Biden impeachment

[Anonymous]

Can a president be impeached for crimes committed before taking the office of the president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don’t get is how Democrats seem to be willing to die on their sword for Biden. Trump is clearly a Svengali but he has some history of really generating sincere interest and excitement. Joe never has ever. He was elected as a replacement for Trump and a placeholder. And he is now clearly too old. So why the passionate defense. Isn’t his potentially shady dealings another reason to push him aside. NO ONE loves Biden. No one ever has except Jill. So why the blind loyalty to a man with clearly questionable abilities (age) and somewhat questionable ethics. Even if he didn’t break the law, he knew what his son was doing and he knew his son was getting rich off trading on the name. That Mah be cool for senators (which I think stinks) but it just isn’t ok for the VP.

1) he has had a very positive and consequential presidency
2) a sitting president and a party with incumbency doesn't just give it up.

It isn't blind loyalty. He is respected on the world stage, has invigorated NATO, has stabilized the US economy - which is the strongest in the world from a GDP, job creation, inflation - you name it, every metric it is the best. That doesn't mean that prices are too high etc, they are, but most people trust him more than Trump.

How do you suggest a party with an incumbent, non-lame duck president, conduct a reasonable primary process? What would a primary on a sitting president do to the rest of the term, particularly with this set of GOP leadership in the House?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don’t get is how Democrats seem to be willing to die on their sword for Biden. Trump is clearly a Svengali but he has some history of really generating sincere interest and excitement. Joe never has ever. He was elected as a replacement for Trump and a placeholder. And he is now clearly too old. So why the passionate defense. Isn’t his potentially shady dealings another reason to push him aside. NO ONE loves Biden. No one ever has except Jill. So why the blind loyalty to a man with clearly questionable abilities (age) and somewhat questionable ethics. Even if he didn’t break the law, he knew what his son was doing and he knew his son was getting rich off trading on the name. That Mah be cool for senators (which I think stinks) but it just isn’t ok for the VP.

What his son was doing was conducting business like millions of other people. What his son was doing was trading on his dad's name, like millions of other people. To date, there is zero proof of any illegality. Is it sketchy? Sure. Does just about everyone on the GOP side do it? I don't know, let's ask Don Junior and Ivanka, or Andy Guiliani, or Megan McCain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can a president be impeached for crimes committed before taking the office of the president?

I’m sure I will get corrected if I’m wrong but I think trump’s first impeachment was supposed to be about collusion with Russia before the election so I think yes, it can be before the president is in office.

No, Trump's first impeachment was about extorting Ukraine to benefit his re-election.

[Anonymous]

When a sitting member of Congress sounds even dumber that GOP posters in this thread

If there was evidence, they would be talking about it. There is no evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don’t get is how Democrats seem to be willing to die on their sword for Biden. Trump is clearly a Svengali but he has some history of really generating sincere interest and excitement. Joe never has ever. He was elected as a replacement for Trump and a placeholder. And he is now clearly too old. So why the passionate defense. Isn’t his potentially shady dealings another reason to push him aside. NO ONE loves Biden. No one ever has except Jill. So why the blind loyalty to a man with clearly questionable abilities (age) and somewhat questionable ethics. Even if he didn’t break the law, he knew what his son was doing and he knew his son was getting rich off trading on the name. That Mah be cool for senators (which I think stinks) but it just isn’t ok for the VP.

1) he has had a very positive and consequential presidency
2) a sitting president and a party with incumbency doesn't just give it up.

It isn't blind loyalty. He is respected on the world stage, has invigorated NATO, has stabilized the US economy - which is the strongest in the world from a GDP, job creation, inflation - you name it, every metric it is the best. That doesn't mean that prices are too high etc, they are, but most people trust him more than Trump.

How do you suggest a party with an incumbent, non-lame duck president, conduct a reasonable primary process? What would a primary on a sitting president do to the rest of the term, particularly with this set of GOP leadership in the House?

I think that it is ok for him to be challenged. He strongly indicated to everyone he would be there for one term. It was part of the deal. He reneged and we are getting the shaft. I used to think he could beat Trump. Now I am not sure he can even do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don’t get is how Democrats seem to be willing to die on their sword for Biden. Trump is clearly a Svengali but he has some history of really generating sincere interest and excitement. Joe never has ever. He was elected as a replacement for Trump and a placeholder. And he is now clearly too old. So why the passionate defense. Isn’t his potentially shady dealings another reason to push him aside. NO ONE loves Biden. No one ever has except Jill. So why the blind loyalty to a man with clearly questionable abilities (age) and somewhat questionable ethics. Even if he didn’t break the law, he knew what his son was doing and he knew his son was getting rich off trading on the name. That Mah be cool for senators (which I think stinks) but it just isn’t ok for the VP.

1) he has had a very positive and consequential presidency
2) a sitting president and a party with incumbency doesn't just give it up.

It isn't blind loyalty. He is respected on the world stage, has invigorated NATO, has stabilized the US economy - which is the strongest in the world from a GDP, job creation, inflation - you name it, every metric it is the best. That doesn't mean that prices are too high etc, they are, but most people trust him more than Trump.

How do you suggest a party with an incumbent, non-lame duck president, conduct a reasonable primary process? What would a primary on a sitting president do to the rest of the term, particularly with this set of GOP leadership in the House?

I think that it is ok for him to be challenged. He strongly indicated to everyone he would be there for one term. It was part of the deal. He reneged and we are getting the shaft. I used to think he could beat Trump. Now I am not sure he can even do that.

So you think in light of the many indictments and convictions around stealing classified property, around the conspiracy to steal and election and Trump's other lawsuits, that independents and traditional conservatives will vote in greater numbers than 2020 for Trump, adding to it abortion, job growth and other issues that poll significantly in the Dems favor? Who are the new 4 million voters for Trump in light of a voter base that is getting younger and more left leaning since 2020?

Sorry, just not seeing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don’t get is how Democrats seem to be willing to die on their sword for Biden. Trump is clearly a Svengali but he has some history of really generating sincere interest and excitement. Joe never has ever. He was elected as a replacement for Trump and a placeholder. And he is now clearly too old. So why the passionate defense. Isn’t his potentially shady dealings another reason to push him aside. NO ONE loves Biden. No one ever has except Jill. So why the blind loyalty to a man with clearly questionable abilities (age) and somewhat questionable ethics. Even if he didn’t break the law, he knew what his son was doing and he knew his son was getting rich off trading on the name. That Mah be cool for senators (which I think stinks) but it just isn’t ok for the VP.

Ok so do you know what “high crimes and misdemeanors” means? It doesn’t mean you know someone else is potentially engaged in shady business practice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a sitting member of Congress sounds even dumber that GOP posters in this thread

If there was evidence, they would be talking about it. There is no evidence.

After impeaching trump on totally fictitious Russian collusion based on fake evidence from Hillary, it’s rich for you to claim evidence matters. Tit for tat my friend. You guys started it.

Wow. This dummy doesn’t even know why Trump was impeached. It’s so embarrassing to read posts like the one above.

[Anonymous]

just so everyone is clear who is calling the shots

[Anonymous]

they already have all of the bank record. there is NO evidence of wrongdoing.

[Anonymous]

GOP party as it used to exist went down with Trump. When Trump meets his accountability in the courts, then it will be time for a new Conservative party. GOP, even for name sake, will not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a sitting member of Congress sounds even dumber that GOP posters in this thread

If there was evidence, they would be talking about it. There is no evidence.

After impeaching trump on totally fictitious Russian collusion based on fake evidence from Hillary, it’s rich for you to claim evidence matters. Tit for tat my friend. You guys started it.

This forum has been taken over by imbeciles, trolls, bots or all three. He was not impeached over Russia. Russia had nothing to do with his impeachment. And definitely not Hillary. You already knew that, that is unless you’re an imbecile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOP party as it used to exist went down with Trump. When Trump meets his accountability in the courts, then it will be time for a new Conservative party. GOP, even for name sake, will not exist.

The problem the GOP has is that the country is center left and generaly favors things the democrats support. The GOP needs all three of traditional conservatives, MAGAs and Evangelicals to be viable. How would a new "conservative" party be different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When a sitting member of Congress sounds even dumber that GOP posters in this thread

If there was evidence, they would be talking about it. There is no evidence.

After impeaching trump on totally fictitious Russian collusion based on fake evidence from Hillary, it’s rich for you to claim evidence matters. Tit for tat my friend. You guys started it.

Do some research. You are clueless.