The Trump Impeachment Thread

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 2,103 comments
  • 75,489 views

Will the current Articles of Impeachment ever be sent from the House to the Senate?


  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
There wasn't anything wrong with voicing them in the America thread.
100% correct.

But isn't America more than Trump? I don't think Trump is important or interesting enough to dominate a general interest thread like America.

Even more so, I don't think Trump should dominate a specific information and discussion thread like the one on coronavirus.
 
Last edited:
Correct. IMO, your suggestion was not a good one. This thread title was changed in order to relieve massive off-topic posting on other threads, and it has helped in that cause, also relieving the task of moderators dealing with bunny trails. I think the overall experience of the forum is enhanced when the thread you are in more or less sticks to the topic. If there was no deliberate provision for thread title change, then it wouldn't have happened. But it is a fact of life and an available facility. And occasionally it makes practical sense to do this. So do your part, keep your posts on topic in whatever thread you happen to be, and take advantage of this thread to tell us how you really feel about Trump.

But if you still feel that your suggestion is a good one and the content of this thread is such a valuable historical archive, then how about you create a thread specifically devoted to Trump complaints and worries, use it keeping your on-topic discipline in other threads, and I'll change the name of this thread back to what it was before.

:lol:

Yup, that sure sounds less confusing. 👍

/s
 
I think the overall experience of the forum is enhanced when the thread you are in more or less sticks to the topic.
dd0.png
 
Personally, Trump should have been impeached, definitely.

I'm outside of US so obviously I am expecting people to jump in that I should buitt out.

But the thing was.... Trump being President was super super super dodgy to anyone looking from the outside in.

It made no sense. Something had to have happened to make Trump win.
 
But the thing was.... Trump being President was super super super dodgy to anyone looking from the outside in.

It made no sense. Something had to have happened to make Trump win.
The way I see it, Trump won for two key reasons:

1. He convinced many that he'd fundamentally change US politics, and bring in new ideas to increase jobs, lift people out of poverty, and crack down on corruption. Essentially, he ran a pseudo-populist, pseudo-grassroots campaign.
2. His opponent was lacklustre and unlikable from the beginning.

Much of Trump's campaign was about how he'd do things differently than other politicians. He wasn't a part of the political establishment, never having any career in politics, and instead was a multi-billionaire international businessman. This combination made his seem new, honest, and likable. He would rail on about how corrupt Washington is, popularizing the phrase "drain the swamp" claiming he'd get the "stupid" and "corrupt" politicians outside of Washington, not just Democrats but Republicans too. He also emphasized how he wanted to run the US like he ran his businesses, and this had a positive connotation since he was perceived as one of the most successful entrepreneurs in US. He visited states that are traditionally ignored by politicians, like West Virginia, and made knowingly false promises to their citizens, as well as in other rust belt areas: that he'd bring back coal, steel, and other manufacturing jobs. His controversial, racist, and downright stupid statements, as well as his rape allegations had very little effect on his popularity. In essence, he was able to create a passionate, yet tractable following, since he genuinely convinced people that things would fundamentally change. He renewed hope in many voters that felt dissatisfied by Washington and the political process. As such, not just Republicans, but centrists and those who usually don't vote gave their vote to Trump.

His opponent, Hillary, was a bad choice for the Democrats from the beginning. She was seen as weak, dishonest, vague, and uninspiring; a figurehead of the political elite. Many had a hard time trusting her, due to her email scandal (and one such email claiming that she has both a "public" and "private" stance on key issues), being funded by Wall Street and other dark money, and for being a warmongerer in the past. Her policies were centrist and brought nothing new to the table. Unlike Trump, she failed to create a strong, vocal movement. Honestly, I don't even think its possible for a candidate running a centrist/moderate campaign to even have a such a devoted following. There were very little "real" Hillary supporters; many voted for her simply because she wasn't Trump, and because she's a Democrat, not because she was well-liked. And it didn't help that many who had supported Bernie did not vote for Hillary.

Fast forward over three years later, and Trump didn't live up to any of his mighty promises. Like most other Republican presidents, he's focused on cutting taxes on the rich and corporations, increasing military funding, rolling back regulations, and has done nothing to increase living conditions for the lower and middle class. There's nothing truly unique about him, simply from a policy standpoint. Coal, steel, and manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt have not increased. He loves to tout the fact that unemployment has been the lowest in a long time, and the stock market is the highest ever, but none of this matters considering that the cost of living for lower and middle class people is only increasing, and if you're not wealthy and don't own stocks, like most, you wouldn't feel the benefits of a high-performing market. And he hasn't drained the swamp. In fact, the swamp has only grown deeper with Trump in office; his cabinet is mostly comprised of corporate lobbyists as well as his billionaire friends like Betsy Devos, and all of them are just shills. He's been ridden with scandals, and has more indictments than any president in history, even more than Nixon.
 
He was.

(Submerged did answer the above)


That's what people do when they disagree with what you have to say but can't easily refute it. It happens here, sadly, but it also tends to get called out.

I was expecting people to call out to me and I accepted that. Just right now, I expected a lot more but didn't, so I suspect there is a lot of thinking happening at the moment


Submerged: I have to shorten it:

The way I see it, Trump won for two key reasons:

1. He convinced many that he'd fundamentally change US politics, and bring in new ideas to increase jobs, lift people out of poverty, and crack down on corruption. Essentially, he ran a pseudo-populist, pseudo-grassroots campaign.
2. His opponent was lacklustre and unlikable from the beginning.

Much of Trump's campaign was about how he'd do things differently than other politicians.
Trump not part of the:
political establishment, never having any career in politics,
and instead was a multi-billionaire international businessman. This combination made his seem new, honest, and likable.

He would rail on about how corrupt Washington is, popularizing the phrase "drain the swamp" claiming he'd get the "stupid" and "corrupt" politicians outside of Washington, not just Democrats but Republicans too. He also emphasized how he wanted to run the US like he ran his businesses, and this had a positive connotation since he was perceived as
one of the most successful entrepreneurs in US.

Very important I assume:

He visited states that are traditionally ignored by politicians, like West Virginia, and made knowingly false promises to their citizens, as well as in other rust belt areas: that he'd bring back coal, steel, and other manufacturing jobs.

His controversial, racist, and downright stupid statements, as well as his rape allegations had very little effect on his popularity. In essence, he was able to create a passionate, yet tractable following, since he genuinely convinced people that things would fundamentally change. He renewed hope in many voters that felt dissatisfied by Washington and the political process. As such, not just Republicans, but centrists and those who usually don't vote gave their vote to Trump.

His opponent, Hillary, was a bad choice for the Democrats from the beginning. She was seen as weak, dishonest, vague, and uninspiring; a figurehead of the political elite.

Many had a hard time trusting her, due to her email scandal (and one such email claiming that she has both a "public" and "private" stance on key issues), being funded by Wall Street and other dark money, and for being a warmongerer in the past.

Her policies were centrist and brought nothing new to the table. Unlike Trump, she failed to create a strong, vocal movement. Honestly, I don't even think its possible for a candidate running a centrist/moderate campaign to even have a such a devoted following. There were very little "real" Hillary supporters; many voted for her simply because she wasn't Trump, and because she's a Democrat, not because she was well-liked. And it didn't help that many who had supported Bernie did not vote for Hillary.

(Submerged: I had to cut the last bit which had very good information to keep it concise)

The problem seems to be, Trump isn't (yet) being punished for not doing what he is promised. And he should be reminded for that, for the whole American ideal of how it should be done.

Also, the only way he can really make a change is to either create a Universal Health Care or have a war with some country that would help to make his approval rating still be high.


Hillary would have been the better choice, after all of this!
 
I was expecting people to call out to me and I accepted that. Just right now, I expected a lot more but didn't, so I suspect there is a lot of thinking happening at the moment
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I gather you're not speaking in your native tongue and I appreciate you making an effort, but I'd also appreciate it if you'd elaborate.

The problem seems to be, Trump isn't (yet) being punished for not doing what he is promised. And he should be reminded for that, for the whole American ideal of how it should be done.
Politicians make promises that they, for a variety of reasons, do not fulfill. That's not really my concern. What is of greater concern is that Republicans in the Senate refused to hold him accountable for the laws he violated, and by virtue of their majority in the Senate, they were able to stave off his removal.

First and foremost, the president is to ensure the execution and enforcement of laws. It's right there in the office title; "Executive". A president that fails to abide by those laws is unfit to fulfill that duty.

Also, the only way he can really make a change is to either create a Universal Health Care or have a war with some country that would help to make his approval rating still be high.
I'd be content (or at least closer to content) if he'd be a leader--particularly in our present situation--instead of a whiny little bitch.

Hillary would have been the better choice, after all of this!
That can't be known. The only events that we can observe are those that transpired. I think she'd probably have been a better leader, would have put less emphasis on the loyalty of her subordinates and would have golfed and tweeted less, but that's neither here nor there.
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I gather you're not speaking in your native tongue and I appreciate you making an effort, but I'd also appreciate it if you'd elaborate.


Politicians make promises that they, for a variety of reasons, do not fulfill. That's not really my concern. What is of greater concern is that Republicans in the Senate refused to hold him accountable for the laws he violated, and by virtue of their majority in the Senate, they were able to stave off his removal.

First and foremost, the president is to ensure the execution and enforcement of laws. It's right there in the office title; "Executive". A president that fails to abide by those laws is unfit to fulfill that duty.


I'd be content (or at least closer to content) if he'd be a leader--particularly in our present situation--instead of a whiny little bitch.


That can't be known. The only events that we can observe are those that transpired. I think she'd probably have been a better leader, would have put less emphasis on the loyalty of her subordinates and would have golfed and tweeted less, but that's neither here nor there.

The quote of:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I gather you're not speaking in your native tongue and I appreciate you making an effort, but I'd also appreciate it if you'd elaborate.

What I was trying to get at is that I am from UK. English is my native tongue. I was *trying* to say that it wouldn't surprise me that people from United States would tell me to butt out of their polictical system. I expected that from quite a few members as I made my comment.

For you to say whether I was saying it on my native tongue, was particularly rude and actually uncalled for.

For the rest of your "statements" as the following:

Politcians make promises, for whatever reasons they do not fulfill =
doesn't that make them easy to kick them out after four years of being in power that they can't do anything?

Also, it SHOULD be the public concern whether the leader is fulfilling the promises of obtaining the position of power.

Because someone promises something, doesn't mean that they continue the position of power.

It would be like me, promising that because you gave me 20 dollars, I would be able to give you 50 dollars of economic prosperity,

That makes no sense WHATSOEVER

After a year, that 50 dollars is the same as the 20 dollars you gave me the year before (If we were to be that blunt).

The American issue is, they don't have an ideal way of an opposition force against the current ruling party, so whatever is a ruling party is left unchecked,

UK also has that issue, but for some reason, UK somehow seems to still have to fight to show that. US..... I am not seeing that AT ALL. This worries me.

This makes me think a war between US and China will happen at the end of this year.

By the way, I don't want to come off as aggressive. I just want to see both or many sides



 
Personally, Trump should have been impeached, definitely.
He was.


I'm outside of US so obviously I am expecting people to jump in that I should buitt out.
It’s an internet forum free to use by everyone with access. Why should you not be allowed to comment?


But the thing was.... Trump being President was super super super dodgy to anyone looking from the outside in.

It made no sense. Something had to have happened to make Trump win.
Um, he took a greater majority of state’s electoral college votes in order to pass that of HRC. She also didn’t do herself any favors near the end of the campaign by failing to travel to outskirt areas.
 
So you are saying that it requires money for people to go out and spend time in many different places? Like, flying on a private planes to get to those voting places?

Is that what should be done by a person that desires to run a country?
 
Hillary would have been the better choice, after all of this!

I'm very far from anything like a Trump supporter, but I don't think that you can say that Hillary would have been better. A lot of Trump's personality problems were pretty public knowledge going in, and he still won. On a marginal technicality, some might say, but it essentially came down to a neck and neck vote between this showboating misogynistic narcissist with a huge record of bankruptcies, abusive business practices and dodgy dealings or Hillary.

Hillary might have been better, but the fact that so many people were distrustful of her as an established politician with a long record of public service as to vote for a random businessman from a C-tier reality show with no experience in public office doesn't paint a really good picture of her. It's easy to imagine scenarios in which Hillary could have been as bad or worse than Trump. Perhaps not in the sense of looking like a goof on the world stage (although who knows, she was pretty memeable), but any President could do as much or more damage to the US as an institution.

So you are saying that it requires money for people to go out and spend time in many different places? Like, flying on a private planes to get to those voting places?

Is that what should be done by a person that desires to run a country?

That seems to be how popularity works, yes. Humans are more distrustful of people that they've never met. So if one of the candidates has visited somewhere and the other hasn't, that seems to translate to a political advantage. Travelling costs money because...society, and so yeah, it requires money to do this.

You seem to be stating this in a way that implies that the system shouldn't be like this. I don't see how you think that an election in which humans vote for other humans could be any other way.
 


I still do not think the Senate will convict (if there's time for it to go that far) even though they should have done the first time.
 
Last edited:
"It will further divide the country" and other remarks to that effect are being uttered by a number of Republican senators. That's a ******** copout; they're paralyzed by fear of losing the support of his idiot base.
I find it hard to further divide a country that just saw a failed insurrection, but that's just me. I guess the Senators also thought that all they had to do was say "Trump is my savior" and the mob would accept them and not have killed them, like their plan was.
 
This article explains that the democrats are not in the process of creating the strongest legal position for themselves, and should be impeaching on different grounds. The article is pretty convincing to me. It actually makes me wonder whether they want the republicans to join with them or want the republicans to further bury themselves by refusing. The latter would be politics, but bad for the country.
 
I find it hard to further divide a country that just saw a failed insurrection, but that's just me. I guess the Senators also thought that all they had to do was say "Trump is my savior" and the mob would accept them and not have killed them, like their plan was.
I don't believe people in this country can really get more divided. The division can really only worsen with violent action that, while extant, can absolutely become more extreme.
 
Impeach to remove his ability to do anything else as president and then arrest him once out of office on an inciting insurrection charge. Does that fall under treason in the USA? If so go for the death sentence.
 
Impeach to remove his ability to do anything else as president and then arrest him once out of office on an inciting insurrection charge. Does that fall under treason in the USA? If so go for the death sentence.
Impeachment doesn't work that way. Impeachment is best compared to an indictment, though it differentiates beyond that point in that there is no criminal prosecution. Conviction on charges (referred to as "articles") results in removal from office and revocation of privileges associated with office. Other action may be taken after removal from office, including on the same articles, because there is no jeopardy to life and limb from the impeachment and conviction. Acquittal on articles results in no action; just a label. None of the three United States Presidents to be impeached were convicted and so none were removed from office.
 
Impeachment doesn't work that way. Impeachment is best compared to an indictment, though it differentiates beyond that point in that there is no criminal prosecution. Conviction on charges (referred to as "articles") results in removal from office and revocation of privileges associated with office. Other action may be taken after removal from office, including on the same articles, because there is no jeopardy to life and limb from the impeachment and conviction. Acquittal on articles results in no action; just a label. None of the three United States Presidents to be impeached were convicted and so none were removed from office.
Ironically, the only US President that wasn't impeached that likely would have been removed from office resigned before it happened (Nixon).
 
Ironically, the only US President that wasn't impeached that likely would have been removed from office resigned before it happened (Nixon).

I have a theory that we will never see the Senate remove a president from office. Because if the votes have gone south in the Senate, the President will resign (like Nixon), and if they haven't, removal won't happen. It seems very unlikely that the Senate would ever actually exercise that power directly.
 
"It will further divide the country" and other remarks to that effect are being uttered by a number of Republican senators. That's a ******** copout; they're paralyzed by fear of losing the support of his idiot base.
Biden: We need unity.
MAGA: No.
Biden: We are stronger together.
MAGA: No! And we’re gonna protest at Capitol Hill for Trump! You’re not my President!



MAGA: Unity?
Dems: **** off.
 
Biden: We need unity.
MAGA: No.
Biden: We are stronger together.
MAGA: No! And we’re gonna protest at Capitol Hill for Trump! You’re not my President!



MAGA: Unity?
Dems: **** off.

Sadly, I don't think they've got the stones to stick with it. They've caved, over and over again, in the name of bipartisan cooperation. Every time, the GOP takes every inch offered, cooperates on nothing, and establishes a new dividing line, which the Democrats then turn around and surrender in yet another "compromise" at the next opportunity. Hoping for the national Democratic party to actually get anything meaningful done is folly. I hope they prove me wrong, and soon, but I've watched this cycle happen way too many times to be optimistic.
 
Sadly, I don't think they've got the stones to stick with it. They've caved, over and over again, in the name of bipartisan cooperation. Every time, the GOP takes every inch offered, cooperates on nothing, and establishes a new dividing line, which the Democrats then turn around and surrender in yet another "compromise" at the next opportunity. Hoping for the national Democratic party to actually get anything meaningful done is folly.

The political system as it currently stands in the US kind of needs the Democrats to be as cut-throat as the Republicans. One can argue that the system shouldn't be like that and that the rules should be changed, and if the GOP was an opponent that was willing to stick to a gentleman's agreement not to push laws to their breaking point for the sake of marginal advantage then maybe compromise could be reached, but that's clearly not the situation.

The GOP needs to face consequences for how they've chosen to pursue politics under Trump. Appeasement will give ultimately worse results, in the same way that you don't bargain with a disobedient child. All you're teaching them is that they can misbehave and get away with it. It feels bad, but people have to be shown that there are lines that you do not cross in a well ordered society.

This isn't and shouldn't be about vengeance. This should be about creating a society in which people can disagree without it coming to violent insurrection.

I hope they prove me wrong, and soon, but I've watched this cycle happen way too many times to be optimistic.

But yeah, I agree. It seems unlikely. And to be fair, there's a real danger that trying to impose order on the situation could result in a civil war. But at this point there's probably arguments in favour of that if it results in a government that is more just and responsive to it's people.
 
Back