Dems of the board, was impeachment a good idea?

[IM2]

There was not much of a choice.... they were left with no choice when the DOJ refused to investigate the complaints of staffers who reported the CHEATING, and lawlessness.....

Trump was always going to get off, for his high crimes.... but History, facts, what was done by him, needed to be recorded..... And it was.....

READ:

Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...Orange man bad... blah blah...

He is a very bad person.... I'm not gonna lie about it, or cover my eyes, and cover my ears, and pretend he's some kind of hero or messiah..... he's not. He's an awful, disgraceful, disgusting, lowlife of a person from head to toe. I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.

That is the thing with you Never Trumpers. It is either one extreme or the other.
If you say one single thing about Trump that even looks positive - you are a "Trumper"...you worship the very ground he walks on... "your messiah"
That is ridiculous.
Trump is neither a messiah or the devil himself. He is not a great President, nor is he even close to the worst. Not even in the bottom 10. And not in the top 10 either.

trump is the worst president in our history. It's not even close. When he does something positive he will get credit for it, but right now he hasn't.

 

[my2¢]

A registered Democrat here. Well at least over the past month and until next month's primary in the state is over.

I believe impeachment was continuation of the Democratic strategists' plan over these last 3 years of benghazying Trump out of the White House by raking his reputation through the mud which they see will lead to his defeat in November. Impeachment was good for the plan, but I never believed in the plan.

 

[j-mac]

From the Russia gate to the Kavanaugh false accusations and then to the shampeachment. What is next?

To those who are not yet participating in an American party, do you believe the impeachment was a good idea? President Trump won again, didn't he?

What is the thought process behind the choices the party is making? Hate is going to defeat president Trump, no good candidates required?

On the assumption that you are capable of a nuanced debate.

Impeachment is the only remedy our system has for a law breaking president. It's a flawed one, since no Senator before Mitt Romney has ever voted to remove a president of his own party.

No, we never thought we could remove Trump, not because most of the REpublicans really thought he was innocent, but because they are too terrified of their own voters. But we did put it on the historical record that he broke the law.

No you didn't, douchebag. There were no actual laws listed in the impeachment articles.

1) no 'actual' laws need to be broken for impeachment.

2) when the framers wrote the constitution - there were no federal crimes 'on the books', so they worded it in such a way that 'breaking the public trust' is a pathway to impeachment.

1) What the hell are you talking about here...Please cite the exact statute in the US Code that Trump broke.

2) What an extraordinary display of ignorance of how the framers of the constitution came up with the document.

there is no exact statute in the US code because there was....no read slowly.....

NO


US


CODES


at the time the constituion was written.

2) how utterly ironic that you actually wrote that.

Origins
Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.
Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."

In his tweet, Amash noted that the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution is relatively fluid, but that it has generally been seen as a breach of the public trust:

"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."

In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019

PolitiFact - What counts as a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment? Justin Amash got it right

"The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice. On June 2, 1787, the framers adopted a provision that the executive should “be removable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”1 M. Farrand, supra, at 88. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">857 The Committee of Detail reported as grounds “Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”2 M. Farrand at 172, 186. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">858 And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to “Treason, or bribery.”Id. at 499. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">859 On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct that should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add “or maladministration” following “bribery.” Upon Madison’s objection that “o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested “other high crimes & misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.Id. at 550. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">860"

Impeachable Offenses

I find it utterly amazing that liberals, who in the past had little need or respect for the framers, or the constitution, now all of the sudden find themselves lovin' them some of that....The framers clearly thought that the term "maladministration" was too vague, and clearly wanted the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to be equal in legal weight to Bribery and Treason....What we saw here proposed by Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi fell far short of that. And, when they tried to get the Senate to bolster their weak impeachment by bullying them into calling witnesses they failed to call because of their self imposed haste, the Senate rightly were not buying it...

And, when 2020 is over, and republican's retake the house, and retain the senate, as well as re elect Trump for another 4 years, they will exponge the impeachment vote. Then good luck convincing the American people that you should EVER hold anything higher than dog catcher for the next generation.

 

[IM2]

the dude who had several bankruptcies - that were casinos - where the house is designed to win - who wall st had to put on an allowance - who proudly proclaimed to be the 'king of debt' - created a good economy allllllll by himself....

I don't know who is calling the shots, but I do know that the steps he has taken has made the economy thrive. We would NOT be where we are had Hillary won the election. She would have created more regulations and increased taxes. Trump has done the opposite. If a Democrat wins and implements those policies, along with the Green New Deal, our economy will absolutely tank(worse than 2008) but ignorant folks will blame it in Trump.

His steps have not made the economy thrive. We would be here if not better under Hillary. It is the ignorant who keep giving trump credit for this economy.

That wasn't the position of the article no the intent of your post. The article wanted to push responsibility off to trolls. Typical liberal position - no personal responsibility or accountability.

You guys don't take responsibility/accountability for shit. Trump fucks up and your default response is "what about Obama." You don't have the intelligence to discern my intent son.

Ad hominem attack. Typical.

The truth.

 

[playtime]

On the assumption that you are capable of a nuanced debate.

Impeachment is the only remedy our system has for a law breaking president. It's a flawed one, since no Senator before Mitt Romney has ever voted to remove a president of his own party.

No, we never thought we could remove Trump, not because most of the REpublicans really thought he was innocent, but because they are too terrified of their own voters. But we did put it on the historical record that he broke the law.

No you didn't, douchebag. There were no actual laws listed in the impeachment articles.

1) no 'actual' laws need to be broken for impeachment.

2) when the framers wrote the constitution - there were no federal crimes 'on the books', so they worded it in such a way that 'breaking the public trust' is a pathway to impeachment.

1) What the hell are you talking about here...Please cite the exact statute in the US Code that Trump broke.

2) What an extraordinary display of ignorance of how the framers of the constitution came up with the document.

there is no exact statute in the US code because there was....no read slowly.....

NO


US


CODES


at the time the constituion was written.

2) how utterly ironic that you actually wrote that.

Origins
Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.
Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."

In his tweet, Amash noted that the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution is relatively fluid, but that it has generally been seen as a breach of the public trust:

"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."

In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019

PolitiFact - What counts as a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment? Justin Amash got it right

"The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice. On June 2, 1787, the framers adopted a provision that the executive should “be removable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”1 M. Farrand, supra, at 88. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">857 The Committee of Detail reported as grounds “Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”2 M. Farrand at 172, 186. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">858 And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to “Treason, or bribery.”Id. at 499. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">859 On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct that should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add “or maladministration” following “bribery.” Upon Madison’s objection that “o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested “other high crimes & misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.Id. at 550. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">860"

Impeachable Offenses

I find it utterly amazing that liberals, who in the past had little need or respect for the framers, or the constitution, now all of the sudden find themselves lovin' them some of that....The framers clearly thought that the term "maladministration" was too vague, and clearly wanted the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to be equal in legal weight to Bribery and Treason....What we saw here proposed by Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi fell far short of that. And, when they tried to get the Senate to bolster their weak impeachment by bullying them into calling witnesses they failed to call because of their self imposed haste, the Senate rightly were not buying it...

And, when 2020 is over, and republican's retake the house, and retain the senate, as well as re elect Trump for another 4 years, they will exponge the impeachment vote. Then good luck convincing the American people that you should EVER hold anything higher than dog catcher for the next generation.

^^^ wtf? ^^^

 

[IM2]

A registered Democrat here. Well at least over the past month and until next month's primary in the state is over.

I believe impeachment was continuation of the Democratic strategists' plan over these last 3 years of benghazying Trump out of the White House by raking his reputation through the mud which they see will lead to his defeat in November. Impeachment was good for the plan, but I never believed in the plan.

trump actually violated laws and the constitution. There was no need to Benghazi him.

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Excellent candidates? Oboe is backing blumberg. Ha. Good luck, sore losers. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Obama has backed no one. trump is about to lose. He's a very weak candidate with a failed presidency.

I don't think the famlies now making $5k more a year would say it was "failed"...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

So the families who aren't making 5 k more a year do have the right to complain?

Your family is making 5K more a year, isn't it?

if you don't count what we have invested in 401k's, heck no!

So your point is that he’s attempting to help able bodied people who are in the workforce, as opposed to the people that don’t exist on paper?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ken Mac]

I don't know who is calling the shots, but I do know that the steps he has taken has made the economy thrive. We would NOT be where we are had Hillary won the election. She would have created more regulations and increased taxes. Trump has done the opposite. If a Democrat wins and implements those policies, along with the Green New Deal, our economy will absolutely tank(worse than 2008) but ignorant folks will blame it in Trump.

His steps have not made the economy thrive. We would be here if not better under Hillary. It is the ignorant who keep giving trump credit for this economy.

That wasn't the position of the article no the intent of your post. The article wanted to push responsibility off to trolls. Typical liberal position - no personal responsibility or accountability.

You guys don't take responsibility/accountability for shit. Trump fucks up and your default response is "what about Obama." You don't have the intelligence to discern my intent son.

Ad hominem attack. Typical.

The truth.

So you are slandering me? You're claiming that I'm not intelligent is a fact?

I'll sue your ass from here to eternity if you slander me.

You better fucking fix it.

 

[IM2]

No you didn't, douchebag. There were no actual laws listed in the impeachment articles.

1) no 'actual' laws need to be broken for impeachment.

2) when the framers wrote the constitution - there were no federal crimes 'on the books', so they worded it in such a way that 'breaking the public trust' is a pathway to impeachment.

1) What the hell are you talking about here...Please cite the exact statute in the US Code that Trump broke.

2) What an extraordinary display of ignorance of how the framers of the constitution came up with the document.

there is no exact statute in the US code because there was....no read slowly.....

NO


US


CODES


at the time the constituion was written.

2) how utterly ironic that you actually wrote that.

Origins
Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.
Impeachment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."

In his tweet, Amash noted that the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution is relatively fluid, but that it has generally been seen as a breach of the public trust:

"In fact, ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars."

In fact, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution and does not require corresponding statutory charges. The context implies conduct that violates the public trust—and that view is echoed by the Framers of the Constitution and early American scholars.

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) May 20, 2019

PolitiFact - What counts as a high crime or misdemeanor for impeachment? Justin Amash got it right

"The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice. On June 2, 1787, the framers adopted a provision that the executive should “be removable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”1 M. Farrand, supra, at 88. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">857 The Committee of Detail reported as grounds “Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”2 M. Farrand at 172, 186. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">858 And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to “Treason, or bribery.”Id. at 499. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">859 On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct that should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add “or maladministration” following “bribery.” Upon Madison’s objection that “o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested “other high crimes & misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.Id. at 550. " style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); color: rgb(0, 104, 172); cursor: pointer; vertical-align: top; font-weight: 700; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 0.8em; border-bottom: 1px dotted; font-family: Verdana, "Helvetica Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">860"

Impeachable Offenses

I find it utterly amazing that liberals, who in the past had little need or respect for the framers, or the constitution, now all of the sudden find themselves lovin' them some of that....The framers clearly thought that the term "maladministration" was too vague, and clearly wanted the 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to be equal in legal weight to Bribery and Treason....What we saw here proposed by Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi fell far short of that. And, when they tried to get the Senate to bolster their weak impeachment by bullying them into calling witnesses they failed to call because of their self imposed haste, the Senate rightly were not buying it...

And, when 2020 is over, and republican's retake the house, and retain the senate, as well as re elect Trump for another 4 years, they will exponge the impeachment vote. Then good luck convincing the American people that you should EVER hold anything higher than dog catcher for the next generation.

^^^ wtf? ^^^

This idiot has been radicalized by listening to Limbaugh the dropout tell him how liberals don't like the constitution. Yet every argument made here by democrats is based upon constitutional tenets.

 

[rightwinger]

I fully support Democrats for holding Trump accountable

To do anything less would mean Trump can do anything he wants because he knows 2/3 of the Senate will not vote to convict

 

[IM2]

His steps have not made the economy thrive. We would be here if not better under Hillary. It is the ignorant who keep giving trump credit for this economy.

That wasn't the position of the article no the intent of your post. The article wanted to push responsibility off to trolls. Typical liberal position - no personal responsibility or accountability.

You guys don't take responsibility/accountability for shit. Trump fucks up and your default response is "what about Obama." You don't have the intelligence to discern my intent son.

Ad hominem attack. Typical.

The truth.

So you are slandering me? You're claiming that I'm not intelligent is a fact?

I'll sue your ass from here to eternity if you slander me.

You better fucking fix it.

You aren't intelligent based on your posts.

You accused me of not taking responsibility or accountability because I am a liberal which is a blanket slander of every liberal here. So shut the fuck up and if you try threatening me again, I will report it to the moderators.

 

[j-mac]

From the Russia gate to the Kavanaugh false accusations and then to the shampeachment. What is next?

To those who are not yet participating in an American party, do you believe the impeachment was a good idea? President Trump won again, didn't he?

What is the thought process behind the choices the party is making? Hate is going to defeat president Trump, no good candidates required?

On the assumption that you are capable of a nuanced debate.

Impeachment is the only remedy our system has for a law breaking president. It's a flawed one, since no Senator before Mitt Romney has ever voted to remove a president of his own party.

No, we never thought we could remove Trump, not because most of the REpublicans really thought he was innocent, but because they are too terrified of their own voters. But we did put it on the historical record that he broke the law.

No you didn't, douchebag. There were no actual laws listed in the impeachment articles.

1) no 'actual' laws need to be broken for impeachment.

2) when the framers wrote the constitution - there were no federal crimes 'on the books', so they worded it in such a way that 'breaking the public trust' is a pathway to impeachment.

1) What the hell are you talking about here...Please cite the exact statute in the US Code that Trump broke.

2) What an extraordinary display of ignorance of how the framers of the constitution came up with the document.

He was correct.... You do not need to have a statutory crime, to impeach.... the founders made it clear by using the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' which was common place at the time to mean basically, any loss of the public's trust, abusing their power, that we, the public, gave them as president.... it could be an actual crime, to breaking his oath of office, to misusing his power and a number of other things like cheating, that are not necessarily statutory crimes.

The founders could not possibly list as offenses, all the offenses or foreseeable offenses, that a president could do, to abuse their power and lose the public's trust, so they used the common law term, meaning such for officials in high places of govt... 'high crimes and misdemeanors'

However, they never meant it to be frivilous crap, like what we saw come from Schiff, or Nadler either...They rejected "maladministration" because it was too vague..In their words "leaving a President to serve at the pleasure of the Senate"....They didn't want that...And that is exactly what democrats are trying to pull here.

 

[Ken Mac]

That wasn't the position of the article no the intent of your post. The article wanted to push responsibility off to trolls. Typical liberal position - no personal responsibility or accountability.

You guys don't take responsibility/accountability for shit. Trump fucks up and your default response is "what about Obama." You don't have the intelligence to discern my intent son.

Ad hominem attack. Typical.

The truth.

So you are slandering me? You're claiming that I'm not intelligent is a fact?

I'll sue your ass from here to eternity if you slander me.

You better fucking fix it.

You aren't intelligent based on your posts.

Let's make something very clear. 99% of what ANYONE posts here is opinion. 99.9% of everything you post is your opinion. You post very little facts and they are usually worthless. You don't debate. You sling mud and see what sticks

JMHO.

 

[JoeB131]

Richer nations always win trade wars.

Trump will win again.

Uh, guy, the loser in the trade war was the American consumer, who ended up paying more for products. Didn't bother China a bit.

 

[Care4all]

Obama has backed no one. trump is about to lose. He's a very weak candidate with a failed presidency.

I don't think the famlies now making $5k more a year would say it was "failed"...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

So the families who aren't making 5 k more a year do have the right to complain?

Your family is making 5K more a year, isn't it?

if you don't count what we have invested in 401k's, heck no!

So your point is that he’s attempting to help able bodied people who are in the workforce, as opposed to the people that don’t exist on paper?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No!

 

[j-mac]

I fully support Democrats for holding Trump accountable

To do anything less would mean Trump can do anything he wants because he knows 2/3 of the Senate will not vote to convict

Let's see how that accountability holds up after you donkey's loose in November....lol

 

[IM2]

On the assumption that you are capable of a nuanced debate.

Impeachment is the only remedy our system has for a law breaking president. It's a flawed one, since no Senator before Mitt Romney has ever voted to remove a president of his own party.

No, we never thought we could remove Trump, not because most of the REpublicans really thought he was innocent, but because they are too terrified of their own voters. But we did put it on the historical record that he broke the law.

No you didn't, douchebag. There were no actual laws listed in the impeachment articles.

1) no 'actual' laws need to be broken for impeachment.

2) when the framers wrote the constitution - there were no federal crimes 'on the books', so they worded it in such a way that 'breaking the public trust' is a pathway to impeachment.

1) What the hell are you talking about here...Please cite the exact statute in the US Code that Trump broke.

2) What an extraordinary display of ignorance of how the framers of the constitution came up with the document.

He was correct.... You do not need to have a statutory crime, to impeach.... the founders made it clear by using the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' which was common place at the time to mean basically, any loss of the public's trust, abusing their power, that we, the public, gave them as president.... it could be an actual crime, to breaking his oath of office, to misusing his power and a number of other things like cheating, that are not necessarily statutory crimes.

The founders could not possibly list as offenses, all the offenses or foreseeable offenses, that a president could do, to abuse their power and lose the public's trust, so they used the common law term, meaning such for officials in high places of govt... 'high crimes and misdemeanors'

However, they never meant it to be frivilous crap, like what we saw come from Schiff, or Nadler either...They rejected "maladministration" because it was too vague..In their words "leaving a President to serve at the pleasure of the Senate"....They didn't want that...And that is exactly what democrats are trying to pull here.

What the democrats presented wasn't frivolous. An impeachment over a consensual sexual relationship is.

 

[JoeB131]

1) The trade war has had little affect other than uncertainty on Wall Street. Inflation remain very low. The big trade wars are coming to a close and the US wins out in the end.
2) Dodd-Frank has been modifed, not repealed.

Again, only a matter of time before we have a crash because Wall Street is bullshitting investors.

Exactly what Dodd-Frank was meant to prevent.

Money is not the issue with public education, the DoE and its liberal leadership is. More school choice, which the Democrats hate as well as tax credits for those choosing to send their kids to private schools, which are not only more efficient by a large margin, but do a better job of educating our children, would be a good start.

Bullshit.

Places that have tried "School Choice" got no better results than public education. As a product of Catholic Education, I can tell you exactly why.

When your parents are paying tuition, they are committed. When you are getting a voucher, not so much.

For profit companies paying non-union teachers who don't give a fuck and find something else to do in a year or two isn't going to improve anything.

 

[DBA]

Not that I want that to happen, unless it just effects the inbreds in the red states...

The inbred portion of red states are 90%+ Democrats. Luckily, the educated, well payed folks all vote Republican. You don't seem to understand the demographics.

 

[IM2]

I fully support Democrats for holding Trump accountable

To do anything less would mean Trump can do anything he wants because he knows 2/3 of the Senate will not vote to convict

Let's see how that accountability holds up after you donkey's loose in November....lol

You guys sound like the people who predicted who was going to win the super bowl before the season started.