• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

John Harker

Knows things...
Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,346
Santa Destroy
What's the statute of limitations on impeachment? What's to stop them from waiting until the day after someone beats him in the General, and brings in articles of impeachment then, in the months before his term is over?

Even as a symbolic thing, it would be the * on his preaidency everyone is looking for anyway
 

GuessMyUserName

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
5,156
Toronto
Future Trump: "If what I did was so bad, why did they wait to impeach me? They're doing this now because the timing is more convenient for them, clearly it's just a political ploy."

Future GOP Presidents: "Trump did worse than this and was never impeached for it. The Democrats are overstepping, this is clearly political."

You see how this bites you in the ass down the road?
Yeap, this has been the case for the past two years now really. "Wait for the full report" was an acceptable excuse to kick the can down the road but now there's nowhere left to kick and leadership is still trying to move the goalposts to the election.

If Dems do nothing with how blatantly corrupt this administration is then congress is accepting that there are no checks and balances - win an election and you can do anything you want for your term.
 
Oct 31, 2017
4,333
Unknown
Nancy's making the right call. Proceed carefully and deliberately and don't give into immediate gratification bias and the desire for spectacle.

It follows the example that even in law enforcement there are procedures that need to be followed to make a conviction which take time even if a crime and the culprit are known.
 
Oct 29, 2017
5,354
As opposed to doing nothing and depressing your base?

This is what the do-nothings miss. Exactly how will Democrats get out the vote with enthusiasm if they go on record as the party that chose to not hold a criminal president accountable?

lol @ "Trump wants to be impeached"

That's a *Insert Bill Mitchell tweet* worthy take if I ever saw one.

Yeah, pelosi has cited this before and it only goes to show Trump has truly got in her head.
 

RailWays

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
15,665
Nancy's making the right call. Proceed carefully and deliberately and don't give into immediate gratification bias and the desire for spectacle.

It follows the example that even in law enforcement there are procedures that need to be followed to make a conviction which take time even if a crime and the culprit are known.
Except that the "procedure" here would be the impeachment inquiry, and leadership doesn't even want to get to that phase.
As far as I can tell, it's becoming increasing clear that there is no grand plan. They just want to punt the responsibility to voters in 2020.
 

SquirrelSr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,014
Reminder that Obama dropped talking about Russian interference because the turtle told him that he would call him a political hack taking down the Republican nominee during the election. And then when Obama talked about it later, the turtle told him that if it was so important why did he wait until after the election to talk about it.
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,243
New York City
Much better to bend over and take it...

Like I said, the president set by this will bite you harder in the ass then anything.

Also how are you that sure the findings unearthed in a impeachment won't hurt Drumpf?
Dems are demoralizing their base at every turn and laying the groundwork for Drumpfs re-elections.
You still haven't provided ANY reason why impeachment would hurt dems.

Oh i think findings would hurt trump plenty. I just am not convinced there will be much in the way of findings .. its a maybe like this whole situation. Impeachment is like the new Mueller report, i think keeping expectation in check is important.

I honestly dont know if impeachment would hurt or help dems because it is far more complex than just will it? wont it? A person can envision a scenario where impeachment proceedings happen knowing the senate wont remove office and the procedure lasts long enough for it to end right before election day where the dems fail to impeach and fail to nail trump on anything substantial. He proclaims victory and everyone eats it up.

Or impeachment hearings go on and despicable revelations are uncovered about trump that completely decimate him. The senate protects him and republicans are exposed as being even shittier shitbags than ever before. Happy day right?

It can go a dozen different ways.

If anyone tells you they know for sure whats going to happen is lying to you and themselves. The point is, because we don't know is the reason why we shouldnt jump to impeach until we have every advantage. And that means AOC, Warren, and everyone else asking "are we there yet?" maybe should be less sure of themselves when asking. There has to be a strategy.
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
Future Trump: "If what I did was so bad, why did they wait to impeach me? They're doing this now because the timing is more convenient for them, clearly it's just a political ploy."

Future GOP Presidents: "Trump did worse than this and was never impeached for it. The Democrats are overstepping, this is clearly political."

You see how this bites you in the ass down the road?

Seriously. Beltway brain cancer all up in this thread. Here's Trump and his base yesterday. Tell me again what we're worried about in terms of "incitement" or what Trump "might say" in regards to impeachment hearings being started (as if that should even fucking matter when the existential nightmare of our founding fathers has happened)

Vox: Trump's troubling response to "lock them up!" chants during his Pennsylvania rally

President Donald Trump's reelection rallies might have found version 2.0 of their familiar "lock her up!" chants: "Lock them up!"

With special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation mostly in the rearview mirror and William Barr installed as the protective attorney general Trump hoped Jeff Sessions would be, the president went on the attack during his speech Monday evening in Montoursville, Pennsylvania, reviving his baseless treason accusations against the FBI and Democrats.

"We caught 'em — they were spying," Trump said, referring to the counterintelligence investigation of his campaign that began in 2016 and followed normal procedures. "They were spying on our campaign. I'll tell you what — if that ever happened to the other side, this thing would've been over two years ago, and you know, it would have been treason. They would've called it treason. And that's what it is — it was treason. And it should never be allowed to happen to another president again. Ever, ever, ever."

Trump's accusation is transparently meritless, but that's beside the point. Heading into his 2020 reelection campaign, Trump — with help from Barr — is trying to establish a narrative that the entire investigation into his campaign's contacts with Russia stemmed from anti-Trump bias in the law enforcement and intelligence communities, not his campaign's secretive contacts with people in the Kremlin's orbit. Trump wants to portray himself as a victim and Obama-era officials as bad actors who had it out for him from the beginning.

Trump's audience seemed ready to get on board, cheering his accusations of treason and then breaking out in "lock them up!" chants. Trump basked in the chants for a moment before threatening to sic Barr on law enforcement officials who investigated him.

"Well, we have a great new attorney general who is going to give it a very fair look," Trump said.

[...]

LOCK THEM UP!

Get ready for more of this, except in the case where Dems sit on their asses hoping the electorate bails them out (worked out last time in 2016 right?), this message of "they wrongly pursued me and found shit and now we're going to send them to hell" is literally going to work with not only his base but the misinformed asshole "independents" and possibly uninformed Democrats too.

I'm not even going into how pissed off the Dem base will get. The Dem leaders themselves have been fracturing. And if you fool yourself into thinking that it won't be THE 2020 question asked to Dem nominees from now till election night further boosting that "Dems in disarray" meme the media loves, then you're a goddamn idiot.

I thought you fuckers would've learned after 8 years of Obama and 2016 but apparently not. Ya'll are completely fine getting dogwalked by McConnell and the GOP in the shadows, and I would be amused if me and my own and a ton of innocents weren't caught up in your fucking nonsense.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,239
Nancy's making the right call. Proceed carefully and deliberately and don't give into immediate gratification bias and the desire for spectacle.

It follows the example that even in law enforcement there are procedures that need to be followed to make a conviction which take time even if a crime and the culprit are known.
She's demonstrably not if you're remotely aware of the process.

The discussion isn't "why aren't we voting on impeachment articles tomorrow", it's about beginning impeachment hearings. There is a process for this, and Pelosi isn't saying we're going to follow the process but that she's not even going to allow the process to begin.
 

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,153
Yeah? So its a slam dunk right? Its really that simple. Just impeach the guy and we got all we need. Nothing can possibly backfire and everyone will cooperate to the fullest. Please.

The questionm is who looks the best on the other side. Dems or Republicans? It's a complicated answer and it is not as cut and dry as people think. That is the point here. Trump is leaving Dems with no option but to impeach at this point. It's obviously bait. Do we take it?

How is this anything but a no-brainer? Right now, Dems look weak as fuck, Trump and the GOP insist he's exonerated, which he basically is without impeachment, and Congress' authority is being shown to be toothless. And voters, like me, are wondering why we should keep voting if this is the kind of representation we receive.

There is no downside. Worst case scenario is right back to this moment. Take the fucking shot.
 

Elfforkusu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,098
Impeachment doesn't need to equal "get guy I don't like out of office". At its heart it's a way to investigate the truth when the executive branch can't or won't.

So frame it that way and fucking do it, Mueller gave as close to a referral as you're ever going to see.

(If it leads to kicking 45 out of office, great. But if not you can at least compell witnesses to testify)

That said, it gets harder every day that passes (post the report being released). The dems didn't have the courage to do this a month ago, why would they find it now?
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,243
New York City
I can only read the words you hit post on and the posters in this thread that you've positioned yourself as opposition to

I will clarify. I feel the top priority for democrats is ensuring that Trump is no longer president in 2020. I am unsure of the notion that starting impeachment proceedings at this moment and time would be beneficial to that goal and I only support impeachment if it is done in the interest of the 2020 election as a strategic move to gain leverage. I feel the institutions of this country are more at jeopardy by a continued trump residency than the precedents he has already set.

I think if dems choose not to impeach it is largely do to the notion that a failed impeachment could benefit him in an election year. I don't think its smart to dismiss this as a possibility.

If you want to know my position I think he should have been impeached last year. But there is a difference between what I want and what the best thing for the country is.
 

Sloth Guevara

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,331
Oh i think findings would hurt trump plenty. I just am not convinced there will be much in the way of findings .. its a maybe like this whole situation. Impeachment is like the new Mueller report, i think keeping expectation in check is important.

I honestly dont know if impeachment would hurt or help dems because it is far more complex than just will it? wont it? A person can envision a scenario where impeachment proceedings happen knowing the senate wont remove office and the procedure lasts long enough for it to end right before election day where the dems fail to impeach and fail to nail trump on anything substantial. He proclaims victory and everyone eats it up.

Or impeachment hearings go on and despicable revelations are uncovered about trump that completely decimate him. The senate protects him and republicans are exposed as being even shittier shitbags than ever before. Happy day right?

It can go a dozen different ways.

If anyone tells you they know for sure whats going to happen is lying to you and themselves. The point is, because we don't know is the reason why we shouldnt jump to impeach until we have every advantage. And that means AOC, Warren, and everyone else asking "are we there yet?" maybe should be less sure of themselves when asking. There has to be a strategy.


Impeachment can go several several ways.
Just like not impeaching.

Tbh I would feel better about this strategy if you or anyone else could inform us of what these other supposedly advantages are?
I mean if YOU or NanCe could point to any idea of a strategy perhaps you could convince people.
But you can't because you don't.
You'd rather sit on your hands.
 

Deleted member 2145

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
29,223
I will clarify. I feel the top priority for democrats is ensuring that Trump is no longer president in 2020. I am unsure of the notion that starting impeachment proceedings at this moment and time would be beneficial to that goal and I only support impeachment if it is done in the interest of the 2020 election as a strategic move to gain leverage. I feel the institutions of this country are more at jeopardy by a continued trump residency than the precedents he has already set.

I think if dems choose not to impeach it is largely do to the notion that a failed impeachment could benefit him in an election year. I don't think its smart to dismiss this as a possibility.

If you want to know my position I think he should have been impeached last year. But there is a difference between what I want and what the best thing for the country is.

you know what's doing significant damage to the institutions of our country? kicking the can down the road while we have an administration that can do whatever the fuck it wants

also


this isn't reflected in your many posts challenging others in this thread

also also

If you want to know my position I think he should have been impeached last year

when you spend so much time and effort arguing the opposite you saying that's your position doesn't really matter. like I said before I and others can only read what you hit post on and you're doing a lot of posting about how dems should not get the impeachment process started
 

Damerman

Banned
Jun 9, 2018
850
It's getting crazy because McGan skipped the hearing and they are at a deadlock with muller for a testimony.
 

Deleted member 36543

User requested account closure
Banned
Dec 20, 2017
1,355
Reminder that Obama dropped talking about Russian interference because the turtle told him that he would call him a political hack taking down the Republican nominee during the election. And then when Obama talked about it later, the turtle told him that if it was so important why did he wait until after the election to talk about it.
Yup there it is. The GOP will throw it back in their face if they dont start the process of impeachment.
 
Oct 31, 2017
4,333
Unknown
That sounds simple enough to do but if that was all that was considered it would be negligent of the potential fallouts. Once something like this is engaged there would be outcomes that would have to be dealt with.

I'm still with Nancy on this. She's proven herself to be politically astute. Use the tools at hand, get people focusing on fostering the desire for impeachment and if things can be advanced to the level of impeachment inquiry then do so. Kairos.
 

RailWays

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
15,665
It's getting crazy because McGan skipped the hearing and they are at a deadlock with muller for a testimony.
Not only that, but after McGahn blew them off they didn't even opt to hold a contempt vote. Future parties served with subpoenas will follow suit, because they now know there won't be any consequences.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,239
If you want to know my position I think he should have been impeached last year. But there is a difference between what I want and what the best thing for the country is.

This is illuminating insofar as it explains your grasp of the process, since this was only an option that opened up this January.

You're sure that there's a good reason to roll over and do nothing about Trump, and your preference was for an option that was impossible. That says quite a bit, whether you intended it or not.

That sounds simple enough to do but if that was all that was considered it would be negligent of the potential fallouts. Once something like this is engaged there would be outcomes that would have to be dealt with.

I'm still with Nancy on this. She's proven herself to be politically astute. Use the tools at hand, get people focusing on fostering the desire for impeachment and if things can be advanced to the level of impeachment inquiry then do so. Kairos.

You're giving Pelosi a lot of undeserved credit here. Her position has been clear, she wants to draw a giant line against impeaching. She's not gathering support, trying to strengthen the position so that it has stronger impetus behind it. She wants to take it off the table, to make Democrats stop talking about it, and pretend that it's not an option.
 

prophetvx

Member
Nov 28, 2017
5,329
Future Trump: "If what I did was so bad, why did they wait to impeach me? They're doing this now because the timing is more convenient for them, clearly it's just a political ploy."

Future GOP Presidents: "Trump did worse than this and was never impeached for it. The Democrats are overstepping, this is clearly political."

You see how this bites you in the ass down the road?
Conversely, they impeach Trump, fail to get the votes and you still get a GOP talking point of "See, Trump did far worse and was never convicted".

Impeachment as a process by its very definition is a political process. High crimes and misdemeanors is extremely vague as a legal definition, and you have politicians voting on the process.

It's a lose-lose situation. He absolutely will not be convicted by the senate, people unfamiliar with the process will perceive it as a proclamation of his innocence (they managed to do this after a very damaging Mueller report) and it could very well give more votes to the GOP. Clinton's popularity was boosted after proceedings, albeit for a non-event.

It is a path that should be entered with extreme caution, principle is irrelevant if it grants him another 4 years in power which will allow him to continue stacking the supreme court and setting the country back decades in terms of foreign diplomacy. He should be impeached but that doesn't mean it's the right move.
 

Double 0

Member
Nov 5, 2017
7,430
I think both sides are wrong.

The Trump admin have done hundreds of horrible things even outside of Mueller. Impeachable and easily provable.

Don't make it about Mueller. If you are gonna impeach, make it about every horrible thing he has done, and don't hesitate
 

Powdered Egg

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
17,070
Reminder that Obama dropped talking about Russian interference because the turtle told him that he would call him a political hack taking down the Republican nominee during the election. And then when Obama talked about it later, the turtle told him that if it was so important why did he wait until after the election to talk about it.
That is 6-D chess by Turtle Man.
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,243
New York City
you know what's doing significant damage to the institutions of our country? kicking the can down the road while we have an administration that can do whatever the fuck it wants
Noone is kicking the can. Dems have called for documents and testimony the Trump Administration has stonewalled. Dems are trying to get Mueller in for testimony. It's almost like they are building a case.

this isn't reflected in your many posts challenging others in this thread
Yes it is. I have never said Dems shoudl not impeach I have always said it is a risk to impeach.. which it is. There is plenty that we can benefit if we impeach. My gripe is with people feeling that push back against impeachment is 100% unwarranted. It is rediculous to think that Pelosi doesnt want to impeach Trump. She does. If she is resisting its because she doesnt feel its the smartest move. Does this make her correct? Absolutly not, scrutinize away. But the talk of impeachment is recent it didnt start with trump coming to office. The frusteration for lack of action is a reaction to the president not because there actually hasn't been action. That's perposterous.

when you spend so much time and effort arguing the opposite you saying that's your position doesn't really matter. like I said before I and others can only read what you hit post on and you're doing a lot of posting about how dems should not get the impeachment process started

In almost all of my posts I allude to if dems impeach they need to do so with intent to come out on top in the face of failure. Where in that does it say dont do it guys?
 

Clefargle

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,120
Limburg
Trump in 2020:

Fake news deep state Witch Hunt False Flag Angry crooked Dems and Hillary spying....(same shit he always says)

McConnel in 2021:

If democrats thought trump deserved impeachment, why didn't they do anything until now?
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,243
New York City
This is illuminating insofar as it explains your grasp of the process, since this was only an option that opened up this January.

It actually explains I was perfectly aware of the process seeing as I said wanting something is different form having it or doing it. Whats best for the country is to succeed in what you are trying to do not posture because you have conviction.

You're sure that there's a good reason to roll over and do nothing about Trump, and your preference was for an option that was impossible. That says quite a bit, whether you intended it or not.

wut?

I think whats illuminating is this caricature you've invented for yourself to argue with.
 

Surfinn

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,590
USA
It actually explains I was perfectly aware of the process seeing as I said wanting something is different form having it or doing it. Whats best for the country is to succeed in what you are trying to do not posture because you have conviction.



wut?

I think whats illuminating is this caricature you've invented for yourself to argue with.
That's rich, fresh off your description of people calling for Trump's impeachment from dems:
It is childish. The equivalent of a 5 year old upset that he didn't get enough time on the monkey bars at school..
 
Last edited:

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,243
New York City
That's rich, coming from your description of people calling for Trump's impeachment from dems:

If you want impeachment now now now. With disregard to the possibility of gaining more leverage and setting more precinct for it. Then you have no interest in the effectiveness of it and just want what you want.. like a child.

You sure are harping on that a lot. Wtf is the point?
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
If anyone tells you they know for sure whats going to happen is lying to you and themselves. The point is, because we don't know is the reason why we shouldnt jump to impeach until we have every advantage. And that means AOC, Warren, and everyone else asking "are we there yet?" maybe should be less sure of themselves when asking. There has to be a strategy.

We will never have every advantage. If that's your criteria then we can never move to impeach. And if Trump wins in 2020 we have lost our shot for good, we will be stuck with him for 4 more years. The American public won't take impeachment seriously after 2020 because it is too obviously political reprisal, and we will never have 2/3 of the Senate vote to impeach Donald Trump.

I think it might already be too late. Pelosi should have started impeachment proceedings as soon as the Mueller report dropped. That was why we showed out for Dems in 2018, and she fucking blew it. There's no urgency from the Democratic establishment. They are terrified and Trump knows it. He is emboldened by their lack of action.
 

Surfinn

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,590
USA
If you want impeachment now now now. With disregard to the possibility of gaining more leverage and setting more precinct for it. Then you have no interest in the effectiveness of it and just want what you want.. like a child.

You sure are harping on that a lot. Wtf is the point?
When will it be enough for you, in terms of having enough leverage? What's the cutoff? There's enough there now, Mueller's report is out, even if redacted.. there are ten instances where Trump obstructed justice. AOC and Warren both agree that there's more than enough for impeachment, combined with every other piece of evidence/info we have that's out in the open.

They (ERA users) take the same position as the people you call children throwing a tantrum on a playground, so, are they also fitting into your description above? Or does it just suit your narrative better when it's a bunch of no names on an internet forum?

You have dodged this question at least a couple times now.
 

Sloth Guevara

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,331
If you want impeachment now now now. With disregard to the possibility of gaining more leverage and setting more precinct for it. Then you have no interest in the effectiveness of it and just want what you want.. like a child.

You sure are harping on that a lot. Wtf is the point?

Again, what.the.fuck.should.we.wait.for?
 

Freakzilla

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
5,710
If you want impeachment now now now. With disregard to the possibility of gaining more leverage and setting more precinct for it. Then you have no interest in the effectiveness of it and just want what you want.. like a child.

You sure are harping on that a lot. Wtf is the point?

Nobody is foolish enough to think that there's anyway to get the votes for impeachment but doing nothing tells the world no one will try to stop you if you are a goddamn criminal. There's is no right time to proceed with impeachment, it's nothing beyond a symbol with the legislative body we have and Dems have to move forward until we cannot anymore. They have to show the world they are trying but being blocked.
 

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,153
If you want impeachment now now now. With disregard to the possibility of gaining more leverage and setting more precinct for it. Then you have no interest in the effectiveness of it and just want what you want.. like a child.

You sure are harping on that a lot. Wtf is the point?

There's a mountain of evidence. How much more could you possibly want?

We have the results of a 2 year investigation, dozens of investigative reports from respected media outlets on a huge range of topics meriting further investigation, violations of the Emoluments Clause committed brazenly in the open, numerous counts of obstruction also committed openly, and admitted to (I mean, bragged about) on TV and on Twitter. And that mountain is being added to on an almost daily basis.

No one is "childishly" arguing for impeachment "because they want it now now now". People want impeachment for one reason: because Trump has committed so many impeachable offenses.
 

Deleted member 3010

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,974
Jesus the moderate dems are fucking scum.

I haven't seen one fucking shred of evidence that an impeachment of Trump will "rally" his base, his base is fucking rallied.
They will rally over a fucking brown looking potato.

You fuckers opposing impeachment are indeed further helping a racist fascist.
I mean you think trump will be LESS brazen and do less crimes against the US system if the dems just let him play at will?

What the fuck are you people on?!
I don't get it either.

To me if the senate brushes off the impeachment initiatives it'll just make them complicit and further push the image that republicans are scum. They'll be happy to do it now but I think history will remember it in an unflattering way long term, which will inevitably damage them.
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,243
New York City
We will never have every advantage. If that's your criteria then we can never move to impeach. And if Trump wins in 2020 we have lost our shot for good, we will be stuck with him for 4 more years. The American public won't take impeachment seriously after 2020 because it is too obviously political reprisal, and we will never have 2/3 of the Senate vote to impeach Donald Trump.

I think it might already be too late. Pelosi should have started impeachment proceedings as soon as the Mueller report dropped. That was why we showed out for Dems in 2018, and she fucking blew it. There's no urgency from the Democratic establishment. They are terrified and Trump knows it. He is emboldened by their lack of action.
There is certainly damage that can be had by dragging you feet for too long but, if the hearing and the subpeonas really are laying the groundwork for impeachment then as far as governemt goes I think the process is going fairly quickly. I argue that the only thing that can count as urgency is declairation that they are going ahead with impeachment. In that respect maybe that is what counts over everything else. I feel its possible that if it being held off til after mueller testifies (or not) or after every subpeona dems want to serve ha sbeen served it could be effective in selling a narrative which is also valuable.
When will it be enough for you, in terms of having enough leverage? What's the cutoff? There's enough there now, Mueller's report is out, even if redacted.. there are ten instances where Trump obstructed justice. AOC and Warren both agree that there's more than enough for impeachment, combined with every other piece of evidence/info we have that's out in the open.

They (ERA users) take the same position as the people you call children throwing a tantrum on a playground, so, are they also fitting into your description above? Or does it just suit your narrative better when it's a bunch of no names on an internet forum?

You have dodged this question at least a couple times now.

It's hard to quantify what would be enough. If the job is to be done it has to be done right. To me, amassing as much evidence as possible for overwhelming case against trump would be the option I would choose. Even if we have enough right now Meullers testimony could be very valuable. Again we have to go into this knowing actual impeachment is not likely so this would only serve to create a case to the people and not congress. Getting this info is a part of the impeachment process but its also important to have public opinion on your side. As soon as Dems announce they are gong for impeachment it becomes a political power-play and we have to be prepared for it to be twisted against us.

I'd say yes AOC and Warren are acting mentally and emotionally immature by hastily calling for impeachment short of Mueller's possible testimony and other possible revelations that could strenthen a case for impeachment. And i think peopel on this board frusterated with the process without the consideration the circumstances around it exhibit behavior similar to children reacting to being treated unfaily at a playground. Is there a problem with that?
Again, what.the.fuck.should.we.wait.for?

Stuff


It's something not nothing. It's not like we are going to get much from them anyway. But is there a difference of impeachment before trump stops them from testifying or after?
 

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,243
New York City
No one is "childishly" arguing for impeachment "because they want it now now now". People want impeachment for one reason: because Trump has committed so many impeachable offenses.

Is there anyone that would argue that him being impeached, which would require cooperation from a GOP held senate, is an actual possibility? I don't think there are many in this thread. So ill assume you don't think he will either. Now that we have established that him being impeached is not really on the table. Why would a person want him to be impeached for this reason?
People want impeachment for one reason: because Trump has committed so many impeachable offenses.
The reason has been shifted. It is no longer about actually achieving impeachment. It now serves another purpose. But everyone is still clinging to the notion that its 'their job" a job they cannot do. It is absolutely a childish mentality.

Impeaching this president is a political play. And we need to treat it like it is.
 

Deleted member 12224

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
6,113
Is there anyone that would argue that him being impeached, which would require cooperation from a GOP held senate, is an actual possibility? I don't think there are many in this thread. So ill assume you don't think he will either. Now that we have established that him being impeached is not really on the table. Why would a person want him to be impeached for this reason?

The reason has been shifted. It is no longer about actually achieving impeachment. It now serves another purpose. But everyone is still clinging to the notion that its 'their job" a job they cannot do. It is absolutely a childish mentality.

Impeaching this president is a political play. And we need to treat it like it is.
Your repeated used of the word childish, condescendingly positioning yourself as an adult in the room, reveals a tragically erroneous, overly inflated assessment of your position here and the intelligence you claim to display with that chiding of us.
 
Nov 2, 2017
2,239
Is there anyone that would argue that him being impeached, which would require cooperation from a GOP held senate, is an actual possibility?

I'll get back to your earlier reply a little later, but this goes back to understanding of the process.

Cooperation with the Senate is not required for impeachment. The Senate has no role in the impeachment process. Impeachment is a process that the House persues alone.

Once someone has been impeached, the Senate holds a trial on the impeachment charges and has a role in whether the person impeached is to be removed from office. This doesn't retroactively un-impeach someone if the Senate does not convict.

Impeachment is an absolutely viable possibility that the Senate has no role in and cannot obstruct outside of persuasion.
 
Last edited:

Version 3.0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,153
Is there anyone that would argue that him being impeached, which would require cooperation from a GOP held senate, is an actual possibility? I don't think there are many in this thread. So ill assume you don't think he will either. Now that we have established that him being impeached is not really on the table. Why would a person want him to be impeached for this reason?

The reason has been shifted. It is no longer about actually achieving impeachment. It now serves another purpose. But everyone is still clinging to the notion that its 'their job" a job they cannot do. It is absolutely a childish mentality.

Impeaching this president is a political play. And we need to treat it like it is.

You're not even using the term "impeach" correctly. And you claim to be the adult in this conversation? Please stop with the "childish" insults. It might make you feel superior, but you're kidding yourself if you think anyone else views it that way.

Aside from that, impeachment is not a "political play" any more than an arrest or indictment is. Crimes have been committed. This is the process that follows. Failing to indict for a crime with this much evidence is absurd. Yes, we all understand that the jury / Senate will not convict (note the proper term here). Nevertheless, the nation needs to see the process play out, as the evidence presented will be key in determining the future of the accused, President Trump, and the future of the senators as well.

I would prefer that it be GOP members of Congress who are seen failing to do their duty in the face of this overwhelming evidence, not Democrats whom we have voted into office in large part to specifically for this purpose.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,761
Overwhelming evidence is only overwhelming if more than 50% of the populace agrees with it, and unfortunately that's not the case. At least that's not where I've heard the polling is.
 

makonero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,653
What is Pelosi supposed to do when Democrats don't have the Senate? An impeachment is very risky to do at this point without very strong evidence.
It is more risky to do nothing in the face of TEN crimes outlined by Mueller's report. It is their duty to impeach, not look at polls and consider their best political options
 

Icemonk191

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,814
What if we start the impeachment process and then aliens come down to earth with the cure to cancer but they won't give it to us because we started the impeachment process on Trump?

WHAT THEN?!?
 

floridaguy954

Member
Oct 29, 2017
3,631
Jesus the moderate dems are fucking scum.

I haven't seen one fucking shred of evidence that an impeachment of Trump will "rally" his base, his base is fucking rallied.
They will rally over a fucking brown looking potato.

You fuckers opposing impeachment are indeed further helping a racist fascist.
I mean you think trump will be LESS brazen and do less crimes against the US system if the dems just let him play at will?

What the fuck are you people on?!
Agreed 100%. These fucking moderate democrats are so fucking bitch-made but you got people in here defending how soft and scared they are.

Unfortunately I'm not surprised by this since people love the status quo so much.
 

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634
What is Pelosi supposed to do when Democrats don't have the Senate? An impeachment is very risky to do at this point without very strong evidence.

Not doing anything is an even bigger risk, as it allows for (or confirms that) a sitting President can commit multiple impeachable offenses alongside a completely combative administration and they will get away with it.

Also, there is more than enough "strong evidence". Ten counts of Obstruction of Justice is more than enough, and he's done worse than that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.