Featured The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

You're very right, and that plays into my point. Judges have to have cases in order to strike down laws or overturn precedent. (In American jurisprudence, you can't just challenge the law directly.)

By strategically defining life in a way to limit the number of lawsuits, you limit the number of opportunities for progress to be reversed. It's not a foolproof plan, but that's my intent. A baby is a person, regardless of the law. I just want to do whatever we can to keep that baby alive.

 

Lying under oath / Obstruction of justice

 

And you do not believe the President should be impeached because of that?

 

Given the circumstances of the situation, no. I don't think it rises to the Constitutional standard, plus the general tradition of not impeaching Presidents (Johnson's may have been justified, but it was a tense environment).

Now something like Hillary and her emails---if she did that as President, that would be something worthy of impeachment.

 

So let me get this strait. If the President lies under oath and obstructs justice for any reason that is not a reason to impeach in your mind?

 

The context is important because it affects the Constitutional standard for impeachment/conviction.

If you're lying about a personal indiscretion, I don't think that meets the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard. If you're lying about a matter material to the security of the country, that's another matter entirely. If you're covering up corruption (like Nixon--who would have been impeached), that also meets the standard.

I realize it's subjective w/r/t the Constitutional standard, but I don't want it to be political. Impeaching a President should almost always be a bipartisan measure, IMO. That would have been the case had Nixon been impeached.

But I don't think a President should go without any accountability. I think Clinton should have been censured but not impeached.

 

I think it depends on the reason and context as to whether it meets the Constitutional standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

 

It didn't rise to the Constitutional standard. It was just the GOP grandstanding and making political hay out of kindling in order to express their disgust with his Clinton's behavior while a lot of them were carrying on their own sordid, nasty little behind the scene affairs.

I wouldn't even count that as an impeachable offense unless it was proven that it was done with the express intent to harm the United States.

 

Precisely. A lot of the GOP is supporting a proven liar right now for the Presidency who won't share his taxes, and who may have had some dubious relationships with the Russians and the mob according to some. They don't really care that Clinton lied under oath or obstructed justice. They do the same thing all the time.

Clinton told a lie under oath about an affair, and the impeachment was meant to embarrass him. I personally think impeachment should only be used when your purpose is to remove someone from office because that's just how egregious the offense is.

 

I may disagree with rest of your post, but I agree with this part.

 

It matters not what the lie was about. When it is under oath and there is an attempt to obstruct justice that is a high crime and misdemeanor. The reason we have crooked politicians is because we have lowered the bar on character and honesty.

 

It started that way. The founding fathers weren't immune from shady operations.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's just reality.

 

Then charge him with something other than trying to impeach. The man lied under oath about an affair. It simply does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense in my eyes.

The reason we have crooked politicians is because we have lowered the bar on character and honesty.

Then I guess you'll do your part to not lower it more by not voting for that immoral, dishonest, absent anything that resembles the character of Jesus, DT.

 

I do not like Trumps antics. I could cost him the election. However I refuse to vote for a person that is nothing but a common criminal. If all was known, she would be guilty of murder, treason, perjury, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. I refuse to vote for a third party that helps her get elected. Bill and Hillary are nothing more than thugs that head a mob. Donald Trump is a novice to Washington for sure, but he has the exact mind set that can be used by the Lord. Hillary is so evil you can discount that possibility.

Think back to 2012. How many of you voted for a cult member that denies the Deity of Christ. How many voted for a liar that while governor of MA, Romney supported abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and government health care. Then when he runs for President, he does a 180. That is called a liar.

So if you voted for Romney, and refuse to vote for Trump, there is something wrong.

Before you let Hillary win, consider, she could appoint up to four justices to the Supreme Court. Consider the 2nd amendment becoming obsolete.

Hillary is polling under 30% in Kentucky, but Kentucky's eight electoral votes does not win elections. If Trump loses in a landslide, the Senate and House could switch to Democrat.

 

I won't quibble with the rest of your post, with which I generally agree.

That being said, anyone can be used by the Lord. His will can't be thwarted by the Democratic party. He may not choose to act in certain ways, but he always has the ability to use whomever he chooses to accomplish his will.

 

I'm amazed at how many folks continue to bear false witness against that lady by calling her all sorts of things. What has she been convicted of that you can rightly call her a common criminal? If she's a common criminal, would Trump be an uncommon criminal?

Now I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her. But I have yet to see anyone charge her with anything that says she's a criminal.

.

I would hate to see what her opponent would be found guilty of if all was known.

You seem to have unsubstantiated bias upon which your comments are based. Donald Trump used to run with the Clintons up until two years ago. Think on that.

HALLELJUAH! Someone else gets it!!!

Exactly what I've been saying. Evangelicals threw their support behind a man who rejects Christ and now they are finding ways to convince themselves to vote for a man who doesn't need to be foregiven by God.

The SCOTUS has no say so over what's in the 2nd Amendment. They can't change it. ANd they can't make it obsolete.

Frankly, I hope both switch. Perhaps that will cause Christians humble ourselves to repent of our wicked ways so that we can hear from God, and HE make the country morally great again.

 

For the sake of argument, let's say that Clinton is elected as president and she nominates the most liberal judges in the history of the U.S. The senate needs to confirm her choice. So, if the Republican party was to grow a backbone this scenario would not happen.

No matter how many time you make this statement you will not put this notion to rest. The only reason the Trump and Clinton stand the best chance at winning is because people continue to perpetuate the idea that no one else can win. To win an election you need votes. If enough people voted for Johnson or Castle one of them would win and either of them would be better that Trump or Clinton