Should Trump

[Watchmen]

And you may get some temporary gain from Trump's policies, that does not mean that he helps your family.

Those that support the wall tend to be racists since it would be largely ineffective for what it sets out to do. First off most drugs would not be stopped by a wall:

How heroin and fentanyl get into Philadelphia — and why a border wall likely wouldn’t stop them

It would slow down illegal immigration, but already the largest source of illegal immigrants are those that overstay visits, not those that sneak across the southern border.


When people explain how you are wrong you do not tend to listen. At that point all that is required to point out the obvious.

So now I’m a racist? We’re done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now I’m a racist? We’re done.

I said tend to be. Your overreaction does lend support to an accusation, which I did not make, that you are one.

Why support the wall? What do you think that it will do? It will hardly put a dent into illegal immigration. It will waste tons of money and be ecologically harmful. It is merely a campaign promise that Trump made to his unthinking followers. Why should the U.S. concede such a sop to an infantile boor that throws temper tantrums when he does not get his ways?

 

[BSM1]

I said tend to be. Your overreaction does lend support to an accusation, which I did not make, that you are one.

Why support the wall? What do you think that it will do? It will hardly put a dent into illegal immigration. It will waste tons of money and be ecologically harmful. It is merely a campaign promise that Trump made to his unthinking followers. Why should the U.S. concede such a sop to an infantile boor that throws temper tantrums when he does not get his ways?

What source do you have that says the wall would "...hardly put a dent in illegal immigration..."?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What source do you have that says the wall would "...hardly put a dent in illegal immigration..."?

How about a right wing source?

Why the Wall Won't Work

 

[BSM1]

How about a right wing source?

Why the Wall Won't Work

Speculation and anecdotal. There's no proof to substantiate your claim, whereas walls have been shown to stem or control illegal entry into countries since antiquity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speculation and anecdotal. There's no proof to substantiate your claim, whereas walls have been shown to stem or control illegal entry into countries since antiquity.

Wrong again. You see the burden of proof is upon those that want to spend our money. They need to prove that the wall will work. That article explains why it won't.

Shifting the burden of proof is always a losing debate strategy.

 

[Stevicus]

I so disagree!

I can understand that, although as we get closer to the next election, it might be a bit more problematic to introduce impeachment proceedings anyway.

I remember back when Mecham was governor of AZ, the public signed the recall petitions and a recall election was already set to go, but then the legislature decided to impeach him to avoid it altogether. I thought that was dirty pool. The public should always have the right to choose over whatever political shenanigans go on.

On the other hand, I sometimes wish they would have recall elections at the federal level. I think that's better than impeachment, since it gives people the right to choose.

 

[LuisDantas]

It seems to me, @Stevicus , that there is a need - arguably a dire need - to take a stand and accept such shenanigans no more.

The price for falling short would be further degeneration of the civic fabric.

 

[Stevicus]

It seems to me, @Stevicus , that there is a need - arguably a dire need - to take a stand and accept such shenanigans no more.

The price for falling short would be further degeneration of the civic fabric.

Well, the system is what it is. There's been a dire need for change in the political system for a very long time now. It didn't start with Trump, which is what I've been saying all along. There's a lot of gibbering going on, but few people are actually saying anything. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "civic fabric," as if there ever was such a thing to begin with. In the long run, we are all dead.

 

[LuisDantas]

We can't very well just decide that the community should descend into ever growing internal hostility and alienation, can we?

 

[Stevicus]

We can't very well just decide that the community should descend into ever growing internal hostility and alienation, can we?

It's not really my decision, though. The community will decide whatever it decides. If people choose to be hostile and aggressive, responding to every little quip as if it's the end of the world, then that's what they choose. I certainly can't control what other people do, and if the powers that be wish to impeach Trump (or not impeach Trump), then I have no other choice but to abide by their decision.

The main things that I'm truly concerned about are on a more basic level, such as whether people have decent working conditions, livable wages, affordable housing, food, access to healthcare, education - things like that. To me, those things are real and critical to the survival of human beings.

On the other hand, there are those who are fortunate enough to already have those things, and all they seem concerned about is whether or not they are offended by Trump (or his supporters). They're only concerned about their own "feelings," while not giving the slightest damn about the struggles that millions upon millions of people are facing every day. To me, that cuts to the very source of where a lot of hostility and alienation comes from.

 

[james dixon]

If you are wondering if impeaching trump is talked about in other places; your wondering is over---

EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

1128 posts • Page 1 of 113 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 113
Weber Forums • View topic - EXTRY! EXTRY! IMPEACHMENT IMMINENT!

You can find this all over the web.

Da trumpit is doomed -

 

[james dixon]

If Yes to Impeachement, Why remove?

trump cares only about himself above call other things, including the safety and well being of the USA. Trump is unfit to be our president.

Mueller will fill in the rest.
-

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Because there is ZERO evidence of any impeachable offense.

He's been openly violating the emoluments clause since he took office. It's only because Trump has lowered people's standards and expectations that many no longer see this as such a big deal.

BTW, what do you think qualifies as an "impeachable offense?" Based I what I've read, it seems that the Constitution left it open on purpose, and that "impeachable offenses" don't necessarily even need to be crimes.

Apparently - and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me - the term "misdemeanor" in "high crimes and midemeanors" really just meant "misbehavior." It's just a coincidence that the term is now used for a category of criminal offenses. From what I understand "high misdemeanors" was just meant to be something like "bad behaviour," and pretty much any behaviour that Congress considers bad enough to impeach for would be considered "impeachable."

Do you have a different understanding?

 

[esmith]

He's been openly violating the emoluments clause since he took office. It's only because Trump has lowered people's standards and expectations that many no longer see this as such a big deal.

BTW, what do you think qualifies as an "impeachable offense?" Based I what I've read, it seems that the Constitution left it open on purpose, and that "impeachable offenses" don't necessarily even need to be crimes.

Apparently - and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me - the term "misdemeanor" in "high crimes and midemeanors" really just meant "misbehavior." It's just a coincidence that the term is now used for a category of criminal offenses. From what I understand "high misdemeanors" was just meant to be something like "bad behaviour," and pretty much any behaviour that Congress considers bad enough to impeach for would be considered "impeachable."

Do you have a different understanding?

legal definition of misdemeanors: Legal Dictionary - Law.com

misdemeanor

n. a lesser crime punishable by a fine and/or county jail time for up to one year. Misdemeanors are distinguished from felonies, which can be punished by a state prison term. They are tried in the lowest local court such as municipal, police or justice courts. Typical misdemeanors include: petty theft, disturbing the peace, simple assault and battery, drunk driving without injury to others, drunkenness in public, various traffic violations, public nuisances and some crimes which can be charged either as a felony or misdemeanor depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the District Attorney. "High crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in the U.S. Constitution are felonies

felonies:
n. 1) a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine. ... Felonies are sometimes referred to as "high crimes" as described in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

legal definition of misdemeanors: Legal Dictionary - Law.com

misdemeanor

n. a lesser crime punishable by a fine and/or county jail time for up to one year. Misdemeanors are distinguished from felonies, which can be punished by a state prison term. They are tried in the lowest local court such as municipal, police or justice courts. Typical misdemeanors include: petty theft, disturbing the peace, simple assault and battery, drunk driving without injury to others, drunkenness in public, various traffic violations, public nuisances and some crimes which can be charged either as a felony or misdemeanor depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the District Attorney. "High crimes and misdemeanors" referred to in the U.S. Constitution are felonies

Since you seem to have missed it the first time:

Apparently - and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me - the term "misdemeanor" in "high crimes and midemeanors" really just meant "misbehavior." It's just a coincidence that the term is now used for a category of criminal offenses.

 

[esmith]

Since you seem to have missed it the first time:

Apparently - and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me - the term "misdemeanor" in "high crimes and midemeanors" really just meant "misbehavior." It's just a coincidence that the term is now used for a category of criminal offenses.

Is this your opinion or do you have case law to back it up????

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is this your opinion or do you have case law to back it up????

You're batting 0 for 2 on reading comprehension. Maybe third time's the charm:

Apparently - and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me - the term "misdemeanor" in "high crimes and midemeanors" really just meant "misbehavior." It's just a coincidence that the term is now used for a category of criminal offenses.

 

[esmith]

You're batting 0 for 2 on reading comprehension. Maybe third time's the charm:

Apparently - and I may be wrong, so feel free to correct me - the term "misdemeanor" in "high crimes and midemeanors" really just meant "misbehavior." It's just a coincidence that the term is now used for a category of criminal offenses.

yada yada yada

 

[metis]

yada yada yada

Smartest thing you ever said.