Trump Impeachment (Public Hearing)

[PartyOf5]

Speaking of bullshit, TDS is no different than the derangement of the GOP towards Bill Clinton, his wife, or Obama. The GOP spent the entirety of Bill's presidency vainly trying to prove they were mobsters or such.

Congrats. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem, or in this case admitting you have TDS.

[The Conservative]

Speaking of bullshit, TDS is no different than the derangement of the GOP towards Bill Clinton, his wife, or Obama. The GOP spent the entirety of Bill's presidency vainly trying to prove they were mobsters or such.

Congrats. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem, or in this case admitting you have TDS.

Except that Clinton and Obama did impeachable acts...

Those that have TDS hold onto false narrative to claim he did...

[StCapps]

Speaking of bullshit, TDS is no different than the derangement of the GOP towards Bill Clinton, his wife, or Obama. The GOP spent the entirety of Bill's presidency vainly trying to prove they were mobsters or such.

Congrats. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem, or in this case admitting you have TDS.

Except that Clinton and Obama did impeachable acts...

Those that have TDS hold onto false narrative to claim he did...

If you think that Clinton or Obama should have been removed from office, that's Clinton and Obama Derangement Syndrome. I don't like this president or what he did so impeach them over it, is textbook political derangement.

[The Conservative]

Congrats. The first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem, or in this case admitting you have TDS.

Except that Clinton and Obama did impeachable acts...

Those that have TDS hold onto false narrative to claim he did...

If you think that Clinton or Obama should have been removed from office, that's Clinton and Obama Derangement Syndrome. I don't like this president or what he did so impeach them over it, is textbook political derangement.

I don't think, I know, and in one of those cases history showed me to be right.

Clinton lied in a congressional hearing. Which is against the law.

Obama actually did things the Democrats accused Trump of doing.

Acting as an emperor and utilizing the presidency power as a rubber stamp to do what he wanted without interacting with the other two branches.

Which the Constitution warns against, and how to deal with such a person.

So please tell me how I have derangement syndrome when I actually have logical proof stating why that should have been Impeached.

[brewster]

Article 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States

The second part of the "Or a citizen of the United States" was for those who were as such as the writing of the document... not post. So please don't play the word game with me, you'll lose.

Both Obama and Clinton have done impeachable offenses... Trump has not... so please excuse me if I don't care what your opinion is...

Yes, and it says nothing at all about acknowledged dual citizenship, or whether another country considers that person a citizen even if that person does not. Britain sure considered all the colonials citizens long after they said they weren't. Cruz disavowed his Canadian citizenship before it became an issue, but it sure wasn't and isn't resolved. But this is all retconning, as the Birthers were saying he wasn't eligible to be president because he wasn't born where he said he was. It should not have mattered since by US law he was a citizen. Period.

Personally, I think dual citizenship is nonsense, but I guess some people don't think loyalty or oaths mean anything anymore (see Senate on Impartiality). Maybe Smitty will weigh in with his multiple passports.

[StCapps]

Except that Clinton and Obama did impeachable acts...

Those that have TDS hold onto false narrative to claim he did...

If you think that Clinton or Obama should have been removed from office, that's Clinton and Obama Derangement Syndrome. I don't like this president or what he did so impeach them over it, is textbook political derangement.

I don't think, I know, and in one of those cases history showed me to be right.

Clinton lied in a congressional hearing. Which is against the law.

Obama actually did things the Democrats accused Trump of doing.

Acting as an emperor and utilizing the presidency power as a rubber stamp to do what he wanted without interacting with the other two branches.

Which the Constitution warns against, and how to deal with such a person.

So please tell me how I have derangement syndrome when I actually have logical proof stating why that should have been Impeached.

Impeaching Clinton only made him more popular, and impeaching Obama would have done the same.

Neither would have been removed from office, all you accomplish in doing so is useless virtue signaling that backfires, just like the Democrats with Trump.

That's Derangement Syndrome.

[The Conservative]

If you think that Clinton or Obama should have been removed from office, that's Clinton and Obama Derangement Syndrome. I don't like this president or what he did so impeach them over it, is textbook political derangement.

I don't think, I know, and in one of those cases history showed me to be right.

Clinton lied in a congressional hearing. Which is against the law.

Obama actually did things the Democrats accused Trump of doing.

Acting as an emperor and utilizing the presidency power as a rubber stamp to do what he wanted without interacting with the other two branches.

Which the Constitution warns against, and how to deal with such a person.

So please tell me how I have derangement syndrome when I actually have logical proof stating why that should have been Impeached.

Impeaching Clinton only made him more popular, and impeaching Obama would have done the same.

Neither would have been removed from office, all you accomplish in doing so is useless virtue signaling that backfires, just like the Democrats with Trump.

That's Derangement Syndrome.

Just because it would have made them more ”popular” means shit. Of course we are talking about those that are already indoctrinated, so to no one new.

It still does not mean that their actions should not have gone unpunished. I personally think if the Republicans get the House, Senate and Presidency, Obama should be impeached for his own actions. Which would destroy his legacy, and rightfully so.

Obama was one of the worst presidents in US history, and that's not just me saying it.

He set back race relations by almost 59 years, and killedcjob markets... Tried to destroy the car market, and nearly caused the economy to implode.

Not to mention his willingness to utillize executive orders instead of letting congress do it's job.

I'm not sorry saying this, but for everything the Democrats blame Trump for doing, Obama almost did it all, and got away with it.

I think if that happened, we would have seen Trump or a Trump-like character running for president sooner.

[StCapps]

Just because it would have made them more ”popular” means shit.

Yes it does. It means you are willing to empower them to virtue signal how much you don't like them, that's just counter-productive derangement, same as when the Democrats do it to Trump. It's a strategic blunder and plays right into the hands of the politician that has you deranged. You undermine your cause be engaging in such infantile behavior.

Whether you think you have good reason to be deranged doesn't make you not deranged. The Dems think they have good reason to impeach Trump, but what people who think he should be impeached think, doesn't mean anything, public perception is what matters, not what small outraged minorities think. Impeaching a President just because you can, when no good will come of it for the side impeaching them, is a dumb move.

[The Conservative]

Just because it would have made them more ”popular” means shit.

Yes it does. It means you are willing to empower them to virtue signal how much you don't like them, that's just counter-productive derangement, same as when the Democrats do it to Trump. It's a strategic blunder and plays right into the hands of politician that has you deranged. You undermine your cause be engaging in such infantile behavior.

You are missing the point here, the Democrats had no one after Obama... And No one after Clinton, you could have virtual signed all you wanted and the results would have been the same.

There was plenty of virtual sighing after the impeachment hearing of Clinton and Obama, and the candidates they had to place they still lost.

I think you give the DNC way too much credit.
.

[StCapps]

Just because it would have made them more ”popular” means shit.

Yes it does. It means you are willing to empower them to virtue signal how much you don't like them, that's just counter-productive derangement, same as when the Democrats do it to Trump. It's a strategic blunder and plays right into the hands of politician that has you deranged. You undermine your cause be engaging in such infantile behavior.

You are missing the point here, the Democrats had no one after Obama... And No one after Clinton, you could have virtual signed all you wanted and the results would have been the same.

There was plenty of virtual sighing after the impeachment hearing of Clinton and Obama, and the candidates they had to place they still lost.

I think you give the DNC way too much credit.
.

Impeaching Clinton helped Clinton and the Democrats. It did the GOP no good, it was useless virtue signaling. Impeaching Obama would have resulted in much of the same. Thinking that impeachment always works in Republicans favor, no matter which side they are on, is not backed up by the historical record. You just want everything to be bad for the Democrats, wishful thinking is a helluva drug.