Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
robfosters said:
That doesn’t wash with me. The democrats made it clear that they wanted to impeach him. This mobilised democrat voters and they got the result they wanted, which is fine with you.

Boris did the same thing in the GE with brexit. Giving the people a big juicy carrot which they fell for, but of course, you probably didn’t agree with that.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to "fall for" for the US Election. They made it clear they were likely going to impeach Trump at the first sight of indiscretion. The American people in 2018 ( a more RECENT election than Trump's election) voted convincingly to give control of the house to the Democrats. There was an 8.6 % margin in the popular vote.

This is why to say that this impeachment is because they cant accept the 2016 election results or that it is trying to undo the last election/will of the American people is total folly.

The House has the sole power of impeachment, they made it abundantly clear that they would impeach Trump, and in 2018 the American people voted for them with a quite large majority. This impeachment is entirely in line with the will of the American people's view.

Even the latest average polling on impeachment show this:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

50.5 Support
45.6 Oppose
 
Jono8 said:
There is nothing to "fall for" for the US Election. They made it clear they were likely going to impeach Trump at the first sight of indiscretion. The American people in 2018 ( a more RECENT election than Trump's election) voted convincingly to give control of the house to the Democrats. There was an 8.6 % margin in the popular vote.

This is why to say that this impeachment is because they cant accept the 2016 election results or that it is trying to undo the last election/will of the American people is total folly.

The House has the sole power of impeachment, they made it abundantly clear that they would impeach Trump, and in 2018 the American people voted for them with a quite large majority. This impeachment is entirely in line with the will of the American people's view.

Even the latest average polling on impeachment show this:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

50.5 Support
45.6 Oppose
Click to expand...
So judging by those results and your argument, you must believe he’ll lose the next election.
 
plasmahal said:
Your last chance to have any integrity!!!

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33305734/

In regards to the presidents executive privilege, as given by the constituted separation of powers of the USA,

Do you or do you not believe that this is the way the system is setup?

It was not setup that way specifically for Trump, it's the same for all presidents.

Just requires a simple yes or no, no deflection or whataboutisms.
Click to expand...

You asked why the Dems didn't pursue the witnesses through the courts when Trump refused to let them testify. That is what I was replying to and explained it in the most simple terms. Ok every POTUS has executive privilege for very valid reason but there are limits on that privilege. It does not apply to every conversation he has and they have to be Executive Branch employees to qualify. So his conversations with say Rudy doesn't fall under EP but possibly AP if they are about a legal matter involving Trump. Lets not forget that Trump's own lawyer Ken Starr in the Senate trial right now had this to say about EP in Clintons impeachment. "absolutely no one is above the law", Starr said such a privilege "must give way" and evidence "must be turned over" to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation. Again if this had happened in 2018 I'm pretty sure they would have pursued it all the way to the SC but there simply isn't time before the election.

And if you think I care that you might not think I have integrity.... on a tech forum....... ROTFL!
 
robfosters said:
So judging by those results and your argument, you must believe he’ll lose the next election.
Click to expand...

Well, with the electoral college being what it is and his base being seemingly immovable, i still think there is a chance he could win. I think it is unlikely though.

I will be amazed if he wins the popular vote this time. In fact i think its likely he will lose the popular vote by even more (by how much depends on who wins the Dem nomination i guess).

Lest face it, he hasn't made any friends this term. He has alienated anyone who hasnt supported him completely, and his approval rating has averaged ~40% for pretty much his entire term.

He does not and likely will never hold a majority of support from the American people.
 
plasmahal said:
The articles of impeachment do not list any crimes cited by the US constitution as impeachable offences. This single failure alone will let Trump off the hook if there any real crimes committed but failed to be investigate. If the have the evidence of this, then present it to the court/senate. It is not for the senate to do the investigation.
Click to expand...

LOL when the constitution was written there was no federal criminal code in the US. The only 3 criminal offences listed in the constitution are treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Are you saying no POTUS, VPOTUS or civil officer of the USA can be impeached if one of these 3 isn't mentioned? Or were you spouting talking points you'd heard on Fox/Breitbart again without checking what they said was actually true? I'm going to say its the latter.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
You asked why the Dems didn't pursue the witnesses through the courts when Trump refused to let them testify. That is what I was replying to and explained it in the most simple terms. Ok every POTUS has executive privilege for very valid reason but there are limits on that privilege. It does not apply to every conversation he has and they have to be Executive Branch employees to qualify. So his conversations with say Rudy doesn't fall under EP but possibly AP if they are about a legal matter involving Trump. Lets not forget that Trump's own lawyer Ken Starr in the Senate trial right now had this to say about EP in Clintons impeachment. "absolutely no one is above the law", Starr said such a privilege "must give way" and evidence "must be turned over" to prosecutors if it is relevant to an investigation. Again if this had happened in 2018 I'm pretty sure they would have pursued it all the way to the SC but there simply isn't time before the election.

And if you think I care that you might not think I have integrity.... on a tech forum....... ROTFL!
Click to expand...

Too afraid to answer the question, remember...

Just requires a simple yes or no, no deflection or whataboutisms.
 
plasmahal said:
Too afraid to answer the question, remember...

Just requires a simple yes or no, no deflection or whataboutisms.
Click to expand...
You can't apply that to someone else when your behavior in SC was to ignore, deflect, and introduce whataboutism the few times you could be bothered responding to the point.

Making your points in bold, underlined and/or in caps makes you look like a primary school kid btw.
 
[FnG]magnolia said:
You can't apply that to someone else when your behavior in SC was to ignore, deflect, and introduce whataboutism the few times you could be bothered responding to the point.

Making your points in bold, underlined and/or in caps makes you look like a primary school kid btw.
Click to expand...

Or in here as well. I have asked him 4 times now for him to supply evidence that Schiff said what he claims to have said. Guess what? Nothing supplied, he just ignores me.
 
plasmahal said:
Maybe, but if you made a choice then we would know where to take a discussion.
Click to expand...

Not maybe no.

While you come up with something else can you find those crimes written in the constitution, you know the ones that because they aren't listed in Trump's impeachment they make it invalid. I'm sure you can can manage two things at once ;)
 
plasmahal said:
It was provided but you chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your narrative.
Click to expand...

You havent. You keep supplying the same quote and link to a dodgy website which then doesnt actually prove Schiff said what they claim he said. Why you think posting the same answer which doesnt even answer my question is helpful I am not sure.

So again I ask you, show me proof Schiff said about Russia invading the USA?
 
The best defense is a good offense.

Thread is meant to be about Trump.
Yet here you are defending clintons and obama.

^^
 
chroniclard said:
Heh is plasmanutter still wanging on with his CT and irrelevant technicalities.
Click to expand...
What does your heart tell you? :D

It's interesting to look at some of his SC 'contributions'. He initially started off - and I don't know how to put this more politely - as someone who was unused to the English language, and would throw words together like a pre-Goggle auto-translate service. He's now actually parsable - the content is still mostly nonsense, sporadic, warped - but he's been doing some reading and sometimes, on the surface, looks like he may have a point. He doesn't, of course, but it's good to see a progression of sorts.

Eh, this isn't an attack and hope it isn't viewed as such. It's more a comment on a strengthening conviction of ideas, however wrong others may view them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom