• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

leafman101 said:
I couldn't disagree more. Just like Clinton impeachment didn't create a loose imprachment precedent, and Nixon, and the Jackson.
Click to expand...

except it did. This is a loose impeachment.

Look guys, we’re not going to agree that there is enough for impeachment. I’m good with that. Accept the fact I’m in the other 48%
 
leaffan2005 said:
Based on 3 years of Trump doing impeachable shit and Republicans defending him at every turn. The public opinion may have changed but no meaningful change has been made in convincing the other side that their leader is corrupt and frankly incompetent. I would say it is more than just an opinion and really just a reflection of the current political climate. Holding the articles is just a bad flex at this point.
Click to expand...

I don't think you know that. And the Republican rage about it is interesting.

Messaging is important, and the gop has to be held accountable for this kind of shit.
 
Habsy said:
except it did. This is a loose impeachment.

Look guys, we’re not going to agree that there is enough for impeachment. I’m good with that. Accept the fact I’m in the other 48%
Click to expand...

But that is exactly what the trial is for. Impeachment is just a grand jury. Should the president be charged for the acts allegedly committed.

And anyone who thinks a president shouldn't be charged for allegedly using foreign aid as a bargaining chip for personal gain and obstructing justice is nuts. That is 100%, without question, a violation of the presidents constitutional authority.

Is there sufficient evidence to convict? Well that is what the trial is supposedly for.

The does not create a precedent that you can charge a president with anything, no matter what.
 
He's right Leafman101, you're definitely wasting your breath.

I don't think if Bolton or Mulvaney testified, it'd help in this case either.
 
And for the record, yes any future president, democrat, republican or other, should be charged for using tax payers dollars for personal gain and subsequently, obstructing the investigation into themselves. Sanders, Warren, Don Jr. whoever.
 
Additionally, a president should not be charged simply for taking an action or inaction within their constitutional authority that people don't like.

I have a tough time believing that anyone sincerely believes that the alleged acts of Trump here falls into that category.
 
Habsy said:
Really? I think it’s pretty clear where I stand.

The only witness with first hand knowledge is Sondland. The hearings were a sham, just like it will be in the Senate. Under their articles you could impeach every president, ever.

This is not enough for impeachment. That’s my opinion anyway. I get you’re a part of the other half that disagrees and that’s fine. I need more than the bare minimum when it comes to impeachment.
Click to expand...

The transcripts are quite clear.

Sondland may be the only one with firsthand knowledge, but Trump and Mulvaney have pretty much come out and admitted to this offense. I'm not sure where the confusion is unless you are being intentionally obtuse. Plenty there to impeach, and impeach hard. And as others have mentioned, the impeachment itself is not a conviction.
 
Wayward DP said:
that's kinda what the trial is for though, no?
Click to expand...

As I said, I’d love to see a real trial on this. The GOP are saying the Democrats claim it’s irrefutable so why have another trial?

We will never see an honest trial, we didn’t see one in the house and we sure as shit won’t see one in the Senate. I’m not wasting the emotion on a unicorn.
 
Pelosi can technically hold the impeachment up indefinitely. Anyone think she may be thinking a Democrat Senate in 2020 would be preferable?

Yeah I know, tinfoil hat stuff but the GOP did hold up Garland, not too far fetched if you think about it.
 
Regardless if there's impeachable offenses with the Ukraine stuff, it will galvanize Trump's support because it's clearly an attempt to after him for the Russia fever dream after Mueller came up empty.
 
BeLeafer said:
Regardless if there's impeachable offenses with the Ukraine stuff, it will galvanize Trump's support because it's clearly an attempt to after him for the Russia fever dream after Mueller came up empty.
Click to expand...

Both bases are galvanized.
 
Meh, let it galvanize support for Trump in rural counties. It'll also galvanize support in heavy blue counties where turnout was down in 2016.
 
One base will vote to re-elect those that’ll fight Trump should he win. The other base will vote Trump. It’s pretty clear. They are both galvanized. Once again it’ll be the independents.
 
Trying to find some data on this. Will take time.

Here's one poll from CNN ... dems handling of impeachment

Dems: 78% approve, 19% disapprove, 10% dk
Repubs: 7% approve, 90% disapprove, 2% dk
Indep: 38% approve, 50% disapprove, 12% dk

This suggests that dems are significantly less passionate about it (almost 30% disapprove or dk) than repubs (near universal disapproval). Independents, the largest voting block, is unimpressed.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top