanting to deal with this now since it's fresh on everyone's mind versus in 3 months time when it might not be. As it stands now a trial isn't going to happen right away, so I suspect it's going to be pushed back; for how long I don't know.
Click to expand...
A sensible Senate will kill this dumb idea.
 
Buckeyes85 said:
Why are you even disputing this? There is no question that the Russians did interfere in our election and did so to benefit Trump. Its not even debatable. The issue was whether team Trump colluded with the Russians.
Click to expand...
Mueller wasted 40 million dollars trying to prove Trump was in on this.

And in part 1 of his report, he clears Trump and his team.

Mueller report

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
 
Sandy Shanks said:
Republicans voting to convict a Republican President is extremely unlikely. In the first impeachment trial, Senate Republicans generally concluded that the Democrats proved their case, but they voted against conviction.

That is very likely to happen again. You must become more realistic. It is far better for the courts to decide Trump's guilt or innocence, not politicians, half of whom are Trump supporters who do not wish to piss off Trump's base in primary elections.
Click to expand...

Sandy, had to cut to stick to your point. IT is very unlikely Democrats can rally Republicans to help Democrat's to commit a crime.

This vicious assault on our president is a crime. And there are lawyers on the Democrats side that know it is a crime.
If is charging a person falsely for things the person did not do. That is a felony.

Courts will not put Trump on trial. They did not put Clinton on trial when he was impeached.
 
D_NATURED said:
You don't know what you're talking about. Gore could have legitimately requested a recount, given that the Bush lead was only three hundred votes for all of Florida, but he didn't to prevent Republicans drowning in their own tears and getting chaffed from the wet panties. There were a hundred and seventy thousand votes that the machines couldn't call because the selection didn't fully perforate the paper or because the voter both punched AND wrote in the name. All Gore would have had to do was refine the standards outlined in his suit to make it jive with the supreme courts concerns about varying voting standards by county. The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago did a full count of the hundred and seventy thousand votes, after the debacle was over. By ANY standard, they concluded, Gore won.

Now, do yourself some homework and quit playing the "I'm a republican so I get to have my own comforting facts" bullshit. This is documented American history. There is a republican reputation for stealing elections by various means that NO amount of denial can erase from the record. You're welcome.
Click to expand...

The Gore selective recount in only (4?) counties which he heavily won request was ridiculous and, based on that, the court denied it. Trying to get fewer (ruled questionable) ballots rejected statewide would likely have worked, but arguing that only the (4?) counties which you won by a large margin should be recounted (using a different, and more inclusive, standard) would have amounted to having court sanctioned election rigging.
 
Unity and Accountability are not mutually exclusive. It's not a zero sum game. We can have both.



There, I said it three times.
 
Integrityrespec said:
The impeachment is about Nancy not Donald. She is a hateful, mean, senile, crazed person of dubious character. It's about power and revenge for that woman.
Click to expand...
This is the ....she is a poopyhead argument. Lol
 
Sandy Shanks said:
Why hold an impeachment trial for Trump after he leaves office? Some argue to teach a lesson to future Presidents. That argument is spurious at best as well as illogical if for no other reason than Trump is an aberration.

There is only one reason to try Trump in the Senate after Jan. 20. Upon conviction, the Senate in a separate vote can bar Trump from running for office. Many deem that unnecessary. Trump has already done that to himself.

However, in this case that purpose may be based on a false premise.

Allow me to explain. In politics, as well as in life, one encounters the future by weighing the odds. In a Senate trial of a Republican President it is extremely unlikely that there will be a conviction since 17 Republicans would have to vote with the Democrats. It is extremely likely that a Senate trial lasting for weeks will be a complete waste of time.

Biden needs to get his cabinet certified ASAP. Another 965,000 Americans filed for unemployment for the first time last week. The pandemic is setting records for new deaths, cases, and hospitalizations. The pandemic and the economy is at its worst right now.

The Senate is split right down the middle, 50/50. Biden needs the cooperation of those 50 Republicans to accomplish his tasks.

What are the odds of Republicans cooperating with a Democratic President while the Democrats are trying to convict Trump of "Incitement of Insurrection?"

The answer: slim and none.

In all likelihood Trump will be indicted for any number of crimes ranging from sedition to tax fraud.

What would it cost for the House to hold onto the Articles of Impeachment for a hundred days or forget the trial entirely and be satisfied the incompetent President was impeached twice?

What are the odds of that happening? Slim and none, common sense and politicians are terms that don't belong in the same paragraph.
Click to expand...
The constitution stipulates that impeachment and trial is to remove a President from office. As of tomorrow that's no longer a question. No President, no trial. Can't remove someone who is not in office, he'll just be a plain old citizen. Maybe he should move to a sanctuary city where he'll be safe from arrest and prosecution.
 
Integrityrespec said:
The constitution stipulates that impeachment and trial is to remove a President from office. As of tomorrow that's no longer a question. No President, no trial. Can't remove someone who is not in office, he'll just be a plain old citizen. Maybe he should move to a sanctuary city where he'll be safe from arrest and prosecution.
Click to expand...
Your legal is disputed by greater minds than yours and mine
 
vegas giants said:
You completely made up what is in parenthesis.


Just flat out made it up.


It's called lying
Click to expand...
What is lying is posting that other American gov't agencies and investigators investigated the servers on which the 'stolen' DNC emails resided and then disingenuously using a link to 'prove' this while there resides a subheading within the link that you disingenuously purport proves that other American gov't agencies and investigators investigated the server which says (and I quote): "Why did the DNC hire Crowd Strike instead of just working with the FBI to investigate the hack? :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:) Those aren't memes, cabse5. They are the definitions of the logical fallacies you were committing ;).

And, again, as I told you, I don't accept "But So And So Did It " as an excuse from my children, and I don't accept it from adults, either, much less a President. Trying to avoid that by shifting to a red herring / ad hominem combo.....

... Well, it's obvious, man.
Click to expand...
You aren't conservative because you're way too authoritarian to be conservative. I know, guys like you (and the Bush family), for examples, fool themselves into thinking they're conservative...But guys like you (and the Bush family) happily rely about as much on big gov't to get things done as the progressives.:rolleyes:

...And, yes, they literally are memes.:ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Hamish Howl said:
The reaction at the capitol was treason and insurrection. Period.

And here you are making excuses for it.
Click to expand...
I like how you say "period" but then keep talking :D
 
cabse5 said:
You aren't conservative because you're way too authoritarian to be conservative. I know, guys like you (and the Bush family), for examples, fool themselves into thinking they're conservative...But guys like you (and the Bush family) happily rely about as much on big gov't to get things done as the progressives.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:) If you'd like to have a discussion on authoritarianism, Conservatism, and who has supported what over the past few years, I'm happy to have it elsewhere.

But, here, trying to spin to that is a failed red herring and ad hominem. You are hoping to change the subject from Trump's actions by attacking his critics. I don't accept that, either, from my children :).

...And, yes, they literally are memes.:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

:) They are literally definitions of logical fallacies. You can check ;).
 
cpwill said:
:) If you'd like to have a discussion on authoritarianism, Conservatism, and who has supported what over the past few years, I'm happy to have it elsewhere.

But, here, trying to spin to that is a failed red herring and ad hominem. You are hoping to change the subject from Trump's actions by attacking his critics. I don't accept that, either, from my children :).



:) They are literally definitions of logical fallacies. You can check ;).
Click to expand...
Why don't you go to the dem party where you belong?
 
Quag said:
Unlike you he is a conservative
Click to expand...

cpwill said:
:) If you'd like to have a discussion on authoritarianism, Conservatism, and who has supported what over the past few years, I'm happy to have it elsewhere.

But, here, trying to spin to that is a failed red herring and ad hominem. You are hoping to change the subject from Trump's actions by attacking his critics. I don't accept that, either, from my children :).



:) They are literally definitions of logical fallacies. You can check ;).
Click to expand...

You (and cpwill) don't have a clue what being conservative means.:rolleyes:
 
cabse5 said:
What is lying is posting that other American gov't agencies and investigators investigated the servers on which the 'stolen' DNC emails resided and then disingenuously using a link to 'prove' this while there resides a subheading within the link that you disingenuously purport proves that other American gov't agencies and investigators investigated the server which says (and I quote): "Why did the DNC hire Crowd Strike instead of just working with the FBI to investigate the hack? :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is in my reference. It is common to have outside agencies do initial investigations and if they find something the fbi and congress and intelligence agencies can follow up. That is exactly what they did.


Those are the facts
 
Mashmont said:
Did you feel that way when the leftwing mob tried to break into the White House, sending the Trump family down to the bunker and injuring 14 secret service officers?
Click to expand...

do you have a link to this event?
 
vegas giants said:
The answer to your question is in my reference. It is common to have outside agencies do initial investigations and if they find something the fbi and congress and intelligence agencies can follow up. That is exactly what they did.


Those are the facts
Click to expand...
They followed up by relying on the Crowdstrike Report...You act just like the liar that changed their position when they were caught in their lie.:rolleyes:
 
cabse5 said:
You (and cpwill) don't have a clue what being conservative means.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No you dont, you think it is parroting extreme right wing CT nutjobs

You are not and have never been a conservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom