Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Impeachment Thread


No Excuses

Impeachment  

198 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

We're talking about Putin, right?

Him and a few others all working towards a common goal if not together.

 

 

It's gonna be funny how Lamar Alexander, voting against witnesses because he agrees the President did the thing, AND it's inappropriate, but NOT impeachable, is going to be the 3rd or 4th most courageous GOPer.

 

Sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I disagree, otherwise Trump would be killing or locking up dissenters already. We arent there yet, it's not too late.

 

Story Daniels got arrested and the officers admitted they did it to intimidate her for him, right? 

 

Its always a gradual process. He will never start with Biden. But given enough time he could eventually get there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Story Daniels got arrested and the officers admitted they did it to intimidate her for him, right? 

 

Its always a gradual process. He will never start with Biden. But given enough time he could eventually get there. 

 

Using foreign governments to intimidate  your political rivals is what tinpot dictators do before they've amassed enough power to control domestic law enforcement and have them do it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

It's gonna be funny how Lamar Alexander, voting against witnesses because he agrees the President did the thing, AND it's inappropriate, but NOT impeachable, is going to be the 3rd or 4th most courageous GOPer.

 

For a few days.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

Story Daniels got arrested and the officers admitted they did it to intimidate her for him, right? 

 

That's a reach if every there was one, especially compared to what Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia do.  We know those countries send orders down to the local level to do stuff like that for him, that's different, those folks typically dont get released and the officers disciplined.  All indications are even if they did do because they were Trump supporters, they went rogue. 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/07/12/politics/stormy-daniels-arrested-in-ohio/index.html

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/24/all-four-say-they-intend-to-appeal-their-discipline-a-union-spokesperson-said/4567454002/

 

4 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Its always a gradual process. He will never start with Biden. But given enough time he could eventually get there. 

 

And it pretty much guarantees it will get to that point if Dems announce they arent going to play by the rule of law anymore either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pattern that is established is that as soon as Trump is cleared of something, he immediately doubles down on what he was doing that got him the heat in the first place.


We can talk until we are blue in the face about which GOP voters might  hypothetically jump ship, at least for a single election cycle to get rid of Trump, but we all now have to go into the 2020 election assuming that Trump is already making arrangements to go even further than the Russia stuff in 2016 and Ukraine 2019.  

 

If he ultimately loses in 2020, it is looking more like it will have to be overwhelming and not something that can be written off as "irregularities."  And let us not forget that voter suppression is still going on, on the local levels all around the country.  We are witnessing in real time how the minority party is fixing the rules to preserve their power long after it would have been extinguished if it had truly been up to the people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bang said:

i won't say anything else, but i no longer have any faith in this country.

I have faith in plenty of our people, but our institutions that are supposed to protect our freedoms, and make this a nation of the people / for the people..  i can't see it anymore.

I hope I'm wrong.I hope in November that there is a fair election, and I hope the results are not manipulated.

 

But I have no faith. I think we are too many steps down the road. We entrusted the safekeeping of our ideals with the wrong people, and they will do what these sorts of people always have done.
 

 

~John

Catastrophize much? Oh this isn't just you, just about every poster in the last two pages are doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

 

I feel you but its not going to get it the way we are currently set up. Obama was a great leader cut off at the knees by the GOP. And now they know how to do it.

Leading from behind? Who coined that phrase? He was a good guy (That is nothing to sneeze about either) but most definitely not a great or even good leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

This idea of opening the door for both parties to start killing folks they disagree with then jus so we can get something like MFA is a horrible f'n idea, it's not worth it.

 

Or at least, it would be a horrible idea, if it wasn't just a horrible straw man.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Or at least, it would be a horrible idea, if it wasn't just a horrible straw man.  

BS, dems would surrender their right to call out future dems on anything if they decide not to follow the rules either.  This is why the angle has take to protecting the republic, if they are afraid of Bernie ripping the party to the left, why would the Dems give him unlimited power?

 

My example you are calling a strawman is a longterm consequence for a short term decision.  It's not the same example dems are giving, but they are making it clear they dont want congress to give up their check on the president, regardless of party, because it wouldnt be democracy no matter where it goes and not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If the vote ends in a tie, who breaks that? Pence or Justice Roberts?

 

That's a fascinating question. It won't be Pence, but from what I've read, while the Constitution explicitly allows the VP to break ties as a power, the text that replaces him with the Chief Justice in case of impeachment of the President doesn't say he can do that. Apparently the Chief Justice DID break ties in the Johnson trial, but a lot of scholars seem to think that this was inappropriate. 

 

I guess it could end up in the courts, and then would Roberts have to recuse himself?

 

Here's an article about it: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/politics/john-roberts-impeachment-legacy/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

There has to be a vacancy first.

 

Okay... I hate to type this, but this is not actually true. As I understand it, the Constitution does not explicitly state the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. If you remember, FDR tried to pack the court by appointing more Justices, and my understanding is what actually stopped him was he cut a deal with Congress not to appoint more if he got some of his legislation passed.

 

Don't worry though... I'm sure the Republicans in the Senate will stop him from exploiting loopholes to expand his power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

This idea of opening the door for both parties to start killing folks they disagree with then jus so we can get something like MFA is a horrible f'n idea, it's not worth it.

 

18 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Or at least, it would be a horrible idea, if it wasn't just a horrible straw man.  

 

5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

BS, dems would surrender their right to call out future dems on anything if they decide not to follow the rules either.  This is why the angle has take to protecting the republic, if they are afraid of Bernie ripping the party to the left, why would the Dems give him unlimited power?

 

My example you are calling a strawman is a longterm consequence for a short term decision.  It's not the same example dems are giving, but they are making it clear they dont want congress to give up their check on the president, regardless of party, because it wouldnt be democracy no matter where it goes and not worth it.

 

Admiring the way you respond to a claim of straw man with "BS", and then proceed to state that you made it up because you think it's something that might result down the road, as a result of what people are actually saying.  

 

Kind of ironic, actually.  I mean, here you are making a "yeah I did it, but it's not illegal" post, in an effort to disagree with people suggesting the idea that Dems should do what Trump does.  

 

:) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Someone at work told me more of Bolton's book is leaking............?

 

Huh. It's almost as if declaring virtual war on a group of people that hold the nation's secrets (and know how to get ones they don't have yet) might have downsides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Larry said:

 

 

 

Admiring the way you respond to a claim of straw man with "BS", and then proceed to state that you made it up because you think it's something that might result down the road, as a result of what people are actually saying.  

 

Kind of ironic, actually.  I mean, here you are making a "yeah I did it, but it's not illegal" post, in an effort to disagree with people suggesting the idea that Dems should do what Trump does.  

 

:) 

 

I'm not making that point because I cant defeat the arguement, you keeping like it's a joke and perfectly fine for Dems to give up on rules because GOP, I vehemently disagree.  Stop running from this like everything is going to be fine if they go this route, its not, it will cost us the election if we do

 

straw man
/ˌstrô ˈman/
noun
noun: strawman
  1. 1.
    an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
    "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, techboy said:

 

Huh. It's almost as if declaring virtual war on a group of people that hold the nation's secrets (and know how to get ones they don't have yet) might have downsides.

 

I made that comment back when they were attacking the CIA and NSA during Russiagate.  Are these the people you want to pick a fight with, before an election?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...