Should The Republicans Impeach Hillary Clinton if she becomes President.....

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by MMC, Aug 11, 2016.

  1. Zorroaster

    Zorroaster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This is totally irrelevant. None of what you cited matter in the least. The only thing that matters is the consequences. It unleashed the underlying divisiveness of the nation and allowed it come into full fruition.

    Lincoln understood that preserving the Union was his primary responsibility. He would have tolerated slavery to achieve this. Ford understood this as well, when he pardoned Nixon. The social and political unity needed to preserve the union is the only relevant issue.

    Now that this unity is shattered beyond repair, we only left with the ruins of a nation. We can no longer have a republic, we can only have an empire. The reason is that an ungovernable population cannot live under a republic, only under an empire
     
  2. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay. I think that's a really weird takeaway.
     
  3. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The nation was not as polarized and partisan then as it is now. The Democrats would never impeach one of their own, no matter what they did..
     
  4. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They didn't impeach Bush, either. If there was a modern president who deserved it, he did, for lying us into war with Iraq and his abuses of civil rights ("enemy combatant" designation foremost among them).

    So apparently the Dems are less nakedly political than Republicans. They understand that impeachment should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances.
     
  5. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You're correct, but keep in mind, most on the left would prefer a benevolent dictator to a Republic. They support "democracy" insofar as everyone "votes the right way". When that isn't happening, they support Obama's "pen and a phone" executive orders, judicial activism on the Supreme Court - basically anything to get their way. They don't want to share power even to the slightest degree. They want iron-fisted rule, and they will gladly import enough of the 3rd world to achieve this, regardless of what it does to the country's long term survival.
     
  6. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except they wouldn't have been able to prove he "lied us into war with Iraq", when every intelligence agency concluded, with a high level of confidence, that Iraq had WMD's and was pursuing more of them. This was corroborated with other intelligence agencies around the world. At a time when the majority of the American public believed that we would be attacked again in the near future, he made a decision. The intelligence was wrong, just like it was wrong when Obama claimed the Benghazi attack was due to protests over a Youtube video (which turned out to be a lie).
     
  7. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's the Senate report assessing how administration officials used intelligence information on Iraq:
    http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/publications/110345.pdf

    Though administration statements on WNDs were generally substantiated by intelligence, the administration routinely made the evidence sound stronger than it was, and the most damning claims were not substantiated.

    Further, we did not invade Iraq because of possible WNDs. We invaded Iraq because of it's alleged ties to Al-Qaeda. Those ties were not substantiated by the intelligence -- they were made up by the administration. The WNDs came in because WNDs plus Al-Qaeda = BAD. Later, as justifications for the war shifted, Bush came to rely more on the WND claims. But we only started looking at Iraq because of its supposed ties to Al-Qaeda. And those were bogus.

    He spent a year or more beating the drum to invade Iraq for no compelling reason. He diverted resources from Afghanistan -- a real fight against terror sponsors -- to do it. He did everything from shading the truth to outright lying.

    And that doesn't even get into the other arguments for impeachment, like the "enemy combatant" designation -- in which the administration decided it could strip any citizen of all rights simply by labeling them an "enemy combatant." If a Democrat had tried that, you would have howled about totalitarianism.
     
  8. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah and we know the leftness wouldn't want to see their Hillary shamed and humiliated. So really its what the Divided Repubs will do. Establishment Repubs are not so in favor with their own electorate.
     
  9. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here's quite a few Democrats, including the one you're currently shilling for for President (and her husband), many of whom had access to the same intelligence that the Bush Administration had access to, who seemed to believe there was a compelling reason:

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

    You can't prove he, or anyone in his Administration "lied us into war in Iraq", when the intelligence agencies all corroborated the idea that Iraq had WMD's, and many Democrats agreed. Left-wing Democrats like you simply capitalized on the situation once it was determined that the WMD's were not there, and you acted like you knew it all along. Partisan hackery at its finest.
     
  10. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Way to miss the main point of my post. It wasn't about the WNDs.
     
  11. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So we just got attacked by a terrorist group in the largest attack every on US soil, 3,000 Americans dead, the nation in shock and fear, the majority expecting another attack would be coming soon, and Iraq, which was thought to have WMDs and offering a safe haven for terrorists, and WMD's were not a factor in that decision?

    He wouldn't be impeached for being wrong about the decision, you'd have to prove his intention was to deceive, and you couldn't do that with the amount of reasonable doubt that existed.

    I'm afraid this will have to remain a left-wing wet dream.
     
  12. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds delicious but is a pipe dream. There was a much stronger case for impeaching Obama and the Republicans wouldn't touch it. Plus it would be extremely difficult to find impeachable cause after just a week ot two in office, and you can't impeach a president for things he/she might have done before becoming president.
     
  13. nononono

    nononono Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2016
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If she wins ( Heaven forbid... ) it will be who can grab the reigns of the runaway horse first, and with what I'm seeing now they ( Republicans ) might have a hard time even grabbing for the tail. Remember, she's as CROOKED as they come and has already been through one laundry cycle before in the White House ....which means all the treasonous acts will be done in the shadows/darkness until they know they can operate without resistance/opposition.
     
  14. Merwen

    Merwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Frankly, IMO she allowed Bengahzi to occur because it got rid of witnesses in one fell swoop, saving her the trouble.

    If that could be proved, IMO it would of course be an impeachable offense.
     
  15. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Y'all are joking right. The Republican party no longer exists ( except in name only ) in case you haven't been paying attention.
     
  16. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of which the Right has proven. Moving to impeach on manufactured scandals that never bared their fruit, is not a reason to impeach. Sorry, but your own party got caught trying to frame Clinton on national security. You'll need to invent something better than that.
     
  17. bwk

    bwk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    23,837
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you ever given much thought to why it is, that when you wish in one hand and (*)(*)(*)(*) in the other, why it always turns out that (*)(*)(*)(*) seems to win most of the time? Could it be that what you wished for, instead never appeared, because it was never there to begin with, and that that's why things turned out the way they did?
     
  18. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Does a bear s--- in the woods?
     
  19. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You nailed it. The entire government is a conspiracy against the God fearing Conservative right wing fruit loops.
     
  20. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No Actually a bear s---- in Russia.
     
  21. PrincipleInvestment

    PrincipleInvestment Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    Messages:
    23,170
    Likes Received:
    16,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure you can impeach a president for criminal acts committed prior to taking office. Unless HRC lies, during congressional testimony regarding past conduct the rules of impeachment may not apply. What we need is for someone who's suffered damages as a result of HRC's conduct to file a criminal complaint. The DOJ / Lynch, has no intentions of filing anything labled "The People" V."HRC". The media has burried the Benghazi civil suit. I'm interested to know, did the mothers seek criminal negligent homicide or depraved indifference charges, but were denied, and by whom?
     
  22. reallybigjohnson

    reallybigjohnson Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2012
    Messages:
    8,849
    Likes Received:
    1,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, pay for play is undeniable now with the newly released emails. Frankly I would far rather have Kaine in charge than Hillary.
     
  23. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you actually denying that Hillary was involved in a pay to play money making raquet? Just so you are on the record, and i can bring this up later to rub it in good.
     
  24. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's the problem with Establishment Repubs. Note Hillary trotted out some GOP Pols yesterday. Like 50 of them that will support her.

    Yet here they talk about Trump and would rather try and deal with a corrupt Administration? Yet here they know she would (*)(*)(*)(*) up the country with the Leftness never to see what they believe in all thru her SCOTUS picks.

    Ryan will cave to Demos just like he always has.

    Who were those on the Right.....calling Ryan, McCarthy, and Cantor as the Young Guns. These mopes aren't any where close to being a Gun.

    The only thing they might compare to is a......squirt gun.

    Hope those Repubs that came out for Hillary, note that their careers are going to be over with and we will come down on them 10 times worse than we do with the Demos.

    None of them even should have the thought of attending GOP events.
     
  25. MMC

    MMC Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    Messages:
    41,793
    Likes Received:
    14,697
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no doubt Hillary will have the most Corrupt Administration in the History of the US. Even worse than Grant and Harding. The question is.....will the American people put up with the BS from the Demo party. Or will they stand up and teach the domestic enemies the lesson they soon will have coming.
     

Share This Page