Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Your Opinion on Impeachment
I’d like to gauge the extent of support for, or opposition to, impeachment among the Ricochetti. Here’s what I ask you to do: I’m going to set forth two questions, and if you’re interested in participating, I ask that you answer them in the comments. This will work better if you refrain from commenting or arguing, and simply state your answers.
The two questions are:
- At this moment, do you support or oppose the impeachment and conviction of President Trump? I recommend that you answer either “support impeachment and conviction,” “oppose impeachment and conviction,” or “undecided.”
- Have you changed your mind on the question of impeachment and removal? I recommend that you answer either “I have changed my mind as events unfolded” or “I have not changed my mind as events unfolded.” The purpose of this question is to gauge whether additional consideration, during the past 8 days or so, has altered any initial opinion that you may have formed.
I should add that, by answering question 1, I do not think that you should be bound to that answer in the future. You may learn additional facts, or you may be persuaded by additional arguments, in either direction.
Prior to this recommended poll, I have two data points about the level of support for impeachment and conviction among folks on the political right:
- Among the Ricochetti, the data suggest that we are close to 50-50. Jon Gabriel posted (here) on January 6, stating that the President should be impeached, convicted, and removed, and that post currently has 47 likes. I posted (here) on January 8, strongly criticizing the call for impeachment, and that post currently has 50 likes.
- Among Republican Congressmen, 200 opposed impeachment, 10 voted for impeachment (with 1 absent and not yet determined).
My answers: I oppose impeachment and conviction. I have not changed my mind as events unfolded.
Published in Politics
Rule: Always lie to pollsters.
That’s the goal of some on here.
What they don’t seem to realize is that their actions are likely to destroy the Republican party, but there’s no saving in them.
Ha! This is why I love Ricochet, a place where we can argue (mostly) civilly and laugh too. For all you Main Feed Lurkers who have considered becoming a member of Ricochet but just never got around to it…. come on in and join us! This week of all weeks I am especially grateful to be a part of this one-of-a-kind online community. It’s been fascinating to follow this poll, and I’m relieved to find we still have many determined Trump supporters here. Thanks for writing and monitoring the results, @arizonapatriot!
And you stand by your support for a presidential candidate with ties to Communist China. Not to mention a long record of corruption. Thanks.
While the events of January 6 suggest that Mr. Trump deserves a rebuke for his prior actions, I do not believe impeachment is allowable. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” either means something or it means nothing. If impeachment is treated as a political tool to control a president, then the balance of powers, the foundational concept of the constitution, is lost. Any future president who does not have at least one house of congress might as well hand in his resignation -or hers- forthwith because the impeachment wars will ensure a premature exit from office.
That this is so is readily visible in the current impeachment effort. It is regrettable that Mr. Trumps term in office has come to this end, but it at least shines a light on yet another corrupt aspect of our national politics. This impeachment attempt is a purely partisan attack on our system and the fools in the GOP who voted for it deserve an equally abrupt end to their careers.
Logic and reason have no penetrating force against the superhero strength and density of TDS.
Just as @garyrobbins claims to be a Reagan Republican when every move he makes supports Democrats, many Democrats claim to be loyal Americans when every move they make supports the Chinese Communists. Democrats have a lot of consistency within the Party, right out of the Communist playbook.
With numbers like this, we could be the Congressional Republican Caucus.
I oppose impeachment and conviction. I have not changed my mind as events unfolded.
Thank you for your graciousness.
You’re welcome. I will remember you every time I learn about another infringement on our liberty by the left that you assisted.
As will I.
The current purges are totally on you too
Impeachment may become a badge of honor. Few will be convicted. Presidential conduct would have to be pretty egregious before 67 senators would vote to convict.
Trump Close To Filling Impeachment Punch Card For Free Sub Sandwich
BTW, I like what Rep Matt Gaetz recently said on this topic in a tweet: “The Democrats did not impeach President Trump to protect democracy. This was impeachment by reflex. The Democrats have figured out they have no message to unite the country except that they don’t like President Trump.”
I was listening to Larry Arne on Hugh Hewitt yesterday and one of the things I forgot was if you look at the Federalist papers etc. it was intended to be very bipartisan. Polling should show widespread support. That is not the situation we have here, nor did we on the prior one.
When you look at what Bill Clinton did, it was a very serious crime by a leader in the justice system, but the public just didn’t care because of why he did it.
They need to do something else or nothing.
I do not support impeachment. My mind has not changed since the riot at the Capitol.
Our federal government might have functioned more as the founders intended if they had required constitutionally some sort of majority vote reflecting consensus in the Congress instead of a simple majority. There would have been a better chance that laws passed would be for legitimate federal functions and maybe would have prevented it from growing out of control.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. Could you give an example?
If we had a 60% requirement in both houses to pass any federal legislation we would not get as much federal law and maybe a somewhat smaller federal government. They would only pass laws with a semblance of consensus, not laws like the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with a one-vote majority.
Ironically, requiring a supermajority vote to pass something puts more power in the hands of factions in the 49%, who must be courted to reach the margin required. This is why supermajority requirements a for very rare occasions in the Constitution. The Senate filibuster is a feature of the Senate rules that came afterward.
True, but in general it’s better to give people the power to say no to legislation than to say yes. This concept can be taken to extremes, and is often cited as the reason Poland disappeared from the map of Europe in the late 18th century.
I disagree. The entire problem we have is that the federal government has gotten too powerful. There is no limit on what they can do. If we had more power at the state levels, then the feds would be restricted by the 9th and 10th Amendments. It is their unbridled power that makes everything a life or death struggle at Congress.
Only by restricting their power will anything improve. The Affordable Care Act was an unconstitutional breach of the 9th and 10th Amendments. Had they not been allowed to enact it, they wouldn’t have tried.
Making it so they need a super majority to get anything done, without restricting what they can do, only leads to what we see now: Unparalleled motivation to usurp control of the government. If we can’t rein in their reach, then we are done as a nation. They have power, they like power, their power is unbridled and they will never give up that power freely.
What you describe works if you want a lot of legislation at the federal level, not so well if you want small federal government. We were formed with the premise that there was limited powers delegated to the federal government but somehow missed setting up a mechanism to assure that. I don’t mean to fault the founders. So now our federal legislature acts as if they can delve into all things and unless we have divided government there is no check.
I agree with your argument. How can federal power be restricted? This is what the founders missed. Separation of powers and divided government were the safeguards. but the Supreme Court has undone the first and the divided government depends on the voters and right now we don’t have it. So, what is in store? Pack the courts insures we pay no attention to the original meaning of the Constitution and dropping the filibuster and preserving fraudulent elections insures one party governing
.
They didn’t miss it. They put in the 9th and 10th Amendments. Then we took away the states’ power to appoint senators and undid the importance of the Great Compromise. Senators no longer represent the state government, they are essentially long term representatives now.
The only remaining path that I can see is for the various governors to be like John Marshall and declare their own version of Marbury v. Madison. The governors have to declare that they and they alone have the power to decide if a federal law violates the 9th or 10th Amendment, and they have to do it as a majority of governors. There needs to be a way to limit the federal government. The Supreme Court has not paid any attention to the 9th and 10th Amendments in nearly 100 years (well, at least since FDR threatened to pack the court).
The three branches of government are no longer checks and balances. The three branches are a cabal to increase federal power.
No to the worthless exercise.
Even more against impeachment than before.
Although would not mind him being kicked out of the Republican Party
.I just wish he would go away now.If he actually had the skill set. I wouldn’t be opposed to him politicking in all the states to get the state legislation to protect us against massive fraud again. However I’m pretty sure he would do more harm than good.
One of the things we are witnessing today, as shown in the behavior of the Governors in the Lockdown, is the failure to enforce the Constitution as law. So the Feds are not the only culprits.
Texas law is being followed with the emergency orders, as the Governor has been granted the power by the legislature to declare emergencies and take appropriate actions. However, the emergency powers were intended primarily for a response to a hurricane or other disasters for limited geographic areas. It was never intended to last for a year for such a small and limited danger. There are still less than 600 deaths for an entire year in Travis County, population of 1.3 million people, or 0.046% of the population.
The sad part is that the legislature has yet to take one single step to even investigate whether to question any emergency order. That’s the saddest part.
I supported impeachment and conviction. Since the Senate will not meet prior to Trump leaving, I don’t believe they can convict a citizen who is not holding office.
My thoughts have not changed, other than mentioned above.