Quick Poll: Should Trump be Impeached?

[SP33Demon]

Out of curiosity, has taj defended Nazis? Both @SP33Demon and @Incorruptible do (while labelling others as fascists), I just wondered how alike they are.

You're a nazi for calling me a nazi. See how easy that is? lmao

 

[SP33Demon]

And for a second you almost convinced yourself.. You know the blowback on this one is going to be epic, we are talking full repeal of anything Trump repealed, singlepayer, tax hikes on the 1%, social programs, education etc.. and in some weird formula Trump and co idiots will have helped make it happen.

I gave you facts and truth, and you gave me your dreams. While dreaming is cute, there's going to be no "blowback" because Trump has battleground states on lock, especially with manufacturing jobs up 392,000 since obama. There's also the fact of the matter that you can't "undo" judges that Trump has appointed, in fact the most federal appeals court judges than any president at this point in their presidency. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...is-leaving-his-mark-on-higher-federal-courts/
If an obama judge rules against conservatives, we just appeal to a federal Trump judge. If that gets appealed to SCOTUS, then (after Kavanaugh) conservatives still win. Since Trump has already done more judicially than any other president before him, he's doing what we voted him in to do. The tax law and booming economy = just icing on the cake for me. Life is good my friend.

 

[SP33Demon]

ComicalSpeedy-nothing-to-see-here-we-are-winning-the-war

https://www.wsj.com/articles/allen-...ors-in-michael-cohen-investigation-1535121992

Frag out bitches

Is an immunity deal supposed to mean something? He said she said never wins unless there's evidence. Keep lapping up the MSM brainwashing and frothing at the mouth.

 

[cytg111]

I gave you facts and truth, and you gave me your dreams. While dreaming is cute, there's going to be no "blowback" because Trump has battleground states on lock, especially with manufacturing jobs up 392,000 since obama. There's also the fact of the matter that you can't "undo" judges that Trump has appointed, in fact the most federal appeals court judges than any president at this point in their presidency. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...is-leaving-his-mark-on-higher-federal-courts/
If an obama judge rules against conservatives, we just appeal to a federal Trump judge. If that gets appealed to SCOTUS, then (after Kavanaugh) conservatives still win. Since Trump has already done more judicially than any other president before him, he's doing what we voted him in to do. The tax law and booming economy = just icing on the cake for me. Life is good my friend.

Hmmm.... Is there something in the Constitution specifying how many judges be on the SCOTUS? - Asking for a friend.

 

[kage69]

Rudy has predicted a revolt. All I can say that if Rudy has the balls then let him bring it.

I doubt Rudy can predict his next bowel movement, but yes, I'm sure we all remember how those upright patriots flocked to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge when the call went out to stand against the tyrannical feds.

 

[cytg111]

Is an immunity deal supposed to mean something? He said she said never wins unless there's evidence. Keep lapping up the MSM brainwashing and frothing at the mouth.

Soon you will just have AJ and "Q" to keep you warm. Get off the androgens man, they impair your vision.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If the House decides to impeach and the Senate decides the standard needed to indict is sufficient to justify a guilty verdict on the articles of impeachment then have at it.

.

That's an obvious given, but what you fail to understand I believe that if there's no rationality to be seen from the most vocal supporters of Trump who are against impeachment. If Trump were found to have entered a money laundering deal with the Gottis or Gambinos it is likely that Trump would still be overwhelmingly supported by his faithful and the Reps who have alligned themselves with him. There is literally nothing Trump could do as long as it's anti-Dem and Hillary that would be of sufficient importance to remove him in far too many
That said "impeach him if you can" becomes "I am immune and above the law and have enough support to remain so".

It is not that there are insufficient numbers of people to support impeachment but that there is a surfeit of those who won't support the rule of law but rather a dominion of lawlessness. This is a problem greater than to impeach or not.


Edit crappy formatting

 

[dank69]

No option for "launched into space without life support"? How about just "take away all his money and see how long he lasts by his wits alone"?

 

[Younigue]

Hmmm.... Is there something in the Constitution specifying how many judges be on the SCOTUS? - Asking for a friend.

This is the only thing keeping me sane about this Kavanaugh shit. The Dems will possibly/likely increase the amount of SCOTUS. If I'm wrong don't correct me. my sanity is precious to me (some days).

 

[dank69]

This is the only thing keeping me sane about this Kavanaugh shit. The Dems will possibly/likely increase the amount of SCOTUS. If I'm wrong don't correct me. my sanity is precious to me (some days).

It's possible but it isn't a good idea. It's not like America isn't stupid enough to vote the GOP back in again and they'll just do the same. Better to let Americans suffer the consequences of their actions for a few decades so maybe a few of them learn something.

 

[ivwshane]

Nobody cares about Treason or semantics. We all know that Dems will do anything and everything to retaliate against Trump and the people who voted for him. The only thing it's doing is exposing Leftists for their hypocrisy (e.g. blatant random censorship and shadowbanning of conservative voices on social media). This kicking and screaming won't stop until 2020 and they're desperate to do anything to stop Trump and his appointing of conservative circuit court judges and obama policy eradication.

You described the leftist brainwashed-by-mainstream-media lemmings perfectly. They are zombies who will believe anything they see on TV and just regurgitate it. They are asleep at the wheel and willing to die for a cause that media tells them to. Self respect happens when you learn to think for yourself.

We (i.e. everyone against the toxic leftist agenda ) have already won the war - SCOTUS, circuit court judges, near complete eradication of obama era policies, increased incentives for businesses, and a tax law that financially punishes blue states for forcing their residents to pay high taxes. Whatever happens in the next 2 years is just icing on the cake and I expect leftists to start targeting Trump's family now. I expect violence to happen whether it's b0mbings against Trump properties or more specifically targeted violence against Trump's family and/or cabinet members' families. Leftists are desperate and will do anything to stop 45 from repeatedly punching them in the nuts. The Special Counsel was already put in place by obama's handlers as a contingency plan in case hillary lost. What we're seeing was planned from the start. The problem with that contingency plan is that they really don't have anything on 45 so he'll be able to draw it out in the courts until 2020, and keep hitting back on twitter to neuter their brainwashing tactics (mainstream media selective programming). If they had something, he would've been long gone by now.

Lol! The projection is strong with this one.

 

[Younigue]

It's possible but it isn't a good idea. It's not like America isn't stupid enough to vote the GOP back in again and they'll just do the same. Better to let Americans suffer the consequences of their actions for a few decades so maybe a few of them learn something.

I disagree.

 

[Younigue]

Lol! The projection is strong with this one.

Pathetic and hysterical simultaneously.

 

[mikeymikec]

You're a nazi for calling me a nazi. See how easy that is? lmao

Yes, you've done that before, and also here's where you defended Tommy Robinson, a known Nazi:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/sorry-another-gun-control-thread.2549426/page-5

 

[glenn1]

That's an obvious given, but what you fail to understand I believe that if there's no rationality to be seen from the most vocal supporters of Trump who are against impeachment. If Trump were found to have entered a money laundering deal with the Gottis or Gambinos it is likely that Trump would still be overwhelmingly supported by his faithful and the Reps who have alligned themselves with him. There is literally nothing Trump could do as long as it's anti-Dem and Hillary that would be of sufficient importance to remove him in far too many
That said "impeach him if you can" becomes "I am immune and above the law and have enough support to remain so".

It is not that there are insufficient numbers of people to support impeachment but that there is a surfeit of those who won't support the rule of law but rather a dominion of lawlessness. This is a problem greater than to impeach or not.


Edit crappy formatting

What constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" when no definition is given in the source document is an inherently subjective exercise. If the republic and rule of law wasn't threatened by Clinton lying under oath and we'd gone with the Congressional censure as Democrats had wanted, the charges of campaign finance violations seem to be equally not a threat to the republic and rule of law and likewise worthy of a censure action. The majority has the right to seek impeachment or not as they see fit but it seems like more of a morality play exercise in futility than something which will amount to anything but spectacle. If Dems want to expend time and political capital on something that's not likely to amount to anything but hearings and wasted time then have at it as it's probably less damaging than some of the other things they could be doing legislatively. And it's likely to cause Trump to expend time and energy on it which likewise is far less damaging that what he would otherwise do as the executive.

 

[sactoking]

To be sure I understand this correctly, that Trump is president in part because Comey released damaging information for Clinton right before the election is cool because reasons and that Trump is president in part because he committed felonies to ensure damaging information for him was not released right before the election is cool because blowjobs.

 

[Stokely]

Not until Mueller's investigation is done. With any luck, it will continue to distract Trump from actually getting anything done...that and golfing.

After that, we'll see. If Trump causes the investigation to be shut down, then yes, immediately. Do I think that would actually happen? No, not while the spineless GOP controls Congress, and probably not after either.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" when no definition is given in the source document is an inherently subjective exercise.

I'm not sure why you say this. The writings of the Founders speak of impeachment. For example it was debated that it may come to pass that someone unsuited takes the Office. High Crimes would be exemplified by illegal activities of a criminal nature, although not limited to them. No conviction is needed other than that of Congress. "The President has not been charged" is inane and specious. It is the act which counts.

Misdemeanors aren't petty crimes, but failings of nature which are injurious. Declaring the media the enemy of the state is in direct violation of the First. Using the Office for personal vendettas is another. Conspiring with foreign powers to influence an election in likely illegal ways (hacking the DNC would be a concrete example).

Of course you might say "Well that's only your opinion", but the meanings of words and their usages during the formation of the nation isn't a mystery.

But still should a President be removed for being obnoxious? According to Ben Franklin, yes absolutely. That's the word that he used for a threshold to trigger impeachment which he supported. There were those who didn't want any talk of removal of a President, but Franklin and others won because of a simple but correct argument. The only recourse the citizenry would have would be assassination.

You can of course verify all that if you like.

 

[SMOGZINN]

the charges of campaign finance violations seem to be equally not a threat to the republic and rule of law and likewise worthy of a censure action.

I disagree with this. Campaign finance violations are a threat to the very fabric of the republic. It undermines the democratic process our republic rests on.

 

[jackstar7]

If the republic and rule of law wasn't threatened by Clinton lying under oath and we'd gone with the Congressional censure as Democrats had wanted, the charges of campaign finance violations seem to be equally not a threat to the republic and rule of law and likewise worthy of a censure action.

Do all your apples look like oranges?

 

[glenn1]

I disagree with this. Campaign finance violations are a threat to the very fabric of the republic. It undermines the democratic process our republic rests on.

Both lied to government entities to cover up the embarrassing fact of their sexual indiscretions. When it was Clinton lying to the grand jury seated by the special prosecutor your side said no big deal and we should “just move on.” Now Trump did the same thing only to the Federal Election Commission instead of in court. Naked partisanship is obviously the only reason why you think the earlier is OK but the later “a threat to the Republic” and an impeachable offense.

 

[Maxima1]

It's possible but it isn't a good idea. It's not like America isn't stupid enough to vote the GOP back in again and they'll just do the same. Better to let Americans suffer the consequences of their actions for a few decades so maybe a few of them learn something.

You're just conceding to defeat, while the other possibility could potentially work and root out bullshit like gerrymandering and other antidemocratic practices.

It's a fool's deal to do as you suggest. if it came to pass that Hillary secured the SC, I bet the Republicans would have forced change to a staggered SC or something. I'm sure of it. People like Cruz were whining about it, and I bet that it would have only grown louder had they lost.

 

[interchange]

Both lied to government entities to cover up the embarrassing fact of their sexual indiscretions. When it was Clinton lying to the grand jury seated by the special prosecutor your side said no big deal and we should “just move on.” Now Trump did the same thing only to the Federal Election Commission instead of in court. Naked partisanship is obviously the only reason why you think the earlier is OK but the later “a threat to the Republic” and an impeachable offense.

One was a lie to save embarrassment/reputation. The other was to cover up a story in order to win an election. I'm not going to state an opinion on whether Clinton's warranted removal from office, but I will stay plainly and obviously that what Trump has been alleged to have done is far worse than what Clinton was alleged to do.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Both lied to government entities to cover up the embarrassing fact of their sexual indiscretions. When it was Clinton lying to the grand jury seated by the special prosecutor your side said no big deal and we should “just move on.” Now Trump did the same thing only to the Federal Election Commission instead of in court. Naked partisanship is obviously the only reason why you think the earlier is OK but the later “a threat to the Republic” and an impeachable offense.

First off I never said I was okay with Clinton lying to the special prosecutor. I am not. I think it was a low point in our democracy, and probably was worth impeachment, but I don't think it was on the same level of dangerous as what Trump did.

What Trump did was successfully undermine the democratic process to get elected to the highest office in our nation. That is dangerous on the highest level. If we let him get away with it then it will become standard practice.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One was a lie to save embarrassment/reputation. The other was to cover up a story in order to win an election. I'm not going to state an opinion on whether Clinton's warranted removal from office, but I will stay plainly and obviously that what Trump has been alleged to have done is far worse than what Clinton was alleged to do.

Neither was right. Now the person who worked hardest to subvert an election may get his due reward. It's interesting how people will find blame everyone else when "their" person is a criminal.