Quick Poll: Should Trump be Impeached?

[glenn1]

Hey @glenn1
Clinton's lie wasn't as bad as the sexual indiscretion. He opened himself to potentially being compromised by the information about the affair and as president, that's unacceptable.

Trump is worse by a factor of at least 100. Let's stop fucking around about it.

If we removed the party labels and decided proper justice with no knowledge of the defendant you'd likely be arguing vehemently against the very position you're taking. Hell your side who spent Clinton's 1992 election effort defending him against sexual misconduct charges. And if you want to use the "well he did so to get fraudulently elected" then so did Clinton as his grand jury lie under oath was in 1994, thus influencing the course of his 1996 election. But spin away on that one too and imagine reasons why that's somehow different and what Trump did was a trillion times worse.

I suppose the one thing that's not surprising in all this is that your side is still choosing to defend Clinton over the women even after all this time however, I guess they're just the acceptable collateral damage of keeping a Democratic president in power. Maybe one day the "Me Too" movement might even make you reconsider throwing your support behind sexual predators just because you expect some political gain from it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html

 

[jackstar7]

If we removed the party labels and decided proper justice with no knowledge of the defendant you'd likely be arguing vehemently against the very position you're taking. Hell your side who spent Clinton's 1992 election effort defending him against sexual misconduct charges. And if you want to use the "well he did so to get fraudulently elected" then so did Clinton as his grand jury lie under oath was in 1994, thus influencing the course of his 1996 election. But spin away on that one too and imagine reasons why that's somehow different and what Trump did was a trillion times worse.

I suppose the one thing that's not surprising in all this is that your side is still choosing to defend Clinton over the women even after all this time however, I guess they're just the acceptable collateral damage of keeping a Democratic president in power. Maybe one day the "Me Too" movement might even make you reconsider throwing your support behind sexual predators just because you expect some political gain from it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html

So you can't argue against the position I hold. Got it.

Ramble on.

 

[glenn1]

So you can't argue against the position I've taken. Got it.

Ramble on.

Okay. I won't argue against your "position" that Trump should be punished differently than Clinton for the same crime. And of course your "position" has nothing to do with the political party of the perpetrator.

 

[zinfamous]

The fact is he got the majority of eletoral votes, and that makes him more popular. Way more popular than crooked Hillary.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

In fact, it does not. It's a very simple definition and a very simple math problem.

 

[jackstar7]

Okay. I won't argue against your "position" that Trump should be punished differently than Clinton for the same crime. And of course your "position" has nothing to do with the political party of the perpetrator.

Oh. Now I see. You don't believe in justice at all.

That's certainly a cowardly position to take, but do carry on.

 

[Jhhnn]

"But Clinton!" is quite lame. He didn't authorize illegal campaign expenditures to cover up his affair with Lewinsky. Trump did authorize such expenditures as shown by Cohen's testimony & a recording of the conversation.

 

[Jhhnn]

"But Clinton!" is quite lame. He didn't authorize illegal campaign expenditures to cover up his affair with Lewinsky. Trump did authorize such expenditures as shown by Cohen's testimony & a recording of the conversation.

 

[glenn1]

"But Clinton!" is quite lame. He didn't authorize illegal campaign expenditures to cover up his affair with Lewinsky. Trump did authorize such expenditures as shown by Cohen's testimony & a recording of the conversation.

Again if you want to argue that lying about campaign expenditures is worse than lying under oath to a grand jury (about the same subject mind you) then be my guest.

 

[jackstar7]

Again if you want to argue that lying about campaign expenditures is worse than lying under oath to a grand jury (about the same subject mind you) then be my guest.

As long as criminals are stealing FOR you, then are they really criminals?

 

[fskimospy]

Again if you want to argue that lying about campaign expenditures is worse than lying under oath to a grand jury (about the same subject mind you) then be my guest.

It's weird that you keep trying to argue that someone whose crimes likely allowed them to gain the office in the first place should be treated in the same way as someone who occupied the office lawfully. It's basically a giant flashing neon sign telling everyone to commit as many crimes as you can in pursuit of the presidency because once you get it you will be treated the same as the other people who didn't cheat to get there.

By your standard Clinton lying to a grand jury has somehow invalidated all campaign finance law. That is silliness and should be ignored.

 

[glenn1]

It's weird that you keep trying to argue that someone whose crimes likely allowed them to gain the office in the first place should be treated in the same way as someone who occupied the office lawfully. It's basically a giant flashing neon sign telling everyone to commit as many crimes as you can in pursuit of the presidency because once you get it you will be treated the same as the other people who didn't cheat to get there.

By your standard Clinton lying to a grand jury has somehow invalidated all campaign finance law. That is silliness and should be ignored.

Or you could say that once you're in office then you'll be treated differently so wait to commit your crimes until after inauguration.

LOL of course who are we kidding, we know you need to know the party identifier of the person committing the crime before you opine on the proper punishment.

 

[fskimospy]

Or you could say that once you're in office then you'll be treated differently so wait to commit your crimes until after inauguration.

Yes, presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution once in office. There's all sorts of stuff that presidents can do that regular people can't. Did you really not know this?

LOL of course who are we kidding, we know you need to know the party identifier of the person committing the crime before you opine on the proper punishment.

You're projecting so hard in this thread it isn't even funny, haha. I notice you've resorted to attacking me personally because you know I'm right and have no actual counter-argument. This is why when impeachment was originally come up with, the idea that someone might fraudulently achieve the presidency was one of the primary use cases the founders thought up. They were smart enough to realize what a problem that would be. Just like with many jobs, whatever protections you might have from termination often do not apply if it's found you came by the job through fraud.

Your argument is that because Bill Clinton lied in the 1990's we shouldn't enforce campaign finance laws anymore. I'm here to tell you that's silly and you know it. Stop, take a deep breath, and think about this logically.

 

[jackstar7]

and think about this logically.

You set him to a task to which he cannot succeed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Again if you want to argue that lying about campaign expenditures is worse than lying under oath to a grand jury (about the same subject mind you) then be my guest.

I'll argue that paying hush money from campaign funds is worse than simple lying every time. It defrauds campaign contributors who intended their contributions to be used for legal purposes.

 

[glenn1]

I'll argue that paying hush money from campaign funds is worse than simple lying every time. It defrauds campaign contributors who intended their contributions to be used for legal purposes.

The funds used were from Trump, so claiming Trump defrauded himself would be a novel legal theory. You ought to try that one out in court.

 

[killster1]

LOL! Funny shit.

I "attack" because people like you who ask questions aren't genuinely asking questions. They're diverting and have no intention of knowing anything other than Trump's their guy. The most astounding thing about you isn't actually that you support Trump though that's some sick fu*king shit right there it was discovering the sheer magnitude of the number of Americans who arrived at the conclusion that being stupid isn't just acceptable but preferred and something to be proud of.

THAT is the ONLY thing Trump has given to you/them oh and normalizing hate (fear and insecurity) again.

Of course his crimes, his treason, his predatorial nature, his corruption all matter and must be thrust in to the light at every opportunity until that piece of shit is forced out of office but what's become of his supporters is despicable and almost unforgivable. I will continue to call you names because you deserve it. You deserve it a hell of a lot more than you deserve answers you won't understand because you can't and won't.

It's not that Trump made y'all dumb, that was already true. He told you fu*ks it's ok to live your stupidity out loud. To me that rates right up there with his criminal, treasonous activity.

Trumps my guy? you obviously know nothing about me but you claim to know everyone and everything! i dont support anyone and they are all evil idiots that lie cheat steal. But someone has to run the government and for now its him. nothing i can do to change it. as much as i want to complain it will do nothing. To attack anyone you think supports trump shows your mentality. You obviously need mental help or to be locked up somewhere. You contribute nothing to society but hate and assumptions.

So because i didn't know what someone did and its not in the topic i asked. because i asked and asked for proof that means i must support someone. IF support trump should be crucified according to younigue. You are not unique on anything, you are the same as all the other people filled with hate out there. assume things and jump on peoples back with zero proof! so show me where i support trump? Maybe you feel everyone is against you in life, be interesting to see what you look like, sorry you are picked on so much and have so much hate built up in you.

 

[Viper1j]

So who are you comparing to drug dealers trump or russia. That makes no sense.

Sent from my LGMP260 using Tapatalk

I'm going to assume that you are replying to me, since you mentioned my analogy.

The analogy was about criminality. And the obligation of those with honor to point it out.

Since you're talking like a Trumpanzee, it must really suck to know that you voted a criminal into the White House. Whether you choose to recognize it or not.

 

[Viper1j]

It's weird that you keep trying to argue that someone whose crimes likely allowed them to gain the office in the first place should be treated in the same way as someone who occupied the office lawfully. It's basically a giant flashing neon sign telling everyone to commit as many crimes as you can in pursuit of the presidency because once you get it you will be treated the same as the other people who didn't cheat to get there..

Especially in light of the way we treat athletes. I guess it's a really good thing that Donny never went into sports.

I've lost track of the count, but aren't we up to around 23 medals and awards that have been yanked from athletes for using steroids?

What does this say about this country, that we body slam athletes for cheating in their chosen profession, but we give the Orange megalomaniac a pass for the same behavior?

 

[jackstar7]

The funds used were from Trump, so claiming Trump defrauded himself would be a novel legal theory. You ought to try that one out in court.

Please see: Trump Foundation; Trump University

 

[Jhhnn]

The funds used were from Trump, so claiming Trump defrauded himself would be a novel legal theory. You ought to try that one out in court.

False. Trump was not the only contributor to his campaign which was the conduit for payment.

 

[glenn1]

Please see: Trump Foundation; Trump University

See also, "allegations about, not yet fully investigated or proven in a court of law."

Again this goes back to what I said earlier, with what we know *right now* there's not grounds for impeachment but I suspect much more will be known in the coming months before Trump's term is out which will be much stronger grounds for impeachment. I know it's hard to be patient sometimes but that's what's needed here, there's even a legal term for it:

Ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

 

[jackstar7]

See also, "allegations about, not yet fully investigated or proven in a court of law."

Again this goes back to what I said earlier, with what we know *right now* there's not grounds for impeachment but I suspect much more will be known in the coming months before Trump's term is out which will be much stronger grounds for impeachment. I know it's hard to be patient sometimes but that's what's needed here, there's even a legal term for it:

Ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

I like how you conveniently abandon your usual call for "common sense" when it comes to defending a criminal who is stealing for you.

 

[glenn1]

I like how you conveniently abandon your usual call for "common sense" when it comes to defending a criminal who is stealing for you.

I've already laid out the common sense dozens of posts ago. Win the majority in November, proceed to impeach Trump afterwards, and watch him fail to be convicted in the Senate unless/until more and stronger charges emerge then what's out there currently. If that's your game plan go for it, but I don't see why it's a worthwhile game plan to pursue. A congressional censure would be basically certain to pass and Trump could still be bogged down with inquiries, meanwhile an impeachment charge would lead inevitably to a non-conviction. Other than giving your base some red meat by talk of impeachment charges which won't lead to anything or help anyone, I'd prefer to skip to something which would actually work.

 

[Jhhnn]

See also, "allegations about, not yet fully investigated or proven in a court of law."

Again this goes back to what I said earlier, with what we know *right now* there's not grounds for impeachment but I suspect much more will be known in the coming months before Trump's term is out which will be much stronger grounds for impeachment. I know it's hard to be patient sometimes but that's what's needed here, there's even a legal term for it:

Ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all."

Please. Trumpsters' version of ripeness is when the fruit rots on the ground & a seedling sprouts in the spring. But only maybe. Trump enjoys an astounding cult of personality.

I do think you're right that the time is yet to come, however. If denied the cover of a GOP HOR I expect his demise to come rather quickly. I expect more rats coming up from the bilges off the SS Trump in any event. Really big rats.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I have changed my vote from "impeachment" to "crucifiction"