Impeach!
-
What do you think the result will be?
I honestly don't know.
What do you think it will accomplish other than political points?
Maybe after the completely uncalled-for and politically motivated investigation, Trump will claim that "history will tear to tatters the verdict of this court."
Maybe he'll leverage his poor and overly harsh treatment by the hypocritical, power-hungry and autocratic democrats, using his impeachment as proof of a failed system that should be completely dismantled.
Maybe he'll glorify the four dead and use the sensationalism of their deaths to get sympathizers elected. Maybe he'll start with the police captains. Everyone knows Trump has always supported the police and the left hates them all. It's so for-sure we don't even have to talk about that.
If we reversed the completely biased decision by social media companies to silence an innocent man based on toxic leftist politics, he wouldn't even have to fly around the country to help more Trumpists either rise to power or take more completely harmless tours of state houses come election time. All he would need would be his phone.
And maybe a shitload of people in the middle would all sort of just go along with it because everything I just said is so obviously TDS.
-
As I said there needs to be a downside to attempting to overturn elections besides “prolly won’t work”, otherwise we’ll see this every time.
I see nothing wrong here
He tried to change the results. Why not?
He didn't change them.
Assuming the results are valid, the system worked just fine.
I don't see a problem.
And that's the Truth. Every legal avenue was fought, inch by inch.
I guess now, when people fight an issue out in court or try to apply political pressure, they need to be canceled.
That is a very dangerous precedent, worthy of banana republics.
-
incited a mob that invaded the Capitol
- Please provide evidence.
- Do you support impeachment, then?
- If so, what will it accomplish, remove him from office?
- To me, it was pretty obvious that he was inciting the crowd. I cannot see how anybody does not see that. He may not have said specifically "go invade the Capital", but the video I saw, was meant to get the crowd incited. I do not think that President Trump actually thought people would invade the capital, but that is his fault or short sight. Not sure what he expected to happen?
(An example, a couple of times when going through security or customs, I have been pulled to the side, and they make a show of looking at my passport, checking my luggage.
Example conversation:
SECURITY AGENT: I see your flight leaves in an hour. I would hate for you to miss that flight. It would be good if we could get your problem resolved right now so you can make your flight.Is he SPECIFICALLY asking my for a bride? No, but it is pretty obvious what he wants.)
- No, I do not. I am not sure he is fit to be president anymore, so maybe the VP and cabinet removal is a better choice.
-
@George-K I think @jon-nyc replied how I would’ve, but to reiterate or expand...
First, Trump has been revving up his base for months about a stolen election, that is a lie. He lost in a landslide yet is telling his base over and over and over and over and over and over that the election was stolen and that America can’t let that happen. This is a sitting President doing this.
Then he called Georgia (only a week ago, isn’t that nuts?) to ask to find 11,780 votes to throw out. This is a sitting President doing this.
Then Wednesday he headlined a rally that has the name “save America!” (implies action is needed), says he will lead the march to the Capitol (to do what?) Other quotes from Trump himself:
- these people [protesters] aren’t going to take it anymore!
- we will never give up
- we will never concede
- we will stop the steal
- we are not gonna let it happen
- we must save our democracy
- were not going to stand and let this country be destroyed (he says variations of this about 30x btw)
- people are illegally taking over our government
- if you don’t fight like hell we aren’t going to have a country anymore
Oh and while the Capitol is actively being invaded and people killed he says he loves the people doing this.
This is a sitting president saying these things, lying about a stolen election, saying he will never concede, and telling his supporters to fight.
-
... It’s the assault on democracy itself that we must punish.
...Let's hope it's not your son we have to pull out if a pool of blood in a muddy field.
That's the end result of the road you seem so hell-bent on traveling.
@jon-nyc's direction, when compared to yours, leads to higher probabilities of peaceful transfers of power in the future.
-
... It’s the assault on democracy itself that we must punish.
...Let's hope it's not your son we have to pull out if a pool of blood in a muddy field.
That's the end result of the road you seem so hell-bent on traveling.
@jon-nyc's direction, when compared to yours, leads to higher probabilities of peaceful transfers of power in the future.
No. When you forcefully silence the people you don't agree with, the end result is always violence.
It's just a matter of time...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
No. When you forcefully silence the people you don't agree with, the end result is always violence.
Right up to the point violence broke out at the Capitol, no one has been forcefully silenced. The protestors got to protest, Giuliani and Trump got to do their speeches outside the Capitol, Hawley and Cruz and a bunch of elected GOP legislators got to object and deliver their speeches inside the Capitol.
In this case the violence broke out anyway even though no one has been forcefully silenced.
-
the people you don't agree with,
That's the problem. You seem to want to frame this as a disagreement. Disagreements don't end with a police officer beaten to death. A woman shot. Another officer killing himself.
This wan't a disagreement and it wasn't the blitzkrieg. Quite obviously it's something in the middle and it has yet to be determined how to properly label what happened. This binary horseshit is how we stay on the road you keep talking about.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
the people you don't agree with,
That's the problem. You seem to want to frame this as a disagreement. Disagreements don't end with a police officer beaten to death. A woman shot. Another officer killing himself.
This wan't a disagreement and it wasn't the blitzkrieg. Quite obviously it's something in the middle and it has yet to be determined how to properly label what happened. This binary horseshit is how we stay on the road you keep talking about.
Apparently, you have lost the ability to think critically. The majority of people at Trump's rally did not storm the Capitol. They didn't burn cars in the street or set buildings on fire.
And before you tit-for-tat the Anti-fa stuff, let me point out the number of violent Anti-fa protesters seem to be the majority of those folks, not a minority.
People keep talking about Trump's dog whistles. If that was the case, why didn't the majority of the people at his rally storm the Capitol? If an insurrection was the order of the day, why weren't the Trump people armed? After all, they are the guys who own the guns.
Maybe the only thing that hears dog whistles is a dog...
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
-
I think that Aqua is right. The extreme parts of both sides are a minority. Unfortunately, those are the ones that get the news.
90% of the people do their life normally. How many times does that end up in the news?
HEADLINE: Man goes to work, does his job and comes home afterward.
Doesn't happen.
The people that make the news by doing bad stuff make the news because it is out of the normal.
"Majority" of BLM or Antifa violent? No way. Same with US capital people.
Unfortuatehly, those 10% give 90% of the news. Doesn't mean they are less guilty, etc, but it is a minority.
-
@aqua-letifer said in Impeach!:
let me point out the number of violent Anti-fa protesters seem to be the majority of those folks, not a minority.
No, I'll go with BLM. You willing to say most everyone at the DC protests were violent? If you do we can each save both of us a lot of time.
The extremes of the left are much more extreme. BLM advocating killing police for example and the delight of the democrat leaders to approve of this sort of behavior.
But if it will slow the whining I'll concede that they are both bad.
The problem is the leadership and how our media treat the extreme behavior.
The left loves the violence and encourages it openly, in no uncertain terms.
The right generally condemns immediately the violence. As Mr. Trump did last week. But the media continues to report that he encourages it.
And then Ms. Pelosi blames the violence on "whiteness". That is shocking, really shocking. And even worse nobody seems to care.
The words and actions seem to mean nothing, it is the reporting that establishes reality.
-
-
But more to George's points:
From Andrew Sullivan's essay on the subject of impeachment and removal: "Most obvious is the issue of time. There are only nine days remaining in the president’s term. It is not enough time to execute a credible process of impeachment and removal.
"It would be rational to start down that road only if Congress had concluded that the nation could not tolerate one more minute of Trump’s presidency. But House Democrats, the main proponents of impeachment, haven’t acted that way. They went home after the siege. They did not stay in town or rush back. At this point, they could not reconvene before Tuesday – probably later. More than a week would have lapsed. How could they credibly claim a need to dispense with all due process and rush to judgment when they have spent days sitting on their hands as if there were no emergency?
Then there are the Senate rules. Because the upper chamber is in recess until Jan. 19, it would take unanimous consent to reconvene. At least one senator would object, so that’s a non-starter. Practically speaking, even if the House rushed through the adoption of impeachment articles and appointed impeachment managers, a trial could not commence until right before or, much more likely, after Trump’s term expires at noon on Jan. 20."
-
think it’s important for the history books to document that there were repercussions to a sitting president who . . . incited a mob that invaded the Capitol.
This, to answer George's why questions. Are the American people expected to make no response to the Jan 7 debacle?
The American people aren't all that concerned, unless they are part of the chattering class. I think many, if not most people recognize it for what it was and have little desire to let the MSM think for them.
-
It was certainly a tragic, idiotic raid of the Capitol, but the handwringing over it, and not over the wider spread and higher death/economic toll riots of 2020 strikes me clearly as special pleading and opportunism.
To think the raid isn't a clear and established loss for Trump and his supporters is ridiculous. To say "there must be consequences" and imply there aren't any unless an impeachment happens, is also ridiculous.
-
It was certainly a tragic, idiotic raid of the Capitol, but the handwringing over it, and not over the wider spread and higher death/economic toll riots of 2020 strikes me clearly as special pleading and opportunism.
To think the raid isn't a clear and established loss for Trump and his supporters is ridiculous. To say "there must be consequences" and imply there aren't any unless an impeachment happens, is also ridiculous.
I wasn’t for impeachment at first. I was viewing Jan 6 as a singular event.
If you broaden your scope to his rhetoric on willfully misleading people on the election being stolen - then you can make a case that there should be political consequences for that.
If you tell people the election was stolen (especially when you have next to zero evidence to that effect) - it’s reasonable to expect some people will think an insurrection is justified.
Basically - you can’t kneecap peoples’ beliefs in the legitimacy of our elections on a selfish whim.
-
It was certainly a tragic, idiotic raid of the Capitol, but the handwringing over it, and not over the wider spread and higher death/economic toll riots of 2020 strikes me clearly as special pleading and opportunism.
To think the raid isn't a clear and established loss for Trump and his supporters is ridiculous. To say "there must be consequences" and imply there aren't any unless an impeachment happens, is also ridiculous.
I wasn’t for impeachment at first. I was viewing Jan 6 as a singular event.
If you broaden your scope to his rhetoric on willfully misleading people on the election being stolen - then you can make a case that there should be political consequences for that.
If you tell people the election was stolen (especially when you have next to zero evidence to that effect) - it’s reasonable to expect some people will think an insurrection is justified.
Yes as it turns out, that rhetoric was inflammatory to an extent I wasn't anticipating. Impeach him if you will, but to think he and his supporters haven't already suffered a massive political/cultural loss by that idiocy is not in keeping with reality.
-
