Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 74
Thanks Tree16Thanks

Thread: Trump Impeachment Vote Shot Down

  1. #11
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,666
    Thanks
    26738

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Pureinheart View Post
    Trump impeachment vote shot down as majority of House Democrats join Republicans to kill resolution | The Independent





    Where do I start... unfreakingbelievable. For God's sake even Nancy Pelosi said to can it.
    Too early.

    When Republican legislators start calling for Trump to resign...then you know the Impeachment process is real.

  2. #12
    Veteran Member cpicturetaker12's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    23,872
    Thanks
    17297

    From
    Florida
    Well, DUH!!

  3. #13
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,666
    Thanks
    26738

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    He is not incompetent at all.

    You just don't like his policies, that is not incompetence.

    And now he is a child molester?

    lol

    Hint: Even child molesters can be competent at their jobs.
    I agree Trump is not incapable. He is very capable in doing the very menial things Trump wants done.

    Trump is in no why in a category of effective Presidents that do the hard things to make us a better Republic. Trumps is good in being Trump. ..and that is his limit.
    Last edited by DebateDrone; 7th December 2017 at 06:54 AM.
    Thanks from HadEnough2

  4. #14
    Veteran Member Southern Dad's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    32,877
    Thanks
    6844

    From
    A Month Away
    Impeachment is something that is supposed to be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. It supposed to be to remove a sitting President who violates the law from office. Not someone that you disagree with politically. We have elections for that. What the House Democrats who brought this did is make themselves look stupid. It's a political stunt to try and really get their name out there. Nancy Pelosi and the other House Democrats that voted against it understand that opening impeachment to trying to get rid of someone you don't like could backfire at a later date.

  5. #15
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,127
    Thanks
    15582

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    Impeachment is something that is supposed to be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. It supposed to be to remove a sitting President who violates the law from office. Not someone that you disagree with politically. We have elections for that. What the House Democrats who brought this did is make themselves look stupid. It's a political stunt to try and really get their name out there. Nancy Pelosi and the other House Democrats that voted against it understand that opening impeachment to trying to get rid of someone you don't like could backfire at a later date.
    The Founders actually talked about this at length, and Madison as usual is one of the best insights.

    It was initially proposed to enumerate exactly what you can be impeached for, let Congress decide what those things mean, and have those counts subject to judicial review. Instead they chose to use "misdemeanors" both to account for criminal offenses they could not envision AND to indicate that the president can, and if the 2/3 of the Senate agrees, ought to be removed if he's simply of such bad demeanor, so awful at his job that he is undermining the nation.

    It is a political decision among 2/3 of the Senate, which is a high enough standard, and it's not subject to judicial review. The House can decide that the president spoke at a ceremony out of turn, and if 2/3 of the Senate agrees that means he has to go, he has to go. It's up to them, and the consensus necessary guards against frivolity as it has.

  6. #16
    spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ʞɹɐp ǝɥʇ Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    17,105
    Thanks
    6963

    From
    i'm not real===
    It's a bad idea to have a vote like this prematurely. It helps to remove credibility later on.

    Stupid idea.
    Thanks from Blues63

  7. #17
    spɹɐʍʞɔɐq ʞɹɐp ǝɥʇ Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    17,105
    Thanks
    6963

    From
    i'm not real===
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
    Impeachment is something that is supposed to be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors. It supposed to be to remove a sitting President who violates the law from office. Not someone that you disagree with politically. We have elections for that. What the House Democrats who brought this did is make themselves look stupid. It's a political stunt to try and really get their name out there. Nancy Pelosi and the other House Democrats that voted against it understand that opening impeachment to trying to get rid of someone you don't like could backfire at a later date.
    It's never going to stop. Hillary was impeached before she was even elected.....in the eyes of the public anyway.

  8. #18
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,127
    Thanks
    15582

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzling Evidence View Post
    It's a bad idea to have a vote like this prematurely. It helps to remove credibility later on.

    Stupid idea.
    I agree. Whether it's based on criminal offenses or political misconduct, a thorough, bipartisan case ought to be prepared for each article of impeachment after an extensive hearings process. The Senate conducts a trial process (even if the Chief Justice presides strictly as a matter of ceremony, and has no real power in that setting) and they need things to review, should it get to that stage.

    However, it IS the choice of House members to introduce articles and it is the majority party's decision, in most instances, whether to vote on them. Paul Ryan chose to allow the vote both to embarrass the more cautious Democrats and to send a not-so-subtle reminder to Trump (though I doubt it was picked up on) that so long as he is Speaker, he has the power to advance an impeachment process.

  9. #19
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    43,788
    Thanks
    9082

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    The Founders actually talked about this at length, and Madison as usual is one of the best insights.

    It was initially proposed to enumerate exactly what you can be impeached for, let Congress decide what those things mean, and have those counts subject to judicial review. Instead they chose to use "misdemeanors" both to account for criminal offenses they could not envision AND to indicate that the president can, and if the 2/3 of the Senate agrees, ought to be removed if he's simply of such bad demeanor, so awful at his job that he is undermining the nation.

    It is a political decision among 2/3 of the Senate, which is a high enough standard, and it's not subject to judicial review. The House can decide that the president spoke at a ceremony out of turn, and if 2/3 of the Senate agrees that means he has to go, he has to go. It's up to them, and the consensus necessary guards against frivolity as it has.

    That is exactly what these Dumbass Dim POLITICIANS just tried to do.....remove a sitting President for purely political reasons. Namely, these asshole DIM POLITICIANS can’t accept the results of an election.

    PLEASE NOT THE ABOVE COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED AT DIM POLITICIANS, AND ARE NOT DIRECTED AT ANY PH MEMBER.

  10. #20
    Civis americanus borealis Singularity's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    24,127
    Thanks
    15582

    From
    Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    That is exactly what these Dumbass Dim POLITICIANS just tried to do.....remove a sitting President for purely political reasons. Namely, these asshole DIM POLITICIANS can’t accept the results of an election.
    If there is no hope at all of a 2/3 Senate consensus, absent clear and convincing evidence of presidential personal wrongdoing (either in a political or criminal sense), articles of impeachment are a waste of time and taxpayer money. Ryan should not have permitted the vote, except to make his own political statement, and I guess that's fair.

    I merely mean to argue that it's not necessary for the president to be a CRIMINAL to face removal from office. The Founders deliberately chose to make the decision entirely within Congress' hands, and not subject to judicial review. That means they get to decide what a "high crime or misdemeanor" is. Madison suggests in his writings that this is a criminal/political catch-all, an ultimate (though hard to acquire) check on anything the president fucks up.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Impeachment vote today on House floor
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 6th December 2017, 05:33 PM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15th June 2017, 12:34 PM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 2nd April 2017, 09:10 AM
  4. Kucinich to Force Impeachment Vote on the House Floor
    By Inkslinger in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 30th September 2007, 01:10 PM
  5. Telluride impeachment vote reaps storm
    By conservative in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11th August 2007, 10:28 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed