Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PetraG said:
If a candidate thinks that overall morality doesn’t count as long as he or she covers the single moral question that is most important to me,
Click to expand...
I think Pope Benedict said it best when he said one could only vote for an abortion supporter if there was a “proportionate reason” (equally grave) reason to do so. So, all things being equal, one cannot vote for the abortion supporter.

But they’re not equal. Which Dem candidate has tried to lower my taxes? Which one let the Little Sisters off the HHS Mandate hook? Which one aided the DOW to gain 11,000 points in three years? Which one removed the onerous requirements of WOTUS that put every farm pond under the jurisdiction of the Army? Which one defeated ISIS? Which one rid the world of Baghdadi and Soleimani? Which one got rid of NAFTA and got bipartisan support for its replacement? Which one negotiated a fairer interim trade deal with China?

Abortion is sufficient reason to vote for Trump, but it’s not the only one.
 
When I typed," just saw another impeachment discussion," clearly it was not you who I was speaking of.
You inflected it.
Fine!
Then I saw it introduced as a subject changer on Fox and elsewhere.
It isn’t a trifle, it is a political campaign announcement intended to change the subject from impeachment.
AND THATS THE CRIME AND THATS THE DANGER. HOW a worthy issue like abortion, the lives of the unborn, become passengers on a sleezy train. ( Speaking of the apparent publicity campaign we are watching in real time)
And Portman and Johnson, they were Senate voices of course participating in policy.
But more important they are GOP testimonials to the virtue and non personal nature of Biden’s action. Who best to tell that tale than members of the other side if the isle
 
Last edited:
We all have different issues, Petra in different countries.
When I was young we formed a party based on free market which was unthinkable then. Rolling up our sleeves we became a strong third option .An election ago and looking back I could see how we had formed the basis of it, and won.
Serving and voting in good conscience pays on the long run. If one has an good overall objective in mind and patience.
Thanks for allowing my chiming in, people. I mean well…
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
So, bottom line, you’re going to support abortion with your vote. Could have just said that.
Click to expand...
I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. She said she wanted abortion to be rare, but I didn’t buy it. She wanted it to be freely available. She thinks it is an unfortunate life event for a woman; she doesn’t believe in the right to life.

I also don’t think that a willingness to tolerate any other kind of immorality by guaranteeing my vote to the candidate who supports every legal means to make it hard to get an abortion is going to convince anybody that the abortion question has to do with morality and Christian morals. It mostly convinces people that all we care about is passing laws that stop other people from doing things.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot people and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
Donald Trump, January 23, 2016

“Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”
Donald Trump, referring to someone who had interrupted his rally, Nov. 22, 2015

“Waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question. What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding. That’s the way I feel."
Donald Trump, Feb. 17, 2016

Best yet:
“I was surprised that she [Nancy Pelosi] didn’t do more in terms of Bush and going after Bush. It was almost – it just seemed like she was going to really look to impeach Bush and get him out of office, which, personally, I think would have been a wonderful thing.”
Donald Trump, Oct. 15, 2008

I’m not even going to start on all the things he says that are just out-and-out fabrications.

He’s not a peacable man. He’s not a truthful man. He doesn’t think rules apply to him. He doesn’t deserve my vote. Period. If someone who is morally acceptable runs against him, I’ll vote for the best candidate. If not, I’ll write someone in that I believe is morally acceptable. That’s not immoral.
 
Last edited:
I repeat, was not talking about you.
I was talking about the real time Trump talking points about his participation in the rally. How it is made all about him.
As Jesus reminded us…reward here…or in heaven.
 
Ridgerunner said:
As I said…
Click to expand...
Your willingness to say something does not enshrine it as a fact, friend.

There is no moral law that requires voting for an immoral candidate because some other candidate is worse. There is a moral law that allows it, but it is not compulsory to vote for a candidate with high poll numbers. That is absurd. (And, by the way, the fraction of pregnancies that end in abortion has not depended very much on whether the President was for it or against it. Practically speaking, it isn’t the thing that makes the most difference to the actual mothers and children involved.)

Likewise, to return to the actual topic of the thread, the Senate has two matters to consider. One is whether or not President Trump did what he has been accused of doing. I think it is pretty clear that he did, and I do think it was a serious breach of public trust. The other is whether he ought to be removed from office for doing it. Based on the history of the process, I would not say that he did something so much worse than other impeached Presidents that he ought to be the first one removed.

I remember when Nixon left office. It harmed the nation. I’m not saying that he should not have resigned, but I think dragging Donald Trump kicking and screaming out of the White House would do a great deal of harm to the nation. We are already very divided–perilously divided, I think–and this would make matters worse. The offense is in the public record. Since the public is not overwhelmingly in favor of his removal, let us decide the matter at the ballot box in November. I say that not because he did no harm, but because removing him will do more harm than letting him finish his term.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
I repeat, was not talking about you.
I was talking about the real time Trump talking points about his participation in the rally. How it is made all about him.
As Jesus reminded us…reward here…or in heaven.
Click to expand...
Trump is more likely to lose votes by speaking at a prolife rally than to gain them. Some 40% of the population has either had an abortion or is complicit in having procured one. That’s a lot of voters.
Either Trump actually believes in the cause, or is simply being faithful to his promises to his supporters. He’s not likely to gain a single vote by doing this. It’s true it will firm up some who are already his supporters. But I think his supporters already know his policy from previous actions.
 
And hope Trump does not view an aquittall as a green light to turn the cheating spigot on full?
A question mark. Because there is every indication that this will happen.
From his documented use of Russian interference, to engaging the Ukraine president literally a day after Mueller cleared him.
The danger is his people are convinced that if it is cheating or lawlessness in service of him, it is virtue. Amazingly Catholics are locked into greater good.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
And hope Trump does not view an aquittall as a green light to turn the cheating spigot on full?
A question mark. Because there is every indication that this will happen.
From his documented use of Russian interference, to engaging the Ukraine president literally a day after Mueller cleared him.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying he won’t. I think he has probably made the cynical calculation that he has too much support to be thrown out of office for doing something that does not offend his supporters.

He won’t be the first President who did things in office that were bad enough to warrant losing his position. Our body politic is in such a state at present, though, that I don’t think we’d do well if he were removed by Congress. Better to let him be removed by the voters. He isn’t making any points with those who are undecided, let’s just say that. This time, he’s running on his record, not just his boasting, and this is part of his record.

It is kind of like deciding that a patient who needs surgery is in too frail of a condition to survive. OK, well, then, you turn to other treatments. Removing a President from office is a very drastic act. No Congress has ever done it, and not because we’ve never had corruption in the White House. This would not be a good time to start doing it. I don’t have a problem with the impeachment, but I don’t have a problem with Congress deciding not to remove him, either. I really think it is the wisest course, and no one here believes that is because I’m a Trump supporter, I’d hope.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I think clarifies your observation is after 3 years, Trump opperates as if 42-45% represents the American people. All of those who matter. The rest are complicit with the ,enemy, the deep State, liberal elite, people on the coast, the lying media( if I left any out sorry).
So he looses no votes. He seeks only to hold onto his 40 something percent. Pro life. And yes he acts in constant reinforcement.
He has been told he can win with 3 to 5 million voters less than half, and they represent human. I will withhold my opinion of what I think he would like to do with the rest.
 
Last edited:
I think the GOP forecast the result. My concern is sunshine on the actions on material witnesses and documents.
Impeachment is no longer viable if the president can block the House until it is to late to have a remedy.
That makes him above the law.
That is at stake. And that point must be shown with excruciating sunlight.
The trial procedure is Kafkaesque! That’s no exaggeration.
Evidence after the case? Are you kidding.
And make no mistake McConnell had the votes day one on witnesses.
Had to!
Cannot let the defense commit then hit them with new evidence. I can object to that. So we are operating under a fraud. A sleezy fraud. A fraud of," we will see about witnesses."
Trump said are you nuts and the GOP came to heel. Actually," I want my impeachment over by the super bowl."
It will take Democrats about until summer, before they are no longer in denial that Trump is our new King.
We will have our first third world election I think in 2020. We can pray it is not a violent affair.
 
Last edited:
No! It isn’t.
And what is your point. Trump is not a prolific liar? You really want that position associated with your reputation?
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
We all know what the offense is
Click to expand...
Clearly not as you’re repeating support for “abuse of power”

Sixth chance: what is the definition of “abuse of power”?

Or have you realized that Article is now meaningless
 
PetraG said:
It is not as if the concept of “abuse of power” has had no meaning in legal history, though. That term is not pulled out of a hat. It does cover corrupt activity or mal-administration by those who hold public positions of trust.
Click to expand...
Defines subjective term using other subjective terms

Under that definition countless Democrat heroes are guilty of abuse of power (Woodrow Wilson who racially resegregated government, FDR locked up Japanese in internment camps, JFK/LBJ who used IRS and FBI against political opponents, Obama who used FBI to spy on journalists …)

So let’s try again: what is the definition of abuse of power?
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Likewise, to return to the actual topic of the thread, the Senate has two matters to consider. One is whether or not President Trump did what he has been accused of doing.
Click to expand...
Factually, I don’t think there’s any dispute about what he did. The dispute is about what his intent was. He and the other participant in the call, Mr. Zelensky, say it was one thing. The Dems and their minions say it was another.

There being no credible mind readers available, the Senate is being charged with figuring it out and, if it’s the Dem version, whether it’s worthy of removing an elected president for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top