Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 612131415161718 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 256

Thread: Simple question for all the Trump defenders and apologists:

  1. #226 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    28,534
    Thanks
    3,862
    Thanked 12,026 Times in 8,282 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 2,673 Times in 2,479 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The impeachment articles do NOT define what is an impeachable offense.
    The impeachment articles state what the offenses that trump was impeached for. They are statements by the only body allowed to define an offense as impeachable that the offense is impeachable.

  2. #227 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2020
    Posts
    28,534
    Thanks
    3,862
    Thanked 12,026 Times in 8,282 Posts
    Groans
    29
    Groaned 2,673 Times in 2,479 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    The Senate can't convict anyone. All they can do is remove the President from office.
    The House decides what is impeachable, and whether to impeach. The Senate decides whether to convict. The punishment for conviction is either removal from office, or removal from office, and permanent ban from office.

  3. #228 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello archives,

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Can a president solicit foreign election interference?

    Should an American president be able to ask for foreign interference in U.S. elections with impunity?

    In his now infamous phone call, Trump asked Zelensky to "do a favor," to "look into" Joe Biden. After the transcript of the call was released, Trump from the lawn of the White House said publicly that "China should start an investigation into the Bidens." Shortly there after, Trump added to "Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens."

    Now the only answer offered to that question is that Trump was supposedly looking to expose corruption, which is about as lame as it gets.

    For three years, nothing, but in an election year we are supposed to believe now Trump is focus on corruption, especially incredulous given that the only supposed corruption he is concerned with is that of a political rival. Never any problems with any of his autocratic buddies unscrupulous behavior yet still receiving our aid, not even exposed shadiness in his own Administration, but now the Ukraine bothers Trump. Did I mention lame?

    So tell us there Trumpkins, can a president solicit foreign election interference?
    The correct answer, of course, is no.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  4. #229 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Gone to the mattresses
    Posts
    22,458
    Thanks
    1,135
    Thanked 11,622 Times in 8,086 Posts
    Groans
    874
    Groaned 639 Times in 618 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Can a president solicit foreign election interference?

    Should an American president be able to ask for foreign interference in U.S. elections with impunity?

    In his now infamous phone call, Trump asked Zelensky to "do a favor," to "look into" Joe Biden. After the transcript of the call was released, Trump from the lawn of the White House said publicly that "China should start an investigation into the Bidens." Shortly there after, Trump added to "Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens."

    Now the only answer offered to that question is that Trump was supposedly looking to expose corruption, which is about as lame as it gets.

    For three years, nothing, but in an election year we are supposed to believe now Trump is focus on corruption, especially incredulous given that the only supposed corruption he is concerned with is that of a political rival. Never any problems with any of his autocratic buddies unscrupulous behavior yet still receiving our aid, not even exposed shadiness in his own Administration, but now the Ukraine bothers Trump. Did I mention lame?

    So tell us there Trumpkins, can a president solicit foreign election interference?
    If the Bidens are corrupt (and they are) how is it election interference?

    Even Biden admits it didn't look good that his inexperienced crack head son got a job paying $600,000/year. Was it white privilege that got him the job or that his daddy was VP and leading Ukrainian policy? If you choose to keep your head in the sand about that kind of corruption then so be it. Both parties do it. McConnell is one of the worst

    But to pretend that what Hunter Biden was doing was on the up and up is laughable on its face.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to canceled.2021.2 For This Post:

    Earl (01-25-2020), Truth Detector (01-29-2020)

  6. #230 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    The vote will be on the merits of the case presented by the Democrats (note that there are no Republicans presenting the case which is telling). It appears to be a totally partisan effort to remove a sitting president that the American people elected (which Nervous Nancy said should never happen). If the vote is for acquittal (exoneration) the significance is that the Democrats did not present a compelling case. If the vote is guilty, it means that the case was compelling.

    See how easy that was?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Earl For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-29-2020)

  8. #231 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    34,430
    Thanks
    23,941
    Thanked 19,095 Times in 13,072 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,908 Times in 5,169 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Every fiber of my being screams Trump is a crook.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.

  9. The Following User Groans At PoliTalker For This Awful Post:

    Earl (01-25-2020)

  10. #232 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Every fiber of my being screams Trump is a crook.
    Then stop screaming.

    He is not a crook.

    Are you?

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Earl For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-29-2020)

  12. #233 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    The founders included "high crimes and misdemeanors". We all know that high crimes should remove the president. But the lesser acts, like misdemeanors, shows they did not want a guy who is damaging the presidency and nation to stay in office if he were doing lesser acts.
    What crime?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Trump is obstructing on an industrial scale.
    Where? Congress is still functioning. The court system is still functioning.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Obstruction was part of what got Nixon booted.
    Nixon didn't get booted. He was never even impeached.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    No president ever thought of a blanket declaration of privilege.
    They all do. It is similar to husband-wife privilege. This goes back to English Common Law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    It is shocking to think a Prez would even say that,
    Nope. The concept goes all the way back to English Common Law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    but more so that Reds would defend it.
    I am not red, I assure you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    The constitution says "No person shall be CONVICTED without 2/3rds concurrence of the members present"
    All they can do is remove the President from office.

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    Earl (01-25-2020), Truth Detector (01-29-2020)

  14. #234 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Nowhere does the Constitution say it must be defined
    You can't charge someone with a 'crime' that cannot be defined!!! See Articles 1.$9, 2.$2, 3.$2, 3.$3, 4.$2, 4.$4, 5, and 6, and the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 105th, 13th, 14th, 15th, and 26th amendments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    but it does define it by saying "President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election."
    Interfering with a foreign government is not a crime, else Congress would be guilty of the same crime every time it declared a war, confirmed a treaty, or had ANYTHING to do with a foreign government!!
    The Ukraine has no capability to interfere with U.S. elections.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    [and this is further explained].
    What crime?
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Obstruction of Congress does not mean it has to totally stop functioning,
    It pretty much does, dude.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    but not giving them the documents and witnesses to complete their job obstructs them.
    The House does not have authority to demand documents and witnesses. They must use the court.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Richard Nixon did not stop Congress from functioning but not turning over the tapes and the articles of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee included "withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States
    Nixon was not impeached.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Again, The Constitution says otherwise. "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
    Circular argument fallacy. They do NOT have the authority to define an ex-post facto crime. They do NOT have the authority to impeach without specifying a crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The actual words in the Constitution are very different than your claims.
    No.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    In Article I, Section 3 regarding the Senate role in impeachment it says: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
    Contextomy fallacy. The Senate does NOT have the authority to do anything more than remove a President from office, and ONLY under specific circumstances.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    So, the Senate does convict.
    Only of the impeachment articles, and only to remove a president from office. They cannot throw him in jail or exact any other penalty. Contextomy fallacy.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    Earl (01-25-2020), Truth Detector (01-29-2020)

  16. #235 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    40,213
    Thanks
    14,475
    Thanked 23,679 Times in 16,485 Posts
    Groans
    23
    Groaned 585 Times in 561 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Every fiber of my being screams Trump is a crook.
    You are weak minded like that. Explains why you are a Democrat.

  17. #236 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Nixon was not impeached.
    I did not say Nixon was impeached. I said the House Judiciary Committed voted to impeach him (and the House would have followed suit if he had not resigned) for withholding documents and information.

    And all the other things you claim cannot or must be done (defining a crime, etc) have already been done when the president was impeached. The House does not have to go to court to subpoena--even the president's attorneys are not arguing that. They just claim Congress needed a resolution for the committees to subpoena.

  18. #237 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Only of the impeachment articles, and only to remove a president from office. They cannot throw him in jail or exact any other penalty. Contextomy fallacy.
    You are attempting to refute arguments I never made. Of course, the Senate conviction is only for impeachment articles, but you claimed they cannot convict. And I clearly said impeachment and conviction only allow two penalties, so the whole jail thing is never an argument I made.

    You said the Senate cannot convict and now you are admitting they can.

  19. #238 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I did not say Nixon was impeached.
    I said the House Judiciary Committed voted to impeach him (and the House would have followed suit if he had not resigned) for withholding documents and information.
    Yes you did. You also have claimed that he was impeached in the past. You also claim that Nixon was booted out of office.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    And all the other things you claim cannot or must be done (defining a crime, etc) have already been done when the president was impeached.
    What crime?
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The House does not have to go to court to subpoena--
    Yes they do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    even the president's attorneys are not arguing that.
    They HAVE been arguing that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    They just claim Congress needed a resolution for the committees to subpoena.
    The House is not Congress. Repetitious redefinition fallacy (RRF).

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-29-2020)

  21. #239 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You are attempting to refute arguments I never made.
    Liar. You did make them. You continue to make them from time to time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Of course, the Senate conviction is only for impeachment articles, but you claimed they cannot convict.
    Repetitious distortion and Contextomy fallacy. (RDCF)
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    And I clearly said impeachment and conviction only allow two penalties,
    Just one. Removal from office and barred from holding office in the future.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    so the whole jail thing is never an argument I made.
    Lie.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You said the Senate cannot convict and now you are admitting they can.
    RDCF.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Into the Night For This Post:

    Truth Detector (01-29-2020)

  23. #240 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Into the Night View Post
    Yes you did. You also have claimed that he was impeached in the past. You also claim that Nixon was booted out of office.
    You are confusing your posters. I never claimed Nixon was impeached or booted out of office. He would have been impeached and convicted if he had not resigned.

    The president's lawyer argued the House needed to issue a resolution to give the committee power to issue subpoenas. They never claimed they had to go to court.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-03-2019, 08:09 AM
  2. Trump flips out over simple question
    By FUCK THE POLICE in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-12-2018, 05:53 PM
  3. A simple question
    By Taichiliberal in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 11-14-2010, 08:43 PM
  4. One Simple Question
    By charver in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-03-2009, 05:29 AM
  5. Simple Question
    By Beefy in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 02-14-2008, 07:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •