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

[Ron19]

A troll post has been removed.

[craigt3365]

38 minutes ago, Kim1950 said:

Like a enabling and blinded Mommy, not my child, they were so sweet, loved by everybody, never saw anything unusual, they could never ever done such a heinous act. Well, we do understand, but the facts tell us otherwise. By the way, I am living larger on my 75% Trump upside IRA. Chump. Way lame and well worn the InfoWar diversion. I've never been there, guess you have, or most likely Mommy boy scrapings somebody else's twist with a uninformed and lazy opinion.

We'll wait to hear your comments after the upcoming correction.  Which will happen as they always do.

 

P.S. The market is up about 18% under Trump.  Most of which is attributed to Obama because of market momentum.  And guess what?  Under Obama, the market increased some 235%.  By the way, I am living larger on my Obama upside IRA.  Chump.

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed along with reply.  

[Chip Allen]

Trump will likely be re-elected. You have to remember who is running the government. It is unlikely that he will be impeached or removed. He has a huge base of the most vile, mean-spirited and clueless voters imaginable. America's trash finally found a candidate worth fighting for.

[Opl]

10 minutes ago, Chip Allen said:

Trump will likely be re-elected. You have to remember who is running the government. It is unlikely that he will be impeached or removed. He has a huge base of the most vile, mean-spirited and clueless voters imaginable. America's trash finally found a candidate worth fighting for.

Trump as POTUS  has normalized HIS deviant pathological behavior as "winning" strategy at the cost of american values.

His impact on whoever will be 46th POTUS will not be neutral , to say the least.   

 

[F4UCorsair]

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 7:32 PM, heybruce said:

 

The question was not about Korea.  This question was "Can the POTUS alone order the firing of ballistic missiles and other major war weapons /or order an invasion etc?"

 

Regarding ballistic missiles, the answer is clearly yes. 

Yes, and the thread title Is,  'Will the President be Impeached or forced to resign', NOT 'Can the POTUS alone order the firing of ballistic missiles', the answer to which Is off topic, as Is the question.

[heybruce]

51 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

Yes, and the thread title Is,  'Will the President be Impeached or forced to resign', NOT 'Can the POTUS alone order the firing of ballistic missiles', the answer to which Is off topic, as Is the question.

Actually, the ability of this POTUS to unilaterally start a nuclear war is a good reason to look for reasons to impeach him.  Your earlier non-answer to the question was clearly off-topic and pointless.

[Kim1950]

Let's be realistic not with all the political histrionics and fanactical adolescent name calling of Nazis, White Supremacy, Russian Golden Showers, Racist, Orange Man, Pussy Grabber, or whatever, which by  now are well worn and lapses of vocabulary and not impeachable offenses, the bar to impeach any President is too high. At best, it would be in the polarized politics of lawyers and politicians for years well past Trump's first term. 

 

"Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments." There's more legal jargon on impeachment and that would make for political squabbling for more years.

 

People hate Trump, hate his policies, hate his twitters, think he's psycho, and make unsubstantiated charges against him. Still not enough to impeach. There's nothing there, there. Sore loser Drunks wailing away at an opponent whose now in the White House.

 

Go read about UraniumOne or the Golden Shower Dossier in the NYT or WAPO or WSJ. It ain't Info Wars. Go there to stock up on a years supply of packaged food to survive more years in your hate Trump Bunker,

[JHolmesJr]

Shameful revelations about the democrats funding dossiers....tsk tsk.

 

and they have the nerve to point fingers at trump.

 

 

[heybruce]

12 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Shameful revelations about the democrats funding dossiers....tsk tsk.

 

and they have the nerve to point fingers at trump.

Opposition research against a shady businessman/candidate is legitimate.  Meeting with agents of a hostile foreign power promising dirt on the opposition is not.

 

Can you see the distinction?

[Meljames]

18 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Shameful revelations about the democrats funding dossiers....tsk tsk.

 

 

Shameful how:?  Candidates  normally research the backgrounds of their opposition. Pretty stupid to go into any competition without knowing who you're up against.

[Luckysilk]

36 minutes ago, Kim1950 said:

Let's be realistic not with all the political histrionics and fanactical adolescent name calling of Nazis, White Supremacy, Russian Golden Showers, Racist, Orange Man, Pussy Grabber, or whatever, which by  now are well worn and lapses of vocabulary and not impeachable offenses, the bar to impeach any President is too high. At best, it would be in the polarized politics of lawyers and politicians for years well past Trump's first term. 

 

"Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments." There's more legal jargon on impeachment and that would make for political squabbling for more years.

 

People hate Trump, hate his policies, hate his twitters, think he's psycho, and make unsubstantiated charges against him. Still not enough to impeach. There's nothing there, there. Sore loser Drunks wailing away at an opponent whose now in the White House.

 

Go read about UraniumOne or the Golden Shower Dossier in the NYT or WAPO or WSJ. It ain't Info Wars. Go there to stock up on a years supply of packaged food to survive more years in your hate Trump Bunker,

Some nutjobs also feel it’s okay to call him a mass murderer totally OTT IMO.

 

The sad part I suppose is the more they scream the less I hear, there may be an issue I actually may agree with them on - but I refuse to participate with all the name calling and hysteria - oh well 2020 is around the corner and at least we won’t have that vile woman running.

[mrdome]

" Blavatnik's relationships with Russian oligarchs close to Putin, particularly Oleg Deripaska, should be worrisome for Trump and the six GOP leaders who took Blavatnik's money during the 2016 presidential campaign. Lucky for them no one has noticed. Yet. "

 

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2017/08/03/tangled-web-connects-russian-oligarch-money-gop-campaigns

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

Shameful revelations about the democrats funding dossiers....tsk tsk.

 

and they have the nerve to point fingers at trump.

 

 

Opposition research is unethical, unless you are soliciting it from the Russian government in a secret meeting in Trump Tower.

 

Xx

 

When Trump/WH wanted to use Devin Nunes to provide cover for Trump's wiretap lie, they said the source of his info didn't matter...

 

Xx

 

Russia buying FB ads to help Trump: Yawn

Clinton campaign pays for opposition research on opponent: %*@#!!!!

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Kim1950 said:

Let's be realistic not with all the political histrionics and fanactical adolescent name calling of Nazis, White Supremacy, Russian Golden Showers, Racist, Orange Man, Pussy Grabber, or whatever, which by  now are well worn and lapses of vocabulary and not impeachable offenses, the bar to impeach any President is too high. At best, it would be in the polarized politics of lawyers and politicians for years well past Trump's first term. 

 

"Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments." There's more legal jargon on impeachment and that would make for political squabbling for more years.

 

People hate Trump, hate his policies, hate his twitters, think he's psycho, and make unsubstantiated charges against him. Still not enough to impeach. There's nothing there, there. Sore loser Drunks wailing away at an opponent whose now in the White House.

 

Go read about UraniumOne or the Golden Shower Dossier in the NYT or WAPO or WSJ. It ain't Info Wars. Go there to stock up on a years supply of packaged food to survive more years in your hate Trump Bunker,

Adolescent name calling was a key part of Trump's presidential campaign.  Remember Crooked Ted, Little Marco, Crooked Hillary, etc.?

 

Also, this is the man who suggested Ted Cruz's father had something to do with the Kennedy assassination, who said he had the largest inauguration crowd in history when any one with eyes could see it wasn't true, who claimed there were millions of illegal votes for Clinton but has not provided evidence of any eight months after the claim, etc.  He is a fountain of lies and fake news, and when his lies are called out he responds by suggesting the First Amendment should be ignored and his critics silenced.

 

Under the circumstances, it's a bit much to expect people will treat him with respect.  Regarding grounds for impeachment, they are pretty much whatever The House wants them to be.  Let's see where this leads.

 

BTW:  He definitely brought the title "Pussy Grabber" down on himself.  And it's more catchy than "Dean of Fake U.".

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by heybruce

[amvet]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Opposition research against a shady businessman/candidate is legitimate.  Meeting with agents of a hostile foreign power promising dirt on the opposition is not.

 

Can you see the distinction?

And at some point, Democrats will have to decide whether it’s wrong for a political campaign to work with foreigners when obtaining opposition research or whether it’s acceptable. We can’t have different standards for Democrats and Republicans.

Otherwise people might start to get the idea that all the histrionics over the past year weren’t really about Russian interference at all, but rather about Hillary losing an election that they assumed she’d win.

 

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/

[Skywalker69]

Michael Bloomberg: Electing Trump Is The Stupidest Thing The US Has Ever Done

 

While attending a technology conference in Boston, former mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg said in an interview that Brexit is the “single stupidest thing any country has ever done” apart from the election of Donald Trump as US president.

 

 

While attending a technology conference in Boston, former mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg said in an interview that Brexit is the “single stupidest thing any country has ever done” apart from the election of Donald Trump as US president.

 

Bloomberg argued that “it is really hard to understand why a country that was doing so well wanted to ruin it” with the Brexit vote.

“I thought it was the single stupidest thing any country has ever done but then we Trumped it,” the billionaire media mogul said.

 

http://politicaldig.com/michael-bloomberg-electing-trump-stupidest-thing-us-ever-done/

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, amvet said:

And at some point, Democrats will have to decide whether it’s wrong for a political campaign to work with foreigners when obtaining opposition research or whether it’s acceptable. We can’t have different standards for Democrats and Republicans.

Otherwise people might start to get the idea that all the histrionics over the past year weren’t really about Russian interference at all, but rather about Hillary losing an election that they assumed she’d win.

 

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason/

Clearly you don't see the distinction being paying a professional investigator to legally investigate a candidate, and accepting valuable information as a "favor" from a hostile government.

 

Here are two important distinctions. 

 

1. Paying an investigator is legal.

 

2.  Illegally accepting "free" information from a hostile power comes with a high price, usually to be paid by selling out the nation's interests.

[Opl]

US Foreign Policy toward China vs Trump's Business

"Once again, the president’s business ties have tangled the U.S.’s relationship with a crucial ally"

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/trump-decides-not-to-deport-dissident-after-learning-hes-a-mar-a-lago-member

 

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by Opl

[amvet]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Clearly you don't see the distinction being paying a professional investigator to legally investigate a candidate, and accepting valuable information as a "favor" from a hostile government.

 

Here are two important distinctions. 

 

1. Paying an investigator is legal.

 

2.  Illegally accepting "free" information from a hostile power comes with a high price, usually to be paid by selling out the nation's interests.

  Marc Elias, who represented both the 2016 Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, had hired Fusion GPS, a DC firm working on behalf of the Russian government to soften sanctions at the time, to provide opposition research for them. The firm then hired a former British spy named Christopher Steele who reportedly purchased salacious rumors about Trump from the Russians. ..... Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited dossier on Trump.

 

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited dossier on Trump.

 

Hillary paid as much as 9 mill for a fake news story that was planted in on Facebook and appeared in Buzzfeed.  Are you saying it's legal to pay for the constriction and dissemination of Fake news from a foreign government?

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason

 

I didn't make it up read it and weep.

Edited October 26, 2017 by amvet

[Meljames]

24 minutes ago, amvet said:

And at some point, Democrats will have to decide whether it’s wrong for a political campaign

Not up to the political parties to decide what's legal or illegal in obtaining dirt on the opposition.  The laws have already been laid out. So far nothing has been revealed that the DNC has committed any crimes or done anything unethical. 

 

Had trump got dirt on Hilary in the same manner, he could have saved himself a lot of trouble and embarrassment. 

[amvet]

3 minutes ago, Meljames said:

Not up to the political parties to decide what's legal or illegal in obtaining dirt on the opposition.  The laws have already been laid out. So far nothing has been revealed that the DNC has committed any crimes or done anything unethical. 

 

Had trump got dirt on Hilary in the same manner, he could have saved himself a lot of trouble and embarrassment. 

The FBI would have put anyone but Hillary in jail and said so.  No use to get anything on her if the government would not prosecute.

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, amvet said:

  Marc Elias, who represented both the 2016 Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, had hired Fusion GPS, a DC firm working on behalf of the Russian government to soften sanctions at the time, to provide opposition research for them. The firm then hired a former British spy named Christopher Steele who reportedly purchased salacious rumors about Trump from the Russians. ..... Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited dossier on Trump.

 

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid as much as $9 million for the discredited dossier on Trump.

 

Hillary paid as much as 9 mill for a fake news story that was planted in on Facebook and appeared in Buzzfeed.  Are you saying it's legal to pay for the constriction and dissemination of Fake news from a foreign government?

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/why-doesnt-hillarys-dossier-trick-count-as-treason

 

I didn't make it up read it and weep.

The NY Post is a news source on the same low level as Fox, the words "as much as" indicates they don't know how much was paid, the DNC and Clinton had nothing to do with the leaking of the information to BuzzFeed or planting on Facebook, and while some of the information has not been verified neither has it been proven wrong, so it isn't fake news.

 

So yes, everything is legal.  Unlike collusion with a foreign power to affect an election.

[JHolmesJr]

At this point Im not even interested if what hillary's campaign did was legal or not. That's irrelevant.

 

We now see that they are not below the same dirty filthy tricks they accuse others of...

and everyone has seen this. Good luck impeaching Trump now.

 

 

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, amvet said:

The FBI would have put anyone but Hillary in jail and said so.  No use to get anything on her if the government would not prosecute.

"and said so"?  Please provide a source for that claim.

[Meljames]

23 minutes ago, amvet said:

The FBI would have put anyone but Hillary in jail and said so

 

I haven't seen where they put anybody in jail in regards to the 2016 campaign. As far as I know HRC -or anyone else for that matter- hasn't been charged with anything.

 

FBI is law enforcement, not judiciary. US has due process laws. So you're correct, they would not put Hilary in jail.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Meljames

[Skywalker69]

16 minutes ago, amvet said:

The Steele Dossier was brought up by Gulf Sailor as being real and a reason Trump will be impeached.  The discussion about it is only explaining why he won't be impeached by fake news bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign.  If you don't want to discuss it don't bring it up. 

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

Fake?

 

" Officials have said that the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier. Other details, including the most sensational accusations, have not been verified and may never be."   https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.e540f73dab85 

 

Some is verified as true, some has not been verified but not proven false.  So this is not "fake news", unlike many of Trump's claims.

Edited October 26, 2017 by heybruce

[amvet]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Fake?

 

" Officials have said that the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier. Other details, including the most sensational accusations, have not been verified and may never be." https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.e540f73dab85 

 

Some is verified as true, some has not been verified but not proven false.  So this is not "fake news", unlike many of Trump's claims.

His first name is Donald and his last name is Trump.  That much in the dossier is true.  The rest is Fake News.  If you have a source to contradict me please post it.  

[Scott]

I see some members are back to the ''.....but, but Hillary" argument.   It's a deflection.   Some posts have been removed along with replies.