Posted on Apr 10, 2018
California billionaire Steyer's candidate guide pushes impeachment as good politics for midterms
2.84K
23
33
1
1
0
"Impeachment as good politics? So, willfully planning to circumvent the electoral process through unconstitutional usage of the impeachment process is good politics? Sounds more like a manipulative means of overthrowing the duly elected president. Should they succeed in this plot; what's next? Immediately attempt to impeach Pence?
What does this say for the future of the country if this should actually occur? Would any president ever be secure in the office if the opposition party held the houses of congress?
What does this say for the future of the country if this should actually occur? Would any president ever be secure in the office if the opposition party held the houses of congress?
California billionaire Steyer's candidate guide pushes impeachment as good politics for midterms
Posted from foxnews.com
Constitution
Political Organization
Government
Democracy
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
4
4
0
Nothing unconstitutional at all about impeachment. It was legal against Clinton then, and it would be legal against Trump today. It is, in fact, the remedy provided for in our laws for removing a president. Majority in the House to impeach and 2/3 majority in the senate to convict.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - "So using the office of the presidency (or other political office) for self-gain is okay with you?" (insert Hillary meme (it's funny/scary because it's true))
Where I'm going to disagree with all of this and say, bring it on, the whole gun grabbing and threatening impeachment is not doing them any favors. If anything it highlights the true intent of that party and it's not doing them any favors.
If that's what their platform is going to be then fine, that's their platform, we live in a free country, and I can vote for someone else.
Where I'm going to disagree with all of this and say, bring it on, the whole gun grabbing and threatening impeachment is not doing them any favors. If anything it highlights the true intent of that party and it's not doing them any favors.
If that's what their platform is going to be then fine, that's their platform, we live in a free country, and I can vote for someone else.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Democrats have not tried to grab anyone's guns anywhere other than on Inforwars, Fox and Breitbart. They certainly haven't in the US House or Senate.
As for Hillary, she isn't president and as such has been using any office for personal gain lately. She is also not in any way relevant to weather or not anyone should tolerate a sitting president enriching himself at taxpayer expense by means of his office. Had Obama used his own properties for anything other than vacations the right would be screaming, and they were, constantly, about the amount of golf he (Obama) played. Funny how silent all of those Obama golf-hating Republicans are now that Trump spends practically every weekend raking taxpayer dollars into his own properties and spends MUCH more of his time and our money on golf, that goes right into his own corporate coffers. Hypocrisy.
As for Hillary, she isn't president and as such has been using any office for personal gain lately. She is also not in any way relevant to weather or not anyone should tolerate a sitting president enriching himself at taxpayer expense by means of his office. Had Obama used his own properties for anything other than vacations the right would be screaming, and they were, constantly, about the amount of golf he (Obama) played. Funny how silent all of those Obama golf-hating Republicans are now that Trump spends practically every weekend raking taxpayer dollars into his own properties and spends MUCH more of his time and our money on golf, that goes right into his own corporate coffers. Hypocrisy.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - No please, go on. I enjoy debating with the "total zealots and the (insert opposite of inforwars) crowd." I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy in your comments.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/05/illinois-town-bans-assault-weapons-fine-those-who-keep-them/488987002/
Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them
Owning an assault weapon in Deerfield, Ill., could cost you $1,000 per day.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The subject isn’t gun control or the legality of it, or even who choose to place on my block list. The subject is whether or not it is legal or wise for Democrats, if they take control of the House, to impeach Trump.
I’ve not been hypocritical at all. Someone posted an article about Democrats wanting to impeach Trump, I responded that they can impeach (but not likely convict) if they control the House and possibly the senate.
If you are either an extreme religious zealot of believe what Allex Jones on Infowars says, then either save us both the time and say so or just show it in your writing.
Or, stick to the issue being discussed and discuss it in a rational manner.
Your choice, but I won’t waste any time with the zealots or the alt-right. None at all.
I’ve not been hypocritical at all. Someone posted an article about Democrats wanting to impeach Trump, I responded that they can impeach (but not likely convict) if they control the House and possibly the senate.
If you are either an extreme religious zealot of believe what Allex Jones on Infowars says, then either save us both the time and say so or just show it in your writing.
Or, stick to the issue being discussed and discuss it in a rational manner.
Your choice, but I won’t waste any time with the zealots or the alt-right. None at all.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
That is the goal. Remove a President you don't like, simply because you don't like them.
After said standard is made, Democrats would cry if that was tried against their person in the future.
After said standard is made, Democrats would cry if that was tried against their person in the future.
(3)
(0)
CPT Zachary Brooks
CW5 Edward "Tate" Jones Jr. - Innocent until proven guilty is still a thing. Until the process goes through entirely his only guilt is in the court of public opinion.
That being said, if they find strong evidence and bring solid charges with good data to back it up, then toss the bum out. Calling for his complete removal before any information has been brought forth decreases credibility on the system as a whole and the investigation specifically. With the duration of the investigation and the cries of removal from office with no specific charges, it really does feel like the investigation cannot stop until they find something. No matter how long and how much taxpayer money it costs.
That being said, if they find strong evidence and bring solid charges with good data to back it up, then toss the bum out. Calling for his complete removal before any information has been brought forth decreases credibility on the system as a whole and the investigation specifically. With the duration of the investigation and the cries of removal from office with no specific charges, it really does feel like the investigation cannot stop until they find something. No matter how long and how much taxpayer money it costs.
(1)
(0)
CDR Dan Cunningham
Major Fishkind couldn't provide a precedent for using the Emoluments Clause, so he resorts to personal insults and blocking. I suppose that's one way to go through life, pretending nobody disagrees with you.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
In politics, there is no "level playing field". You make a mistake, there will be someone there to cash in on it. It's how the game is played. What should be looked at is how many folks that are on the chopping block for midterms ask Trump/Pence to stump for them, and how many do not. Obama had his detractors during his midterms and you saw what happened to them, and those who accepted him. You see what happened to them.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google