Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Donald Trump impeachment poll


Should the House take up impeachment proceedings?  

175 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You know this really is an important point that perhaps we’re not emphasiIng enough. People keep talking about a duty to the Constitution, but the Constitution does provide elections for President every 4 years, and there is a very good argument to be made that whether or not Trump deserves to be in office is an issue that should be left to the voters. If the Mueller report had come out in October of 2020, is there anyone here who would argue that impeachment proceedings should begin then, a month away from the vote? I seriously doubt it. The only reason we’re discussing this now is that we have a year and a half before the election- and yet, due to a variety of factors the election is already upon us in practical terms; the first Presidential debate is little over a month away. 

We are discussing it now because the report came out now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Whether you think it should be, precedent makes clear it is. Obstruction was among the articles of impeachment for both Nixon and Clinton. While for Nixon there was never a vote, it was 27-11 to

Yes complain about Trump destroying our democracy and then abdicate the Congresses constitutional duty in reining him in because today Republicans won't vote for it. I lived through Watergate.  N

Can I get a list of the people who you think have not accepted the results of the investigation? It seems like most of the anti-Trump people here have accepted the results of the investigation. 

Just now, MTskibum said:

Attacking the other party needs to stop.

 

Impeachment talk is completely ridiculous, and any impeachment process would just push me more to the republican side next election.

Why would that process push more to the Republican side?

This isn't attacking the other party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Why would that process push more to the Republican side?

This isn't attacking the other party.

 

The reason it would push more towards the other side is because I do not think there should be an impeachment process, normally I vote for around 60% Republicans, but if they start the impeachment process I will make sure to vote for at least 80-90% Republican.

 

This is an attach on the other party. This is being led by democrats against a republican president.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MTskibum said:

 

The reason it would push more towards the other side is because I do not think there should be an impeachment process, normally I vote for around 60% Republicans, but if they start the impeachment process I will make sure to vote for at least 80-90% Republican.

 

This is an attach on the other party. This is being led by democrats against a republican president.

Even if they clearly show in hearings legal reasons for impeachment proceedings...including clear demonstration of guilt by POTUS of committing crimes?

Its an attack on criminal behavior.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a staunch "no" on the impeachment thing but I'm starting to change my mind. Trump is now at the point where he is refusing to cooperate with the congress in any aspect. Telling the IRS not to cooperate. Telling McGhean (sp?) not to cooperate. He is realizing that there is nothing he can do that will cost him support among the Republican Senators and nothing that congress can really do to enforce subpoenas and contempt with AG Barr in his back pocket. We are witnessing a dictatorship forming with no means of oversight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ruffrodys05 said:

I don't understand this clinging to the idea that it's D vs. R here. It is not.

 

It is certainly my opinion that it is an attack from democrats on republicans and it may or may not be the opinion of other moderates. I am only a single data point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You know this really is an important point that perhaps we’re not emphasiIng enough. People keep talking about a duty to the Constitution, but the Constitution does provide elections for President every 4 years, and there is a very good argument to be made that whether or not Trump deserves to be in office is an issue that should be left to the voters. If the Mueller report had come out in October of 2020, is there anyone here who would argue that impeachment proceedings should begin then, a month away from the vote? I seriously doubt it. The only reason we’re discussing this now is that we have a year and a half before the election- and yet, due to a variety of factors the election is already upon us in practical terms; the first Presidential debate is little over a month away. 

Aside from the politics vs constitution argument - which really I think is the biggest political debate in the US in at least a dozen years - there are a couple other issues affecting things.

1. Trump keeps doing it. He is obstructing right now. He is not cooperating with Congress. He is ignoring his constitutional duties, to Congress, to national security, to the people, to the Constitution itself. - This isn't going to get better, it's going to get worse. And if you don't push back on this guy he will just keep pushing himself. He will frame the debate. He will kick the chair from under you. He may even try to charge law enforcement officials, press, politicians, who knows. - I'm not sure that people respect you (speaking generally) if you don't stand up for yourself, even if you're in the right, and on that point I mean the voters especially the lesser informed ones.

2. Don't overestimate Trump's political skills. And the man is deteriorating in office even if you accept that yeah he worked hard on the campaign trail in 2016, because he did. However this point you make about impeachment creeping up at or around the election misses the mark. 

- This won't be well received, but I give you Hillary as one example. She first got a demand for Foia in early 2013. If she had just told State the truth and dealt with it then it likely would have been an issue but not much of one and been long in the past by the election. It happened again in March 2015, the summer of 2015, spring of 2016. Fight, struggle, dissemble. If she had just dealt with the problem all that #### in June, July, October 2016 would not have happened. Politically it was incredibly stupid.

- Here's another - Nixon. Instead of just giving those tinpot burglars up in 72 he fought and struggled and well lo and behold he fumbled into turning over records and all the rest of it and August of 1974 - 3 months before elections - he had to cave. The GOP had historic losses. And the GOP canned him because they were trying to stop the bleeding if nothing else.

As Trump wrestles with this more information and testimony will come out and it will end up hurting him. If it happens just before the election that's his fault and it wouldn't help him, it would hurt him, and I say that as someone who generally says politics shouldn't matter, but that's in response to your point about timing.

***

I say this with all due respect to guys like Ghost and AAA and I realize I get kind of academic at times.  There are obviously independent and committed voters alike who may not want to go this route and I agree that needs to be respected. I totally think that needs to be part of the equation, but there will be no second bites at the apple and it could have lasting, negative impacts for our country. But that also cuts both ways and I acknowledge that.

 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

say this with all due respect to guys like Ghost and AAA and I realize I get kind of academic at times.  There are obviously independent and committed voters alike who may not want to go this route and I agree that needs to be respected. I totally think that needs to be part of the equation, but there will be no second bites at the apple and it could have lasting, negative impacts for our country. But that also cuts both ways and I acknowledge that.

 

And this is why I said there’s two different “should” options in my mind.  I think people have to weigh those two and see which has the greater impact.  I acknowledge what you say is true but I think the negative impact outweighs it.  Obviously opinions will differ on that and I also realize I could be wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The McGahn testimony is going to happen and I think it will be a kind of belweather. A countervailing concern is how are these people who fessed up under pressure (people were going to jail for lying) to Mueller going to behave in testimony? Look at Sanders. She told Mueller she lied about 3 different points in the report. Look at her now, just shamelessly debasing herself for the president again and again. Chagrined? Hell no. Bannon spilled his guts to Mueller, so did Preibus, you think they'll do that on tv? Noooo.... Cummings has said Trump hasn't turned over one page of paper, not one byte of data. - Mueller says that he had witnesses taking the 5th, lying, destroying data, Trump's own interference, refusal to cooperate, it's a den of lying, self-serving, servile loons. What happens if they lie before Congress and communicate the opposite of the truth? Barr is now in charge, not Mueller, and Barr will do any.damned.thing that Trump asks apparently. 

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that like JuniorNB, Trump’s actions this morning, his cavalier comments to the Washington Poat that he’s not going to cooperate with Congress at all, has me rethinking my position here. Maybe there really is no other option than to put everybody on record. 

But it also may be exactly what Trump wants the Democrats to do. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:

I finally voted and said No (but anti-Trump). I’m a risk adverse kind of person and the possible outcomes from impeachment seem to lean towards negative outcomes.  I’m completely in favor of the investigations continuing and depending on what they uncover I’d be willing to change my vote but for now based on what we know I’d say keep focusing on 2020 and use what you find to convince people to vote against him.  

This, the Dems need to stop picking fights they can't win.

Move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

But it also may be exactly what Trump wants the Democrats to do. 

He lays out the bait without any of the subtlety or calculation that Obama used to play this game.

The left takes it hook, line, and sinker just the same.

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The McGahn testimony is going to happen and I think it will be a kind of belweather. A countervailing concern is how are these people who fessed up under pressure (people were going to jail for lying) to Mueller going to behave in testimony? Look at Sanders. She told Mueller she lied about 3 different points in the report. Look at her now, just shamelessly debasing herself for the president again and again. Chagrined? Hell no. Bannon spilled his guts to Mueller, so did Preibus, you think they'll do that on tv? Noooo.... Cummings has said Trump hasn't turned over one page of paper, not one byte of data. - Mueller says that he had witnesses taking the 5th, lying, destroying data, Trump's own interference, refusal to cooperate, it's a den of lying, self-serving, servile loons. What happens if they lie before Congress and communicate the opposite of the truth? Barr is now in charge, not Mueller, and Barr will do any.damned.thing that Trump asks apparently. 

But they can lie to congress or refuse to answer and be held in contempt. You know who has to approve that motion? AG Bill Barr.  Trump has successfully rigged the system so that he can do anything he wants. He did it. He won. He manipulated the entire democracy and what the country was founded on. The 2020 election is the country's only chance. He is untouchable now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Max Power said:

Why are dems so eager to have Mueller repeat there was no collusion 100 times? 

Granted he will make Trump look bad in other areas, but the #1 talking point will be no collusion. 

Has he said their is no collusion or is it that he doesn't have enough evidence to prove there was collusion?  I think there is a difference there, although it may be somewhat small.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MTskibum said:

Attacking the other party needs to stop.

 

Impeachment talk is completely ridiculous, and any impeachment process would just push me more to the republican side next election.

What you wrote here indicates that you haven’t followed this story at all, haven’t paid the least bit of attention to the Mueller report, and that you don’t know or don’t care if President Trump obstructed justice. 

And I fear you are very representative of millions of Americans, and not just Trump’s most fervent supporters either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JuniorNB said:

But they can lie to congress or refuse to answer and be held in contempt. You know who has to approve that motion? AG Bill Barr.  Trump has successfully rigged the system so that he can do anything he wants. He did it. He won. He manipulated the entire democracy and what the country was founded on. The 2020 election is the country's only chance. He is untouchable now.

This is the part of me that when I hear stuff like that I say f that, go right at him.

But again, do the smart thing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

The 2020 election is the country's only chance. He is untouchable now.

Slow down Princess Leia. 

Look, I want Trump to lose in 2020 as badly as you do and the fact is he probably will no matter how this plays out. But even if he somehow wins again, it’s not the end of our democracy nor is he untouchable. The fact is that most of what he’s tried to do has been prevented and that will continue. He’s done nothing that can’t be undone later on. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

What you wrote here indicates that you haven’t followed this story at all, haven’t paid the least bit of attention to the Mueller report, and that you don’t know or don’t care if President Trump obstructed justice. 

And I fear you are very representative of millions of Americans, and not just Trump’s most fervent supporters either. 

 

You are attacking me for being uninformed and ignorant since I do not have the same opinion as you do. You are certainly polite about it, but it is an attack nonetheless.

 

Edited by MTskibum
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MTskibum said:

 

You are attacking me for being uninformed and ignorant since I do not have the same opinion as you do. You are certainly polite about it, but it is an attack nonetheless.

I didn’t attack you at all. Sorry if you took it that way. My conclusion regarding your knowledge of the issue was reasonable based on your post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I didn’t attack you at all. Sorry if you took it that way. My conclusion regarding your knowledge of the issue was reasonable based on your post. 

 

It is reasonable to assume that I do not have much knowledge because I have a different opinion on impeachment?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Slow down Princess Leia. 

Look, I want Trump to lose in 2020 as badly as you do and the fact is he probably will no matter how this plays out. But even if he somehow wins again, it’s not the end of our democracy nor is he untouchable. The fact is that most of what he’s tried to do has been prevented and that will continue. He’s done nothing that can’t be undone later on. 

How is he not untouchable? He refused to be interviewed in his own investigation. When giving his written answers, he said 'I don't recall" 37 times. He has an attorney general who believes a president can't be subpoenaed. Or indicted. Congress can't do oversight because he just tells his staff, ex-staff, the IRS, or whoever, not to cooperate. And congress can't do a thing about it. And he has every Republican congressman and senator shaking in their boots and afraid to speak out against his dictatorship. So tell me again how he isn't untouchable.

 

Edited by JuniorNB
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Another side note...5 people are "neutral" on Trump?  I guess its possible you are not a supporter or not anti and chose that by default, so its more a possible flaw in the poll...but there is zero way anyone at this point is just neutral on the guy anymore, is there?

There is.

I am an independent, and I voted no to impeach and neutral on Trump.  I am a pretty nonpartisan guy.   My ideology is a combination of liberal and conservative views.  

I like some the things Trump has done.  You can't argue about the economy and the stock market.  Many here thought the apocalypse was coming.   And I hate other things Trump has done, like screwing up the repeal of Obamacare (not having a real solution to replace it), his trade policies, his infatuation for the wall, and some of his stances on immigration.  I strongly dislike his leadership style.  Sure, the Dems and the mainstream media have dug in and won't give him any credit for any good that he's done, but Trump brought that upon himself with his brash style.  

I want a president that will work with the other side to get good solutions for the country.  And there is a good chance that we won't have that choice in 2020.  Really depends on who the Dems nominate. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

How is he not untouchable? He refused to be interviewed in his own investigation. When giving his written answers, he said 'I don't recall" 37 times. He has an attorney general who believes a president can't be subpoenaed. Or indicted. Congress can't do oversight because he just tells his staff, ex-staff, the IRS, or whoever, not to cooperate. And congress can't do a thing about it. And he has every Republican congressman and senator shaking in their boots and afraid to speak out against his dictatorship. So tell me again how he isn't untouchable.

 

Because most of what he’s attempted to do as President has been prevented. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

Because most of what he’s attempted to do as President has been prevented. 

And much has not been prevented. The racial and religious division in the country is the highest it's been in 50 years. He's successfully gotten a huge portion of the country to distrust all media besides Fox News, the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, and all other US intelligence agencies. You and I both know that he will never accept losing in 2020 and will brainwash 35% of the country into thinking the deep state rigged the election. God only knows what the result of that will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, fightingillini said:

There is.

I am an independent, and I voted no to impeach and neutral on Trump.  I am a pretty nonpartisan guy.   My ideology is a combination of liberal and conservative views.  

I like some the things Trump has done.  You can't argue about the economy and the stock market.  Many here thought the apocalypse was coming.   And I hate other things Trump has done, like screwing up the repeal of Obamacare (not having a real solution to replace it), his trade policies, his infatuation for the wall, and some of his stances on immigration.  I strongly dislike his leadership style.  Sure, the Dems and the mainstream media have dug in and won't give him any credit for any good that he's done, but Trump brought that upon himself with his brash style.  

I want a president that will work with the other side to get good solutions for the country.  And there is a good chance that we won't have that choice in 2020.  Really depends on who the Dems nominate. 

We can argue about what effect he has had in those things (economy and stock market) and show that some of the same people touting it now complained about it at the end of Obama’s term. 

Thought it was more a point about the word neutral.  With all he has done, it’s had to basically just say it’s not good or bad with him.  I don’t see there being much a middle even if you like just a few things but or dislike just a few things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

And much has not been prevented. The racial and religious division in the country is the highest it's been in 50 years. He's successfully gotten a huge portion of the country to distrust all media besides Fox News, the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, and all other US intelligence agencies. You and I both know that he will never accept losing in 2020 and will brainwash 35% of the country into thinking the deep state rigged the election. God only knows what the result of that will be.

So you are saying if Trump loses, he will just stay in office?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

And much has not been prevented. The racial and religious division in the country is the highest it's been in 50 years. He's successfully gotten a huge portion of the country to distrust all media besides Fox News, the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, and all other US intelligence agencies. You and I both know that he will never accept losing in 2020 and will brainwash 35% of the country into thinking the deep state rigged the election. God only knows what the result of that will be.

That 35% had the exact same attitudes prior to Trump, and will have them post Trump as well. That’s the real problem, and it’s a big one, but it’s not catastrophic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

If Obstruction is all you have got, you ain't got nothing, IMHO.  It is not even remotely close for grounds for impeachment.  

It’s not all...and yes it is grounds for impeachment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

So you are saying if Trump loses, he will just stay in office?  

I'm speaking more in terms of even more distrust of the media and any election at any level that doesn't go their way. Knowing Trump and his lust for power, I could see him encouraging rioting or some kind of uprising. And a large percentage of those he's brainwashed would gladly do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

I finally voted and said No (but anti-Trump). I’m a risk adverse kind of person and the possible outcomes from impeachment seem to lean towards negative outcomes.  I’m completely in favor of the investigations continuing and depending on what they uncover I’d be willing to change my vote but for now based on what we know I’d say keep focusing on 2020 and use what you find to convince people to vote against him.  

I voted unsure for this same reason. He should be impeached, but without any option of removal due to the Senate, it seems like it would just be fodder for his propaganda network to try and drum up voters in 2020. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

If Obstruction is all you have got, you ain't got nothing, IMHO.  It is not even remotely close for grounds for impeachment.  

You should propose a new law book where you inform law enforcement as to which ones you consider relevant. They can save a lot of wasted resources by getting rid of the silly ones.

Edited by JuniorNB
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

If Obstruction is all you have got, you ain't got nothing, IMHO.  It is not even remotely close for grounds for impeachment.  

I don’t understand this. I agree that it won’t result in his removal- but at least on theoretical terms, why wouldn’t obstruction of justice be grounds for impeachment? Please explain. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tank said:

Unfortunately this will be the status quo from now on.

Does anyone even run campaign ads any more that doesn't attack the other person?  I guess it is easier to say what the other person has done "wrong" instead of saying what you have done "right".

The Democrats just won a historic electoral victory in which their main issues were a positive message about healthcare and infrastructure. They barely mentioned Trump. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tank said:

You must have been looking at different ads then because everyone around here in 2018 mentioned the Republican and Trump in every ad.

Plus historic?  The one is power always loses seats in the midterms.  The Republicans lost what, 40 seats in the House and gained a couple in the Senate?  Obama lost 63 seats in his first midterm and Clinton lost 54 in the House and 10 in the Senate.  That is much more historic than 2016.

The Democrats turned more seats than they have since the 1970s. It was a direct referendum against Trump. It was the blue wave everyone predicted. Yes, it was historic.

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, tank said:

Like I said, whatever gets you through the day.  Apparently this reach is it.

The 2018 midterms was the country telling Trump what they thought of him as a leader. He lost a boatload of his power as a result of those elections. He no longer controlled all branches of government.  Those are facts.  Now, if you want to go back and forth with me telling you facts, but you claiming it's not 'historic', I can do that all day. But we should probably do it on private message and not hijack a thread.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No slam dunk, no impeachment.This president's "Screw dat guy"s, "whatever"s, "make em pay"s & "g'ahead"s is all illegal but a far cry from the "crash the peace talks so's i can win" and "let's pick our opponent" of Nixon and they still wouldnta got Tricky Dick without the tapes. Just make sure there's someone in the White House who won't pardon citizen Trump from post-White House prosecutions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, JuniorNB said:

You should propose a new law book where you inform law enforcement as to which ones you consider relevant. They can save a lot of wasted resources by getting rid of the silly ones.

How about I propose using the Constitution.  It has nothing to do with law enforcement.  It has to do with the Senate and House and what constitutes “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  The founders gave pretty clear guideance, but they also kept it open.  Based on the guidance that the founders of this country provided, I do not see how one can equate obstruction with treason or bribery.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

How about I propose using the Constitution.  It has nothing to do with law enforcement.  It has to do with the Senate and House and what constitutes “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  The founders gave pretty clear guideance, but they also kept it open.  Based on the guidance that the founders of this country provided, I do not see how one can equate obstruction with treason or bribery.  

So a president obstructing an investigation into proven election tampering by a hostile foreign nation wouldn't be impeachable under that definition?  Remove the fact that Trump may or may not have participated. You don't think investigating the depth of the Russian tampering was a worthwhile investigation? And it's fine that our president obstructed the investigation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

How about I propose using the Constitution.  It has nothing to do with law enforcement.  It has to do with the Senate and House and what constitutes “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  The founders gave pretty clear guideance, but they also kept it open.  Based on the guidance that the founders of this country provided, I do not see how one can equate obstruction with treason or bribery.  

If only the Founders had given us some sort of guidance as to the possible application of impeachment to actions that don't amount to treason or bribery :kicksrock:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I don’t understand this. I agree that it won’t result in his removal- but at least on theoretical terms, why wouldn’t obstruction of justice be grounds for impeachment? Please explain. 

I am not sure what you don't understand.  I believe I asked the question several times early on if obstruction was enough for impeachment, and most people including you did not think it was.   I think it is a huge stretch to consider obstruction to fit into the criteria of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Likewise the GOP probably should not have impeached Clinton for lying under oath.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

I am not sure what you don't understand.  I believe I asked the question several times early on if obstruction was enough for impeachment, and most people including you did not think it was.   I think it is a huge stretch to consider obstruction to fit into the criteria of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Likewise the GOP probably should not have impeached Clinton for lying under oath.  

I'd bet my life savings that you weren't against Clinton's impeachment whatsoever. And were most-likely hoping he'd be removed from office. For a BJ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...