The point is did you mean fight physically or is there a very normal benign definition of fight that you were using?
It's supposedly Constitutional, BUT
- Thread starter just me
- Start date
The point is did you mean fight physically or is there a very normal benign definition of fight that you were using?
Should the democrats who argued the 2016 election was rigged be impeached before they run for president too?
So you have to take away the choice from the voters because Trump is quite popular?
Let me consult a personal injury lawyer about my hurt feelings.The point is did you mean fight physically or is there a very normal benign definition of fight that you were using?
I personally didn't agree with that in 2016 but we also didn't see an insurrection as a result. People peacefully assembled... Such as with the Women's March in 2017.
Yeah I'm ok with it lol. He's a disaster and a threat to our democracy given what happened on 1/6/21. Not wanting any repeats of that. And it's constitutional to bar him from office if our elected representatives vote to do so. Pick a better candidate next time then. This isn't mob rule.
He would have to be tried in civilian court to seek a prison term. But the night is young lol.
Are you in the states Reason?
I never said that. I was merely responding to "no chance of winning", which I was skeptical of. I stated that I thought that whether or not he incited an insurrection had a degree of "subjectivity" to it, so the outcome is up for the trial to determine.
D
Deleted member 16771
Here's what I think:
I think that Trump was well aware of the dangerous forces he was amassing - and we know this because he was briefed on it - and intended to use these to intimidate Congress into not certifying the Electoral college vote. He assembled them and sent them to the Capitol.
Did he order them to invade the Capitol or commit violence? I don't think that can be established, but there's no question that when it did happen, he wasn't horrified. Instead, he applauded it and didn't immediately call it off. I'd like to see some staffers testify about his reaction.
He was aware of the possibility of imminent violence - which is actually the condition of the Brandenburg case - and took the risk. When the violence materialised, he was fairly pleased with that. He risked the lives of legislators and his vice president, and didn't act immediately to end that risk, despite knowing that he was the only one who could.
These facts alone make him unfit to serve for the rank irresponsibility he showed on that day, and therefore Congress is well within their rights to attempt to disqualify him from future office.
And it is my opinion that he should be disqualified, for the threat he poses to the democratic process in the United States. For this behaviour to go unpunished, as the House Managers have indicated, would set a dangerous precedent for what is considered 'acceptable presidential conduct'. We would see every candidate have to amass a force of brownshirts to engage in political intimidation, including the intimidation of election officials.
Congress is well within their jurisdiction to attempt to guard against this threat, using the instrument of impeachment, to protect the integrity of the republic.
I think that Trump was well aware of the dangerous forces he was amassing - and we know this because he was briefed on it - and intended to use these to intimidate Congress into not certifying the Electoral college vote. He assembled them and sent them to the Capitol.
Did he order them to invade the Capitol or commit violence? I don't think that can be established, but there's no question that when it did happen, he wasn't horrified. Instead, he applauded it and didn't immediately call it off. I'd like to see some staffers testify about his reaction.
He was aware of the possibility of imminent violence - which is actually the condition of the Brandenburg case - and took the risk. When the violence materialised, he was fairly pleased with that. He risked the lives of legislators and his vice president, and didn't act immediately to end that risk, despite knowing that he was the only one who could.
These facts alone make him unfit to serve for the rank irresponsibility he showed on that day, and therefore Congress is well within their rights to attempt to disqualify him from future office.
And it is my opinion that he should be disqualified, for the threat he poses to the democratic process in the United States. For this behaviour to go unpunished, as the House Managers have indicated, would set a dangerous precedent for what is considered 'acceptable presidential conduct'. We would see every candidate have to amass a force of brownshirts to engage in political intimidation, including the intimidation of election officials.
Congress is well within their jurisdiction to attempt to guard against this threat, using the instrument of impeachment, to protect the integrity of the republic.
Dodging the question because you dont have an answer
Yes I am in the states, why?
So he has a chance of winning and impeaching him has a good chance of nullifying the will of the voters in 2024?
D
Deleted member 16771
Isn't it the will of the electorate to impeach him, through their representatives?
Done the research into the common use of the word "fight"? I posted the definition
The philosophy behind impeachment is how to remove people from office after the election is over. "Damn, things went bad after he took office, what do we do?" But out of office impropriety is handled by public opinion (as in you don't vote for him again) and illegality is handled by the courts. All you're doing is skirting democracy.
I look forward to these arguments reversing if Republicans retake congress in future and impeach Biden out of office.
https://www.oprah.com/relationships/before-your-next-fight-read-this
I am learning from Oprah about fighting. Shouldn't we be talking about UNITY?
I'd love some unity. I think rioters should be in prison. And if Trump broke any laws he should go to court and be tried as the private citizen he is. What's unfair about that?
From my understanding, they're trying to establish appropriate conduct for a President while in office. My interpretation is that they don't want Trump himself to run again because he hasn't demonstrated that he takes any responsibility what so ever for anything that he did during his presidency including anything that he said and did that lead up to January 6th. He believes everything was "totally appropriate." His lack of response on that day is pretty telling. We know he was informed about the attacks because two Senators have come out and said that they spoke to the President on the phone and told him, and he still did nothing. I'm sure we'll hear more about what was actually going on with him. It's really hard for me to imagine that Trump's lawyers don't have this information. I believe they probably do but don't want to disclose it.
I don't think the USA needs someone (Trump or otherwise) perpetuating a dangerous conspiracy theory that lead to violence in office. If it was Biden that did this, or Obama or anyone, it would be the same. You can't have a President suggestion that his followers go "stop the steal" after it was already proven time and time again that he lost. Talk about fake news.
I watched the whole trial so far. Honestly - I actually wish that Trump's lawyers had put together something at least half way decent outside of a video that was cut together with over dramatic music to show Democrats using the word "Fight." I wish that their defense wasn't so transparent and absolutely absurd. I wish that there was more information that came forward to show anything that would prove that Trump actually did take action to protect his own government and that proved he didn't incite the mob. But we didn't get any of that. It can't be rewarded by letting him off the hook.
I don't think the USA needs someone (Trump or otherwise) perpetuating a dangerous conspiracy theory that lead to violence in office. If it was Biden that did this, or Obama or anyone, it would be the same. You can't have a President suggestion that his followers go "stop the steal" after it was already proven time and time again that he lost. Talk about fake news.
I watched the whole trial so far. Honestly - I actually wish that Trump's lawyers had put together something at least half way decent outside of a video that was cut together with over dramatic music to show Democrats using the word "Fight." I wish that their defense wasn't so transparent and absolutely absurd. I wish that there was more information that came forward to show anything that would prove that Trump actually did take action to protect his own government and that proved he didn't incite the mob. But we didn't get any of that. It can't be rewarded by letting him off the hook.
Last edited:
He can't just do whatever he wants in the last couple weeks of his Presidency and since he lost be let off the hook for it. That should not be the case for any President. The articles of Impeachment were brought forward while he was still in office for things he did while he was President so I don't really understand the objection. The Senate has to decide if what happened was acceptable or not. I don't believe it was. It's not my decision to make. I don't live in the USA either so my voice doesn't actually count either way.
As to being tried as a private citizen, sure, if he committed crimes of course they should be investigated and if found guilty, he should receive and live out the appropriate punishment. I have no argument against that.
Honestly wondering how that would work if the crime was alleged to have been committed while he was functioning in the capacity of his office. For example, if someone committed war crimes they'd be charged with war crimes in accordance to their role in the war, not as a private citizen.
He asked for a peaceful demonstration during the so called inciting speech and tried several times afterwards to condemn the violence at the Capitol and call for peace. This was not seen because of his subsequent ban off Twitter burying his calls for peace. You keep him from speaking then blame him for being silent.
Doesnt count for 2016 because they're not on your side. This will be used against the democrats someday though. I promise you that.
Asking for him to be tried in a regular court is "letting him off"?
Simply curiosity, I wasn't sure where you hailed from.
We have many people from a variety of countries weighing in on the conversation. I'm trying to follow differing perspectives along the way.