Poll: Articles of Impeachment against President Trump

[Libertarian01]

I would have been #4, or rather 3.5. I do believe he is guilty of abusing power, but then I think EVERY president in at least the last 60 years has abused power.

I do not think he should be impeached for it, but rather Congress should take a good, hard look in the mirror and close down many of the loopholes and vagaries in the laws that they have passed. Both parties need to get together to make this work, but we all know they won't. Democrats like it when a democratic president abuses power in a way they like, same for republicans. It's all dancing, just to a different tune is all.

As far as obstruction of Congress? No, I don't find fault there - UNTIL all legal means of forcing subpoenas have been exhausted.

Regarding impeachment in general, they don't need a specific reason. All impeachment is saying "This guy/gal sucks. They need to be fired. Here is the reason." Now Senate, approve or disapprove of the firing. The reason for the hearings is NOT to establish any sort of proof in a legal sense, but rather a justification for the firing. It might cross over into legal reasoning, but it doesn't have to. It is a show. If it's a good show, the guy in the hot seat will probably be fired. If it's a bad show, the guy in the hot seat will probably keep his job. It's that simple.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

Electorate much better informed and honest than in 2008, eh?

You realize that if somehow Trump loses, this comment will be brought back.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

You realize that if somehow Trump loses, this comment will be brought back.

If he somehow loses we have bigger problems than a comment.

 

[Expat]

I would have been #4, or rather 3.5. I do believe he is guilty of abusing power, but then I think EVERY president in at least the last 60 years has abused power.

I do not think he should be impeached for it, but rather Congress should take a good, hard look in the mirror and close down many of the loopholes and vagaries in the laws that they have passed. Both parties need to get together to make this work, but we all know they won't. Democrats like it when a democratic president abuses power in a way they like, same for republicans. It's all dancing, just to a different tune is all.

As far as obstruction of Congress? No, I don't find fault there - UNTIL all legal means of forcing subpoenas have been exhausted.

Regarding impeachment in general, they don't need a specific reason. All impeachment is saying "This guy/gal sucks. They need to be fired. Here is the reason." Now Senate, approve or disapprove of the firing. The reason for the hearings is NOT to establish any sort of proof in a legal sense, but rather a justification for the firing. It might cross over into legal reasoning, but it doesn't have to. It is a show. If it's a good show, the guy in the hot seat will probably be fired. If it's a bad show, the guy in the hot seat will probably keep his job. It's that simple.

Regards,

Doug

This is kid of why I didn't answer the poll. All Presidents do what he has been accused of as do most of the politicians. Remember the Dems sending a letter to the Soviets advising not to worry about Reagan because he would be gone soon. That was abuse of power. All Presidents claim executive privilege when the Congress requests documents they don't want to give up. This was all business as usual.

 

[jamil]

This is a strange rabbit hole. It may or may not be reasonable for someone to believe that Trump committed "abuse of power" based on that person's reading of the call transcript. Regardless, it is utterly unreasonable and not rational to believe that the call transcript (the only actual evidence presented) provides sufficient evidence for an impeachable offense.

The articles of impeachment are both unreasonable and not rational, regardless how "reasonable" anyone's belief is that Trump may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors based on nothing more than the published call transcript.

I'm drawing a distinction between reason and rationality. The question asks how you think... The answers start with "I think...". It's reasonable to answer the question with any of the possible answers. Your reason is used to support your belief, not the other way around. You see a question like this, instinctively you've already decided based on your worldview. Then you use your reason to support your instincts and form a belief. "Reasonable" is the common set of reasons within a norm. If you believe that Trump is guilty, it's quite reasonable to think he should be impeached for it, because that believe is very common.

Everyone who believes either way can give their reasoning why he's either guilty or not guilty. Kut has given his reasoning. Many others here have given theirs. They fit within a common umbrella of reasons. Reason can be thought of like...I don't want to say it because it's become my cliche, but it kinda illustrates the point...Overton's window. It's the collection of reasons that don't exceed the reasons that are commonly held. Thinking Trump is from Mars is not reasonable because it's far outside of what anyone reasons. Saying it's reasonable doesn't mean the reasoning is rational. It means is it widely acceptable enough to say it's normal to believe that. If it's just INGO, it's not reasonable to think that because almost no one on INGO thinks Trump is guilty and should be impeached. But, if we're looking at wider society and not just in our own bubble, it is reasonable to think that.

"Rational" is different because that's more objective. You can be reasonable and not rational or rational and not reasonable. For example, it was reasonable for most people to think the universe revolved around the Earth. But given the overwhelming evidence discovered by a few, it was rational to follow the evidence despite what was considered reasonable to believe. Once what was rational overcame what was reasonable, the rational belief became the reasonable belief. The earth is not stationary and universe does not revolve around it. It's unreasonable not to believe that now.

So that's why I sayit's reasonable for people to believe that Trump is guilty and should be impeached. There's a pretty convincing slight of hand going on with the Abuse of Power charge. Democrats reasonably established that there was a quid pro quo. Lots of testimony and circumstantial evidence. However they did not provide enough facts to prove that the purpose was to dig up dirt on political opponents for the 2020 election. Trump has a reasonable counter to that: it was to discover the truth about possible corruption which happened to involve the Bidens, and determine if the Ukrainians were involved in election meddling in 2016.

Rationality is a bit different from reason as there is a higher standard to apply cold logic to all the facts and derive conclusions from that. It's not rational to believe anything about the Abuse of Power charge, regardless of instinct, because there isn't sufficient facts in evidence to prove either way. If you've selected any of the answers, that's reasonable, but none of them are rational. That's my reasoning for not voting. There wasn't a "bacon" option. There should always be a bacon option.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Electorate much better informed and honest than in 2008, eh?

Nope, just as dumb. I have long held that voters are incredibly ignorant. Voting is popularity contest. Candidates give lip service to a few things, complain about the other side, and then corral the sheep. Anyone, and I mean anyone, seeking the presidency is genuinely concerned about the nation. They’re concerned about themselves.

 

[jamil]

Nope, just as dumb. I have long held that voters are incredibly ignorant. Voting is popularity contest. Candidates give lip service to a few things, complain about the other side, and then corral the sheep. Anyone, and I mean anyone, seeking the presidency is genuinely concerned about the nation. They’re concerned about themselves.

Did you mean to say is NOT genuinely concerned?

And to be more specific, I think it's the power. With Trump, I think it's that he thinks he can do it better than everyone else. Some things he has done better than most recently, some things he hasn't.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So about Ukraine. So people say Ukraine meddled in the elections (despite ALL the intelligence agencies saying otherwise). So I gotta ask, for what purpose? It was Trump v Clinton. Clinton having been the SoS for an administration that was reluctant to help the Ukrainians during their “situation” in Crimea, not to mention Biden strong-arming them to fire their prosecutor. Is it reasonable to believe that “if” the Ukrainians meddled, they did so to help Clinton?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Did you mean to say is NOT genuinely concerned?

And to be more specific, I think it's the power. With Trump, I think it's that he thinks he can do it better than everyone else. Some things he has done better than most recently, some things he hasn't.

Yes, “not.” They’ll all in so shape or form narcissists. Yes, even Obama.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm drawing a distinction between reason and rationality. The question asks how you think... The answers start with "I think...". It's reasonable to answer the question with any of the possible answers. Your reason is used to support your belief, not the other way around. You see a question like this, instinctively you've already decided based on your worldview. Then you use your reason to support your instincts and form a belief. "Reasonable" is the common set of reasons within a norm. If you believe that Trump is guilty, it's quite reasonable to think he should be impeached for it, because that believe is very common.

Everyone who believes either way can give their reasoning why he's either guilty or not guilty. Kut has given his reasoning. Many others here have given theirs. They fit within a common umbrella of reasons. Reason can be thought of like...I don't want to say it because it's become my cliche, but it kinda illustrates the point...Overton's window. It's the collection of reasons that don't exceed the reasons that are commonly held. Thinking Trump is from Mars is not reasonable because it's far outside of what anyone reasons. Saying it's reasonable doesn't mean the reasoning is rational. It means is it widely acceptable enough to say it's normal to believe that. If it's just INGO, it's not reasonable to think that because almost no one on INGO thinks Trump is guilty and should be impeached. But, if we're looking at wider society and not just in our own bubble, it is reasonable to think that.

"Rational" is different because that's more objective. You can be reasonable and not rational or rational and not reasonable. For example, it was reasonable for most people to think the universe revolved around the Earth. But given the overwhelming evidence discovered by a few, it was rational to follow the evidence despite what was considered reasonable to believe. Once what was rational overcame what was reasonable, the rational belief became the reasonable belief. The earth is not stationary and universe does not revolve around it. It's unreasonable not to believe that now.

So that's why I sayit's reasonable for people to believe that Trump is guilty and should be impeached. There's a pretty convincing slight of hand going on with the Abuse of Power charge. Democrats reasonably established that there was a quid pro quo. Lots of testimony and circumstantial evidence. However they did not provide enough facts to prove that the purpose was to dig up dirt on political opponents for the 2020 election. Trump has a reasonable counter to that: it was to discover the truth about possible corruption which happened to involve the Bidens, and determine if the Ukrainians were involved in election meddling in 2016.

Rationality is a bit different from reason as there is a higher standard to apply cold logic to all the facts and derive conclusions from that. It's not rational to believe anything about the Abuse of Power charge, regardless of instinct, because there isn't sufficient facts in evidence to prove either way. If you've selected any of the answers, that's reasonable, but none of them are rational. That's my reasoning for not voting. There wasn't a "bacon" option. There should always be a bacon option.

I may disagree with serval points made above, but at least it’s well reasoned.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Nope, just as dumb. I have long held that voters are incredibly ignorant. Voting is popularity contest. Candidates give lip service to a few things, complain about the other side, and then corral the sheep. Anyone, and I mean anyone, seeking the presidency is genuinely concerned about the nation. They’re concerned about themselves.

I wouldn’t say anyone that runs for POTUS is only concerned about themselves. Probably true for the ones who make it to the primaries, but I think there are people that generally care about the country. They’ll just never advance to POTUS.

 

[2A_Tom]

Electorate much better informed and honest than in 2008, eh?

You realize that if somehow Trump loses, this comment will be brought back.

Some do that sort of thing.

If he somehow loses we have bigger problems than a comment.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[jamil]

So about Ukraine. So people say Ukraine meddled in the elections (despite ALL the intelligence agencies saying otherwise). So I gotta ask, for what purpose? It was Trump v Clinton. Clinton having been the SoS for an administration that was reluctant to help the Ukrainians during their “situation” in Crimea, not to mention Biden strong-arming them to fire their prosecutor. Is it reasonable to believe that “if” the Ukrainians meddled, they did so to help Clinton?

Yes. It's reasonable. Maybe not rational.

Seriously though, the idea is that it's not so much who Ukrainians thought would help their nation more. The idea is that corrupt politicians in Ukraine favoring the Democrats and Clinton's because of their corrupt deals. There's Biden's son having a job at a firm making money doing something he has no qualifications for. There's Kerry's involvement. Clinton's are implicated in some stuff. There's circumstantial evidence and reasons to believe that Ukraine may have meddled. There are selective reasons to believe one way if you're a Trumper. There are selective reasons to suspect other things if you're an anti-Trumper (nevertrumper sounds retarded so I prefer not to use that). I think it's possible. I wouldn't mind seeing it investigated objectively, if that's possible.

 

[2A_Tom]

So about Ukraine. So people say Ukraine meddled in the elections (despite ALL the intelligence agencies saying otherwise). So I gotta ask, for what purpose? It was Trump v Clinton. Clinton having been the SoS for an administration that was reluctant to help the Ukrainians during their “situation” in Crimea, not to mention Biden strong-arming them to fire their prosecutor. Is it reasonable to believe that “if” the Ukrainians meddled, they did so to help Clinton?

ALL the intelligence agencies said there were WMD's in Iraq.

 

[jamil]

If he somehow loses we have bigger problems than a comment.

True. It means a lot of things. One is that the purple hairs have won a decisive victory in the culture war. Establishment democrats have won a choice in judges nominated...they still control the Party, barely. It gets them much closer to socialism, which appears to be the goal of at least a plurality of democrats. If it's an overwhelming defeat the coattails could be particularly troublesome if Democrats gain more seats in the House and control of the Senate. That would really suck. And it's that potentiality why I'm willing to vote for the Orange Turd with yellow hair.

 

[jamil]

ALL the intelligence agencies said there were WMD's in Iraq.

All the intelligence agencies were pushing the **** dossier. I kinda think they play for themselves. They need reigned in.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

True. It means a lot of things. One is that the purple hairs have won a decisive victory in the culture war. Establishment democrats have won a choice in judges nominated...they still control the Party, barely. It gets them much closer to socialism, which appears to be the goal of at least a plurality of democrats. If it's an overwhelming defeat the coattails could be particularly troublesome if Democrats gain more seats in the House and control of the Senate. That would really suck. And it's that potentiality why I'm willing to vote for the Orange Turd with yellow hair.

Amen to that!

My main concern is a rigged election. We’ve all seen it. How many dead voters will come out in droves to support their socialist leaders in 2020?

 

[2A_Tom]

All the intelligence agencies were pushing the **** dossier. I kinda think they play for themselves. They need reigned in.

I was a very low level analyst, All I did was take info that was fed to me from ( ) and try to connect dots so I could figure out what to tell the Division Commander.

It was my desire to give him the best analysis possible.

The agencies are trying to perpetuate and increase their budgets.

 

[CampingJosh]

There's Biden's son having a job at a firm making money doing something he has no qualifications for.

This is the weirdest point I keep hearing about Hunter Biden. He definitely does have the qualifications to sit on the Board of Directors of an energy company.

He's a Yale Law School graduate. He was appointed to the Board of Directors of Amtrak by George W. Bush, and he served at the Vice Chairman of that board. Experience serving on the board of a giant company is the best possible qualification for serving on the board of another giant company.

If George W. Bush wasn't corrupt to appoint Hunter Biden to the Amtrak board, why was Bursima Holdings corrupt to appoint the same person--only now with an even better resume--to their board? Are we supposed to hold a private company in Ukraine to a higher standard than the President of the United States?

 

[Alpo]

ALL the intelligence agencies said there were WMD's in Iraq.

There were significant disagreements with the NIE within the intelligence community, so I would have softened your observation a bit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-iraq-wrong-or-hyped-by-the-bush-white-house/