Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by mchammer, Sep 24, 2019.
No length about it - Trump lost.
Maybe you can list a few? There are lots of threads and words.
Surely it can't be that difficult for you to list some
Just for the sake of Hornfans discussion, If Biden were to pardon Trump for his impeachment offense of incitement in order to create a clean slate to proceed in his first 100 day plans which groups would object and why?
- The Far-left (e.g. AOC crowd) would scream bloody murder. They are the corollary to the "lock her up" chants from Trump supporters.
- Moderate D's/liberals generally dislike Trump and simply want to see Trump held accountable would have a modicum of disdain for any pardon. Then again, acceptance of a pardon means acceptance of guilt per SCOUTUS prior rulings so that might be enough for a subset of this crowd. Additionally, acceptance of that pardon would kill any potential political office aspirations from Trump.
- Independents just want to move on and this will allow them to pour water on the impeachment talk.
- Moderate Republicans, looking for Impeachment as a remedy to purge the extremists from their party. Would a pardon be enough to effectively put Trump in a box and remove his hold on the party?
- Extreme R's/conservatives. These are the people that enabled Trump for 4 years. They supported the assault and now make excuses and divert accountability conversations.
This is the false narrative being vomited on the American people. Nobody was supportive of the assault except for the ones who actually did it. And I am guessing, many within that group in the capitol wish they had never entered.
Be careful putting people is sorted boxes, SH. I'm a Conservative - and I absolutely do not support the assault, and I'm not making excuses. Biden won the election - I don't like it, but it's fact. I'm ready to move on - and support the GOP in finding principled conservatives to run for office up and down future ballots.
None of the groups are monolithic but rather logical groupings based primarily on the political spectrum. The operating principle was extreme R's/Conservatives.
In my head I debated putting "" around conservatives as I don't think the Trump supporters fit that descriptor any more than they fit being called "patriots". They've bastardized these terms to be void of meaning. They have become slogans that sound good and are simply used to justify rancor and division.
And the irony is that your post shows that you seek to actively keep that divide alive and well...McCarthy would be proud of you.
How would you answer PecosBill's question?
@Horn6721 ,I explained it here.
Can someone post the video of Trump telling thousands to go to the Capitol to exert pressure on the VP and (R) congressman to take lawless actions to get electoral votes tossed out?
If he said that, and that is basis for censure and/or impeachment, that video must be easy to find. And if that video exists and he said those things, then yes, that is not what he should have said.
Actually this is an interesting scenario. I would say it would look really bizarre for then same party to both impeach Trump and then pardon him. Does a POTUS even have the authority to pardon in the case of impeachment of a former POTUS? I suspect not since this is not a criminal trial in the judiciary.
Let's all discuss VY coming back for his final year of eligibility. That is more likely to happen than Biden pardoning Trump. Remember, he wants to punch Trump in the mouth, which of course, the media scolded him for saying.
What's that? No scolding? Okay.
A pardon wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. It would protect Trump from a criminal incitement charge, but no serious authority thinks he's in real legal jeopardy for that. It doesn't protect him from a Senate trial.
Politically, it wouldn't make much sense either. It would enrage his party's base to no end, and they'd never forgive him. I think moderates and independents would be indifferent. Trump supporters would mildly appreciate it but nowhere near enough to consider voting for Biden. That's pretty much out of the question.
I didn't watch his speech. I read the transcript.
Same here, read it. Don't see where he told people to do those things. He said "fight" a lot. If anyone believes he meant to go and physically fight people, well you would have to be a lame brain to think that.
I know that. That's why I defended Trump on the incitement allegation.
In your post that you re-posted above, in section 1 you say, as a matter of law, he did not incite. In section 2, you say he incited thousands to exert pressure to have lawless actions by Congress.
I say he didn't incite either way. At this point, I guess it is subjective. I don't see how any self-respecting Republican, I'm not sure if you are Republican, could think he should actually be censured for that rally speech or for "fighting" the results of the election.
So Deez there have been milions who have attended Trump rallies in 5 years. Can you cite one rally where violence and destruction happened? His speeches were just as passionate at the last one
Millions have peacefully attended his rallies and millions attended tea party rallies before that. No destruction, no burning of businesses.
Yet you decide Trump incited the violence that we now know was preplanned and blm/antifa was heavily involved?
It looks like you let your personal dislike of his persona influence your view of what actually happened.
That is sad.
Next you will be saying the election was transparent and totally fair
Ironically, I believe that's part of the reason that this riot was able to happen. Trump rallies have been very peaceful for the most part. Right or wrong, I don't believe the Capitol police expected that a riot was a possibility.
Honestly, I'm too tired to regurgitate everything I've already said. I've explained my rationale based on what he has said the last two months as well as on the day of the riot. I've explained the distinction between criminal incitement and an impeachable offense. You may not agree with it, and that's fine. You can choose to divert attention to other bad things Democrats have done or come up with other reasons to let it slide. That's partisan politics nowadays, but I'm not willing to do that.
As there is now proof the violence was preplanned with plenty of blm-antifa involvement.
It does NOT excuse the Trump supporters who also rushed into the Capitol.Trump did not incite this
Maybe you didn't say it. I'm too tired to look.
I have seen posters on here saying Trump should not have been impeached, and you did say that. But then they have said he should be censured. Again, apologies if you didn't say that. I was merely asking, in general, if people were saying that because they feel he incited the violence or if it was other perceived wrongs he did.
High crimes and misdemeanors means whatever the voting Senators think it means. The term is so vague that it defies precision. I don’t see how a conviction could be judicially reviewed on the grounds of factual insufficiency
Where have you been for the last 15 years?
If enciting an insurrection does not count then
Just think how bad inciting would be!
OK, my bad. But my point is true.
So is mine.
He would be the same age Biden is. There's no reason to assume he wouldn't run.
As I've said, he didn't command a mob to attack, and as a matter of law, he didn't incite. However, as I've explained previously, he knowingly pushed false allegations and told people that they have no recourse but to push Congress and the VP to do something illegal, leaving violence as the only recourse if they don't. It's not incitement, but it's bad enough to shitcan him from national politics.
I didn't see angry mobs ready to storm the Capitol over Russia. The BLM riots were bad, but they were largely led by activists, not politicians. I'm not saying they were more morally defensible. They weren't.
Who else should be punished? There's only one president.
I'm not suggesting that. Trump isn't criminally responsible for what happened. However, he is a proximate cause for it, and what he did shouldn't be normalized. It should be condemned and removed from politics.
That may be true, but it has no bearing on whether or not he should be impeached.
It's definitely a story, but I wouldn't say it's the "real story." Ultimately, there shouldn't have been an attack on the Capitol to cause this to even be an issue.
I'll say what I said in 1999. Censure is a cop-out. It has no legal significance and is pretty pointless coming from the only institution with the power to actually do something.
Is impeachment driven by politics? Of course. An abuse? Not necessarily. The Johnson impeachment was an abuse. I'll give you that one. I notice you left out Nixon, who would have been impeached had he not resigned before the process could be completed. I don't think that was abuse. Bill Clinton committed a felony to corrupt a civil trial that had been green-lit by the US Supreme Court. Impeaching him for doing that was not an abuse. The first Trump impeachment failed for lack of evidence, but I wouldn't call it an abuse. What was abusive about it?
I agree. However, a lot of the hate against him is pointlessly self-earned. I'm not talking about hate from media and Democrats, which would have existed for any Republican president. I'm talking about hate from the public.
I agree. However, there's an implication that this makes Trump's **** stink less. It doesn't.