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

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

What is wrong with you?

 

Why would you support trump if you want to to see the US get greener?

I support anyone against HRC.

Wanting a pollution free world is a different agenda from politics. As they say, I can chew gum and walk at the same time.

It is possible to support a politician for some of their policies and want a healthy environment at the same time. Being anti HRC does not mean I support all Trump's agenda.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

18 minutes ago, iReason said:

"Those are the results of the new Harvard-Harris survey, provided exclusively to The Hill, which found that 54 percent of voters said they have not seen evidence to suggest that Trump campaign officials conspired with Moscow to influence the 2016 election."

 

 

Big difference between: "there is no evidence" and "they have not seen evidence".

Given the fact that evidence or sources are not revealed in ongoing investigations...

 

Alas, the Trumpeteers keep beating that dead horse.

A last gasp...

Lack of any produced evidence has not stopped the Dems from beating the "impeach" drum constantly. Beating dead horses and all that. What happened to that emoticon?

[KarenBravo]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where is your evidence for that? I could come on here and say Santa Claus was seen flying over Heathrow, but it wouldn't make it true.

By reporting things without any supporting evidence you are not helping your case. Crying wolf and all that.

Here you go.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-asked-intelligence-chiefs-to-push-back-against-fbi-collusion-probe-after-comey-revealed-its-existence/2017/05/22/394933bc-3f10-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumprussia-629pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

I suppose you'll say that the Washington Post is fake news?

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I support anyone against HRC.

Wanting a pollution free world is a different agenda from politics. As they say, I can chew gum and walk at the same time.

It is possible to support a politician for some of their policies and want a healthy environment at the same time. Being anti HRC does not mean I support all Trump's agenda.

 

I know. You prefer Bernie Sanders even though you also approve of almost everything Trump has done so far even though Sanders is vehemently against virtually everything Trump has done so far.

[lcp0761]

 
Pretty silly poll...innit.
 
Why would you conduct an investigation if you already have evidence?
 
Cops don't search your car because they have evidence, they search your car because they have probable cause to look for evidence.
 
As the article says 75% of Americans agree that there is enough probable cause to warrant a search into Trumps activities.  Sounds like a vote of no confidence to me.
 
 
 

And you believe the article? Really?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Rob13]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I support anyone against HRC.

 

 

Fair enough. 

 

 

IMHO, to get the US off of oil it's going to take a Pres, willing to increase  spending on public services like busses, trains, bike paths, alternative energy etc. Pretty much everything an average GOP nominee would campaign against. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

You left this bit out:

"A strong majority of voters, 75 percent, support the Justice Department’s appointment of a special counsel to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election and allegations that Trump campaign officials may have coordinated with Moscow"

Maybe a lot of them wanted a special counsel so the media would stop harping on about it. Now it's under investigation, it is unable to be in the public arena.

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Maybe a lot of them wanted a special counsel so the media would stop harping on about it. Now it's under investigation, it is unable to be in the public arena.

Ah yes, the mind-reading approach. 

[KarenBravo]

29 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Here you go.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-asked-intelligence-chiefs-to-push-back-against-fbi-collusion-probe-after-comey-revealed-its-existence/2017/05/22/394933bc-3f10-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumprussia-629pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

I suppose you'll say that the Washington Post is fake news?

@thaibeachlovers

So.......do you believe it now?

[iReason]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Lack of any produced evidence has not stopped the Dems from beating the "impeach" drum constantly.

Just making stuff up.

Again.

 

"beating the "impeach" drum constantly."

You never disappoint with your hysterical hyperbolic rhetoric.

 

"has not stopped the Dems"

All of them?

No.

1 or 2?

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/333803-first-republicans-talk-impeachment-for-trump

 

"The Dems":

Your contemptable effort to marginalize, stereotype and divide.

[thaibeachlovers]

32 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

@thaibeachlovers

So.......do you believe it now?

I don't believe any newspapers that surrendered impartiality for political reasons, and the WaPo is way out there. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Rob13 said:

 

Fair enough. 

 

 

IMHO, to get the US off of oil it's going to take a Pres, willing to increase  spending on public services like busses, trains, bike paths, alternative energy etc. Pretty much everything an average GOP nominee would campaign against. 

True, which is why it won't happen anytime soon.

I would point out though, that subsidising transport would be a STATE responsibility, not a Federal one. The Feds could set up a national R & D facility though. Imagine a Manhatten project for anti pollution.

[KarenBravo]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't believe any newspapers that surrendered impartiality for political reasons, and the WaPo is way out there. 

 

Righto.

It's being reported on cable news and other papers, too.

Are they all just making it up?

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Righto.

It's being reported on cable news and other papers, too.

Are they all just making it up?

Depends on whether it's from anonymous sources or if it's on the record.

If it's anonymous sources, it may or not be true, but I'm not going to invest myself in something unless it's on the record.

[KarenBravo]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Depends on whether it's from anonymous sources or if it's on the record.

If it's anonymous sources, it may or not be true, but I'm not going to invest myself in something unless it's on the record.

Fair enough.

At the moment it's anonymous sources within the respective agencies. They named both heads of these agencies that were approached by Trump, so, it won't be hard for Mueller and the congress intelligence investigations to find out.

[iReason]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If it's anonymous sources, it may or not be true, but I'm not going to invest myself in something unless it's on the record.

Trump Asked Top Intel Officials to Push Back Publicly on Russia Probe

 

"Trump asked both the director of national intelligence and the director of the National Security Agency to make the statement, and both declined, the former official said"

 

"The officials, DNI Dan Coats and Adm. Mike Rogers, were sufficiently concerned about the requests that one of them wrote a memo about it, the former official told NBC News."

 

"The two men also exchanged notes about their conversations with the president, the source said."

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-asked-top-intel-officials-push-back-publicly-russia-probe-n763336

 

Corroborated.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Fair enough.

At the moment it's anonymous sources within the respective agencies. They named both heads of these agencies that were approached by Trump, so, it won't be hard for Mueller and the congress intelligence investigations to find out.

Good idea. Let's let Mueller find out before we go getting involved in yet another pointless dispute.

If Mueller comes out and says Trump  broke the law and should go to jail, I won't dispute that.

[Flustered]

9 hours ago, mrdome said:

No, I did not fail to see this, I anticipated that point in fact.

 

My personal point of view is yes, let them buy from someone else. That is the only morally sound position (as I don't believe a 'weapons in exchange for reforms' deal would ever work). Just because we see ourselves as the good guys, won't mean that this deal will automatically become more ethical. Nobody killed through a US weapon has ever praised it for that fact, I dare say!

 

Let me add a big one on top: The West should stop buying their oil as well and become energy independent. However that would mean change and someone in the WH who doesn't hate facts and science.

How about the West burying it's head in the sand and hoping all of the worlds problems will go away?

 

 

[thehelmsman]

30 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Righto.

It's being reported on cable news and other papers, too.

Are they all just making it up?

They sell sensationalism not 100% truthful news. We know which side they are on. For truthful news you need unbiased coverage which President Trump never has had nor will he ever. Absolutely what ever good he does will be spun into a negative by the far right news.

[iReason]

4 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

For truthful news you need unbiased coverage which President Trump never has had nor will he ever.

Absolutely what ever good he does will be spun into a negative by the far right news.

 

[soalbundy]

9 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

They sell sensationalism not 100% truthful news. We know which side they are on. For truthful news you need unbiased coverage which President Trump never has had nor will he ever. Absolutely what ever good he does will be spun into a negative by the far right news.

even his immune system hates him

[KarenBravo]

15 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

They sell sensationalism not 100% truthful news. We know which side they are on. For truthful news you need unbiased coverage which President Trump never has had nor will he ever. Absolutely what ever good he does will be spun into a negative by the far right news.

Far right news? I thought they loved him.

[thehelmsman]

16 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Far right news? I thought they loved him.

Sorry, thought the subject was fake news aka WP, MSNBC and so forth.

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Depends on whether it's from anonymous sources or if it's on the record.

If it's anonymous sources, it may or not be true, but I'm not going to invest myself in something unless it's on the record.

Why would he do that if he hasn't anything to hide:

 

 

[KarenBravo]

58 minutes ago, thehelmsman said:

Sorry, thought the subject was fake news aka WP, MSNBC and so forth.

Washington Post fake news?

Could you name an article that originated from them that has been proven as fake?

Something that was retracted and apologized for doesn't count.

[thehelmsman]

23 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

Washington Post fake news?

Could you name an article that originated from them that has been proven as fake?

Something that was retracted and apologized for doesn't count.

You understand this vicious cycle in neverending, me calling the WP fake news is quite possibly just talk, Possibly....Now I'm asked to name a fake article which if given the time I probably could. Then you would supply evidence to contradict my statement and on it goes.

 

The liberal news agencies use this tactic against the Conservatives and to some extent so does FOX. All the while we're glued to our Tv's listening to all this crap and to some extent regurgitating the nonsense to each other here on TV.

 

 

[riclag]

5 hours ago, KarenBravo said:

Oh dear......seems Trump asked the head of two intelligence agencies (NSI & NSA) to "push back" on the FBI investigation into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.  

What's your factual source?

[KarenBravo]

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

What's your factual source?

See my post #412.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, riclag said:

What's your factual source?

It's from the Washington Post. Along with the New York Times, the most well respected and credible journalistic organ in the USA.

Yes, they make errors occasionally, but when they do so, they print retractions. 

trump, on the other hand, it is well documented he lies at a rate never seen before in American politics.

People would really have to be incredibly foolish to believe anything trump says. Sure, a tiny percentage may be true, but the great odds are anything he says is a lie. 

No wonder the trumpist propagandists are trying to bend reality and label the best sources of truth (like the WASHINGTON POST) as fake news.

It's gets weirder. I recently read the Infowars (!?!) has been given official white house press credentials. 

 

[riclag]

27 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

See my post #412.

I don't subscribe to the WP ,so it won't let me see