Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Reply to topic
historia
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 7:05 pm  Trump impeachment Reply with quote

On September 24, 2019, the US House of Representatives began an impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump.

Most political analysts agree that the House, which has a Democratic majority, is likely to vote in favor of impeachment. While the Senate, which has a Republican majority, is unlikely to reach the two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump from office.

Questions for debate:

1. Should Trump be impeached?

2. Should Trump be removed from office?

3. If the process plays out as analysts expect, will this redound to the Democrats' or the Republicans' benefit in the 2020 elections?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 51: Fri Dec 20, 2019 1:44 am
Reply

Like this post
bjs wrote:

At first I favored the effort, but now it seems like an exercise in futility. Trump has been impeached purely along partisan lines, and it looks likely that he will be acquitted by the Senate purely along partisan lines.

The only Democrat to oppose impeachment is considering leaving the Democratic Party, and the only conservative to support it recently left the Republican Party. It is statistically impossible that every person who looked at the evidence reached a decision that fell in line with their party’s way of thinking. This means that Republicans and Democrats have reached their position through partisan politics instead of examining the facts.

Both sides agree that Trump will be acquitted, meaning that the entire endeavor was a waste of time that should have been put toward effective governing.

Perhaps the only good thing to come of all this is that Trump seems to have felt the need to “look busy” and thus several legislative compromises has been reached.

There is value in the impeachment even if the Senate acquits, which seems definite. The value is simply in people standing up to do the right thing; to stand up for principle.
That Trump has committed crimes, and 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is obvious. Those who could, impeached him. That the Senate will acquit for partisan reasons is sad, but that does not mean the charges should not have been made.

To say nothing when evil is done is cowardice. Sometimes protest is all we can do. I realize that tribal political affiliation overpowers deliberate analysis, but one does what one can. There were those in Germany in the 1930's who protested the rise of Hitler and his ideology. They likely knew their protests would accomplish nothing except to endanger them personally. But they stood for principle. The Roman Catholic church was not part of that protest, tho' many Christians, Catholic and others were heroic in their public defiance.

Even in a losing effort, one should stand for what is right.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 52: Fri Dec 20, 2019 8:46 am
Reply

Like this post (1): Danmark
Danmark wrote:

The Roman Catholic church was not part of that protest.


Evangelical Magazine founded by Billy Gram and highly respected in the evangelical community as condemned Trump and called for his removal.

Fortunately there are some Christians who haven't sold their soul to Trump.

The question now is whether the evangelicals who support trump will come to their senses or ignore their own mainstream publication in favor of supporting Trump's obvious immoral behavior.

There's no question that both Trump's character, and his policies, are about as anti-Christ as they can be. How any serious Christian can support Trump is beyond me.

I'm no longer a believer in Christianity, but that makes no difference at all. Even if I still believed in the religion I would still reject the immoral principles and polices of Trump.

It seems to me that claiming to be a follower of Jesus and a supporter of Trump simultaneously is the greatest hypocrisy ever.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 53: Fri Dec 20, 2019 9:52 am
Reply

Like this post (1): Danmark
Divine Insight wrote:


Evangelical Magazine founded by Billy Gram and highly respected in the evangelical community as condemned Trump and called for his removal.



Indeed, Christianity Today with a strong denunciation of the president in an editorial yesterday:

Christianity Today wrote:


[T]he facts in this instance are unambiguous: The president of the United States attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of the president’s political opponents. That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is profoundly immoral.

. . .

We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president’s moral deficiencies for all to see. This damages the institution of the presidency, damages the reputation of our country, and damages both the spirit and the future of our people. None of the president’s positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character.

. . .

Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election -- that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.


Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 54: Fri Dec 20, 2019 11:58 am
Reply

Like this post
Yes, I read the Christianity Today article yesterday and posted it on my FB page. I believe CT is the leading and most respected Christian periodical, at least in the protestant community. Tho there have been many thoughtful Christians and organizations who have protested Trump and 'trumpism,' it's refreshing to see a magazine of this caliber speak up.

I don't suppose I'll ever understand this hellish marriage of what appears to be a perversion of the teachings of Jesus with the politics of violent rhetoric and actual violence. It is the same faction that appears to believe in a form of theocracy.

Another bad example of this is incarnate in a U.S. Representative from Spokane, WA, Matt Shea.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/dec/19/rep-matt-shea-engaged-in-domestic-...
He's now been expelled from the GOP caucus because of 'domestic terrorism.' The case has been referred to the FBI

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 55: Sat Dec 21, 2019 3:48 am
Reply

Like this post
Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
We have an abuse of power charge, yet NO violation of the law! How does that make any logical sense?

I don't know how to answer that when I have no idea where you are even coming from. Impeachment isn't necessarily about law breaking, why is that odd to you?

Article 2 Section 4 wrote:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

How do you get a conviction when there is no violation of law? Let me guess, the Democrats have a firm conviction that orange man bad!

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:

But we do know what was said during the call, and we do know that there was no impeachable offense in the call. That is all that we need to know about that.

But we don't know that at all, we know there is impeachable offense in the call, backed up by testimony of those who are familiar with the events relating to the call.

Trump did use the word 'however' so I will meet you half way, if we could impeach a president on 'a preponderance of the evidence', then you could have a case. The problem is that we need evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

legal-dictionary wrote:
Beyond a reasonable doubt - The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

So, if it is at all possible that President Trump was investigating corruption and not trying to bolster his 2020 campaign, then we can't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Democrats need to look inside the Presidents head and know what he was thinking when he was on that phone call. This is not an easy thing to do, and the Democrats have certainly not done so yet.

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
There is no 'big deal'. That is kind of what is meant by the use of the word 'irrelevant'.

Hence my question. One the one hand, you say there is no big deal, use words like "irrelevant," yet make a huge deal over it, and I want to why.

If I said something to lead you to believe that I thought a quid pro quo is a huge deal, then I misspoke. For the record if the President did or did not commit a quid pro quo it is not a huge deal, as long as it was not a solicitation for a bribe or extortion or some other illegal thing.

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
"On its face, there’s a lot of smoke there. Whether that was corrupt at the end of the day, I don’t know, but there’s more than enough evidence to investigate corruption.” – Sen. Ted Cruz.

So investigate corruption, as opposed to investigating Bidden.

Agreed.

"Now, I'm not suggesting that you can cook up fraudulent attacks on your opponents. This would be a very different allegation if someone was say -- if the president had said, please concoct something that isn't real, that -- that would be qualitatively different.

That's not what the transcript says. The transcript says, investigate what happened. Find out what happened.” – Sen. Ted Cruz.

https://youtu.be/4ZA2u6VEmNg?t=341

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
A partisan impeachment is not a 'desire for justice', it is just irrational.

Again, that rises yet another question, why do you believe that?

Because, if one knows that an impeachment requires a two thirds vote and one has less than a half, then one is irrational or just very bad at math to undertake such an impeachment.

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
If you know that an impeachment requires a two thirds vote and you have less than half, why divide the nation further?

Because justice is just that important a principle.

As I said, justice requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And the Democrats do not have it.

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
This is what Russia is accused of doing, and now the Democrats are trying to do what they accused Russia of doing.

Russia is merely accused of doing that, as in they aren't actually doing that?

By Russia I mean the government of Russia. And no, I don't know what the government of Russia is doing. There may be non government Russians or people pretending to be government Russians trying to divide our nation. Or it may be the Russian government. But until I see evidence of this activity, I can only say accused of doing something. Even the government of Russia gets the presumption of innocence till proven guilty.

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
Is there a law against a private citizen investigating corruption in the Ukraine?

In this context, yes. The Logan Act.

I don't think Rudy Giuliani is making treaties with the Ukraine in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States. So it is a no.
I would like you to do me a favor though, would you explain to me why there is a law called the Logan Act, what possible purpose does it serve? Even Blue laws and Sodomy laws serve a greater purpose. So far nobody has ever been convicted of the Logan Act, that alone should tell us that this law is unnecessary and needs to be repealed.

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
The investigation of 'wrong doing' is not wrong doing at the expense of the nation.

It need not be in general, but it is in this case.

Politicians need to be watched closely, if a person does not want to be scrutinized then don't go into politics. President Trump has been investigated up the wazoo, and surprisingly little has been found. We need more investigations not less, but that is just my opinion. Some people don't care what their politicians are doing behind our backs but I do. If the American people don't know what happened to any aid we sent to the Ukraine or any other country, then we need to investigate why we don't know what went on. I am disappointed that so many people are willing to impeach a president for trying to find that out on behalf of all Americans.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 56: Sat Dec 21, 2019 5:08 am
Reply
Nancy Pelosi

Like this post
President Trump has not been impeached yet, until Nancy sends the impeachment to the Senate there is no impeachment. Maybe when Nancy is sober she will send the impeachment to the Senate and consummate the process.


YouTube

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 57: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:30 pm
Reply

Like this post
Daedalus X wrote:

Bust Nak wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:
We have an abuse of power charge, yet NO violation of the law! How does that make any logical sense?

I don't know how to answer that when I have no idea where you are even coming from. Impeachment isn't necessarily about law breaking, why is that odd to you?

Article 2 Section 4 wrote:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

How do you get a conviction when there is no violation of law? Let me guess, the Democrats have a firm conviction that orange man bad!

You refuse to learn the facts and the law. At the top of the law in the U.S. is its Constitution, which specifically lists bribery as a crime that requires impeachment and removal. Hiding evidence and intimidating witnesses is a crime in every State in the Union, as well as a Federal crime.

"18 U.S. Code § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—
(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3)."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512

You are demonstrably wrong on the law and on the facts.
The President knows he is guilty. This is demonstrated by his refusal to let witnesses testify and his refusal to produce documents. In doing this he is guilty of a crime AND s actively obstructing Congress, justice and truth.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 58: Sat Dec 21, 2019 7:34 pm
Reply
Re: Nancy Pelosi

Like this post
Daedalus X wrote:

President Trump has not been impeached yet, until Nancy sends the impeachment to the Senate there is no impeachment. Maybe when Nancy is sober she will send the impeachment to the Senate and consummate the process.

Again you are wrong. He WAS impeached. And that impeachment will be sent to the Senate. When someone dies, he's dead. One need not wait until the death certificate is signed, or the obituary is publish.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 59: Sun Dec 22, 2019 3:32 am
Reply

Like this post
Danmark wrote:

Sometimes protest is all we can do.

You can always fight, the founders believed this, ergo 2nd amendment.

I have good news for you though, we don't have to protest or fight, President Trump has agreed to a special day of impeachment. During this impeachment there will be no need for any messy evidence or proof of high crimes or misdemeanors, just a simple majority vote by the peoples own chosen representatives and out he goes. This date will be November 3rd, 2020. If only Hitler had been this nice, then Germany would have been great again. So cheer up, it is not a losing effort.

[Replying to post 57 by Danmark]
Read what was written in that post again slowly as your response is a total non sequitur.

Danmark wrote:

Daedalus X wrote:

President Trump has not been impeached yet, until Nancy sends the impeachment to the Senate there is no impeachment. Maybe when Nancy is sober she will send the impeachment to the Senate and consummate the process.

Again you are wrong. He WAS impeached. And that impeachment will be sent to the Senate. When someone dies, he's dead. One need not wait until the death certificate is signed, or the obituary is publish.

Thank you for your opinion, and the twisted reasoning behind it. You can just try to claim the inheritance without that death certificate, see how far you get.

This is what someone with a constitutional law background has to say about it. And he is one of the three chosen by the Democrats to testify at the inquiry.

Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who testified in the House impeachment inquiry several weeks ago, wrote that President Donald Trump hasn’t been impeached yet...
https://www.theepochtimes.com/noah-feldman-trump-isnt-impeached-until-the-house-...

Just a reminder, I would still like you to back up your previous claims by answering these questions ==> https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=989675#989675

Forum Rules:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 60: Sun Dec 22, 2019 12:48 pm
Reply

Like this post
Daedalus X wrote:

Danmark wrote:

Sometimes protest is all we can do.

You can always fight, the founders believed this, ergo 2nd amendment.

You continue to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the Constitution. The 2d amendment was not created to facilitate armed rebellion against the very country the Constitution created. As it says itself, it was created so a 'well regulated militia' could protect the State.

The very fact you and Trump and many Republicans are complaining about the delay, proves it is a good move on Pelosi's part.

At her weekly news conference, she reiterated that the articles would be sent and the impeachment managers named once it’s clear what sort of process the Senate would take up. She said she certainly hoped the process would be fair, making the point that the Founders envisioned a “rogue president” but perhaps not a “rogue president and a rogue leader in the Senate” at the same time.

All of this followed her declaration Wednesday night, reportedly backed by dozens of House members, to hold back the articles from the Senate, refusing to guarantee the articles would not be delayed indefinitely. Republicans, including Rep. Douglas A. Collins (R-Ga.), Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), are already squawking about the delay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/19/heres-how-long-pelosi-should-...

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version