The debate "Donald Trump should be impeached" was started by
September 25, 2019, 12:14 pm.
87 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 65 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 13 arguments, Nemiroff posted 5 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 10 arguments, marky posted 1 argument, dinosaurrawr posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
historybuff, sn0wman02, JustLikeJackman, K1VK2DF, ismailfawaz, MightyJackalope, realone_27, chelseat99, YEET and 78 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Saam, Hailey, marky, dinosaurrawr, Lynn, lmaoimsad, Mice, CastLight, Agrumentman, mtbtheboss and 54 visitors disagree.
Nemiroff is correct, I am canadian. So he is literally not my president.
I see 2 main flaws with your argument.
1) As Nemiroff said, The Republicans did not show any respect to Obama when he was president. They did things like saying "not my president" and pushed a conspiracy saying he wasn't born in america and was therefore an illegitimate president. Saying Democrats are disrespectful for pointing out the presidents' crimes, but Republicans weren't disrespectful when they tried to convince people the president was secretly a Muslim or was Kenyan is ridiculous hypocrisy.
2) there is a huge difference between showing respect for the office and showing respect for the man. In a democracy, leaders are not and should not be shielded from criticism. Authoritarian regimes put in rules where the "dear leader" cannot be criticized or questioned. Those kinds of things are completely incompatible with democracy. If people aren't free to point out a leader's flaws (or in this case crimes) then the people cannot hope to make any kind of valid choice in an election. Elections then become meaningless.
actually buff is not from USA.
not my president was started by republicans during obama.
and you dont have to show a politician respect in this country. we are free to criticize our leaders. thats what makes us different from an authoritiarian country that trump wishes this was.
Also, it's Mr. President. He's your president and you need to be respectful whether you like it or not
I would disagree that he has had a positive effect as president. I would argue he has had a drastically negative impact.
But ultimately, that doesn't matter in the context of impeachment. If he has used his office to commit and to cover up crimes, then he should be impeached. At this point it is pretty clear he has done that.
I mean, he has done a lot as a president as opposed to Obama who seemed to make some things kinda worse and he isn't Hiliary Clinton so...
No I don't agree.
in addition to intent, which could be ignored, the founders put in short term limits to encourage responsiveness to the public. as i said, by design.
because it is for the public, taxes and spending bills have to start in the house, rather then from senate elitests. the outcry to remove a president was also given to the people, not to independent leaders like the senate.
in the wiki page for "house of representatives"
Edmund Randolph who brokered the Virginia compromise establishing the bicarmel congress said "the lower house would be 'of the people,' directly elected, and would represent *public opinion.*"
There is absolutely no rule that says that congress should follow popular opinion and ignore the constitution. That is not a division that anyone has ever made. Both the senate and the house of representatives are responsible for upholding the constitution.
Where is this concept coming from?
They took an oath to uphold the constitution, and it was that very constitution that made the house of representatives particularly sensitive on the will of the people.
it would not be good for a congress to just ignore the people.
it would not be good for a congress to just blindly follow the people.
thus we have 2 houses, 1 for each of those callings. each with specific duties to balance each other off.
it may not be perfect in every situation, but i would not want to live under a government without this division in general. thus i defend.
"your speaking about "congress". im speaking about the house of representatives, a specific part of congress with distinct features and built in motivators"
And every one of them swore an oath to uphold the constitution. That constitution says they are required to provide oversight of the executive branch. Allowing him to commit crimes and not impeaching him is a violation of that oath.
You seem to be saying that going along with what is popular is more important than the constitution or the oaths they took when they were elected. I would very strongly disagree.
your speaking about "congress". im speaking about the house of representatives, a specific part of congress with distinct features and built in motivators
"you may be right, but what it should be wasnt my argument. i said that this is how our government was designed to work."
Congress is required to be a check on the power of the executive branch. That is how it was designed to work. If congress won't do their job and refuses to check the power of the executive, then they are not doing their jobs.
"i dont think its cowardly to carry out your specific job description properly."
Agreed. But refusing to act as a check on executive overreach and outright criminality, they are failing to uphold their job description.
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what the role of congress is. You appear to be arguing that their only job is to enact the will of the people. But their oath of office requires them to uphold the constitution. Failure to provide a check and balance to Trump violates that oath.
you may be right, but what it should be wasnt my argument. i said that this is how our government was designed to work. the house was meant to be extra responsive to the people, which by design, undercuts their ability to act independently of them.
the senate on the other hand was designed to be more independent of the people to facilitate those tough decisions. i dont think its cowardly to carry out your specific job description properly. yes they are leaders, but limited leaders with specific priorities. other leaders in our divided government have different priorities and system to enable/limit them.
im very much pro impeachment and agree with you. regardless of the political damage of a failed impeachment, if we do nothing after making a hubbub this long, it will also do a ton of political damage and set a dangerous precedent for future presidents. however, im a progressive in a progressive stronghold. i am entitled to.my opinion as are the people in more moderate areas. i can certainly debate with them, but i cant judge them; nor can i judge the representatives who are accurarely representing them... they arent executives or senators, they are representatives, its their job to represent. its in the name.
I don't think i could possibly disagree more. Impeachment isn't supposed to be a popularity contest. It isn't supposed to be political. If the president commits crimes which rise to level of impeachment, he should be impeached. The dems have known for months that trump has committed crimes worthy of impeachment. And yet they refused to open an impeachment inquiry. They essentially took their constitutionally required job of oversight of the executive branch and threw it out the window because it might be politically difficult. That is cowardice. They refused to do their jobs because it might not be easy or might have consequences.
No impeachment has ever been popular when it started, including Trump's. Support for impeachment comes after the people have heard the details of the crimes. Refusing to start impeachment proceedings because it isn't popular is putting the cart ahead of the horse. The impeachment inquiry finds the evidence, the people decide impeachment is a good idea, then you impeach. If you refuse to start the inquiry then you aren't going to convince people impeachment is necessary.
i believe you said this was building for months and public pressure finally made them switch.
i said, both the Congressmen and the constituents flipped recently within that 48 or so hours due to the new revelations of the ukraine report.
therefore according to your view, everyone was convinced for months, aka not much to do with the new info over ukraine, and the leaders were just cowards.
yes, leaders should take unpopular stances when needed in general, however the house of representatives was made to be more responsive to public opinion *by design*. the smaller districts, the frequent elections. that is why impeachment must start from the people, while more broad and secure leaders (senators) can take a more assertive stance and decide whether or not he is actually removed.
i agree with you leaders should be able to take unpopular stances, but i also appreciate the divided government with each institution having different priorities by design. and the house is the house of the people.
"this is from before Ukraine as you claim ukraine had nothing to do with this."
I don't believe i ever said Ukraine had nothing to do with this. Perhaps I have been unclear. My point was that dems were feeling pressure from the progressives in their party. They refused to go for impeachment because they were afraid of losing battleground seats. With the new Ukraine scandal they finally got pushed hard enough to move.
"them flipping with the voters is what they are supposed to do."
On policy issues, absolutely they are. But this is not a policy issue. The president has committed crimes and abused his office. The job of congress is to provide oversight of the executive branch. Refusing to do so because you are afraid of losing some seats means that they are willing to forgo having principles and refusing to carry out their duty. Keeping the election in mind when making decisions is a good idea. But letting partisan electioneering keep you from doing what you know to be right is exactly why modern politics is broken.
They knew he was a criminal. They knew there was ample grounds for impeachment. They knew it was their job to hold the executive branch to account. They refused to do it for partisan political reasons.
this is from before Ukraine as you claim ukraine had nothing to do with this.
crap, cant paste links...
the hill article titled "poll: democratic support for impeachment dips after mueller testimony"
says 67% support, down 4 points.
pre.mueller it was 71% or just under 3/4.
i would postulate that the vast majority of democrats live in Democrat majority states, i hope we have no disagreement on that obvious point. so if we assume all democrats in progressive areas support, its safe to assume nearly all Democrats in red states/districts do not. the crowd of tens of a small hundred does not speak for an entire town, and even a dozen town halls do not cover a state. a vocal minority is not representative of a silent majority. town halls are anecdotal.
and besides, that is the reason for 2 year representative terms. if they dont follow the people they are out. they arent supposed to be representing themselves. them flipping with the voters is what they are supposed to do. and if your right about voter pressure, that doesnt explain why they resisted voter pressure before those 48 hours....
as i said, their voters did not want impeachment. they listened and acted. i also dont think its stupid to ignore politics. make a stupid move on ideology and you lose the house, republicans regain control of full government. environmental and other regulations go out the window along with anything forward thinking and the supreme court. good job.
"they've been pushing for months and finally forced her hand" (coincidentally exactly the moment more explicit and direct evidence came forward)
new, damning, simpler to understand evidence came out that made impeachment a no brainer and they acted on it appropriately.
btw, a town hall full of a loud minority does not mean a majority. impeachment to my knowledge remains unpopular except for in highly progressive enclaves. i will need more the hearsay to be convinced. the rush towards impeachment's timing with new evidence is too coincidental to give the credit to months of pushing.
"within 48 hours 20 members changed their minds".... was this wjthin 48 hours of the ukraine story breaking? or Ukraine transcript release? how can you disregard this?
"the recent push for impeachment seems entirely based on new evidence, and new crimes. not a push from the base."
The dems already have proof that he has committed a number of crimes. They have had it for months. Pelosi wouldn't budge. She doesn't care if Trump has committed crimes or not. She only cares about protecting her battleground state dems. Trump could shoot a member of congress in the head and if she thought it would imperil the battleground state dems should would hold up an impeachment.
They had over 20 Democrats in congress, many of whom sit in competitive districts won by Trump in 2016, change their minds and come out in support of impeachment over the course of 48 hours. Pelosi moved because the battleground state dems moved. And they wouldn't have moved if they thought their seats would be lost because of it. So essentially, the base has been pushing for this for months and they have finally forced Pelosi's hand.
you mention some townhalls that i have no way to confirm or deny, but the recent push for impeachment seems entirely based on new evidence, and new crimes. not a push from the base. this seems to refute your entire conclusion.
"your citing a highly concetrated base in some, mostly progressive districts."
There are obviously no stats on this because it was congressmen getting yelled at. But the reporting i have heard is that when dems in battleground districts went home and held town halls, they got yelled at by their constituents. I agree that solid dem areas are certainly pushing too, but there is a reason the dems decided to move. At this point I think there are only about 10 democrats left who don't support impeachment so clearly the battleground dems decided they needed to get on board.
"but i disagree with you on the blanket criticism pending individual details"
Then we respectfully disagree. But I would say that the recent polls have shown me to be correct. My opinion was the willingness to impeach comes after the investigation. You need to investigate and find the information showing there is grounds to impeach. The dems, up until last week said that because support for impeachment was low, they wouldn't do an impeachment inquiry. That was stupid. They needed the inquiry to build support for impeachment. Polls this week show support for impeachment has jumped by like 10 points. In several of them, the majority now support impeachment.
The dems held back because they were afraid to lead. The people had to force them to do their jobs. The dems need to grow a spine and actually lead on issues, not hold back until their base forces them on pain of being primaried. If they believe something is right, they should do it instead of doing things that are wrong because they might poll better. It is exactly stuff like this that has lead people to say the dems are weak and useless.
your citing a highly concetrated base in some, mostly progressive districts.
remember how trump won despite losing the popular vote. left wing areas voted overwhelmingly against him. right wing areas were mostly split. those democrats in red wing areas are quite moderate and against impeachment. nonetheless, it is their representatives job to represent them, and not the nation wide democratic base in other districts. i agree with you regarding impeachment, but i disagree with you on the blanket criticism pending individual details. im sure some are cowardly. but most are likely representing their constituents. on this issue at least.
they are of course worried how this will affect their reelection as that is a representation of their constituents will. as the constituents change, you should expect the representatives to change along with them.
I did not mean to imply that that the large majority of the public wants to impeach. At the moment it is not the majority position. However, a large chunk of the Democratic base strongly believes that he should be. The dems made alot of promises in 2018 to hold trump accountable, but they then did nothing about it. That is causing a lot of the energized people who want trump help accountable to turn on them. Incumbents are not used to being challenged by their own party. Some of them having been running unchallenged for decades.
They think that taking the moderate (cowardly) position will help them win a general election. But they are starting to fear that taking a moderate path will see them lose the nomination. With over 110 challenges so far they have good reason to be worried.
here was a short interview I saw on it.
the twist is that the Nixon impeachment was deeply unpopular, until the impeachment laid out all the evidence. the Clinton impeachment worked the other way around.
is there anything to back up that claim? to my knowledge impeachment is still unpopular, with the exception of deep blue districts which is home to the dems eagerly pushing it. most dems, especially in red or purple districts are against impeachment. so im not sure where your claims is coming from.
Oh no, I am not misunderstanding. The dems did. A normal election cycle has 2 or 3 primary challenges. There are over 100 primary challenges for the dems so far and that number is still growing.
The dems promised they would hold trump accountable in the 2018 election and then did nothing. Their constituents are pissed. The dems are going to do what they promised or their constituents are going to toss them out on their ass. They haven't moved to impeach trump because they wanted to hold trump accountable. They finally moved because they have realized it isn't trump they need to be worried about. It is their own base.
i think your misunderstanding those dems. its not that they are scared, its that they represent dems in red or swing districts who dont want to impeach. they are simply representing their constiutents, as they are supposed to do.
the problem will come not in the house, but in the senate. they will not convict him. the question is whether the proceedings convince their constituents enough for a backlash. or if the backlash hits those moderate dems instead.
I would say the biggest threat is "moderate" (read right wing) dems trying to trip it up. People who are so concerned with their ability to play both sides of the fence that they get in the way of upholding the law.
If the dems do this properly, there really shouldn't be anything trump can do to prevent his own impeachment. (please note I do not mean conviction and removal by the senate) But given how the dems have handled things so far, their primary instinct seems to be fear. So it is entirely possible they will screw this up.
i hope it doesn't backfire, but at this point not impeaching could be so much worse
I know there have been lots of these in the past, but given the new information that has, and is, coming to light I thought it might be interesting.
The new allegation is that Trump held back hundreds of millions of dollars of aid that had been approved by Congress in an attempt to extort the leader of Ukraine. Trump wanted him to find or create some evidence that might seem plausible to smear his political rival, Joe Biden. He brought this up at least 8 times and sent his attorney, Giuliani, to help try to dig up dirt.
This is a flagrant abuse of power. He used the power of the presidential office to try to extort another country into interfering in a US election to benefit himself.