• 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!

What damage would convicting Trump do to the Republican Party?

No you keep saying it because you're trying to convince yourself that's the only reason someone does that.

You have simply ether been fooled or you don't like the reality. The Democrats cheated Biden didn't win fair and square. He is an Illegitimate president.
I'll end this 'discussion' with you, as I realize that those who have been indoctrinated, as in cults, or victims of gaslighters, as in Trump loyalists are not open to reality or truth, and will continue to argue on a false pretense. I hope some day you will see the light and admit the truth, but I won't hold my breath. If you don't, that's your problem, not mine.
 
Trump's not going to have anybody killed. While the SS has a mission to protect him, I am sure they are watching his every move as well. No one in politics ever want's to see this morally corrupt moron run again.

Get some help dude. You slowly going down the rabbit hole which has no exit.
Couldn't agree more!
 
I'll end this 'discussion' with you, as I realize that those who have been indoctrinated, as in cults, or victims of gaslighters, as in Trump loyalists are not open to reality or truth, and will continue to argue on a false pretense. I hope some day you will see the light and admit the truth, but I won't hold my breath. If you don't, that's your problem, not mine.
So everyone that disagrees with you is in a cult.

Now That's What I call irony.
 
It seems that many of the GOP Senators that seemed to be leaning toward actually convicting Trump are now pulling back. Many think it is just because Trump is still so popular with the GOP base, but I think is is more than that. How would a political party look that allowed its last president to not only be impeached for a second time, but convicted with the participation of some of its members. It would be the first time an impeached president was convicted and to have it be a Republican would certainly hurt the party going into the future. It does not matter if Trump is guilty of the charges, some GOP Senators actually stated they believed Trump was guilty in his first impeachment, but the crime was not serious enough to have Trump removed from office. Inciting insurrection would be a crime serious enough to remove any government official including the president if found guilty. Now the GOP seems divided into two groups that wish to let Trump off the hook. One group says it is not constitutional to convict an impeached president once out of office. The other seems to think that Trumps words did not reach the threshold that would lead to a conviction of incitement. We shall see, but I do not believe that Trump will be convicted, and that will lead the GOP to another decision, what to do with Trump between now and 2024. Will he once again be their candidate, or has he worn out his welcome. Time will tell on everything.
Stick a fork in them, they're done. McConnell has sealed their fate
 
Then there shouldn’t be an issue with holding the leaders of that insurrection responsible.
MIslabeled. The capital riot wasn't an insurrection. It was a riot.

A riot which appears not to have been incited on that day, but one planned by a number of extremists who became 'in the wong' the moment they breached the security barrier, ones who have been roundly condemned from every side, and ones that the FBI is rounding up and ones which are being criminally charged and tried.

Further over inflating what that riot really was leads down a much worse path. I'm with Tulsi on this one.

 
Last edited:
MIslabeled. The capital riot wasn't an insurrection. It was a riot.

A riot which appears not to have been incited on that day, but one planned by a number of extremists who became 'in the wong' the moment they breached the security barrier, ones who have been roundly condemned from every side, and ones that the FBI is rounding up and ones which are being criminally charged and tried.

Further over inflating what that riot really was leads down a much worse path. I'm with Tulsi on this one.


So we are back to your argument that 9/11 was just a protest that got out of hand. I do not agree.
 
So we are back to your argument that 9/11 was just a protest that got out of hand. I do not agree.
Oh please. There is no similarity between the capitol riots and the 9/11 terrorist attack. Claiming they were the same just makes you look foolish.
 
Oh please. There is no similarity between the capitol riots and the 9/11 terrorist attack. Claiming they were the same just makes you look foolish.

Trump was impeached for it.
 
Terrorist attack? Seriously?
A coup, A putsch, a government takeover? No.
A Disruption? Yes.
Riot? Yes.

A few hundred out of many thousands take widely condemned and imprudent action to breach the security barrier, suddenly all those of similar political views become terrorists?
This is as unfounded and as ungrounded in the reality as the incitement you wish to accuse someone of, yet can't point to in the speech's transcript.

Are you now going to accuse US citizens who have differing political views and differing political opinions as being domestic terrorists?
No, but if you charge the Capital building and kill five people on the way and are yelling to hang Pence and to catch Pelosi, then yes, that is attempted coup and insurrection. This is especially true when you are doing it to stop the congress from doings it duty by the constitution. And yes, Trump told the rioters to come to Washington on the 6th and it would be wild. Gehn he told them the only way was to fight and now his followers who rioted are saying they did it because he told them to do it. It is not because your opinions differ from mine that it is being done, but because Trump incited insurrection and his followers tried to carry that out.
 
So your problem with them is they were saying things?

So it's saying things you don't like is insurrection?

Way more dramatic than I initially thought.
Do yo upeople know anything about the constitution and its interpretation by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS said yo have the right to freedom of speech, but it does not extend to yelling fire in a crowded theater and that is just what trump did when he told his followers to fight and to go down to the Capital building and stop the counting of the Electoral ballots. So if you say we need to change things in this country, that is freedom of Speech. If you tell people to go and fight and stop the vote count, that is yelling fire in the crowded theater.
 
Do yo upeople know anything about the constitution and its interpretation by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS said yo have the right to freedom of speech, but it does not extend to yelling fire in a crowded theater and that is just what trump did when he told his followers to fight and to go down to the Capital building and stop the counting of the Electoral ballots. So if you say we need to change things in this country, that is freedom of Speech. If you tell people to go and fight and stop the vote count, that is yelling fire in the crowded theater.
So their words were a call to violence and not protected speech but they were still just saying things.

I seem to remember years of BLM riots where they did similar things, multiple times where news media personalities and even politicians did the same thing

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
 
It seems that many of the GOP Senators that seemed to be leaning toward actually convicting Trump are now pulling back. Many think it is just because Trump is still so popular with the GOP base, but I think is is more than that. How would a political party look that allowed its last president to not only be impeached for a second time, but convicted with the participation of some of its members. It would be the first time an impeached president was convicted and to have it be a Republican would certainly hurt the party going into the future. It does not matter if Trump is guilty of the charges, some GOP Senators actually stated they believed Trump was guilty in his first impeachment, but the crime was not serious enough to have Trump removed from office. Inciting insurrection would be a crime serious enough to remove any government official including the president if found guilty. Now the GOP seems divided into two groups that wish to let Trump off the hook. One group says it is not constitutional to convict an impeached president once out of office. The other seems to think that Trumps words did not reach the threshold that would lead to a conviction of incitement. We shall see, but I do not believe that Trump will be convicted, and that will lead the GOP to another decision, what to do with Trump between now and 2024. Will he once again be their candidate, or has he worn out his welcome. Time will tell on everything.
The Republicans need to convict Trump and separate from him completely. His crimes while in office and before will continue to be discovered and exposed. He is under a microscope now and nothing will stay hidden. All those who continue to support him will be tarred with the same brush.
 
The same damage that has been done to the piece of shit rat politicians that voted to impeach, twice, based on lies. It would shit on their integrity.
 
Trump was impeached for it.
That's not really a sufficient defense of the claim that the 1/6 rioters 'It's the same as 9/11'. 🤷‍♂️

Trump was impeached for it by the House, true.
Whether the foundation on which that impeachment rests has any merit is an open question. Since there was no substantiated testimony, only house floor debate on the matter, it is still an open question.
The next layer of that particular onion that should be pealed is to answer the questions 'by whom' and 'why', as well as if there was any incitement which meets the required legal bar, or not. Perhaps the Senate will entertain further exploration of those two, and other, important questions.
 
No, but if you charge the Capital building and kill five people on the way and are yelling to hang Pence and to catch Pelosi, then yes, that is attempted coup and insurrection.
Enough of the over emotional already.
This is especially true when you are doing it to stop the congress from doings it duty by the constitution.
Oh heaven forbid that congress, which is already disruptive enough on it's own, especially the House, were to be disrupted from others.
And yes, Trump told the rioters to come to Washington on the 6th and it would be wild. Gehn he told them the only way was to fight and now his followers who rioted are saying they did it because he told them to do it. It is not because your opinions differ from mine that it is being done, but because Trump incited insurrection and his followers tried to carry that out.
Which part, passage, paragraph or even sentence or sentences, of the transcript of the speech that day would meet the legal bar of incientment?
Do please point it out. I have yet someone holding your position point out where such accused incitement actually occurred.
Never mind that the FBI investigations have uncovered that this riot from was planned for weeks in advance, rather than being incited on that day.

"Trump told the rioters to come to Washington on the 6th and it would be wild."
True, and wasn't it a wild political event? So many supporters attended, ten's of thousands, that's pretty wild that Trump would have that much support after an election that he lost.

A few among those thousands of supporters made the rash and unwise decision to breach the capitol security barrier (even before the speech was completed), and the instance those individuals did breach the security barrier they were in the wrong, and roundly condemned by all sides (as it appropriate and just), all political parties and many others, and rounded up by the FBI for criminal charges and trials (as is also appropriate and just - accountability for one's actions still being an American value).

I'd leave it up to a US attorney to make his case that Trump was guilty of incitement of this riot. I have so little faith and trust on Congress, as is typical given their poll results so as to not be atypical, to believe that this impeachment is little more than 100% political, and, as has been stated on a number of occasions in this forum, that impeachment is a political process (therefore little more than politically motivated) process..

Of course, opinions differ on all of the above.
 
Enough of the over emotional already.

Oh heaven forbid that congress, which is already disruptive enough on it's own, especially the House, were to be disrupted from others.

Which part, passage, paragraph or even sentence or sentences, of the transcript of the speech that day would meet the legal bar of incientment?
Do please point it out. I have yet someone holding your position point out where such accused incitement actually occurred.
Never mind that the FBI investigations have uncovered that this riot from was planned for weeks in advance, rather than being incited on that day.

"Trump told the rioters to come to Washington on the 6th and it would be wild."
True, and wasn't it a wild political event? So many supporters attended, ten's of thousands, that's pretty wild that Trump would have that much support after an election that he lost.

A few among those thousands of supporters made the rash and unwise decision to breach the capitol security barrier (even before the speech was completed), and the instance those individuals did breach the security barrier they were in the wrong, and roundly condemned by all sides (as it appropriate and just), all political parties and many others, and rounded up by the FBI for criminal charges and trials (as is also appropriate and just - accountability for one's actions still being an American value).

I'd leave it up to a US attorney to make his case that Trump was guilty of incitement of this riot. I have so little faith and trust on Congress, as is typical given their poll results so as to not be atypical, to believe that this impeachment is little more than 100% political, and, as has been stated on a number of occasions in this forum, that impeachment is a political process (therefore little more than politically motivated) process..

Of course, opinions differ on all of the above.
When he said he would walk with them to the capital but instead went to the White House and watched it on TV for 4 hours and did NOTHING. This was witnessed by all those around him and those who pleaded with him to do something. This is the evidence that will convict him.
 
What damage would convicting Trump do to the Republican Party?
NONE!

It might hurt a few "hangers on", like Cruz and Hawley but, over all, it would help the GOP regain it's soul and dignity.
 
I don't give a damn what damage will be done to the GOP.
The GOP created this monster and the GOP needs to get it under control.
A conviction will prevent Trump from ever holding public office again.
That's what I am concerned about.
Know what the GOP is concerned about, really concerned about??
Painting all Democrats as communists, radical leftists, etc.
Red-baiting and starting civil wars, that's what they are concerned with.

They're not even concerned about being conservatives anymore.
And that, by the way, is precisely why more and more actual conservatives are leaving the party, and I don't blame them.
Because you were so silent when the left was solely 'concerned about painting all republicans as Fascists' you wont mind if your whining now is ignored.
 
Because you were so silent when the left was solely 'concerned about painting all republicans as Fascists' you wont mind if your whining now is ignored.

Ignored by who? You just responded.

And all Republicans who voted for Trump loooooove fascism. Love it.
 
Thats stupid but thanks for making my point.

Your point was that a post you were directly responding to was gonna be ignored.
 
Your point was that a post you were directly responding to was gonna be ignored.
No, you cant read. That probably explains why you havent a clue as to what fascism is. I said his whining would be ignored, not his post.
 
No, you cant read. That probably explains why you havent a clue as to what fascism is. I said his whining would be ignored, not his post.

You directly responded to his post containing supposed whining. I’m gonna trust your definition of fascism when you don’t have a handle on “ignore?”
 
You directly responded to his post containing supposed whining. I’m gonna trust your definition of fascism when you don’t have a handle on “ignore?”
You cant read. And you keep proving it.
 
Back
Top Bottom