Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:09 PM May 2016

Simple question for the HRC supporters:

Why do you want a second Clinton impeachment, in case
of her election?

You know that the House won't change, you know
that they will try to get all the info about her from
the FBI investigation, no matter whether they clear
her or not.

Do you rally look forward to that?

59 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Simple question for the HRC supporters: (Original Post) sadoldgirl May 2016 OP
It's pathetic that you are thinking of ways to feel better about Bernie losing redstateblues May 2016 #1
This would not make people feel better. peace13 May 2016 #33
That does not answer my question at all. sadoldgirl May 2016 #2
They really don't care. They think they can dismiss it all as a right wing smear. BillZBubb May 2016 #3
I agree with you about the Clinton Foundation investigation being more serious. panader0 May 2016 #18
The Hous ewon't impeach for something that occurred before she even takes office Tarc May 2016 #4
Oh yes, they will. They already said so. sadoldgirl May 2016 #6
and you are hanging on their every word and trusting it as gospel. bettyellen May 2016 #8
A single Rep, Mo Brooks of Alabama, has floated the idea Tarc May 2016 #12
it's your fondest wish that they would do that. You are still in the denial stage redstateblues May 2016 #37
Frankly the whole mail fiasco is a fraudulent undertaking dreamt up by the GOP, AuntPatsy May 2016 #5
It is unimportant how and if they started it. sadoldgirl May 2016 #9
Court cases about FOIA - Judicial Watch. COLGATE4 May 2016 #11
I assume your a supporter of change AKA Bernie, believe me, you don't need to waste time AuntPatsy May 2016 #17
I am so sick of "Sanders" supporters posting right wing fantasies of Hillary hrmjustin May 2016 #7
Let me be quite clear about this: sadoldgirl May 2016 #14
hate to ruin your fantasy but I suspect can only be impeached for whats done while prez nt msongs May 2016 #10
Was the Paula Johns affair happening sadoldgirl May 2016 #16
He wasn't impeached because of the affair ... christ, don't you even know what he was SFnomad May 2016 #23
Lying under oath, does that answer your question?!! sadoldgirl May 2016 #32
Yes ... and just like msongs said ... WJC was impeached and acquitted for something SFnomad May 2016 #38
Is that you Sean Hannity? redstateblues May 2016 #39
It's hard to tell the right wingnuts and the BS cheerleaders apart at times n/t SFnomad May 2016 #41
There's another possibility Renew Deal May 2016 #46
If Hillary is ever president then Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #13
Neither will former Democrats. Kalidurga May 2016 #26
You should delete your OP. We don't need this. nt ChisolmTrailDem May 2016 #15
Thank you for your opinion. sadoldgirl May 2016 #19
It's very disconcerning that a candidate is being investigated. Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #29
It is, but we don't need to be talking about impeachment on this particular website. nt ChisolmTrailDem May 2016 #31
The question wasn't about impeachment Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #34
"Why do you want a second Clinton impeachment, in case of her election?" DUers and... ChisolmTrailDem May 2016 #35
so Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #36
your concern is duly noted-I know you are praying for Bernie's only path redstateblues May 2016 #40
+ 1 JoePhilly May 2016 #56
It's Democrats fault that Republicans are ass holes Dem2 May 2016 #20
When did you stop beating your spouse/elderly parent? stevenleser May 2016 #21
Are you saying that this will never occur? sadoldgirl May 2016 #25
I'm saying your OP poses a complex logical fallacy known as a "Loaded Question" stevenleser May 2016 #28
I understand and understood your answers sadoldgirl May 2016 #30
Then why not ask it that way? nolawarlock May 2016 #50
Thank you... nolawarlock May 2016 #48
There's a good reason your inane op garners no recs Sheepshank May 2016 #22
a) I don't ask those questions to get recs, sadoldgirl May 2016 #27
No, this question was flame-bait, plain and simple. nolawarlock May 2016 #47
They're all in on oligarchy. Nothing else seems to matter. Broward May 2016 #24
straw men everywhere-third wayers, neo liberals, moderate Democrats redstateblues May 2016 #42
Be honest with who you are. Broward May 2016 #49
Better than Sanders losing the general election Renew Deal May 2016 #43
Sanders would blow away trump. Hillary, not so much. BillZBubb May 2016 #52
What kind of leading question is that? nolawarlock May 2016 #44
I am sure a professed socialist will fair better with the GOP....sarcasm should be noted nt. Trenzalore May 2016 #45
2nd Clinton impeachment paulchouinard May 2016 #51
Strange, I don't recall any hearings to impeach Obama. I must have missed that. BillZBubb May 2016 #54
Another goddamned "supporters" thread. n/t Orsino May 2016 #53
Simple question for you: johnp3907 May 2016 #55
Yes, I'm fine with it. NCTraveler May 2016 #57
So Proud Liberal Dem May 2016 #58
If I let Republicans MSMITH33156 May 2016 #59

redstateblues

(10,565 posts)
1. It's pathetic that you are thinking of ways to feel better about Bernie losing
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:13 PM
May 2016

You really don't give a shit about anything in your post. Why are you wasting space on DU?

 

peace13

(11,076 posts)
33. This would not make people feel better.
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:16 AM
May 2016

It was a huge huge distraction and waste of time last go round. 24 hour news will be unbearable.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
3. They really don't care. They think they can dismiss it all as a right wing smear.
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:15 PM
May 2016

The Clinton Foundation pay for play is going to be what does her in. That's all going to be available once the FBI has completed its investigation. More than likely she's will get a pass on the mishandling of classified information. The republicans will complain about that, but their real target will be the Clinton Foundation.

panader0

(25,816 posts)
18. I agree with you about the Clinton Foundation investigation being more serious.
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:41 PM
May 2016

There are numerous "pay for play" deals that went down during HRC's SoS term.
They are documented. To me, and I am a Sanders voter, it seems very plain that there
was something going on. The Clinton Foundation is the charity that the Clintons donate to.
Just like hundreds of very questionable foreign people. Deals made with HRC as SoS
equaled million dollar donations to the Clinton Foundation.
They were dropped by Charity Navigator for having an "atypical business model".

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
4. The Hous ewon't impeach for something that occurred before she even takes office
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:18 PM
May 2016

That would be the height of partisanship, and I have confidence that there's enough Republicans with a shred of integrity that'd prevent such a thing from passing.

There's also the very real possibility that the Dems retake the House this fall, which would render such shenanigans moot.

Tarc

(10,476 posts)
12. A single Rep, Mo Brooks of Alabama, has floated the idea
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:31 PM
May 2016

Please don't misrepresent a long wingnut's opinion as representative of the whole. There is also past precedent, where the House has explicitly declined to hold impeachment hearings regarding past offenses. Let your little finger do some googling of Schuyler Colfax and Spiro Agnew, you may be enlightened.

redstateblues

(10,565 posts)
37. it's your fondest wish that they would do that. You are still in the denial stage
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:21 AM
May 2016

Bernie will be endorsing Hillary-start getting used to it

AuntPatsy

(9,904 posts)
5. Frankly the whole mail fiasco is a fraudulent undertaking dreamt up by the GOP,
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:18 PM
May 2016

There are other more worthy issues to address, don't repeat thier garbage, it muddies the message needed..

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
9. It is unimportant how and if they started it.
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:26 PM
May 2016

There are court cases about the FOIA, and an
investigation by the FBI.
The question is rather: Do you realize that this
will happen, and does it matter to you.

AuntPatsy

(9,904 posts)
17. I assume your a supporter of change AKA Bernie, believe me, you don't need to waste time
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:40 PM
May 2016

there is not a lot of time to waste, Let that fog roll by, don't get lost in it...

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
7. I am so sick of "Sanders" supporters posting right wing fantasies of Hillary
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:22 PM
May 2016

being indicted or impeached on DU.

You are making DU harder to enjoy!

Your guy lost, get over it!

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
14. Let me be quite clear about this:
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:33 PM
May 2016

Should HRC win the nomination and it looks that
way obviously, I would rather see Kerry being the
one, who gets her delegates than her fighting it
out.

The attacks on him are now old and not working
anymore, but he has shown himself as a great
SOS with excellent judgement.

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
23. He wasn't impeached because of the affair ... christ, don't you even know what he was
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:48 PM
May 2016

impeached and acquitted of?

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
38. Yes ... and just like msongs said ... WJC was impeached and acquitted for something
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:22 AM
May 2016

that happened while he was in office. Your reply asking about when the Paula Johns [sic] affair happened is immaterial as he wasn't impeached and acquitted for anything that happened back then.

 

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)
35. "Why do you want a second Clinton impeachment, in case of her election?" DUers and...
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:19 AM
May 2016

...Bernie supporters should not be posting shit like this.

redstateblues

(10,565 posts)
40. your concern is duly noted-I know you are praying for Bernie's only path
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:25 AM
May 2016

to the nomination- ain't happening

Dem2

(8,168 posts)
20. It's Democrats fault that Republicans are ass holes
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:43 PM
May 2016

So we ought to cower and not upset our Repuke masters, is that how I should read the O/P?

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
21. When did you stop beating your spouse/elderly parent?
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:44 PM
May 2016

I'll bet you don't like answering silly questions like that either.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
25. Are you saying that this will never occur?
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:54 PM
May 2016

I suppose you think that the "New" HRC will
not be attacked by the repugs, after you, of all
people condemned her so strongly in 08?

Get off your high horse, and look at the facts.
I'd rather see Kerry or Biden, both without all
that garbage.

 

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)
28. I'm saying your OP poses a complex logical fallacy known as a "Loaded Question"
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:01 AM
May 2016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question that contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife

-----------------------------------------------------------
All of which is a long way of saying, you presuppose facts which are not only not in evidence they would be over a year in the future if they occur. So you pose a false dilemma to responders in order to serve your agenda.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
30. I understand and understood your answers
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:12 AM
May 2016

pretty well. No, at this point I don't have an
agenda, but you as well as everybody on this
forum have a pretty good idea what the repugs
would or could do.

It is unimportant for any of us to assume guilt.

If you want to call it a warning of a preemptive
war, you would understand me better.

nolawarlock

(1,729 posts)
50. Then why not ask it that way?
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:42 AM
May 2016

Allow me to rephrase the question as if I were a Sanders supporter asking your question:

"Why do you support Hillary if there's even a semi-credible chance that this email controversy could lead to a second Clinton president being impeached by Congress? Are you not concerned that a Republican-controlled House will stop at nothing to continue to exploit this FBI investigation? Don't you think this would stain the very office of the presidency? Do you rally look forward to that?"

Ok, I left in your "rally," but that is how I would have worded it.

And I would have answered that this email controversy so reeks of agenda and politics on the part of an already Republican Congress and very vocal and powerful Right Wing that has hated her for years, that I do believe they will stop at nothing. However, I also believe that Hillary, like Bill before her who refused to resign and retained his popularity, should stand up for her policies, her message, and what she can do for America in the face of that kind of bullying. If this were any other candidate, I might actually be able to relate to the strength of the question, had you asked it in the way that I rephrased it for you, but then I would come to my senses and realize that this is a candidate who has weathered so many false narratives written about her over the years that she's as tough a candidate as anyone who could ever face Trump and she's clearly not one to be shaken by controversy. If it turns out that she committed wrong-doing, then let her pay the price, but so many boys and girls have cried wolf about Hillary all these years with insane falsehoods ranging from Ron Brown's plane (can you hear it overhead GDP now?) to the most recent Illumaniti Guccifer, that it's hard to believe anything bad that's said about her. This is one candidate I'm the most willing to apply "innocent until proven guilty" to, because pretty much everything ever thrown at her hasn't stuck.

 

Sheepshank

(12,504 posts)
22. There's a good reason your inane op garners no recs
Thu May 5, 2016, 11:45 PM
May 2016

Not sure what you were trying to achieve, but I'm pretty sure it fell flat on its face.

I felt compelled to just get that out in the open.

sadoldgirl

(3,431 posts)
27. a) I don't ask those questions to get recs,
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:01 AM
May 2016

and b) I would like to hear answers, which
are not there.

And c) I would like people to think about that
very probably scenario.

nolawarlock

(1,729 posts)
47. No, this question was flame-bait, plain and simple.
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:32 AM
May 2016

You're asking why we want Hillary impeached. Clearly we do not and clearly we also don't think she's going to be.

redstateblues

(10,565 posts)
42. straw men everywhere-third wayers, neo liberals, moderate Democrats
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:29 AM
May 2016

faux progressives, oligarchs- Cue the X Files theme

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
52. Sanders would blow away trump. Hillary, not so much.
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:28 PM
May 2016

More people, according to recent polls, would now vote for Hillary in order to stop trump than would vote for her because they like her or her policies. The same is true on the other side for trump voters.

Both Hillary and Trump are viewed very negatively by independent voters. The Hillary dislike has been high for decades. The trump negatives are fairly recent and can be lessened by a smart campaign. Hillary is stuck, she just can't overcome that long standing negative situation. She's also the establishment, status quo candidate in a time when the establishments and status quo aren't popular.

Hillary's only hope is to successfully paint trump as so insane or unstable that he cannot ever be in a situation of power. That's going to be a hard sell.

Sanders, on the other hand, is viewed favorably by independents. He'd take some hits in the GE campaign but would be positioned infinitely better than trump or Hillary.

nolawarlock

(1,729 posts)
44. What kind of leading question is that?
Fri May 6, 2016, 12:30 AM
May 2016

That's like asking us how long we've been beating our wives.

Who among Clinton's supporters have actually said they want an impeachment?

paulchouinard

(1 post)
51. 2nd Clinton impeachment
Fri May 6, 2016, 01:58 AM
May 2016

The impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton was a sick GOP joke, as would be an impeachment of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Any Democratic President with a Republican House will be a target for impeachment; Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders included. For a Democratic President, impeachment is simply part of the job description.

BillZBubb

(10,650 posts)
54. Strange, I don't recall any hearings to impeach Obama. I must have missed that.
Fri May 6, 2016, 02:33 PM
May 2016

The Clintons, because of their secrecy and casual interpretation of the law open themselves up to investigations time and again. Obama isn't anything like them. He never gave the republicans one plausible excuse for impeachment. Hillary, on the other hand, comes ready made with numerous areas for republican attack.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
57. Yes, I'm fine with it.
Fri May 6, 2016, 04:06 PM
May 2016

Doing that early on in Clintons Presidency would be a distraction to start and would end like the Gowdy Commission. We would gain political clout.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,416 posts)
58. So
Fri May 6, 2016, 04:08 PM
May 2016

We should just let the Republicans choose or nominees based on how much we think they plan to attack/drag down our candidate & potential POTUS?

MSMITH33156

(879 posts)
59. If I let Republicans
Fri May 6, 2016, 04:18 PM
May 2016

being loony impact my vote, I never would have voted for Obama.

I support HRC because I think she is the best candidate running. I voted for her in the primary and will do so again in the general election. If the Republicans choose to go on a witch hunt, then they do that. I can't control RW crazies and will never try to.

What I certainly won't do is vote a certain way to kowtow to them under the assumption that they're nuts.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Simple question for the H...