Is the extortion of an allied country to investigate a political opponent an impeachable offense by the President?

Is the extortion of an allied country to investigate a political opponent an impeachable offense?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 25 61.0%

  • No.

    Votes: 16 39.0%

  • Undecided.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    41
#127
#127
Rasputin_Vol said:
So "private" entities (domestic or foreign) can funnel money through the DNC and in turn the DNC is allowed to use a foreign agent to provide a bogus dossier on a presidential candidate?
Click to expand...

Don't agree that the Steele Dossier was "bogus", otherwise yes, absolutely.
 
#128
#128
FFS dude. If you have a point please make it. I'd have to scroll back now to read your initial point... which I don't think you've made. :D
 
#132
#132
VolStrom said:
The last couple of times I was there it was the dead of winter and there was steam coming out of every crack and crevice of every street and building. Not to mention every car was covered in snow and salt and the people were in a very bad mood, which I was too after a couple of days.
I pegged it the worst place I've ever visited in all of my years with Detroit, Philly and Baltimore slightly behind.
Click to expand...
Was the lake on fire at that point? At least the Democratic administration managed to put that out.
 
#134
#134
SpaceCoastVol said:
And you will celebrate. You are a weasel.
Click to expand...
I've already stated that an economic downturn would be a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things in order to rid the world of Trump.
I would much prefer to rid ourselves of Trump without an economic downturn.
 
#136
#136
hog88 said:
Plenty of great places to eat, good bars. But I'm always with locals and not exploring on my own.
Click to expand...
I'll give you that much. Luckily now that I'm retired I'll never have to go back unless I want to. I don't want to.
 
#138
#138
I was actually in Cleveland just a few years back. I was amazed at the turn around. Was on the North side by the lake and it was a beautiful spring day. It was actually much nicer and cleaner than I thought it would have been.

Still no way in hell I’d want to be there for any extended period of time 🤷‍♂️
 
#140
#140
SamRebel35 said:
Yes, if Trump has treasonous scandals similar to Hillary or Obama, he should be impeached, as should they have (but never were). But we all know that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Democrats are afforded much more leniency in regards to their scandalous affairs. Orange man bad, after all.
Click to expand...
See @NorthDallas40 ? Useful discussion.

I now know that Sam unabashedly holds Democrats to a different standard than Trump (I.e. misappropriation of charitable donations is an impeachable offense for one and not the other) and has a lower burden of proof for one than the other.

It seems safe to assume that literally nothing will surmount his subjective standard of proof and, likely, no crime would ever be sufficient to warrant impeachment of Trump.

This is useful to me because I know enough about what Sam’s opinion is that I don’t need to hear any more.
 
#142
#142
RockyTop85 said:
See @NorthDallas40 ? Useful discussion.

I now know that Sam unabashedly holds Democrats to a different standard than Trump (I.e. misappropriation of charitable donations is an impeachable offense for one and not the other) and has a lower burden of proof for one than the other.

It seems safe to assume that literally nothing will surmount his subjective standard of proof and, likely, no crime would ever be sufficient to warrant impeachment of Trump.

This is useful to me because I know enough about what Sam’s opinion is that I don’t need to hear any more.
Click to expand...
Actually I had been following this exchange. Just like this current poll makes sense to you while to me looks rather limited in options allowing rational discussion I’d submit back to you Sam may have engaged differently if he was given a poll option that straight up fit his view instead of trying to answer within two of the four possible outcomes only.

Look at the current poll tally. How many of the no’s would instead be “yes but I see no proof of such conduct” if given the opportunity?

There is no way in hell I will click on either of those buttons since it purposely excluded 50% of the possible choices to color the poll results.
 
#143
#143
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually I had been following this exchange. Just like this current poll makes sense to you while to me looks rather limited in options allowing rational discussion I’d submit back to you Sam may have engaged differently if he was given a poll option that straight up fit his view instead of trying to answer within two of the four possible outcomes only.

Look at the current poll tally. How many of the no’s would instead be “yes but I see no proof of such conduct” if given the opportunity?

There is no way in hell I will click on either of those buttons since it purposely excluded 50% of the possible choices to color the poll results.
Click to expand...
Touché as to the way I phrased what I said.

I see what you’re saying about the deficiencies in the poll, or I at least understand your objections to them and think it’s valid even if I don’t see “yes” as an admission that the phrasing of the poll has been proven. I might feel differently if I felt more strongly that those facts had not or would not be established.

I should have been more specific that I’m saying people who are interested in frank discussion can give a straight answer to an open ended question.
 
#144
#144
RockyTop85 said:
Touché as to the way I phrased what I said.

I see what you’re saying about the deficiencies in the poll, or I at least understand your objections to them and think it’s valid even if I don’t see “yes” as an admission that the phrasing of the poll has been proven. I might feel differently if I felt more strongly that those facts had not or would not be established.

I should have been more specific that I’m saying people who are interested in frank discussion can give a straight answer to an open ended question.
Click to expand...
But why go thru the dance you two did? From Sam’s post history I absolutely believe he would have said “yes that’s impeachable but I see no proof” however he had to couch his answer with a tad of whataboutism (sorry Sam...) to express his view here.

When you engaged me on this you asked a direct question. I was wasn’t limited in my reply range and it was a pointed question. Would I have a problem with personal quid pro quo if it occurred. And I answered directly, yes I would however I don’t see this rising to that level. You and I don’t agree in this that’s clear. But I understand where you’re coming from you articulated your view. And I articulated mine and you put no limiters on my response range to the direct question asked. It’s the most straight forward and direct exchange method. Why waste time on this BS approach and try to insert a view on me that isn’t mine? The OP did exactly that because if all four options were offered the spectrum would be about 10:1 on “yes that’s a problem but I don’t see any proof it occurred” to the other three responses. The OP couldn’t stand to see that, so he created his safe space poll.

A final statement to prove my point. We’ve spent more wasted bandwidth in this thread discussing the lack of all relevant choices than debating the topic. That clearly indicates a failed discussion premise to any reasonable person I’d submit. 🤷‍♂️
 
#145
#145
I voted “no.”

Trump isn’t the brightest bulb in the lamp store. But let’s not pretend he’s the first President who has ever used a strong arm tactic against an ally to achieve a desired outcome.

The only “crime” he’s committed is that he wasn’t clever enough to not get caught.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#146
#146
MG1968 said:
I voted “no.”

Trump isn’t the brightest bulb in the lamp store. But let’s not pretend he’s the first President who has ever used a strong arm tactic against an ally to achieve a desired outcome.

The only “crime” he’s committed is that he wasn’t clever enough to not get caught.
Click to expand...
Now if you were given the option to say “yes that’s impeachable however I see no evidence of that occurring” would you instead of voted that way?
 
#147
#147
NorthDallas40 said:
Now if you were given the option to say “yes that’s impeachable however I see no evidence of that occurring” would you instead of voted that way?
Click to expand...

I’m going to use the Bill Clinton defense here:

Everybody else does it, why is it an issue now?
 
#148
#148
What a ridiculous debate.
Monty didn't wish to do a poll on who believed Trump to be guilty or innocent; hell, we all know where everybody stands on that.
He wanted to know who believed the offense of which Trump is charged is an impeachable offense.
He was just trying to establish a baseline before getting into the guilty or innocent debate.
Why would anyone need a qualifier?
How many times have we heard the concession, "sure Trump did that, but it's not impeachable"?
 
#149
#149
MG1968 said:
I’m going to use the Bill Clinton defense here:

Everybody else does it, why is it an issue now?
Click to expand...
I don’t think every body else does do it. Not as asked anyway, they don’t “extort an allied country to investigate a political rival for personal gain”. I believe that is fundamentally wrong and should come with consequences.

Now I absolutely expect our POTUS and diplomats to “extort” other countries, even allies, for the interests of the nation. That’s basic diplomacy. Why give assets, in this case money and arms, away for free without exacting a return on investment for our country. If any diplomats do that we need to fire their asses.

But specifically for personal gain, that being the primary return on investment? No I think that’s wrong. That was the exchange I remember @RockyTop85 and I having. I have zero problem with this whole exchange. I even said I wouldn’t care if Barry did it. The optics of Trump doing it aren’t the best, he shouldn’t have brought up specifics that’s why he was sending others, but it’s what he’s done (and probably will do again). And sorry/not sorry but “optics” aren’t impeachable.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top