Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED

[Kutnupe14]

Not withstanding that there is absolute “right”, if you believe it’s always subjective, you admire people who stand up against other people who also think they’re right? This is a reason why activism is retarded.

There's not a human on the planet whom is that neutral. And I disagree, there is no absolute "right," unless you're holding the sword that makes it so. You can admire sticking to one convictions, but you don't have to admire the stances they embrace.

 

[KG1]

Well, so much for that. Yes there's political strategy to the exercise. But if impeachment is a political mechanism, how can it not be. And even if it ls, you can still believe you are doing the right thing.

Can nothing therefore be said about Trump believing he is doing the right thing concerning corruption and foreign affairs even though some try to make the claim of political strategy?

 

[KLB]

No, not really. Speaking generally....If it's the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do. Just because you aren't expecting a favorable outcome doesn't mean you don't attempt what you think is right. That's strength of character, and again, I'm speaking generally... to avoid someone asking about the "Democrats" and "strength of character."

Yes really. To your definition of right, pretty much every sitting President that is not of the same party as the House controlling party should be impeached.

I do not believe it was designed to be used in such a partisan way, nor do I believe it should be. There is a reason why it has been used so seldom throughout the history of this country, and that reasoning is being thrown out the window here.

I believe this is another example of something that the founding fathers would really be surprised by. I doubt they foresaw impeachment being used in a scenario like this.

 

[Ingomike]

Good luck with moderate voters with that strategy... but it's not true anyways, so its a moot point.

Any links on that assertion? When would the President have his due process rights?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can nothing therefore be said about Trump believing he is doing the right thing concerning corruption and foreign affairs even though some try to make the claim of political strategy?

Absolutely. You can absolutely believe that Trump thinks he's doing the right thing.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Any links on that assertion? When would the President have his due process rights?

at the Senate trial.

 

[Ingomike]

at the Senate trial.

Isn't that what I said? In the Senate the President has due process rights of discovery and subpoena power if granted by the Senate.

Not sure if this is true and have not had time to research it. I read if the house votes articles of impeachment to the senate, at that point the Presidents defense has great scope in discovery and subpoena power. It was stated that McConnell would likely allow such latitude in defense. The point was dems may not even want to push it that far and just investigate, leak, and fund raise of this and not ever make the swing district members vote.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes really. To your definition of right, pretty much every sitting President that is not of the same party as the House controlling party should be impeached.

I do not believe it was designed to be used in such a partisan way, nor do I believe it should be. There is a reason why it has been used so seldom throughout the history of this country, and that reasoning is being thrown out the window here.

I believe this is another example of something that the founding fathers would really be surprised by. I doubt they foresaw impeachment being used in a scenario like this.

"Should be?" No. "Potentially could be." Yes. You know how that say that everyone has committed multiple felonies? Look at it that way. There's probably not a president that hasn't run afoul of the constitution at some point (at least in the opinion of the opposing party). Stop, and read the prior sentence again. Do you agree? If you do, then you must understand that impeachment is only used when the opposing party believes the Chief Exec, has committed so egregious a violation that removal must be pursued.

 

[KG1]

Absolutely. You can absolutely believe that Trump thinks he's doing the right thing.

It's not whether I believe it or not it's whether Trump believes he is doing the right thing concerning matters of corruption and foreign affairs which he has every right to do as chief executive. That's been my argument all along.

 

[mmpsteve]

If you do, then you must understand that impeachment is only used when the opposing party believes the Chief Exec, has committed so egregious a violation that removal must be pursued.

The current circus we're witnessing proves the purple above demonstrably false. And to an earlier point, Mitch McConnell will determine whether the 'urban legend' aspect of investigating anything and everything, is true or not. I wonder which side he'll be on? Of course, it's not going that far. Mark my words.

.

.

 

[HoughMade]

I’m a proud independent and don’t care about Democrats or Republicans, and honestly, I don’t feel we’ve had a president that has been above reproach. GW was a moron, Obama complicit, Clinton sleazy, GHW status quo, and Reagan senile...

Sounds to me like the mainstream media has been determining you opinions for decades.

 

[jamil]

There's not a human on the planet whom is that neutral. And I disagree, there is no absolute "right," unless you're holding the sword that makes it so. You can admire sticking to one convictions, but you don't have to admire the stances they embrace.

I don't admire people who **** over masses because they think they're right, or really, let's cut the bull****, because they want a particular outcome. We should rightly call those people ideological oppressors. Activism is a form of oppression.

You can admire sticking to one's subjectively based convictions to oppress others if you're socially retarded. I can see Kut back in the dark ages watching people burn, venerating the people doing it because they're just sticking to what they believed was right. Actually, I suspect you admire it because impeachment is what you want done.

There is objective "right" by the way. People complained about GWB going full steam against the grain, "staying the course", which he did for no better apparent reason than because it was the "right" course when he set it. As if it was "wrong" to reevaluate and alter course. But when specific enough "right" can certainly be objective. Wisdom is knowing the outcomes given all the relevant inputs. "Right" is similar to that. You often don't know it until it's too late. For example, "right" isn't speeding in the direction that sends you hurling over a cliff unintentionally. In that case, "right" is every other direction that doesn't end with you hurling over a cliff. So if someone tells you what the end will be, and you foolishly say, full speed ahead regardless, because you wrongly think you're right, well, you weren't right. And you didn't deserve veneration to sticking to what you believed was right. Nancy Pelosi is a fool, not to be venerated for her foolishness.

But that isn't really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about justifying ideologues pretending that they're freedom fighters, and taking away the votes of scores of millions of people because they don't want to risk 4 more years of a president they don't like. And then you venerate the ideologues saying it's because they're taking a "moral" stand. I call bull****. Being foolish isn't venerable. Maybe you venerate them because you both want the same outcome for the same reason and it doesn't matter if you take away everyone else's voice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The current circus we're witnessing proves the purple above demonstrably false. And to an earlier point, Mitch McConnell will determine whether the 'urban legend' aspect of investigating anything and everything, is true or not. I wonder which side he'll be on? Of course, it's not going that far. Mark my words.
.

McConnell is a savvy politician. He ain't that stupid. The current political climate is a battle over the true moderates, and undecideds. Let the House impeach the president, and then let the Senate make the trial about Clinton, Obama, Biden, rather that the charges against the president, and see how many vacant GOP seats the Democrats are looking to fill. That would be an utter disaster. Even if the GOP-led Senate stalls, the effect would be the same.

 

[jamil]

Yes really. To your definition of right, pretty much every sitting President that is not of the same party as the House controlling party should be impeached.

I do not believe it was designed to be used in such a partisan way, nor do I believe it should be. There is a reason why it has been used so seldom throughout the history of this country, and that reasoning is being thrown out the window here.

I believe this is another example of something that the founding fathers would really be surprised by. I doubt they foresaw impeachment being used in a scenario like this.

I think impeachment should be a thing for every president from here on out. If the party controlling the House is different from the party controlling the White House, impeachment proceedings should be kicked off the day after inauguration. Or I dunno. Maybe give the first family a few days to get moved in. **** it. Let's go full on partisan.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't admire people who **** over masses because they think they're right, or really, let's cut the bull****, because they want a particular outcome. We should rightly call those people ideological oppressors. Activism is a form of oppression.

You can admire sticking to one's subjectively based convictions to oppress others if you're socially retarded. I can see Kut back in the dark ages watching people burn, venerating the people doing it because they're just sticking to what they believed was right. Actually, I suspect you admire it because impeachment is what you want done.

There is objective "right" by the way. People complained about GWB going full steam against the grain, "staying the course", which he did for no better apparent reason than because it was the "right" course when he set it. As if it was "wrong" to reevaluate and alter course. But when specific enough "right" can certainly be objective. Wisdom is knowing the outcomes given all the relevant inputs. "Right" is similar to that. You often don't know it until it's too late. For example, "right" isn't speeding in the direction that sends you hurling over a cliff unintentionally. In that case, "right" is every other direction that doesn't end with you hurling over a cliff. So if someone tells you what the end will be, and you foolishly say, full speed ahead regardless, because you wrongly think you're right, well, you weren't right. And you didn't deserve veneration to sticking to what you believed was right. Nancy Pelosi is a fool, not to be venerated for her foolishness.

But that isn't really what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about justifying ideologues pretending that they're freedom fighters, and taking away the votes of scores of millions of people because they don't want to risk 4 more years of a president they don't like. And then you venerate the ideologues saying it's because they're taking a "moral" stand. I call bull****. Being foolish isn't venerable. Maybe you venerate them because you both want the same outcome for the same reason and it doesn't matter if you take away everyone else's voice.

This is false regardless of how many times you say it. I'm sure you know that were a Republic, and everything that entails.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This is false regardless of how many times you say it. I'm sure you know that were a Republic, and everything that entails.

Eh, depends on the reasons.

In this case, they want badly to simply snap their fingers and undo him winning. This is the only "legal" way they can think of to do that. If they hadn't shown their hand for years now about how much they hate him having won, and continue to lie about any of the good he's done, that'd be one thing... but for now... yes, it is a giant "**** you" to those voters that they have no problem labeling as the worst kind of people.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Eh, depends on the reasons.

In this case, they want badly to simply snap their fingers and undo him winning. This is the only "legal" way they can think of to do that. If they hadn't shown their hand for years now about how much they hate him having won, and continue to lie about any of the good he's done, that'd be one thing... but for now... yes, it is a giant "**** you" to those voters that they have no problem labeling as the worst kind of people.

Ok, I'll accept that, but it's not "taking away the votes of scores of millions of people." If voters are voting without understanding the system of government they're participating in, then that on them. Voting, is by default, an acceptance of the system and the rules within.

 

[jamil]

This is false regardless of how many times you say it. I'm sure you know that were a Republic, and everything that entails.

Bull****. Yes. We're a republic. We're not a monarchy. What has form of government have to do with a group of partisan representatives who control the House, determining that the people shouldn't decide the next election? Roughly 42% of Americans are okay with proceeding with an impeachment inquiry--NOT IMPEACHMENT--an increase of 13% after the news of the phone call coming out. Also, about 42% say no to an impeachment inquiring, let the voters decide. But no. The group of partisans aren't really partisans trying to beat their opponents to the next SCOTUS appointee, no, they're "freedom fighters" so that you can respect them.

 

[jamil]

Ok, I'll accept that, but it's not "taking away the votes of scores of millions of people." If voters are voting without understanding the system of government they're participating in, then that on them. Voting, is by default, an acceptance of the system and the rules within.

What? What if they're not the ones full of ****?

Voting is not an acceptance of abusing the rules. If it is, then we should just accept that each opposing congress should automatically impeach the president.

 

[BugI02]

"Right" has always been subjective.

The victors 'right' the history? Dude, you should listen to yourself - you're becoming our very own Adam Schiff