Topic: [POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It? - page 2. (Read 2167 times)

I'm back to my original assessment of your opinion.

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

Because you are just basically wrong in what you said. Due process is an integral part of many aspects of society. In administrative law, promulgated regulations are required to have extensive comment periods, and if one is assessed a penalty, there is an appeals process (WITH DUE PROCESS). The lack of due process is a valid defense in many matters, taking a simple example, when an individual pays rent.

Or when a civil servant is about to be terminated for cause. His contract most certainly requires due process.

Essentially, now, and because you are following, and defending, the actions of the Democratic House, you are trying to come up with justifications / rationalizations for their actions. But when those justifications and rationalizations seem unhinged and crazy (and crazier and crazier) that's when one has to step back and just say, "maybe this is all wrong. maybe it's just a power grab regardless of the ethics."

And that's really where we are, isn't it? Just a power grab, by whatever means they want.

I guess what I'm saying is please don't defend stupid, and don't double down on stupid.

Now they are admitting that they are the Deep State. Isn't government supposed to be controlled right out in the open? But here a bunch of people are admitting that they are trying to control government covertly. That's the way that crooks and criminals do things.


"Thank God For The Deep State": Intel Agents Admit They Want To "Take Out" Trump

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The constitution is clear. No one said anything about just courts, it clearly says ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT and DUE PROCESS OF LAW with FAIR PROCEDURES, not "due process of court". So now carrying out his duties as a duly elected president is not part of his liberty now is it? What about the people who elected him? Fuck their liberty too right? Careful with all that stretching, you are about to break your back bending over backwards to justify totalitarianism.

By the way, still no comment on those non-subpoena subpoenas? You would think you would want to defend your position from such a clear example demonstrating the Democrat and the media's willingness to totally lie to the American people to get their narrative pushed, as well as their willingness to operate completely outside the due process of law, but I guess not.

Looking back at my posts I def wasn't doing the best job at explaining my stance.  Let me try again:

'Due Process in the Court of Law' is for when the government decides whether to take someones property, throw them in jail or execute them.  

Congress can not provide due process because they do not have the power to decide these things.  (They make the laws, it would go against the whole idea of our system if they also had the power to enforce them)

Congress is not trying to take away the presidents life, liberty or property.  They're just deciding whether to fire him from his job or not.

He isn't owed any more 'due process' than a CEO that gets voted out by the shareholders/board of a company.

I hear you saying something you like to say, but I'm not interested any more than whether you like oranges or apples. You made a fairly crazy, illogical assertion and the result was that I refuted it.

If you want to produce a logical argument to support your belief, go do it, otherwise, don't waste peoples' time.

He absolutely has rights as an individual citizen.

But not when it comes to an impeachment investigation.

That's a good article on due process.  It helped me organize what I'm trying to say a bit.

Life, Liberty and Property are things that only an official court of law can deprive another human of.

Congress does not have the power to deprive anyone of their life, liberty or stuff.

They don't need it though, because Impeachment does not threaten the Presidents life, liberty or property - therefore due process of law is not required.

It's a very twisted, sick fuck of a mis definition that argues that a sitting President is not a citizen and entitled to all the rights of a citizen.

You should probably link your source, plagiarism is a bannable offense, but not for special people like you who don;t need to follow the rules I am sure. How many definitions did you have to cherry pick before you found one vague enough to confirm your bias? No matter, lets look at a LEGAL dictionary.

"Introduction

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process


So in summary, your assumptions are absolutely wrong, again. Speaking of being wrong again, how about those non-subpoena subpoenas? Still no comment?

I was actually using the term 'due process' wrong, my bad.  I thought it just meant a generally considered fair process.

I just looked it up:

noun
noun: due process; noun: due process of law
fair treatment through the normal judicial system, especially as a citizen's entitlement.

So yeah, a sitting president isn't entitled to due process regarding impeachment under this definition.

Remember , congress doesn't have any power to charge anyone with a crime.  They are just people that got elected to represent Americans from each District/State.  Ideally their vote should be based on what the people they represent think.

If the people elect a congress that removes a president, the president isn't owed anything and he hasn't been denied any rights.  It's a privilege to serve as the President - never a right.  The president serves the people.  Not the other way around.

Just because you can be impeached for committing a crime, doesn't make you guilty in the eyes of law.  Everyone, even the former president that was just impeached, has a right to due process as soon as someone else has assumed the role of president.  They will absolutely be considered innocent until proven guilty in an actual court or law.

And yet you responded to it. Bravo!

I'm not going to agree with, disagree with, or even consider that type of comment worthy of responding to.

I didn't ask you about your thoughts or feelings. I am talking about facts that can be demonstrated in observable reality. Your relativist interpretation of the law by characterizing it as some antiquated and murky ill defined thing exists only in your mind. The law is clear. You pretending it is not is an artifact of your own desire to justify ignoring the law while simultaneously drawing false equivalence by claiming "the other side" does exactly what "your side" does. This isn't an argument, it is a logical fallacy. What you or anyone else "feels" about it is irrelevant. Documented facts are relevant.

You claim you support rule of law, but when it serves your preferred narrative suddenly the rule of law becomes really subjective and relative all of a sudden doesn't it? What the Democrats are doing has been a years long pattern of abusing any and all authorities they have to ILLEGALLY overthrow a duly elected president. You can imagine that this is what "the other side" does or would do, but those are assumptions that exist only in your mind with no factual basis in observable reality and in no way justifies it. Their all out effort to retake control of the government is doing tremendous harm to this nation, and the damage they have already done is going to take decades to repair.

"A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption."

You are explicitly saying here that elected officials don't get due process, yet you just got done telling me about how its not ok to ignore the rule of law. Yes, even powerful elected officials have a right to due process regardless of any asinine bullshit you imagineer to try to bend over backwards to justify this blatantly illegal coup attempt. Just because you are convinced doesn't negate the requirement for due process, facts, or evidence. That is the whole point of due process, to protect the rights of the individual from angry mobs of retards riled up by bad actors. This whole scam is only happening because Democrats know they don't have a candidate that has a CHANCE IN HELL of beating Trump, so this is their only option to retake power.

Meanwhile the simple fact that Trump asks for Biden to merely be investigated, well of course that is impeachable and proof that he is using his position to attack his political opponents! Never mind Biden doesn't have a chance in hell of beating him, and no one pay attention tot he 3 years of endless politically motivated investigations of Trump and anyone who even served him lunch. Sorry, but anyone who buys this narrative at this point is either brain damaged or willfully full of shit and thinks the ends justify the means.

Also... you are still strangely silent on the non-subpoena subpoena issue... almost like you don't care about facts and only pushing your preferred narrative. Facts be damned, Trump needs to go, even if it leads to civil war. What is important is the people I agree with are in charge again! Fuck the will of the people, I know whats good for them whether they like it or not!

They'll do what all of them on both sides do. If the polls turn against them, they'll impeach him.

That's correct. The Democrats can have a vote, and impeach Trump for stepping on a bug if they want to.

The Senate will laugh at them, of course.

I'm just sharing my thoughts.  I'm not trying to change your mind or attack you.

My point is just that I think at the moment, a lot of Americans feel like they have root for either the Dems or the GOP like it's a Football game.  They picked their team in 2016 based on each parties policies and now all that matters is a win at the end of the day (term).

Only problem is that the 'official rule book' that everyone swears to defend was written 100 years before electricity was even invented.  We've got a bunch of rules that are vague and barely ever used or updated.  It's really easy to interpert the rules to benefit the team that you've already decided to be loyal no matter what.  I just think that's a super dangerous path.


I don't think it's ok for anyone to ignore the rule of law.

Due process is also vital to any civilized society.  But politics and the criminal justice system don't go hand in hand like you seem to think.

A powerful elected official does not, and should not have the same rights that an American individual does when it comes to being investigated for corruption.

For example:  Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in our Criminal Justice system, is based on Blackstone's Ratio (we'd rather let 10 guilty people get away with a crime than jail one innocent person).  In reality it's probably much closer to 100 - 1 today in America, especially when it comes to people who can afford to hire the best lawyers.


If we make it as easy to get away with corrupt acts for the leaders of our country as it is for private citizens, we risk the country becoming corrupt.

If we impeach and remove a president because it seems pretty damn likely they are corrupt, without reaching the same burden of proof that a criminal prosecutor is required to prove, the result is the VP becomes President (same political party), the Cabinet and Congress stays the same, and if the country thinks Congress didn't represent them accurately by removing the president, they get voted out when their term is up.

This is a concept I think the founders made clear. The office of the president and the person who holds the office of the president or two separate things with separate rights.  That's why they went out of their way to give Congress the responsibility of oversight and impeachment, but not the power to charge anyone criminally. Also the term limits are great.  They obviously didn't want a President to be able to use the office to become a King.

As for precedent in Congress.  It's fine to break it.  As long as you aren't breaking any rules, it's up to the people you represent (and your party/committee leader, or 2/3's of the entire House or Senate I suppose) to decide whether or not your actions are acceptable.  

The fact is the impeachment proceeding is underway, regardless of how any of us feel about it.

Playing armchair constitutional lawyer doesn't change its legitimacy, or the fact that it is happening.

Oh look, more false equivalence and strawmanning. This has been a non-stop effort at fraudulently ousting Trump from day 1, and every failure is some how justified because "oh but Republicans would do it too", not because of facts, but because you declare it so. Simply just point back at your opponent and screech about equivalence. There is a difference between hyper-partisanship and ignoring the rule of law, which is exactly what Democrats have been doing over, and over, and over again. You aren't providing any evidence of wrongdoing, you are just claiming it and declaring equivalence. I am providing actual evidence as well as a long history of failed fraudulent efforts. Still not seeing anyone addressing the non-subpoena subpoenas. Hey, after all...

"TwitchySeal: It's a shame that political discussion is driven by hyper-partisanship.

TECSHARE: HOW DARE YOU BELIEVE THAT DEMOCRATS AREN'T ALWAYS WRONG AND REPUBLICANS AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT!"



Just accuse your opponent of exactly what you do, and vomit up tales of equivalence over and over again. No need for fact based discussion or debate.

his own fault. why should it be someone else's fault? this is one of the most disastrous governments of all time, there are many reasons for the impeachment, the ukrainian case is just one.  Impeached or not for sure he won't be reelected, more people who didn't vote must have realized what they did and they regret.

What you are doing is simply creating a false equivalency. We aren't talking about immigration, healthcare, or taxes, we are talking about negating the vote of the people completely outside of the law and due process. It has been failed attempt after failed attempt at this since election day, and people like you just keep on making excuses for why it is ok and we should just ignore all the previous failed illegal attempts to overthrow the president and negate literally anything and everything he does at all costs. But we are talking about Trump, not general examples no matter how much you want to topic slide.

Your little anecdote about debate is nice, but it doesn't excuse ignoring the rule of law, due process, or precedent. You aren't even making an argument for why it is just fine for the Democrats in the house to ignore the rule of law, due process, and precedent, you are just listing a bunch of non-sequitur excuses with some fallacious "fog of war" type argument. I also noticed you still refuse to comment on the non-subpoena subpoenas they issued. No matter, excuses make the need for due process go away, because it is all the same to you anyway, because if you can't have your people be in control, fuck the whole system right? Burn it all down! Sounds like rule of law to me. Just point at the other side and screech...




and poof, magically all arguments are equal, therefore everything is excused under the rubric of false equivalence. Facts are for chumps, and emotion is equal to logic am I right?