Because banning someone from being in office is inappropriate for genuine crimes. If a president murdered someone (for sake of argument) while in office what would be the point of impeaching him after office? If he were guilty he would just go to prison, and that pretty much solves that rather completely dont you think? Is he going to run from his prison cell?
I don't understand this argument.
I look forward to watching Republicans use this on democrats. We'll see if you feel the same way then.
Like the Democrats from 2016-2020 when they were claiming fraud?
The only part i look forward to is watching the arguments turn on a dime. I should've worded that post more clearly but I think this is a terrible precedent to set.
But he did, that's what I said he did do that both during his speech on the 6th and after
I don't live in your country so it doesn't matter to me. I don't understand or relate to picking a side or a team or having fears that one party might do this, that or other thing. I don't really understand or relate to this idea of retribution. It doesn't make any logical sense to me to think that way or worry about something like that. But I do not live in a country with a two party system so aligning to a party in this way just doesn't work anyway.I'll try to remember that for the future
My opinion, Reason, is that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who has the Republican party by the throat. I mean, the country almost tore itself apart because the dude couldn't accept an election result.
His popularity is a reoccurring problem isn't it? What kind of a country will we have if we keep allowing people to take power just because they're popular?
I know that once his followers breached the Capitol he tweeted "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” I also know that around 40 minutes later he tweeted “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!” Why wouldn't he call them off and ask them to go home? Why wouldn't he condemn the violence after it was happening? Why did this attack go on for HOURS before he asked them to stop?
Because gathering peacefully as he asked isn't illegal?
But he did that's what we're talking about, he did condemn it after it happened.
Do you think he was talking to the people who broke laws or just to all demonstrators? The latter isn't it?
He didn't call out the national guard during the blm riots either. He offered them to the governors and they told him to get stuffed.
He has commited to a peaceful transfer of power 5 or 6 times over the past couple months. He's entitled to his opinion the same way that people who questioned the 2016 election's legitimacy are. It's unethical to force someone to say something they don't believe. That is for example the logic by which athletes are allowed to kneel during the national anthem during sporting events.
If I asked you to justify Trump as a good president, would you be able to do it?His popularity is a reoccurring problem isn't it? What kind of a country will we have if we keep allowing people to take power just because they're popular?
Absolute comedy
There were peaceful people there, of course. There were also many people who were not and now people are dead. His supporters who were caught have all said they were doing what their President asked them to do. They believe he invited them there. They believe they were told to fight like hell. They were looking for Pence to hang him. Some admitted they wanted to shoot Pelosi in the head but couldn't find her. Are his supporters stupid and completely misinterpreted everything that he was telling him over the last year about a fraudulent election or were they actually correctly interpreting Trump and it's true that he summoned them there to storm the Capitol to "stop the steal?" What do you think of his supporters? Were they stupid? Brainwashed? Did they organize this independently and Trump's words over the last year had nothing to do with it?
Why wouldn't he have done it much sooner? Why did he wait to do it, and when he finally did, still had to plug the lie about the election being stolen despite there being zero evidence? Why did he not immediately act? He says he would run into a school during an active shooting but he couldn't send out a tweet or a video immediately to condemn the violence, especially when his own VP was in danger? We already know he thinks he can shoot someone in the middle of the street and get away with it, so maybe this is more of that. Maybe he just didn't think it was that big of a deal. Maybe he was actually enjoying it? Not for me to say, but I do wonder these things.
I believe he was talking to all of his supporters which included the violent protestors.
Had he called in the National Guard to deal with it immediately then this wouldn't have even been a question at all. Why would he need to charm terrorists? Why would he have to tell them he loved them and were special when he could have called in the National Guard and had them removed? What's the value in charming violent protestors who are trying to actively destroy the democratic process?
Not sure what BLM has to do with trying to violently overturn election results and potentially destabilizing and destroying democracy in the USA? Or is this a whataboutism argument?
Are you arguing for the First Amendment? Do you think it was the same in 2016 even though Hilary Clinton conceded and there were no violent attempts to interrupt the government from doing their duty so that there could be a peaceful transfer of power?
Justify to who? To you? If you mean convince someone that would depend in part on who that someone is doesn't it?
I thought we were discussing the constitutionality of impeachment not Trump's record, did I misread the prompt?
No, you didn't misread the prompt, but I'm asking for your opinion.
