Do you think Trump will be impeached or forced to resign?

[rhodie]

22 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Occasionally a poster such as yourself will drop in trolling and parroting virtually the same banality as you have,

as if they just arrived on earth.

It's Textbook.

And continuing with this pointless gibberish:

"So we agree that he won't be impeached. Good to hear."

 

If you don't grasp the seriousness of what is currently taking place, well, I submit you need alot of home work.

Although I have no illusions that you actually will, you can start here:

(Otherwise, carry on with your sophomoric trolling)

 

Reality is:

 

Investigating the White House and it's associates are:

The F.B.I.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees

The Senate Judiciary and House Oversight and Government Reform Committees

The Department of Justice with Special Counsel Mueller

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman along with the I.R.S. financial crimes unit

The Central Intelligence Agency

The National Security Agency

The Treasury Department

And the Grand Juries in Virginia and D.C.

 

The F.B.I has raided the house of the occupier of the White House' campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

In the case of NSA Michael Flynn, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Treasury Department, which also has a financial-crimes division are investigating him. 

Grand Juries in Virginia and D.C. have been convened. 

Federal prosecutors in eastern Virginia have already issued subpoenas to Flynn associates. 

Another FBI target is Carter Page, one-time Trump campaign adviser on foreign-policy issues.

 

And the fact that the occupier of the White House' son admitted that he, 

along with Senior Advisor to the White House Jared Kushner and said occupier's campaign manager,

Paul Manafort, held a clandestine meeting with agents from a foreign adversary, Russia.

 (Along with four other undisclosed meetings with the Russians)

 

Reality.

So I am not allowed to have my say? Without being called names..... The topic is whether Trump will be impeached or not. I do not have to take any side to answer the topic. I believe he will not be impeached. So do most of the readers that responded to the poll.

 

As I stated before, he is a politician. He will do what the majority of politicians do to stay in office.

That is why he will not be impeached. I really believe that this is a massive media beat up. The media are selling whatever makes them money. Being anti Trump is popular with their readership. A lot of these "facts" cannot be verified. There has been so much smoke for 6 months and so far there is no fact that implicates Trump or we would have seen it. 

 

You may think my head is buried in the sand, but we will see in time. Until then, you have an opinion and I have an opinion. So let's drop the name calling eh! And that is directed at everybody as it just makes debating farcical. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by rhodie
sp

[rhodie]

2 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I inferred nothing of the sort. You inferrered it, perhaps the decent  part of you briefly recognized the other part of you.

OK, I will try to end this as it is off topic, but if you refer to people who oppose my view as decent, I think it implies I an not decent. But I do not take it personally. It is only your view and you only know of me from a few posts on here. 

[Thakkar]

6 minutes ago, rhodie said:

OK, I will try to end this as it is off topic, but if you refer to people who oppose my view as decent, I think it implies I an not decent. But I do not take it personally. It is only your view and you only know of me from a few posts on here. 

You are putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them. That is disingenuous. I said decent people oppose Trump’s policies. Not Trump himself, not YOUR VIEW.

 

Here are some Trump policies decent people oppose:

Throwing people off healtcare

Throwing transgenders out of the military after they have been encouraged to out themselves with policy changes.

Threatening to deport DACA recipients who have voluntarily registered themselves as a step towards legalization.

Proposing increases in military spending while cutting all other spending that directly help improve peoples’s lives.

Refusing entry to refugees who have already gone through exhaustive vetting.

 

I don’t know you from Jack. YOU decide which side of the equation you’re on in regard to the above issues.

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, rhodie said:

Hearsay!  He is in office. 

 

You should check the definition of hearsay.

[heybruce]

21 minutes ago, rhodie said:

So I am not allowed to have my say? Without being called names..... The topic is whether Trump will be impeached or not. I do not have to take any side to answer the topic. I believe he will not be impeached. So do most of the readers that responded to the poll.

 

As I stated before, he is a politician. He will do what the majority of politicians do to stay in office.

That is why he will not be impeached. I really believe that this is a massive media beat up. The media are selling whatever makes them money. Being anti Trump is popular with their readership. A lot of these "facts" cannot be verified. There has been so much smoke for 6 months and so far there is no fact that implicates Trump or we would have seen it. 

 

You may think my head is buried in the sand, but we will see in time. Until then, you have an opinion and I have an opinion. So let's drop the name calling eh! And that is directed at everybody as it just makes debating farcical.

Meeting transcripts and emails don't qualify as facts?

[rhodie]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Meeting transcripts and emails don't qualify as facts?

Stop making things up and please read. The fact is that there is no concrete evidence that implicates Trump for impeachment. 

 

You can read as many tabloids as you like. They all copy each other.  

[rhodie]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You should check the definition of hearsay.

You too. By that I do not know what you are trying to say. Please read a lot more to get context. 

[iReason]

32 minutes ago, rhodie said:

The media are selling whatever makes them money.

Being anti Trump is popular with their readership. 

A lot of these "facts" cannot be verified.

There has been so much smoke for 6 months and so far there is no fact that implicates Trump

or we would have seen it.

 

You gathered all that information from my post in 17 minutes did ya?

Textbook deflection. 

Hence, verifying my prediction.

 

"or we would have seen it."

And an adolescent understanding of the Justice system.

 

Carry on...

[rhodie]

12 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

You are putting words in my mouth and then arguing against them. That is disingenuous. I said decent people oppose Trump’s policies. Not Trump himself, not YOUR VIEW.

 

Here are some Trump policies decent people oppose:

Throwing people off healtcare

Throwing transgenders out of the military after they have been encouraged to out themselves with policy changes.

Threatening to deport DACA recipients who have voluntarily registered themselves as a step towards legalization.

Proposing increases in military spending while cutting all other spending that directly help improve peoples’s lives.

Refusing entry to refugees who have already gone through exhaustive vetting.

 

I don’t know you from Jack. YOU decide which side of the equation you’re on in regard to the above issues.

And you will probably continue not knowing me from Jack. If you read what I said earlier, I do not endorse all Trumps policies. But that is not the topic. 

 

To stay on topic, it is my view that Trump will not be impeached. Why is my view so hard to accept? 

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, rhodie said:

You too. By that I do not know what you are trying to say. Please read a lot more to get context. 

 

Hearsay is a statement made by a third party that supports a claim being made by a first party, that is not the case with Trumps accusations which are being made by the first party and are supported by written evidence, I do not know of any hearsay evidence at all in this case, do you or do you just apply the term to any claim that is yet unproven in court?

[iReason]

12 minutes ago, rhodie said:

Please read a lot more to get context.

 

Classic.

Well done.

 

I couldn't have said it better...

[rhodie]

Just now, iReason said:

 

You gathered all that information from my post in 17 minutes did ya?

Textbook deflection. 

Hence, verifying my prediction.

 

"or we would have seen it."

And an adolescent understanding of the Justice system.

 

Carry on...

So, you think I have not read any news since Trump won and have formed an opinion from your reply? Eh! 

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, rhodie said:

Stop making things up and please read. The fact is that there is no concrete evidence that implicates Trump for impeachment. 

 

You can read as many tabloids as you like. They all copy each other.  

There is concrete evidence that implicates high levels of Trump's campaign team in collusion.  Even if he was too clueless to know what was going on, he is responsible for this team and its crimes.

 

I don't read tabloids.  I read news from established media that has earned a reputation for accuracy and is keen on keeping that reputation.  Where do you get your news?

[rhodie]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Hearsay is a statement made by a third party that supports a claim being made by a first party, that is not the case with Trumps accusations which are being made by the first party and are supported by written evidence, I do not know of any hearsay evidence at all in this case, do you or do you just apply the term to any claim that is yet unproven in court?

Please quote what you believe I am referring to. 

[iReason]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There is concrete evidence that implicates high levels of Trump's campaign team in collusion. 

Even if he was too clueless to know what was going on, he is responsible for this team and its crimes.

I don't read tabloids.  I read news from established media that has earned a reputation for accuracy and is keen on keeping that reputation.  Where do you get your news?

 

And:

Grand Juries in Wash. D.C. and Virginia have been convened and Special Counsel Robert Mueller has already,

actively issued subpoenas.

A Grand Jury cannot be convened without evidence.

[rhodie]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

There is concrete evidence that implicates high levels of Trump's campaign team in collusion.  Even if he was too clueless to know what was going on, he is responsible for this team and its crimes.

 

I don't read tabloids.  I read news from established media that has earned a reputation for accuracy and is keen on keeping that reputation.  Where do you get your news?

What collusion are you referring? The Russians? Implicate is not evidence and will need to be tested in court. I believe there is nothing so far that could be grounds for impeachment. So therefore I believe he will not be impeached. Is that OK?

 

Why is it so difficult to accept someone has a different opinion.

 

There is a Mongo...? guy on here that keeps on with the same line "Impeach 45". Everyone seems to accept his opinion, but when I say go Trumpy I am jumped on by the herd. And then the thread goes off topic with me having to defend my support. 

[Rhys]

He serves/ served the GOP money makers...

 

[rhodie]

2 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

And:

Grand Juries in Wash. D.C. and Virginia have been convened and Special Counsel Robert Mueller has already,

actively issued subpoenas.

A Grand Jury cannot be convened without evidence.

Yes. But where is the evidence that Trump will be convicted on? I am not saying you are wrong. I am just asking for some evidence that will stick on Trump to show that there is reasonable grounds that he will be impeached.

 

The poll/thread is not about whether any person associated with Trump will be convicted. They may well be, but it still does not mean he will be impeached. Or, how does it? 

[Kelsall]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He had no mandate. I know trumpists want to change the very concept of truth and reality. It won't wash. trump lost the popular vote by a historic margin. He did win based on three state's electoral votes by very thin margins. It's becoming very clear now that without Putin's aggressive propaganda efforts, Hillary Clinton would be president. trump won. It is legal. There is no constitutional way to redo the election. But he had no mandate. Period. Also, his LEGITIMACY has a very dark RUSSIAN cloud over it. Deal with that reality, dude. 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  It has been clear for a long time that if Hillary and the DNC had allowed a level playing field during the primary, Bernie Sanders would be president.  Democrats have themselves to blame for Trump. 

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, rhodie said:

What collusion are you referring? The Russians? Implicate is not evidence and will need to be tested in court. I believe there is nothing so far that could be grounds for impeachment. So therefore I believe he will not be impeached. Is that OK?

 

Why is it so difficult to accept someone has a different opinion.

 

There is a Mongo...? guy on here that keeps on with the same line "Impeach 45". Everyone seems to accept his opinion, but when I say go Trumpy I am jumped on by the herd. And then the thread goes off topic with me having to defend my support. 

I agree, implicate is not evidence.  Just as car is not travel.  However you use a car to travel, and you use evidence to implicate. 

 

High levels of Trump's campaign team have been implicated.  If the investigation shows felony collusion, which is a distinct possibility, then Congress will have the ammunition it needs to begin impeachment (assuming they don't proceed on grounds of incompetence, self-enrichment, mental instability, etc.).

 

Maybe there is nothing so far that a Republican Congress considers to be grounds for impeachment, but there is a lot in the works.

[rhodie]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I agree, implicate is not evidence.  Just as car is not travel.  However you use a car to travel, and you use evidence to implicate. 

 

High levels of Trump's campaign team have been implicated.  If the investigation shows felony collusion, which is a distinct possibility, then Congress will have the ammunition it needs to begin impeachment (assuming they don't proceed on grounds of incompetence, self-enrichment, mental instability, etc.).

 

Maybe there is nothing so far that a Republican Congress considers to be grounds for impeachment, but there is a lot in the works.

Thanks mate. I agree with everything you say. And it is exactly what I am trying to say to justify my choice in the poll. 

I see your statement as that there is still one big mountain to climb before there is a possibility of impeachment.  

[Jingthing]

43 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.  It has been clear for a long time that if Hillary and the DNC had allowed a level playing field during the primary, Bernie Sanders would be president.  Democrats have themselves to blame for Trump. 

I consider that a tangential issue at this point. trump was elected and his opponent was Hillary Clinton. That is the relevant election here. Would the Russians have helped trump if Sanders had been the nominee? That's an interesting more relevant question. It's well confirmed that Putin had a specific dislike for Hillary Clinton but his other motivations are more universal. He wants to degrade and discredit democratic systems in general. I would speculate that Putin still would have helped trump because trump is such a clown he drags down the USA brand and that's good for Russia. But that's just speculation as much as your speculation that Sanders would have beaten trump. I actually think he wouldn't have because the red baiting machine would have been ramped up big time.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Jingthing

[Elkski]

 I have decided there is no sense arguing with Trump supporters.

 but you remember how German Military Officers were tracked down and hunted for decades?

 I think all the Trump supporters are going to be in a similar boat

[ELVIS123456]

He had no mandate. I know trumpists want to change the very concept of truth and reality. It won't wash. trump lost the popular vote by a historic margin. He did win based on three state's electoral votes by very thin margins. 

 

Messgae to all Liberals with responses like above.

 

Trump is the POTUS - end of story - that is the truth and reality - deal with it.

 

Trump did not campaign in many of the big States, as he focused on winning (the electoral votes).

 

If he had of campaigned there he would have got more votes there - lost yes, but more votes.

 

If all the illegal/DACA type voters had not voted on mass because they knew Trump would deport them, and if they were not allowed to vote as they are not citizens, then Trump would have won the popular vote too.  

 

How many illegals are now demanding now stay under Trump's threat to cancel DACA and deport them and families members ? 11 million?? Do the math.

 

There is no evidence to show Trump should be impeached. It is getting close to a year now since he won in Nov 2016 - and still no evidence of Russia collusion by Trump. 

 

The reality is that the truth hurts - face it and deal with Liberals.

 

No - Trump will not be impeached and.or forced to resign.

 

 

 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

He had no mandate. I know trumpists want to change the very concept of truth and reality. It won't wash. trump lost the popular vote by a historic margin. He did win based on three state's electoral votes by very thin margins. 

 

Messgae to all Liberals with responses like above.

 

Trump is the POTUS - end of story - that is the truth and reality - deal with it.

 

Trump did not campaign in many of the big States, as he focused on winning (the electoral votes).

 

If he had of campaigned there he would have got more votes there - lost yes, but more votes.

 

If all the illegal/DACA type voters had not voted on mass because they knew Trump would deport them, and if they were not allowed to vote as they are not citizens, then Trump would have won the popular vote too.  

 

How many illegals are now demanding now stay under Trump's threat to cancel DACA and deport them and families members ? 11 million?? Do the math.

 

There is no evidence to show Trump should be impeached. It is getting close to a year now since he won in Nov 2016 - and still no evidence of Russia collusion by Trump. 

 

The reality is that the truth hurts - face it and deal with Liberals.

 

No - Trump will not be impeached and.or forced to resign.

You live in Fantasy Land!  There is no evidence of "illegal/DACA type voters", but ample evidence of meetings with the intent of collusion between high levels of the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

It's eight months since he took office and what has he accomplished?  He may be impeached, justifiably, for incompetence.

[iReason]

23 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

If all the illegal/DACA type voters had not voted on mass because they knew Trump would deport them, and if they were not allowed to vote as they are not citizens, then Trump would have won the popular vote too.  

 

How many illegals are now demanding now stay under Trump's threat to cancel DACA and deport them and families members ? 11 million?? Do the math.

 

True to form.

Just making stuff up.

Again.

[oxo1947]

I am not really into USA Politics...but why the link between being impeached and leaving office. You dont have to leave office if you are impeached do you?

Clinton stayed didn't he?, and although being impeached for completely lying to the American public, he decided he would hang on to his job anyway.....and is now looked upon with some favour.

[iReason]

7 minutes ago, oxo1947 said:

I am not really into USA Politics...but why the link between being impeached and leaving office. You dont have to leave office if you are impeached do you?

Clinton stayed didn't he?, and although being impeached for completely lying to the American public, he decided he would hang on to his job anyway.....and is now looked upon with some favour.

 

Impeachment is being accused of a charge.

President Clinton was accused of two charges.

He was acquitted by the Senate.

[oxo1947]

2 minutes ago, iReason said:

Impeachment is being accused of a charge.

President Clinton was accused of two charges.

He was acquitted by the Senate

Thanks for that iReason..... so he was acquitted of lying to the American people, because he said that he didn't think blow job was sex--wow if your senate accepts that it should be a cake walk for Trump...

[Thakkar]

40 minutes ago, heybruce said:

55 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

If all the illegal/DACA type voters had not voted on mass because they knew Trump would deport them, and if they were not allowed to vote as they are not citizens, then Trump would have won the popular vote too.  

 

How many illegals are now demanding now stay under Trump's threat to cancel DACA and deport them and families members ? 11 million?? Do the math.

 

There is no evidence to show Trump should be impeached. It is getting close to a year now since he won in Nov 2016 - and still no evidence of Russia collusion by Trump. 

 

The reality is that the truth hurts - face it and deal with Liberals.

 

No - Trump will not be impeached and.or forced to resign.

You live in Fantasy Land!  There is no evidence of "illegal/DACA type voters", but ample evidence of meetings with the intent of collusion between high levels of the Trump campaign and Russia.

 

Trump shenanigans: lack of evidence is evidence of innocence.

 

Absurd Trump claims: lack of evidence is evidence of Deep State involvement, so everyone opposing /investigating Trump is guilty...of, er something.

 

Hillary Clinton “crimes”: lack of evidence is evidence of of her clever nefariousness—LOCK HER UP!

 

It’s just logic, man.