ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 7th July 2018, 08:11 PM   #41
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,241
Oh, no you don't. We have to suffer the full four years -- and maybe eight. Then again, I didn't think we could do worse than the awesomely ignorant W, so maybe the public doesn't learn from these disasters.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2018, 08:38 PM   #42
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,072
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
What do you think "Whataboutism" is?

You're entire argument is "But the other side got to do it!" (or do something similar, or literally did anything ever.)
Yeah, no it isn’t for the reasons I just explained in detail, but the “but what about the children” “argument?

That is not, has not, and will never be a basis for impeachment.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.

Last edited by The Big Dog; 7th July 2018 at 08:47 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2018, 08:49 PM   #43
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,906
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It has nothing to do with whataboutism, it has to do with precedent. You went for the ”will no one think about the children” claim. To be perfectly honest, you would be hard pressed to find a president that someone has not claimed has scarred shildren, most recently Obama scarred plenty of children (hell in Yemen he didn’t just scar them, he blew them into tiny bits on the way to a wedding).

Now if you were calling for Obama’s impeachment for scarring children, I will withdraw my comment.

Y’all got a link?
As if you care about that. It's only because Obama did it that you're mad. If Trump did the same thing you'd thing the sun shone out of his every orifice and wonder why Obama didn't have the guts. There's no morality to your argument the isn't defined by whether or not there's a D or an R in parenthesize behind someone's name.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2018, 09:28 PM   #44
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,713
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
In practical terms the Democrats have to have a slam dunk with evidence so bad it would force enough vulnerable Republicans to vote for impeachment. They really need the pee video. Esoteric banking violations and campaign finance violations won't do. They need, a smoking gun on Russia qui pro quo. It's got to be a smoking gun even the people who go to his rallies would understand (not that their kind would care).

I don't think "smoking gun" is the right word. What the American people need is something easy to understand. Whitewater, whatever the hell it was about, was far too complicated for anyone to care. You couldn't get anybody to stay awake long enough to decide if the Clintons were victims of a scam or somehow the beneficiaries of it. But rubbing up against your intern while your wife is in the other room, that'll grab a headline.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th July 2018, 09:45 PM   #45
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It has nothing to do with whataboutism, it has to do with precedent. You went for the ”will no one think about the children” claim. To be perfectly honest, you would be hard pressed to find a president that someone has not claimed has scarred shildren, most recently Obama scarred plenty of children (hell in Yemen he didn’t just scar them, he blew them into tiny bits on the way to a wedding).
....
Do you actually think Obama ordered anybody to kill children? Trump in fact ordered cops to rip children from their parents.

Last edited by Bob001; 7th July 2018 at 09:52 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 03:19 AM   #46
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,428
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Obama didn’t get impeached for that, hell he didn’t get impeached for his extrajudicial murder drone program, why would trump get impeached for much less?
I guess then you're all for Trumps version of the extrajudicial murder drone program where he has the families of the terrorists killed too?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 8th July 2018 at 03:22 AM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 06:36 AM   #47
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,052
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I guess then you're all for Trumps version of the extrajudicial murder drone program where he has the families of the terrorists killed too?
Is that what we're impeaching him for?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:00 AM   #48
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Is that what we're impeaching him for?
Impeach him for assault. Have you seen how he’s been beating the Democrats? It’s brutal!
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:16 AM   #49
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 16,906
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I guess then you're all for Trumps version of the extrajudicial murder drone program where he has the families of the terrorists killed too?
Well, sure it's okay if Trump does it. It's only murder if the guy who gives the order is a Democrat.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:22 AM   #50
Random
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,947
If a majority of the House and a two-thirds majority of the Senate agree, wearing white after Labor Day is an impeachable offence...
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:27 AM   #51
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,072
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Impeach him for assault. Have you seen how he’s been beating the Democrats? It’s brutal!
Impeach him for vandalism. He has broken the left!

__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 10:09 AM   #52
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Impeach him for vandalism. He has broken the left!

Impeach him for sodomy, he's... well, you get the picture.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 10:34 AM   #53
Thermal
Illuminator
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 4,132
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Impeach him for sodomy, he's... well, you get the picture.
That was beautiful
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 11:04 AM   #54
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,052
Originally Posted by Random View Post
If a majority of the House and a two-thirds majority of the Senate agree, wearing white after Labor Day is an impeachable offence...
Which makes sense, when you think about it. If that much of the country feels that strongly about it, then yeah, the president probably should go along or get out.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 11:11 AM   #55
Random
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,947
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Which makes sense, when you think about it. If that much of the country feels that strongly about it, then yeah, the president probably should go along or get out.
On the other hand, it means that if a majority of the House or slightly more than a third of the Senate is okay with the President of the US being a Russian intelligence asset who is building concentration camps for kids, then the President stays.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 11:19 AM   #56
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,505
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Impeach him for vandalism. He has broken the left!

Broken it so bad that every candidate Trump has endorsed has lost to a Dem in deep, DEEP red states where Dems haven't been elected in decades.

That's the most ********** up version of "broken" I've ever seen. Then again, Trump supporters don't generally understand things very well.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 11:55 AM   #57
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,900
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Impeach him for vandalism. He has broken the left!

Good time to remind people that trumpism has been and remains less popular than Democrats.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 12:05 PM   #58
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,600
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Impeach him for sodomy, he's... well, you get the picture.
This picture?

WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 12:10 PM   #59
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 40,575
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
This picture?
I had in mind more this one:

__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 05:34 PM   #60
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I don't think "smoking gun" is the right word. What the American people need is something easy to understand. Whitewater, whatever the hell it was about, was far too complicated for anyone to care. You couldn't get anybody to stay awake long enough to decide if the Clintons were victims of a scam or somehow the beneficiaries of it. But rubbing up against your intern while your wife is in the other room, that'll grab a headline.

I see this all the time regarding the Clinton impeachment and was wondering if you have a citation for Bill Clinton being impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? As I recall, Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Bonus question: If a Fortune 500 CEO had an office affair, was sued for sexual harassment, and then lied about it under oath, had other people lie under oath about it, and concealed evidence, would that be acceptable? Why or why not? Would it depend on the political affiliation of the CEO?
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 05:42 PM   #61
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,477
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
I see this all the time regarding the Clinton impeachment and was wondering if you have a citation for Bill Clinton being impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? As I recall, Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.
In the same way you can arrest someone for no reason and still arrest them for resisting arrest if they resist, sure.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 05:44 PM   #62
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,692
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
I see this all the time regarding the Clinton impeachment and was wondering if you have a citation for Bill Clinton being impeached for having an affair with Monica Lewinsky? As I recall, Clinton was impeached for perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice in a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Bonus question: If a Fortune 500 CEO had an office affair, was sued for sexual harassment, and then lied about it under oath, had other people lie under oath about it, and concealed evidence, would that be acceptable? Why or why not? Would it depend on the political affiliation of the CEO?
We all kind of accept lying under certain circumstances, and perhaps that is where people go off the rails to deciding it's okay to lie under oath. But lawyers are officers of the court, and so for a lawyer to lie under oath is treated as an especially serious offense.

That said, I generally agree with the outcome of the Clinton impeachment. It was a serious matter and deserved a trial, but at the same time, it was not the kind of thing a President should be removed for.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 06:04 PM   #63
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
In the same way you can arrest someone for no reason and still arrest them for resisting arrest if they resist, sure.

Your position seems to be that if Trump perjures himself, suborns perjury, or obstructs justice, you would be against his impeachment? Is that correct?
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 06:06 PM   #64
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,477
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Your position seems to be that if Trump perjures himself, suborns perjury, or obstructs justice, you would be against his impeachment? Is that correct?
*Sighs* I'm saying that the validity and point of the question being asked matters, nothing more, nothing less.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 06:09 PM   #65
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
We all kind of accept lying under certain circumstances, and perhaps that is where people go off the rails to deciding it's okay to lie under oath. But lawyers are officers of the court, and so for a lawyer to lie under oath is treated as an especially serious offense.

That said, I generally agree with the outcome of the Clinton impeachment. It was a serious matter and deserved a trial, but at the same time, it was not the kind of thing a President should be removed for.

I disagree. Other posters are correct that impeachment is a political act, so Congress can define "high crimes and misdemeanors" any way they please, but I also firmly believe in equality under the law. If, instead of Bill Clinton the President of the United States, the defendant in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case had been Bill Clinton the college professor or whatever, he would have been looking at ten to fifteen years in prison.

To just say that the sitting president is above the law strikes me as profoundly Un-American.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 06:15 PM   #66
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Sighs* I'm saying that the validity and point of the question being asked matters, nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sorry, but it really doesn't. Can you cite anywhere in the law where it's acceptable to perjure yourself? Or tell other people to perjure themselves? Or to obstruct justice?

Let's take politics completely out of it. My hypothetical question about the Fortune 500 CEO, let's assume he's completely apolitical. Never donated a dime to either party, not registered with any party, he's never voted in an election. Should he be prosecuted or not?
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 06:21 PM   #67
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,477
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
I'm sorry, but it really doesn't. Can you cite anywhere in the law where it's acceptable to perjure yourself? Or tell other people to perjure themselves? Or to obstruct justice?
The "Using 80 million dollars of tax payer money to determine if the President had the chubby girl who brought in the mail blow him is unnecessary" precedent was clearly set in the "No Crap Sherlock Act of Two Thousand and Always."

I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing politics.

ETA: Or not even politics, base reality. Look at it this way... what did the Clinton impeachment accomplish? What problem did the country have before that it didn't have after other than too much free time and enough not enough political drama to make it happy?

Again if you just have to pat one side on the back for being "technically correct, the best kind of correct".... you do you.

Outside of providing the always super important "Whataboutism" I don't really care what happened to Clinton to justify anything that should or shouldn't happen to Trump.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 8th July 2018 at 06:25 PM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 06:33 PM   #68
Apathia
Illuminator
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,678
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Technically speaking we have had two presidents impeached--both Clinton and Johnson. Impeachment is essentially like an indictment; a finding that sufficient evidence exists to warrant a trial. It is true that neither Clinton nor Johnson was convicted in the trial or removed from office, but both were impeached.
And there it is right there. People are counting on this Impeachment thing to save the nation from Trump, as if it could bring him down. But there isn't a president that it has brought down.

Sorry, folks, but I don't see anything going on with this but some political posturings.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 06:41 PM   #69
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The "Using 80 million dollars of tax payer money to determine if the President had the chubby girl who brought in the mail blow him is unnecessary" precedent was clearly set in the "No Crap Sherlock Act of Two Thousand and Always."

I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing politics.

ETA: Or not even politics, base reality. Look at it this way... what did the Clinton impeachment accomplish? What problem did the country have before that it didn't have after other than too much free time and enough not enough political drama to make it happy?

Again if you just have to pat one side on the back for being "technically correct, the best kind of correct".... you do you.

Outside of providing the always super important "Whataboutism" I don't really care what happened to Clinton to justify anything that should or shouldn't happen to Trump.

Can you cite where Clinton was impeached for his affair with Lewinsky?

It's not "Whataboutism", it's precedent. And hypocrisy. And the rule of law. To set the standard that a president can commit multiple felonies (note: multiple felonies, not just an affair) and just have it shrugged off as unimportant is a terrible precedent.

Clinton should have been impeached. If it's proven that Trump has committed felonies, he should be impeached. To have the standard of "Well, this president is part of my tribe so I'm going to support him but this other president is not part of my tribe so we should hammer him into the ground" is a large part of what's wrong with the political system in this country.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:03 PM   #70
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,477
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
It's not "Whataboutism", it's precedent. And hypocrisy.
That's what people always hide their Whataboutism behind.

Quote:
Clinton should have been impeached.
Cool.

You are aware we're talking about Trump, not Clinton, right?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:17 PM   #71
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,151
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
And there it is right there. People are counting on this Impeachment thing to save the nation from Trump, ....
I'm counting on Congress to hold Trump accountable. We are not a nation aligned with dictators and despots. We are a nation aligned with the free world even if it is flawed.

We need to change the majority in both the House and the Senate to hold Trump accountable.

Now, depending on the crimes Mueller turns up, impeachment should be on the table. It certainly looks like the Trump campaign conspired with Russian agents. It looks like Trump has been running a money laundering criminal enterprise for decades.

But we don't have that definitive evidence yet. One can't decide until Mueller finishes his report.

Impeach him on the emoluments clause, maybe not, but at a minimum there should be Congressional hearings to hold him accountable.

What I think is Trump knows that the Mueller report is going to be bad. So what does he do? Attempt to end the investigation and risk an even bigger blue wave? Or hope the GOP holds the Congress and end the investigation after the midterms?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 8th July 2018 at 07:20 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:20 PM   #72
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's what people always hide their Whataboutism behind.
So precedent has no place in your concept of jurisprudence? Anyone pointing to the history of previous similar cases is engaging in "Whataboutism"?


Quote:
Cool.

You are aware we're talking about Trump, not Clinton, right?

Yes. You are aware that Clinton was President, right?
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:24 PM   #73
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,477
I just think people are seeing a Trump Impeachment as accomplishing a lot more than it would.

It wouldn't be a totally symbolic feel good victory, but it would be mostly one.

1. Impeaching Trump wouldn't put the fear of Impeachment into the other Republicans / Members of Government. You wouldn't have them running scared. If anything the surge of support from the side of the aisle that didn't support impeachment would probably work in their favor short term, make them look like the underdogs.

2. Because of #1 Pence or whoever winds up in charge wouldn't feel any real pressure to undue anything Trump did.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:26 PM   #74
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,477
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
So precedent has no place in your concept of jurisprudence? Anyone pointing to the history of previous similar cases is engaging in "Whataboutism"?
When it's the only argument, and the discussion of "precedent" and "hypocrisy" never advances beyond "But the other side did / got away with" then yes.

What legal precedent do you really think needs to be set? Impeachment is spelled out in the Constitution. That's peak "Precedent has been set."
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:27 PM   #75
Norman Alexander
Master Poster
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,942
Impeachment is just the process of bringing charges. It is not, by any means, making those charges stick. Pres. W. Clinton showed this.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:46 PM   #76
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
When it's the only argument, and the discussion of "precedent" and "hypocrisy" never advances beyond "But the other side did / got away with" then yes.

What legal precedent do you really think needs to be set? Impeachment is spelled out in the Constitution. That's peak "Precedent has been set."

You said yourself it's not about legal precedent. It's about politics. It's really a very simple question. If Clinton shouldn't have been impeached for committing multiple felonies, why should Trump (assuming, for the sake of argument that Mueller actually comes up with some evidence) be impeached?

My position is entirely consistent. Any president that commits multiple felonies should be impeached. The very least we should expect of presidents is be able to follow the law. It really shows how far this country has fallen into tribalism that this is considered a controversial opinion. "You really think the law should apply to both sides? What's wrong with you?" is pathetic as a political position.

Last edited by cmikes; 8th July 2018 at 07:48 PM. Reason: edited somewhat for clarity
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 07:54 PM   #77
Norman Alexander
Master Poster
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,942
Trump has never followed the law previously in his life. Why should he start now?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 08:00 PM   #78
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,151
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I just think people are seeing a Trump Impeachment as accomplishing a lot more than it would.

It wouldn't be a totally symbolic feel good victory, but it would be mostly one.

1. Impeaching Trump wouldn't put the fear of Impeachment into the other Republicans / Members of Government. ...
Let's not forget we are talking about serious crimes here. Nixon broke laws to spy on the Democrats. Trump may have (and looks like he did) encouraged and took advantage of a foreign country hacking into the DNC servers. And it looks like he was well aware and probably involved in (via Cambridge Analytica) the Russian troll farms and bots that flooded social media with false stories and fake accounts.

So this business of brushing this off as just a partisan attempt to overturn an election is bull ****. Let's keep some perspective.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 08:20 PM   #79
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,146
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
This is something I don't get about the "both sides do it" people. Is quality the only metric, or does quantity factor into deciding which side is actually worse?
Neither quantity or quality matters, only that both sides do it. They want to believe they are taking the fair/balanced position.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2018, 08:22 PM   #80
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,146
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Let's not forget we are talking about serious crimes here. Nixon broke laws to spy on the Democrats. Trump may have (and looks like he did) encouraged and took advantage of a foreign country hacking into the DNC servers. And it looks like he was well aware and probably involved in (via Cambridge Analytica) the Russian troll farms and bots that flooded social media with false stories and fake accounts.

So this business of brushing this off as just a partisan attempt to overturn an election is bull ****. Let's keep some perspective.
Even if Trump did not collude with Russia, he is clearly Putin's boy now. The only reason he isn't being impeached is because the GOP are loyal to him and his base.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.