[POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It?

[Spendulus]

You know how the Democrats bitch and whine when the Rupublicans do something with a Majority without giving a shit about what the Democrats think?  (Merrick Garland for example.)

That's what you guys sound like right now.

Don't worry, you'll get to hear them bitching again as soon as the impeachment ball is in the Senates court.

This isn't just "something", this is an attempt to unseat a sitting duly elected president. I believe you understand the gravity of this and are simply being disingenuous ....

It does look that way. The thing is, these guys have publicly advocated impeaching Trump since the very first day he was in office, and they really didn't care if there were or were not valid reasons for doing so. And they've been upfront about it, not hiding it at all.

[TECSHARE]

I mean, refusing to even hold a hearing for the guy the president nominated for the Supreme Court isn't just "something" either.  Some would argue it would have a greater affect on the Country than any president.

One party does everything they can to make something happen, and the other does everything they can to stop them.  Both sides are going to do whatever they can to make the other side look as bad as possible.
If Clinton won and the GOP were trying to impeach her using the same plays that Pelosi is using, would you really be like "wait a minute, that's not fair!  The Dems should be able to subpoena whoever they want, even if they don't have control of the House!"  Of course not.

It would be foolish to allow the Republicans to subpoena whoever they want.  They'd use it to keep the Dems from controlling the pace of the hearings, which is a huge advantage for them.  

You aren't really surprised the Democrats are keeping them on such a short leash, are you?


Had a big project to finish past couple weeks, that's why I haven't been active.

Kavanaugh was already vetted. Second of all I am amazed you think bringing that up is supporting your argument when the whole thing ended up having ZERO substantiation behind it whatsoever. You keep pretending like the democrats subverting the law and due process is just how its done and is a virtue. All they are doing is splitting the nation in half with their lawless efforts to subvert the vote of the people to try to take back power at any cost.

When Clinton was impeached he was allowed to defend himself including being able to call his own witnesses, make his own subpoenas, and introduce their own evidence. This isn't due process, this is a fraud, and the fact that you try to justify it shows me you would rather this country be ruled by lawless totalitarianism than by rule of law. Who ever heard of the accused being able to introduce evidence to defend themselves right? What is justice is the accusers totally defining everything and anything introduced. Now THAT is due process! Who gives a fuck if it leads to civil war right? What counts is Trump is removed. Fuck the will of the people, you need to win at all costs.

You are here now, and still quite silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue. Not like facts matter, just shift the topic to the next accusation and pretend like this total disregard for the rule of law, due process, and precedent is just always how it has been done. All you have to do is believe and magically it becomes true!

[TwitchySeal]

You know how the Democrats bitch and whine when the Rupublicans do something with a Majority without giving a shit about what the Democrats think?  (Merrick Garland for example.)

That's what you guys sound like right now.

Don't worry, you'll get to hear them bitching again as soon as the impeachment ball is in the Senates court.

This isn't just "something", this is an attempt to unseat a sitting duly elected president. I believe you understand the gravity of this and are simply being disingenuous ....

It does look that way. The thing is, these guys have publicly advocated impeaching Trump since the very first day he was in office, and they really didn't care if there were or were not valid reasons for doing so. And they've been upfront about it, not hiding it at all.

The reason it took almost 10 months for them to have these impeachment hearings is because not enough democrats supported it.

I'm one of those people that think Trump has at least 'deserved' to be impeached since not too far into his presidency.  Like most people who agreed with me at the time, I believed my reasons were valid.  Just because you believe they are not valid, does not mean I don't care whether or not they are valid.  It just means have a different opinion on what valid is.

[TECSHARE]

The reason it took almost 10 months for them to have these impeachment hearings is because not enough democrats supported it.

I'm one of those people that think Trump has at least 'deserved' to be impeached since not too far into his presidency.  Like most people who agreed with me at the time, I believed my reasons were valid.  Just because you believe they are not valid, does not mean I don't care whether or not they are valid.  It just means have a different opinion on what valid is.

Opinions are great. Where are the facts?

[TwitchySeal]

You are here now, and still quite silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue. Not like facts matter, just shift the topic to the next accusation and pretend like this total disregard for the rule of law, due process, and precedent is just always how it has been done. All you have to do is believe and magically it becomes true!

I'm totally fine with not allowing the GOP to have the power to subpoena whoever they want.  It would be foolish to give them the power.  They'd use it to delay, muddy the waters, and whatever other political moves they come up with.  And I wouldn't fault them for doing that.  There's also no chance in hell they'd give the democrats the same power if the roles were reversed. 

Remember, this is not the trial.  We're just deciding whether or not there should be a trial.  We don't do special prosecutors anymore.  The house will lay out the prosecution and then send it to the senate where a few of them will serve as the actual prosecutors, and the president will have every chance to defend himself.

[TECSHARE]

You are here now, and still quite silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue. Not like facts matter, just shift the topic to the next accusation and pretend like this total disregard for the rule of law, due process, and precedent is just always how it has been done. All you have to do is believe and magically it becomes true!

I'm totally fine with not allowing the GOP to have the power to subpoena whoever they want.  It would be foolish to give them the power.  They'd use it to delay, muddy the waters, and whatever other political moves they come up with.  And I wouldn't fault them for doing that.  There's also no chance in hell they'd give the democrats the same power if the roles were reversed.  

Remember, this is not the trial.  We're just deciding whether or not there should be a trial.  We don't do special prosecutors anymore.  The house will lay out the prosecution and then send it to the senate where a few of them will serve as the actual prosecutors, and the president will have every chance to defend himself.

We have already established you don't care about due process, the rule of law, or precedent. You can call being able to present a defense "muddying the waters" all you want, that doesn't wave a magic wand over totalitarianism and make it right. Rather convenient you can just unilaterally declare a defense not necessary, because after all nothing should get in the way of this extrajudicial railroading right? Your proclamation that if the roles were reverse they would act the same is nothing but you justifying democrat totalitarianism with assumptions based on absolutely nothing. The House has oversight authority, not just one half of The House. Nothing about this process is within the law. So again, those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still pretty quiet... No matter, just keep shifting to new accusations as you fail to justify the last, people have short memories and you can perpetually justify this insanity by simply sliding the topic.

[TwitchySeal]

You are here now, and still quite silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue. Not like facts matter, just shift the topic to the next accusation and pretend like this total disregard for the rule of law, due process, and precedent is just always how it has been done. All you have to do is believe and magically it becomes true!

I'm totally fine with not allowing the GOP to have the power to subpoena whoever they want.  It would be foolish to give them the power.  They'd use it to delay, muddy the waters, and whatever other political moves they come up with.  And I wouldn't fault them for doing that.  There's also no chance in hell they'd give the democrats the same power if the roles were reversed.  

Remember, this is not the trial.  We're just deciding whether or not there should be a trial.  We don't do special prosecutors anymore.  The house will lay out the prosecution and then send it to the senate where a few of them will serve as the actual prosecutors, and the president will have every chance to defend himself.

We have already established you don't care about due process, the rule of law, or precedent. You can call being able to present a defense "muddying the waters" all you want, that doesn't wave a magic wand over totalitarianism and make it right. Rather convenient you can just unilaterally declare a defense not necessary, because after all nothing should get in the way of this extrajudicial railroading right? Your proclamation that if the roles were reverse they would act the same is nothing but you justifying democrat totalitarianism with assumptions based on absolutely noting. The House has oversight authority, not just one half of The House. Nothing about this process is within the law. So again, those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still pretty quiet... No matter, just keep shifting to new accusations as you fail to justify the last, people have short memories and you can perpetually justify this insanity by simply sliding the topic.

I'm simply pointing out the massive amount of hypocrisy that goes on in US politics from both sides.  

I think that most peoples views on this whole impeachment thing is mainly driven by a drive for whatever side they agree more with policy wise to win.  That's fucked up.  Your views on immigration or healthcare or taxes shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not it's ok to blatantly lie to the country.  Yet whenever a politician lies, only the opposition calls them out.  And I'm not just talking about Trump.  This is just a general example.

It's become perfectly normal to respond to someone you disagree with by insulting them and trying to make them look or feel stupid which just creates a vicious cycle of non-productive 'debate'. (if you can even call it that).  Without productive debate, we aren't really a democracy.  The best ideas won't be considered.  We'll just use the ideas of  whoever is best at making the other politicians look the most stupid.

[TECSHARE]

We have already established you don't care about due process, the rule of law, or precedent. You can call being able to present a defense "muddying the waters" all you want, that doesn't wave a magic wand over totalitarianism and make it right. Rather convenient you can just unilaterally declare a defense not necessary, because after all nothing should get in the way of this extrajudicial railroading right? Your proclamation that if the roles were reverse they would act the same is nothing but you justifying democrat totalitarianism with assumptions based on absolutely noting. The House has oversight authority, not just one half of The House. Nothing about this process is within the law. So again, those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still pretty quiet... No matter, just keep shifting to new accusations as you fail to justify the last, people have short memories and you can perpetually justify this insanity by simply sliding the topic.

I'm simply pointing out the massive amount of hypocrisy that goes on in US politics from both sides.  

I think that most peoples views on this whole impeachment thing is mainly driven by a drive for whatever side they agree more with policy wise to win.  That's fucked up.  Your views on immigration or healthcare or taxes shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not it's ok to blatantly lie to the country.  Yet whenever a politician lies, only the opposition calls them out.  And I'm not just talking about Trump.  This is just a general example.

It's become perfectly normal to respond to someone you disagree with by insulting them and trying to make them look or feel stupid which just creates a vicious cycle of non-productive 'debate'. (if you can even call it that).  Without productive debate, we aren't really a democracy.  The best ideas won't be considered.  We'll just use the ideas of  whoever is best at making the other politicians look the most stupid.

What you are doing is simply creating a false equivalency. We aren't talking about immigration, healthcare, or taxes, we are talking about negating the vote of the people completely outside of the law and due process. It has been failed attempt after failed attempt at this since election day, and people like you just keep on making excuses for why it is ok and we should just ignore all the previous failed illegal attempts to overthrow the president and negate literally anything and everything he does at all costs. But we are talking about Trump, not general examples no matter how much you want to topic slide.

Your little anecdote about debate is nice, but it doesn't excuse ignoring the rule of law, due process, or precedent. You aren't even making an argument for why it is just fine for the Democrats in the house to ignore the rule of law, due process, and precedent, you are just listing a bunch of non-sequitur excuses with some fallacious "fog of war" type argument. I also noticed you still refuse to comment on the non-subpoena subpoenas they issued. No matter, excuses make the need for due process go away, because it is all the same to you anyway, because if you can't have your people be in control, fuck the whole system right? Burn it all down! Sounds like rule of law to me. Just point at the other side and screech...




and poof, magically all arguments are equal, therefore everything is excused under the rubric of false equivalence. Facts are for chumps, and emotion is equal to logic am I right?

[vladimirhf]

his own fault. why should it be someone else's fault? this is one of the most disastrous governments of all time, there are many reasons for the impeachment, the ukrainian case is just one.  Impeached or not for sure he won't be reelected, more people who didn't vote must have realized what they did and they regret.

[TECSHARE]

TwitchySeal: It's a shame that political discussion is driven by hyper-partisanship.

TECSHARE: HOW DARE YOU BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRATS AREN'T ALWAYS WRONG AND REPUBLICANS AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT!

It would appear that the Always Trumpers are just positioning themselves to cry foul when impeachment inevitably happens. There is a chance that the dems could still blow the whole thing, but I don't see real evidence being put forward that they are violating any standards or precedents, rather just posturing from the opposition.

If the impeachment doesn't happen, I am willing to concede that it just wasn't meant to be. However, if it does happen, I'm quite certain that TECSHARE will not accept the outcome as legitimate. That's the danger of being hyper-partisanized -- just an utter unwillingness to accept that perhaps that a favored political party could be wrong about something.

At the end of the day, we're all just shooting the shit. None of us really have any idea as to what the outcome will be.

Oh look, more false equivalence and strawmanning. This has been a non-stop effort at fraudulently ousting Trump from day 1, and every failure is some how justified because "oh but Republicans would do it too", not because of facts, but because you declare it so. Simply just point back at your opponent and screech about equivalence. There is a difference between hyper-partisanship and ignoring the rule of law, which is exactly what Democrats have been doing over, and over, and over again. You aren't providing any evidence of wrongdoing, you are just claiming it and declaring equivalence. I am providing actual evidence as well as a long history of failed fraudulent efforts. Still not seeing anyone addressing the non-subpoena subpoenas. Hey, after all...

"TwitchySeal: It's a shame that political discussion is driven by hyper-partisanship.

TECSHARE: HOW DARE YOU BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRATS AREN'T ALWAYS WRONG AND REPUBLICANS AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT!"



Just accuse your opponent of exactly what you do, and vomit up tales of equivalence over and over again. No need for fact based discussion or debate.

[nutildah]

The fact is the impeachment proceeding is underway, regardless of how any of us feel about it.

Playing armchair constitutional lawyer doesn't change its legitimacy, or the fact that it is happening.

[TwitchySeal]

What you are doing is simply creating a false equivalency. We aren't talking about immigration, healthcare, or taxes, we are talking about negating the vote of the people completely outside of the law and due process.

I'm just sharing my thoughts.  I'm not trying to change your mind or attack you.

My point is just that I think at the moment, a lot of Americans feel like they have root for either the Dems or the GOP like it's a Football game.  They picked their team in 2016 based on each parties policies and now all that matters is a win at the end of the day (term).

Only problem is that the 'official rule book' that everyone swears to defend was written 100 years before electricity was even invented.  We've got a bunch of rules that are vague and barely ever used or updated.  It's really easy to interpert the rules to benefit the team that you've already decided to be loyal no matter what.  I just think that's a super dangerous path.

Your little anecdote about debate is nice, but it doesn't excuse ignoring the rule of law, due process, or precedent. You aren't even making an argument for why it is just fine for the Democrats in the house to ignore the rule of law, due process, and precedent.

I don't think it's ok for anyone to ignore the rule of law.

Due process is also vital to any civilized society.  But politics and the criminal justice system don't go hand in hand like you seem to think.

A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption.

For example:  Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in our Criminal Justice system, is based on Blackstone's Ratio (we'd rather let 10 guilty people get away with a crime than jail one innocent person).  In reality it's probably much closer to 100 - 1 today in America, especially when it comes to people who can afford to hire the best lawyers.


If we make it as easy to get away with corrupt acts for the leaders of our country as it is for private citizens, we risk the country becoming corrupt.

If we impeach and remove a president because it seems pretty damn likely they are corrupt, without reaching the same burden of proof that a criminal prosecutor is required to prove, the result is the VP becomes President (same political party), the Cabinet and Congress stays the same, and if the country thinks Congress didn't represent them accurately by removing the president, they get voted out when their term is up.

This is a concept I think the founders made clear. The office of the president and the person who holds the office of the president or two separate things with separate rights.  That's why they went out of their way to give Congress the responsibility of oversight and impeachment, but not the power to charge anyone criminally. Also the term limits are great.  They obviously didn't want a President to be able to use the office to become a King.

As for precedent in Congress.  It's fine to break it.  As long as you aren't breaking any rules, it's up to the people you represent (and your party/committee leader, or 2/3's of the entire House or Senate I suppose) to decide whether or not your actions are acceptable.  

[Spendulus]

The fact is the impeachment proceeding is underway, regardless of how any of us feel about it.

Playing armchair constitutional lawyer doesn't change its legitimacy, or the fact that it is happening.

That's correct. The Democrats can have a vote, and impeach Trump for stepping on a bug if they want to.

The Senate will laugh at them, of course.

[Viper1]

The Senate will laugh at them, of course.

They'll do what all of them on both sides do. If the polls turn against them, they'll impeach him.

[TECSHARE]

What you are doing is simply creating a false equivalency. We aren't talking about immigration, healthcare, or taxes, we are talking about negating the vote of the people completely outside of the law and due process.

I'm just sharing my thoughts.  I'm not trying to change your mind or attack you.

My point is just that I think at the moment, a lot of Americans feel like they have root for either the Dems or the GOP like it's a Football game.  They picked their team in 2016 based on each parties policies and now all that matters is a win at the end of the day (term).

Only problem is that the 'official rule book' that everyone swears to defend was written 100 years before electricity was even invented.  We've got a bunch of rules that are vague and barely ever used or updated.  It's really easy to interpert the rules to benefit the team that you've already decided to be loyal no matter what.  I just think that's a super dangerous path.

Your little anecdote about debate is nice, but it doesn't excuse ignoring the rule of law, due process, or precedent. You aren't even making an argument for why it is just fine for the Democrats in the house to ignore the rule of law, due process, and precedent.

I don't think it's ok for anyone to ignore the rule of law.

Due process is also vital to any civilized society.  But politics and the criminal justice system don't go hand in hand like you seem to think.

A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption.

For example:  Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in our Criminal Justice system, is based on Blackstone's Ratio (we'd rather let 10 guilty people get away with a crime than jail one innocent person).  In reality it's probably much closer to 100 - 1 today in America, especially when it comes to people who can afford to hire the best lawyers.


If we make it as easy to get away with corrupt acts for the leaders of our country as it is for private citizens, we risk the country becoming corrupt.

If we impeach and remove a president because it seems pretty damn likely they are corrupt, without reaching the same burden of proof that a criminal prosecutor is required to prove, the result is the VP becomes President (same political party), the Cabinet and Congress stays the same, and if the country thinks Congress didn't represent them accurately by removing the president, they get voted out when their term is up.

This is a concept I think the founders made clear. The office of the president and the person who holds the office of the president or two separate things with separate rights.  That's why they went out of their way to give Congress the responsibility of oversight and impeachment, but not the power to charge anyone criminally. Also the term limits are great.  They obviously didn't want a President to be able to use the office to become a King.

As for precedent in Congress.  It's fine to break it.  As long as you aren't breaking any rules, it's up to the people you represent (and your party/committee leader, or 2/3's of the entire House or Senate I suppose) to decide whether or not your actions are acceptable.  

I didn't ask you about your thoughts or feelings. I am talking about facts that can be demonstrated in observable reality. Your relativist interpretation of the law by characterizing it as some antiquated and murky ill defined thing exists only in your mind. The law is clear. You pretending it is not is an artifact of your own desire to justify ignoring the law while simultaneously drawing false equivalence by claiming "the other side" does exactly what "your side" does. This isn't an argument, it is a logical fallacy. What you or anyone else "feels" about it is irrelevant. Documented facts are relevant.

You claim you support rule of law, but when it serves your preferred narrative suddenly the rule of law becomes really subjective and relative all of a sudden doesn't it? What the Democrats are doing has been a years long pattern of abusing any and all authorities they have to ILLEGALLY overthrow a duly elected president. You can imagine that this is what "the other side" does or would do, but those are assumptions that exist only in your mind with no factual basis in observable reality and in no way justifies it. Their all out effort to retake control of the government is doing tremendous harm to this nation, and the damage they have already done is going to take decades to repair.

"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."

You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law. Yes, even powerful elected officials have a right to due process regardless of any asinine bullshit you imagineer to try to bend over backwards to justify this blatantly illegal coup attempt. Just because you are convinced doesn't negate the requirement for due process, facts, or evidence. That is the whole point of due process, to protect the rights of the individual from angry mobs of retards riled up by bad actors. This whole scam is only happening because Democrats know they don't have a candidate that has a CHANCE IN HELL of beating Trump, so this is their only option to retake power.

Meanwhile the simple fact that Trump asks for Biden to merely be investigated, well of course that is impeachable and proof that he is using his position to attack his political opponents! Never mind Biden doesn't have a chance in hell of beating him, and no one pay attention tot he 3 years of endless politically motivated investigations of Trump and anyone who even served him lunch. Sorry, but anyone who buys this narrative at this point is either brain damaged or willfully full of shit and thinks the ends justify the means.

Also... you are still strangely silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue... almost like you don't care about facts and only pushing your preferred narrative. Facts be damned, Trump needs to go, even if it leads to civil war. What is important is the people I agree with are in charge again! Fuck the will of the people, I know whats good for them whether they like it or not!

[Spendulus]

The Senate will laugh at them, of course.

They'll do what all of them on both sides do. If the polls turn against them, they'll impeach him.

I'm not going to agree with, disagree with, or even consider that type of comment worthy of responding to.

[Viper1]

The Senate will laugh at them, of course.

They'll do what all of them on both sides do. If the polls turn against them, they'll impeach him.

I'm not going to agree with, disagree with, or even consider that type of comment worthy of responding to.

And yet you responded to it. Bravo!

[TwitchySeal]

"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."

You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law.

I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad.  I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process.

I just looked it up:

noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition.

Remember , congress doesn't have any power to charge anyone with a crime.  They are just people that got elected to represent Americans from each District/State.  Ideally their vote should be based on what the people they represent think.

If the people elect a congress that removes a president, the president isn't owed anything and he hasn't been denied any rights.  It's a privilege to serve as the President - never a right.  The president serves the people.  Not the other way around.

Just because you can be impeached for committing a crime, doesn't make you guilty in the eyes of law.  Everyone, even the former president that was just impeached, has a right to due process as soon as someone else has assumed the role of president.  They will absolutely be considered innocent until proven guilty in an actual court or law.

[TECSHARE]

"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."

You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law.

I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad.  I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process.

I just looked it up:

noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition.

Remember , congress doesn't have any power to charge anyone with a crime.  They are just people that got elected to represent Americans from each District/State.  Ideally their vote should be based on what the people they represent think.


Just because you can be impeached for committing a crime, doesn't make you guilty in the eyes of law.  Everyone, even the former president that was just impeached, has a right to due process as soon as someone else has assumed the role of president.  They will absolutely be considered innocent until proven guilty in an actual court or law.

You should probably link your source, plagiarism is a bannable offense, but not for special people like you who don;t need to follow the rules I am sure. How many definitions did you have to cherry pick before you found one vague enough to confirm your bias? No matter, lets look at a LEGAL dictionary.

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process


So in summary, your assumptions are absolutely wrong, again. Speaking of being wrong again, how about those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still no comment?

[Spendulus]

"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."

You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law.

I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad.  I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process.

I just looked it up:

noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition......

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.