• 3017amen
    871
    First of all I love this country. All presidents have flaws. I have tried over the years to give Trump the benefit of the doubt - I even prayed for the guy. I wanted him to do good as a novice and outsider. During the campaign I immediately saw that he was all about criticizing, but had no real plans of his own. He had his weaknesses. And so I gave him the benefit of the doubt thinking well, he's new, and he could drain the swamp as he said. And he could learn the ropes and come up with some good policies which in part he has. Unfortunately, it appears he hasn't really drained the swamp at all; he's now part of the Swamp Team.

    Like Andrew Johnson , Clinton and to a lesser degree Nixon ( resignation before impeachment), presidents before us sometimes do not work out. Like Nixon, some are even borderline dangerous. Our wonderful Democratic process allows for removal of a government official Comander in Chief, if the public is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with his/her performance.

    Let's fast-forward. It is starting to become apparent that the negatives are outweighing any positives. Reported behavior now includes; abuse of power, obstruction, misogyny, racism and fascism.

    I will prove overwhelmingly through using basic logic, that the scales have now tipped in favor of the sad fact that we must expect much better from our leaders; we must move on (and let the VP carry the remaining term) from our leader Donald Trump. .

    Any takers?
  • aletheist
    1.1k
    Our wonderful Democratic process allows for removal of a government official Comander in Chief, if the public is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with his/her performance.3017amen
    Yes, and we call that process an election, which will take place in just over 13 months.

    Public dissatisfaction with the President's performance, no matter how overwhelming, is not a constitutional basis for impeachment. That requires sufficient evidence of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for the House of Representatives to adopt formal charges by a simple majority vote. Of course, this would not yet result in removal from office--that requires a subsequent two-thirds majority vote by the Senate, after a trial presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    I did not and will not vote for Donald Trump, because I consider him unfit for the office, temperamentally and otherwise. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that all this impeachment talk is pure political theater, predicated on flimsy pretense. The only viable strategy for getting rid of Trump is to offer voters a better alternative next November.
  • Wayfarer
    8.8k
    Agree but the mods will (and should) merge this thread with the main Trump thread.

    Public dissatisfaction with the President's performance, no matter how overwhelming, is not a constitutional basis for impeachment.aletheist

    Committing criminal acts, failing to discharge the duties of the President, and violating the constitution, however, are.
  • 3017amen
    871


    No. This is a different thread and I will explain why shortly
  • Wayfarer
    8.8k
    But the problem is, the last sentence in your OP actually undercuts your title:

    I am concerned on many levels, but what really concerns me is the meanness and violence that I am seeing and the hateful language...3017amen

    It's not 'meanness' or 'violence' or 'hateful language' that's really at issue here: it's criminal acts committed by the highest elected official whilst in office. That is 'logic not emotion'!
  • 3017amen
    871


    OK I edited it out, just give me a second I'm eating dinner
  • Banno
    6.5k
    This thread should be part of the general Trump conversation.

    First of all I love this country.3017amen

    Expressing a general dislike for any thread that might start thus.
  • Banno
    6.5k
    I will prove overwhelmingly through using basic logic...3017amen

    When someone says this, walk away.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    And so with that said, I will prove overwhelmingly through using basic logic, that the scales have now tipped in favor of the sad fact that we must expect much better from our leaders.3017amen

    Logic can't prove a normative.
  • aletheist
    1.1k
    Committing criminal acts, failing to discharge the duties of the President, and violating the constitution, however, are.Wayfarer
    Sure, but the OP did not offer any of those allegations; just that "the public is overwhelmingly dissatisfied with his/her performance."
  • 3017amen
    871
    What I will attempt to do is use basical logical inference so that the layperson can grasp a better understanding of the criteria that we expect from our leaders. First let's look at his character then we will move on to other performance related criteria:

    1. Donald Trump paid off a pornstar and a Playboy bunny and lied about it on air Force one.(And his lawyer went to jail for campaign finance violations.)
    2. Donald Trump was on tape disparaging women's genitalia.
    3. Over his career Donald Trump has made other explicit derogatory remarks towards women.
    4. Misogyny is partially described as sexual objectivication and bellitlement of women.
    5. Is it reasonable to infer that Donald Trump is a misogynist.

    Please feel free to question me on any of those propositions.
  • 3017amen
    871


    I'm going to make a case. I'm going to cover a lot of ground. You don't like that?
  • aletheist
    1.1k

    I agree that Donald Trump is an immoral, dishonest, and obnoxious person. However, none of the items that you mentioned--even taken together--qualify as a constitutional basis for removal from office. That requires "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
  • 3017amen
    871


    Bill Clinton & Monica Lewinsky. And please refer to Lindsey Graham's concerns about cleansing the office.
  • aletheist
    1.1k

    That seems like a response prompted by emotion, not logic. I am simply pointing out the constitutional requirement for removal from office. Unless there is evidence of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," there is no case for impeachment.
  • 3017amen
    871


    Not impeachment. Impeachment is a political process not a legal one
  • Banno
    6.5k
    Gunner Amen.

    Your very name lends to distrust.
  • aletheist
    1.1k

    I agree, there is a sense in which the House has the power of impeachment for any reason. However, the OP calls for "removal of a government official," and the constitution explicitly authorizes the Senate to take that step only for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
  • 3017amen
    871
    More on character then will move on

    Many on the left suggested that he is a racist. How do we know that it's true? Should that concern us? Let's again break it down and deconstruct what we think we know.

    1. Donald Trump during his property management interests was accused of discriminating and settle out of court.
    2. Fred Trump was involved in the KKK rally in New York City and was incarcerated.
    3. Donald Trump during his presidency has explicitly disparaged minority women and has told them to go back to their countries because he didn't like them critiquing him.
    4. Donald Trump routinely uses racist language and appears to support extreme white nationalism.

    Please feel free to ask me questions as to whether those propositions are sound.
  • 3017amen
    871
    5. Michael Flynn who was Trump's campaign director plead guilty to Russia collusion.
    6. Six individuals were found guilty of wrongdoing all of whom were part of Trump's 2016 campaign. And some are in jail.
    7. Trump destroyed the transcripts from the Putin summit.
    8. The Mueller report did not find collusion, but found Russia meddling with our election on his watch.

    Please feel free to question me as to whether those propositions are sound.
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    OK I edited it out, just give me a second I'm eating dinner3017amen

    Eating dinner?! Hey, get back here. Trump is way too dangerous for you to take time out at the trough.

    I used logic. Logic said that on some official and unofficial functions, Trump was doing badly. I checked out my emotions. They concurred with logic. I checked the auspices by ripping open a live, vegetarian-fed-never-given-hormones-or-antibiotics chicken with gloved hands and examined its gut. There was a large cancer visibly pulsating. I threw it into the fire and heard the dead chicken cackle.

    Looks like a negative result to me.

    So, more seriously: There are some events the presidency has little control over. Most of the time the White House can not claim credit or blame for a good or bad economy. The president is not responsible for most of the social events which have histories stretching back decades. The president can not pass legislation: What can be done is amend administrative rules (no small thing). The President in his role of Commander in Chief can instigate military actions. This has been the source of some big problems over several presidencies (Kennedy's to start with).

    I loathe Trump more than I loathed Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. He is most loathsome in the area that has little direct effect, but considerable indirect effect on political discourse: the use of his mouth, and his fingers on Twitter. He set and maintains a low standard of discourse.

    He is simply wrong (or worse, not even wrong) on issues such as global warming, environmental protection, world trade, and social services--all vital concerns. He is wrong either on the basis of policy or on the basis of knowledge. Which is difficult to tell, quite often.

    Hillary Clinton, or Jesus for that matter, given the Democrat controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate would not have been able to pass so much as the salt and pepper, let alone major legislation.

    No recent president has been entirely successful or a total failure, maybe since... the Harding Coolidge administrations? But Harding and Coolidge were before my time, and I haven't nailed down everything that wen ton in the 1920s.

    Love 'em or Loathe 'em.
  • Bitter Crank
    8.4k
    Using logic-not emotion-Trump should be impeached?

    Sure, impeach the bastard, but be aware that it might not make any difference. A merely impeached president isn't bounced out of office. He has to be convicted in the Senate of the crimes on which the House found him guilty. If he is found guilty in the Senate, then his presidency is over.
  • 3017amen
    871
    9. During Muellers testimony , Mueller was asked specifically whether he felt Trump had lied to him and he said I quote: "generally".

    Please feel free to question me on whether that proposition is sound.
  • 3017amen
    871


    Of course BC! I understand that.
  • Wayfarer
    8.8k
    He has to be convicted in the Senate of the crimes on which the House found him guilty. If he is found guilty in the Senate, then his presidency is over.Bitter Crank

    Reckon there’s a chance this time. How many Republicans owe The Don personal loyalty (as distinct from fearful subservience?) Already Mitt Romney and several others are making the right noises. There are many powerful Republicans not in the House who detest him.

    And also - imagine if the House convicts, and the Senate acquits, what the atmosphere would be like for next year’s poll. I mean, it’s poisonous now - if that were to happen, I think it would make the Presidential campaign - well, I hate to imagine......
  • aletheist
    1.1k
    He has to be convicted in the Senate of the crimes on which the House found him guilty.Bitter Crank
    And also - imagine if the House convicts, and the Senate acquits, what the atmosphere would be like for next year’s poll.Wayfarer
    Impeachment is not a finding of guilty nor a conviction, it is merely a formal accusation. The House is the equivalent of a grand jury, ascertaining whether a simple majority of its members believes that there is enough evidence to move forward with a trial. Only the Senate can vote to convict (guilty) or acquit (not guilty), and it would take all 47 Democrats plus 20 Republicans to reach the required two-thirds majority for removal from office.
  • aletheist
    1.1k
    There are many powerful Republicans not in the House who detest him.Wayfarer
    The only Republicans who matter are those in the Senate, and how they personally feel about Donald Trump is a relatively small part of the equation. Unless sufficient evidence is presented to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is truly guilty of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"--a bar that @3017amen has not even come close to meeting yet--their main consideration would be whether voting to remove him from office is more likely to help or harm their own reelection prospects.

    And before anyone bemoans that strictly political calculus, recognize that the Democrats in the House who are now contemplating impeachment are no different in that regard. As we have already established ...
    Impeachment is a political process not a legal one3017amen
  • TheMadFool
    4.2k
    Reminds me of Peter Parker handing over Tony Stark's glasses to Mysterio. To vote one must trust. We can only betray those who trust us.
  • 3017amen
    871


    Correct, this is a political forum not a legal forum.

    Again look at history: Nixon, Clinton, et. al.
  • 3017amen
    871


    And I will cover more stringent criteria that relates to the president putting his personal gain over national security interests
  • 3017amen
    871


    Induction can prove a normative. You're thinking deduction.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.