Impeach Trump?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChurchSoldier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How would you describe yourselves then when you all call for him to be removed from office and call him a buffoon and many other vile names and descriptions?
It certainly isn’t like or love. The level of discourse from the liberals always seems
on an infantile level even though they see themselves as very intellectual and far more advanced than the conservative side.
Speaking only for myself, in regards to President Trump, I describe myself as someone who does think he and his temperament are unfit for the office of the Presidency. I do dislike his personality and behavior, how he conducted himself during the campaign and how he has continued to do so as our President to date. And I disagree with him on policy such as his backing of the House GOP healthcare bill at least before he called it “mean” and then his push for the Senate GOP bill. But I don’t hate him. Nor do I see myself as more intellectually advanced than you, 7 Sorrows. People can disagree, even strongly, on candidates and Presidents and policy without resorting to hate. As has been pointed out so many times on this forum, “hate” is a very strong word. And while I can only speak for myself, it does seem though that others here who are critical of Donald Trump are not too different than me. We don’t hate him.
 
How would Democrats impeach President Trump exactly? They certainly can’t do it currently because they have no significant power in Congress to carry out an impeachment. It would have to go through House Judiciary Committee which is majority Republican. Even if Democrats took control back of either the House of Representatives or the Senate in 2018, which may be a long shot at this stage because the map is much harder for Democrats, they still wouldn’t have the power to impeach President Trump.
How was Bill Clinton impeached? But why would it have to be only Democrats impeaching President Trump? Back during the Watergate era, members of Nixon’s own party began to turn against him. The writing was on the wall and of course before articles of impeachment were introduced into the full House of Representatives, Nixon resigned.
 
Speaking only for myself, in regards to President Trump, I describe myself as someone who does think he and his temperament are unfit for the office of the Presidency. I do dislike his personality and behavior, how he conducted himself during the campaign and how he has continued to do so as our President to date. And I disagree with him on policy such as his backing of the House GOP healthcare bill at least before he called it “mean” and then his push for the Senate GOP bill. But I don’t hate him. Nor do I see myself as more intellectually advanced than you, 7 Sorrows. People can disagree, even strongly, on candidates and Presidents and policy without resorting to hate. As has been pointed out so many times on this forum, “hate” is a very strong word. And while I can only speak for myself, it does seem though that others here who are critical of Donald Trump are not too different than me. We don’t hate him.
I would think something stronger than “dislike” drives posters to come here day after
day and reply negatively about President Trump and why he should be removed from
office or impeached or gleefully excited when negative news comes out about his family or reaction to his policies or tweets.
I admit my strong feelings I had against Barack Hussein Obama and I don’t deny how
I felt about him. My feelings and thoughts never reached the level I have seen here
against President Trump.
 
I would think something stronger than “dislike” drives posters to come here day after
day and reply negatively about President Trump and why he should be removed from
office or impeached or gleefully excited when negative news comes out about his family or reaction to his policies or tweets.
I admit my strong feelings I had against Barack Hussein Obama and I don’t deny how
I felt about him. My feelings and thoughts never reached the level I have seen here
against President Trump.
I don’t know – I distinctly recall you questioning his eligibility to be president. I can’t recall anyone doing that with Trump.
 
I’m not a liberal, but just for the record, it’s not clear that “high crimes and misdemeanors” has to mean an actual violation of the criminal code that you could go to jail for in the normal world. It can mean almost anything Congress wants it to mean.
I think you are right on about this.

Fundamentally, impeachment is a popularity vote by congress, and any president who is very unpopular with congress probably has a few crimes hidden away that could be used to justify impeachment.

And he would have to be very unpopular since it would likely include being abandoned by his own party. Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury but he was never abandoned by his party.
 
Speaking only for myself, in regards to President Trump, I describe myself as someone who does think he and his temperament are unfit for the office of the Presidency. I do dislike his personality and behavior, how he conducted himself during the campaign and how he has continued to do so as our President to date. And I disagree with him on policy such as his backing of the House GOP healthcare bill at least before he called it “mean” and then his push for the Senate GOP bill. But I don’t hate him. Nor do I see myself as more intellectually advanced than you, 7 Sorrows. People can disagree, even strongly, on candidates and Presidents and policy without resorting to hate. As has been pointed out so many times on this forum, “hate” is a very strong word. And while I can only speak for myself, it does seem though that others here who are critical of Donald Trump are not too different than me. We don’t hate him.
Most anti-Trumpsters here are very self righteous about why Trump should be removed from office. They are right and in their eyes Trump should not be allowed to be President of the United States and those who support Trump (his base) are
unexplainable fools.
 
Most anti-Trumpsters here are very self righteous about why Trump should be removed from office. They are right and in their eyes Trump should not be allowed to be President of the United States and those who support Trump (his base) are
unexplainable fools.
What is most egregious re the anti Trump,let’s impeach is push,is it started before he was even sworn into office.Actually the tantrums began the day he won the election.Starting with HC,apparently on election night.Anyone who doesn’t think this has been a well organized concerted effort on the left to disenfranchise Trunp’s presidency but also all those who voted him into office.is delusional.
As has been said before,vote him out in four years if you don’t like him.However at least give him the four years due him.
 
So, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you dismiss people for sources you don’t accept. But then you huffpo the discussion!?
Pretty sure? Maybe. Some of the sites linked here are appallingly bad. But typically I would look at the content and recommend discussion of content.

I am not sure what specifically has issued from HufffPo that earns a dismissive attitude from you, but in this case, if you read the article, you will find that it provides a nice summary, with links, of reports and reporters’ comments from a good number of sources. that are often linked on this forum - NYT, WaPo, Politico, the Toronto Star, the Weekly Standard. The HuffPo article was more comprehensive, as a summary, than the individual articles, and wroth linking to for that reason.
 
Of course his poll numbers are low. … Some are too busy to learn the facts and so they take at face value what they see and hear. Unfortunately, others are too lazy to be informed and want to be spoonfed the news. They don’t want to think for themselves. The MSM knows best they believe.
I think that one should be cautious about assuming that those who disapprove of Trump in the polling are uninformed or less informed.
 
What is most egregious re the anti Trump,let’s impeach is push,is it started before he was even sworn into office.Actually the tantrums began the day he won the election.Starting with HC,apparently on election night.Anyone who doesn’t think this has been a well organized concerted effort on the left to disenfranchise Trunp’s presidency but also all those who voted him into office.is delusional.
As has been said before,vote him out in four years if you don’t like him.However at least give him the four years due him.
There is a book written about Hillary’s campaign and the morning after coverup.

We already know that “the Russia thing” was created by Hillary and Huma.

It’s all described in the book.

SHATTERED: INSIDE HILLARY CLINTON’S DOOMED CAMPAIGN
By Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes
Crown, $28, 464 pages

The book further highlights how Clinton’s Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior campaign staffers John Podesta and Robby Mook, less than “within twenty-four hours” after she conceded:

**That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy,” the authors wrote.**

“The press botched the e-mail story for eighteen months,” one person who was part of the strategy is quoted as saying. “Comey obviously screwed us, but the press created the story.”

The book also details Clinton’s confusion and frustration with President Obama, whom she apparently thought didn’t do enough “to apprise the public that the Russians had gone way beyond what had been reported”:

She wondered why the president hadn’t leaned harder into making the case that Vladimir Putin was specifically targeting her and trying to throw the election to Trump. “The Russia stuff has really bothered her a lot,” one of the aides said. “She’s sort of learning what the administration knew and when they knew it, and she’s just sort of quizzical about the whole thing. She can’t quite sort out how this all played out the way that it did.” On the long list of people, agencies, and international forces Hillary blamed for her loss, Obama had a spot.
 
There is a book written about Hillary’s campaign and the morning after coverup.

We already know that “the Russia thing” was created by Hillary and Huma.

It’s all described in the book.

SHATTERED: INSIDE HILLARY CLINTON’S DOOMED CAMPAIGN
By Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes
Crown, $28, 464 pages

The book further highlights how Clinton’s Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior campaign staffers John Podesta and Robby Mook, less than “within twenty-four hours” after she conceded:

**That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy,” the authors wrote.**

“The press botched the e-mail story for eighteen months,” one person who was part of the strategy is quoted as saying. “Comey obviously screwed us, but the press created the story.”

The book also details Clinton’s confusion and frustration with President Obama, whom she apparently thought didn’t do enough “to apprise the public that the Russians had gone way beyond what had been reported”:

She wondered why the president hadn’t leaned harder into making the case that Vladimir Putin was specifically targeting her and trying to throw the election to Trump. “The Russia stuff has really bothered her a lot,” one of the aides said. “She’s sort of learning what the administration knew and when they knew it, and she’s just sort of quizzical about the whole thing. She can’t quite sort out how this all played out the way that it did.” On the long list of people, agencies, and international forces Hillary blamed for her loss, Obama had a spot.
Big surprise!NOT!:mad:
 
I think you are right on about this.

Fundamentally, impeachment is a popularity vote by congress, and any president who is very unpopular with congress probably has a few crimes hidden away that could be used to justify impeachment.

And he would have to be very unpopular since it would likely include being abandoned by his own party. Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury but he was never abandoned by his party.
Says a lot about the party, doesn’t it?
 
Says a lot about the party, doesn’t it?
Regarding Clinton, I was not a fan of impeaching him because of his marital transgressions and subsequent lying about it. While is was wrong on so many levels, I felt he should have gotten censured in some fashion for lying but not impeachment. Retribution for immoral behavior of that sort should occur during the voting cycle.

I guess I’m saying I don’t blame the Dems for not supporting impeachment of their sitting president. For the GOP, it was an excellent distraction, much like the current fishing with Trump and Russia.
 
Regarding Clinton, I was not a fan of impeaching him because of his marital transgressions and subsequent lying about it. While is was wrong on so many levels, I felt he should have gotten censured in some fashion for lying but not impeachment. Retribution for immoral behavior of that sort should occur during the voting cycle.

I guess I’m saying I don’t blame the Dems for not supporting impeachment of their sitting president. For the GOP, it was an excellent distraction, much like the current fishing with Trump and Russia.
With the FBI search and seizure, it is no longer fair to cal it fishing.
 
I think that one should be cautious about assuming that those who disapprove of Trump in the polling are uninformed or less informed.
So please list every reason you have for disapproving of President Trump and why he should be impeached.
 
What is most egregious re the anti Trump,let’s impeach is push,is it started before he was even sworn into office.Actually the tantrums began the day he won the election.Starting with HC,apparently on election night.Anyone who doesn’t think this has been a well organized concerted effort on the left to disenfranchise Trunp’s presidency but also all those who voted him into office.is delusional.
As has been said before,vote him out in four years if you don’t like him.However at least give him the four years due him.
And remember how many democrats even refused to attend the Inauguration?!!
What a slap in the face to a new president. There could even have been some
republicans, I am not sure.

President Trump has been facing an organized resistance since the day after the
election.

They don’t even want to give him a chance! Like you said, if you don’t like him, there
will be another election in 4 years!

Instead they are trying to find any little thing on him and hoping something will
stick!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top