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

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Careful....Ive heard that stuff can make you go blind! Unless it already has. 

 

Read my lips....No Impeachment ...this poll don't lie...the silent majority has won.

The fat lady hasn't sung yet.  Impeachment may or may not happen.  It's entirely up to the mid term elections.  If the dems get control of congress, impeachment proceedings will begin.  But the odds are against impeachment.

 

Either way, Trump will probably be charged with obstruction of justice.

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, Kim1950 said:

The Going Out of Business 'Rolling Stone'. The Rolling Stone that lost a defamation case for incompetence and false allegations about a college rape case. The Jann Wenner who offered jobs to women for sex.

 

'Dude', have another White Russian and go bowling. Talking total crap. It's 2017, check with somebody. The same for all your up votes, like that's your higher power, The Rolling Stone. Smoke some more opium laced Thai Sticks.☮️

 

The Brain Power was a spoof. You missed that, maybe you should try some. You can order that and Male Vitality on the Infowars website about as real, as what, the Rolling Stone. Jann can join Spacey and Weinstein at the Meadows SPA for dysfunctionals.

Rolling Stone has nothing over the BS happening at Fox.  It's insane.  How many multi-million dollar lawsuits now?

 

What a strange post. LOL

[Thakkar]

11 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Rolling Stone has nothing over the BS happening at Fox.  It's insane.  How many multi-million dollar lawsuits now?

 

What a strange post. LOL

 

His posts only seem strange to you because you’re dumb. Like me, you should take those InfoWars Brain Fart pills he’s recommending.

 

I take three a day. I’ve hired a homeless guy to put those pills in a long straw and blow them directly up my anus.

[Scott]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

 

His posts only seem strange to you because you’re dumb. Like me, you should take those InfoWars Brain Fart pills he’s recommending.

 

I take three a day. I’ve hired a homeless guy to put those pills in a long straw and blow them directly up my anus.

The gay sub forum has been rather quiet lately.   You might want to post your fantasies there.   You might just be a big hit!

[williet98248]

On 5/21/2017 at 11:29 AM, dotpoom said:

A slight correction......not a special prossecuter .....but a special council......

I know....same same but different.....sounds less accusatorial for a start and very slight difference in powers.

  Did you mean 'prosecutor?  And 'counsel'?

[Skywalker69]

Trump Sides With Putin Over U.S. Intelligence On Election Meddling

 

 

Contradicting U.S. intelligence agencies, President Donald Trump on Saturday said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that the Kremlin did not attempt to interfere in the 2016 election.

 

Trump spoke with the Russian leader this week in Vietnam during a joint summit with other Asia-Pacific countries. When a reporter asked if the subject of Russian election interference came up, Trump replied, “He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they are saying he did. ... Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, ‘I didn’t do that.’”

 

Trump also took multiple shots at his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton and lamented that Putin is “very insulted” by the accusations of election meddling. 

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-putin-election-hacking_us_5a06de14e4b01d21c83ebdf7?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

 

-Well, you don´t bite the hand that´s feeds you!

[Meljames]

29 minutes ago, Kim1950 said:

Is the following Crystal Clear

Not at all clear. Everything you're referencing is part of an on going federal investigation.Why would you expect the findings to be reported before the investigation is closed. Makes no sense as do most of the posts of yours that I have read.

 

 

[Dumbastheycome]

30 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

far right wing trumpist propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_Strassel

Why  have  you  departed  from  the   comprehensible objection  objective?

Propagandist allusion belongs  to  the   other   camp !

[Andaman Al]

17 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

Trump Sides With Putin Over U.S. Intelligence On Election Meddling

 

 

Contradicting U.S. intelligence agencies, President Donald Trump on Saturday said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claim that the Kremlin did not attempt to interfere in the 2016 election.

 

Trump spoke with the Russian leader this week in Vietnam during a joint summit with other Asia-Pacific countries. When a reporter asked if the subject of Russian election interference came up, Trump replied, “He said he absolutely did not meddle in our election. He did not do what they are saying he did. ... Every time he sees me, he says, ‘I didn’t do that,’ and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, ‘I didn’t do that.’”

 

Trump also took multiple shots at his 2016 rival Hillary Clinton and lamented that Putin is “very insulted” by the accusations of election meddling. 

 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-putin-election-hacking_us_5a06de14e4b01d21c83ebdf7?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

 

-Well, you don´t bite the hand that´s feeds you!

I was just on Skype to a mate in Russia. The Russians are positively choking and cracking ribs, pissing themselves laughing over Trump. He is elevating Putin's status not only to national Hero but also a King of Comedy. Putin is giving himself and his people the biggest laugh in living memory. Trump is a complete clown and he is making the USA look absolutely stupid.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Why  have  you  departed  from  the   comprehensible objection  objective?

Propagandist allusion belongs  to  the   other   camp !

The author of the OPINION piece of that WSJ article was described as she is. A total trumpist partisan, totally not objective. Pointing that out was entirely relevant. The originator didn't even bother to cite the author or that it was an opinion piece and how the actual news people at WSJ are objecting to the trumpist takeover of their editorial function. 

[Skywalker69]

Trump’s Own CIA Smacks Down His Claim That We Should Trust Vladimir Putin

The CIA remains confident in its conclusion that Russia waged a disinformation campaign in the U.S. to influence the election in Donald Trump's favor.

 

The Central Intelligence Agency shot down Donald Trump’s supportive comments of Vladimir Putin on Saturday, saying they stand by their initial assessment that Russia did, in fact, interfere in the 2016 election.

 

In a statement, the CIA said the agency’s director, Mike Pompeo, remains confident in their January 2017 report, which concluded that Russia waged a disinformation campaign in the U.S. to influence the election in Donald Trump’s favor.

 

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/11/11/trumps-cia-smacks-claim-trust-vladimir-putin.html

[dundas]

If you want to hear a dispassionate account from people on both sides of politics, there's a recent series of interviews that the Economist magazine have conducted on their radio program -- 9 November, to be exact. Their take on his Russian escapades, for instance: Trump knows Russia as a good place to have Miss World contests, and a terrible place if you want to build a hotel there -- he's been trying for decades. That's about all he wants to know about Russia. Almost certainly his generals are telling him stories about Russia's military capability and the threat that Russia represents, but he's not interested. And his desire to build a hotel there is a possible reason he tends to take Putin at face value, greed over crap detecting any day ....

[F4UCorsair]

On 11/11/2017 at 1:07 PM, craigt3365 said:

The fat lady hasn't sung yet.  Impeachment may or may not happen.  It's entirely up to the mid term elections.  If the dems get control of congress, impeachment proceedings will begin.  But the odds are against impeachment.

 

Either way, Trump will probably be charged with obstruction of justice.

 

What I find 'interesting' is that half a dozen or so posters here were unequivocal about impeachment back some months.   It was imminent, days away, Trump was going to be impeached, forced to resign, or quit, then he was going to the slammer, not passing GO, not collecting $200.00.

 

Then, after a few months, there was a softening when no evidence emerged.....impeachment could take months, even years.  After all, Nixon's impeachment investigation took over a year.

 

Now.....impeachment may not happen, unless the democrats get control of congress, and 'the odds are against impeachment'.   One could suppose that the odds are also against him resigning??

 

Impeachment IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN regardless, and he will not be charged with obstruction of justice, but I suppose that will be watered down when it doesn't happen in a month, or six.

 

Please discontinue confusing wishful thinking with the facts!!

Edited November 12, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[craigt3365]

I never said impeachment was imminent.  Never.  Actually, for the first 60 days or so, wasn't even against Trump.  I though it was OK to give him some time.  Well...it's been proven he's a liar and a horrible president.  Impeachment would be great if possible.  Which is a long shot.  Sadly....

[CaptHaddock]

15 minutes ago, dundas said:

If you want to hear a dispassionate account from people on both sides of politics, there's a recent series of interviews that the Economist magazine have conducted on their radio program -- 9 November, to be exact. Their take on his Russian escapades, for instance: Trump knows Russia as a good place to have Miss World contests, and a terrible place if you want to build a hotel there -- he's been trying for decades. That's about all he wants to know about Russia. Almost certainly his generals are telling him stories about Russia's military capability and the threat that Russia represents, but he's not interested. And his desire to build a hotel there is a possible reason he tends to take Putin at face value, greed over crap detecting any day ....

Although it's true that Trump has wanted to open a hotel in Moscow for years, the actual role he has been fulfilling since about 2000 has been to launder the money of a variety of Russian kleptocrats into his businesses especially using Bayrock a Russian front for ill-gotten gains.  This documentary lays out some of the relationships involved:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bEdMuKq30I

[348GTS]

On 04/11/2017 at 2:40 PM, heybruce said:

Ok, I'll make it short.  The Harvard study in no way supports the 348GTS post:

 

" I believe it was Harvard who did some research recently, and determined that Fox News (yes, you read that correctly) provided the fairest and most balanced news coverage."

 

 

The above comment is extremely disingenuous. The context of the original comment was made in response to the continued and (factually flawed) remarks that Fox News and their viewership are somehow called into question when something is reported that either shows Trump in a positive light or Clinton in a bad one. The Harvard study in question was done over Trumps first 100 days in office and analysed the coverage he got from the mainstream media. The study clearly and unambiguously showed that Fox proved the most balanced coverage with a ratio of 52% negative to 48% positive covererage. Although not perfectly balanced (for the benefit of the above poster who doesnt seem to understand what 'fair and balanced' means, 50-50 would be a perfect balance), one could reasonably assert that 52-48 is pretty balanced. Compared to CNN and NBC for example whose coverage was 93% negative to 7% positive. For the benefit of our above poster, an assertion that this represents extremely biased and unbalanced coverage would be a reasonable one. So in fact the Harvard study does very much support my post.

 

Your comment above would suggest that you either; (a) Dont understand what the term 'fair and balanced coverage' actually means, or, (b) You didn't actually read or understand the article in question which clearly supports what I wrote; (c) Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is so severe that you can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy; or, (d) You are being dishonest and intentionally misleading the members of TVF who are following this thread, or finally (e), A combination of all of the above. Personally I suspect the last option.

 

No response is required, I am posting this for benefit of the forum members to set the record straight, not because I want to waste my time engaging with you. Hope that's clear.

 

 

[348GTS]

On 04/11/2017 at 8:30 PM, EvenSteven said:

These are all quite possible.  There is no doubt that Trump is a dictator and tyrant and the only thing stopping him is the constitution, the possibility of losing control of the Senate in 2018 and of course the fall out from that.

 

But don't put it past him to create a situation where he can suspend the constitution and rule as he wants.  Even though millions will fill the streets of the US, Trump will call out the National Guard on the people as other dictators like Putin and Erdogan  have done.  And all the right wing propaganda mills like FauxNews and social media trolls will cover his back and media outlets not supportive of the dictator will be shut down.  Dictators are extremely dangerous and need to be dealt with asap.

 

If anyone is in doubt or not clear about the definition of Trump Derangement Syndrome is, there it is above in a nutshell. The left-wing-media-driven mass hysteria surrounding the Trump presidency has reached alarming proportions, if the above commets are anythng to go by. There is absolutely zero evidence to support any of this, it is not credible at all, has no basis in reality, and sounds like the type of hysterical babble that would come out of the mouth of Keith Olberman.

 

To quote John McEnroe, "Surely you can't be serious!!"

[heybruce]

35 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

The above comment is extremely disingenuous. The context of the original comment was made in response to the continued and (factually flawed) remarks that Fox News and their viewership are somehow called into question when something is reported that either shows Trump in a positive light or Clinton in a bad one. The Harvard study in question was done over Trumps first 100 days in office and analysed the coverage he got from the mainstream media. The study clearly and unambiguously showed that Fox proved the most balanced coverage with a ratio of 52% negative to 48% positive covererage. Although not perfectly balanced (for the benefit of the above poster who doesnt seem to understand what 'fair and balanced' means, 50-50 would be a perfect balance), one could reasonably assert that 52-48 is pretty balanced. Compared to CNN and NBC for example whose coverage was 93% negative to 7% positive. For the benefit of our above poster, an assertion that this represents extremely biased and unbalanced coverage would be a reasonable one. So in fact the Harvard study does very much support my post.

 

Your comment above would suggest that you either; (a) Dont understand what the term 'fair and balanced coverage' actually means, or, (b) You didn't actually read or understand the article in question which clearly supports what I wrote; (c) Your Trump Derangement Syndrome is so severe that you can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy; or, (d) You are being dishonest and intentionally misleading the members of TVF who are following this thread, or finally (e), A combination of all of the above. Personally I suspect the last option.

 

No response is required, I am posting this for benefit of the forum members to set the record straight, not because I want to waste my time engaging with you. Hope that's clear.

 

You think "fair and balanced" requires 50% positive and 50% negative coverage?  In that case you must admit that Fox was definitely not fair and balanced in its coverage of Obama.  They were also pretty negative about Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, etc. 

 

Why don't you write Fox News and tell them to say nice things about North Korean leader Kim Jong Un?

[Jingthing]

Exactly. Objectively speaking, trump's performance is mostly negative. To report that reality is speaking the facts, speaking the truth. To fake that half (or much more) of his performance is good is PROPAGANDA. 

As far as Fox "News" the actual news part is very different from most of their content, like Fox and Friends, which really is 100 percent trump propaganda. 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Jingthing

[348GTS]

On 05/11/2017 at 2:14 PM, boomerangutang said:

It's a big topic, but I think one big reason the Dems lost last year was because they didn't slither down to dirty tricks like their opponents.  Dem politicians generally think the populace has some smarts, and try addressing them accordingly.  Reps, on the other hand, assume the populace are motivated by fears and prejudice.  The Reps were right, and played to Americans' fears and prejudices - which got them a lot of votes.

 

Oh shut the front door !! Perhaps you didn't follow the Project Veritas tape scandal too closely then? I guess CNN didn't cover that much. What about the convenient and timely release of the Billy Bush tapes? Or the pathetic attempt of Clinton to smear Trump with the fat Miss Universe (or whoever it was) issue, which she "just happened to bring up" at the debate and that the media had already been breifed about ahead of the time so they could inflict damage on Trump? Or how about the Russian Dossier filled with lies about hookers and golden showers? Not only did they slither, but they did WAY worse. Furthermore, the Democrats run their whole party and policy on politics of division, to suggest that the Reps do this and not the Dems is not only factually flawed, but disingeuous at best.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You think "fair and balanced" requires 50% positive and 50% negative coverage?  In that case you must admit that Fox was definitely not fair and balanced in its coverage of Obama.  They were also pretty negative about Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, etc. 

 

Why don't you write Fox News and tell them to say nice things about North Korean leader Kim Jong Un?

Don't feed the troll. LOL

[348GTS]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You think "fair and balanced" requires 50% positive and 50% negative coverage?  In that case you must admit that Fox was definitely not fair and balanced in its coverage of Obama.  They were also pretty negative about Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, etc. 

 

Why don't you write Fox News and tell them to say nice things about North Korean leader Kim Jong Un?

 

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Exactly. Objectively speaking, trump's performance is mostly negative. To report that reality is speaking the facts, speaking the truth. To fake that half of his performance is good is PROPAGANDA. 

 

Nice try. The fact that you missed is that my original comments matched the Harvard study. End of story. Whether or not Fox's coverage of Obama or Saddam Hussein or whoever else is not relevant. But way to go trying to divert. Furthermore, your "objective" view of Trump's performance is not objective, it is subjective. The left wing media do as much as possible to downplay or not bother reporting on his accomplishments. Or I suppose you think that the stock market at an all time high, unemployment at a 17 year low, illegal border crossings down by 70%, etc etc represent "bad performance".

[MrPatrickThai]

Any proof yet on Trump?  When he getting impeached?

[348GTS]

16 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Don't feed the troll. LOL

 

A liberal / anti Trumper's definition of a troll - Someone who calls into question or contradicts one's views or narrative, regardless of how factual "the troll"'s comments may be.

Edited November 12, 2017 by 348GTS

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, 348GTS said:

 

 

Nice try. The fact that you missed is that my original comments matched the Harvard study. End of story. Whether or not Fox's coverage of Obama or Saddam Hussein or whoever else is not relevant. But way to go trying to divert. Furthermore, your "objective" view of Trump's performance is not objective, it is subjective. The left wing media do as much as possible to downplay or not bother reporting on his accomplishments. Or I suppose you think that the stock market at an all time high, unemployment at a 17 year low, illegal border crossings down by 70%, etc etc represent "bad performance".

As discussed on the recent Real Time show, trying to convince a hard core trumpist that he's wrong after seeing the disgusting horror show an entire year of the trump presidency is a complete waste of time. There were some people that said, give him a chance, and now realize he's as bad and worse than his campaign rhetoric, which was of course constantly racist and divisive. Some of those people now realize, he's had his chance, he's really that bad. Again, anyone that doesn't see how bad he is now ... really, don't waste your time. They are the same style of true believers that have supported disastrous strong man leaders throughout history until the bitter end. 

[348GTS]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

As discussed on the recent Real Time show, trying to convince a hard core trumpist that he's wrong after seeing the disgusting horror show an entire year of the trump presidency is a complete waste of time. There were some people that said, give him a chance, and now realize he's as bad and worse than his campaign rhetoric, which was of course constantly racist and divisive. Some of those people now realize, he's had his chance, he's really that bad. Again, anyone that doesn't see how bad he is now ... really, don't waste your time. They are the same style of true believers that have supported disastrous strong man leaders throughout history until the bitter end. 

 

Real Time should just change it's name to The Trump Derangement Hour and get it over with. Bill Maher and his stacked panel of anti Trumpers lost their credibility a long time ago. Sad thing is that it used to be an entertaining show. Maher is a funny guy mostly, but the constant Trump bashing, fat Christie quips and inappropriate Ivanka comments are just sad and pathetic now. I still watch it, but I gave up taking it seriously a long time ago.

[Meljames]

29 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

There is absolutely zero evidence to support any of this, it is not credible at all, has no basis in reality, and sounds like the type of hysterical babble that would come out of the mouth of Keith Olberman.

 

I doubt Trump's a dictator like the hysterics are pushing. . His leanings toward dictatorship is just lazy ignorance. He thinks being POTUS is being able to sit in a big chair and tell people what to do. The reality is he has no idea how to carry out the duties of his position or what his position actually is. 

 

The gears of checks and balance are still in check and any headway into a dictatorial regime will be cut short. Trump's a freak at the nadir of American democracy. Hopefully the electorate is learning how much actual power for change they wield and will make a better choice in 2018 and 2020.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Meljames

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

Real Time should just change it's name to The Trump Derangement Hour and get it over with. Bill Maher and his stacked panel of anti Trumpers lost their credibility a long time ago. Sad thing is that it used to be an entertaining show. Maher is a funny guy mostly, but the constant Trump bashing, fat Christie quips and inappropriate Ivanka comments are just sad and pathetic now. I still watch it, but I gave up taking it seriously a long time ago.

I couldn't care less whether you watch or like Real Time or not. It's obvious you're a hard core pro-trumpist, and no rational argument of facts in the world could ever move you. That's the point. We CAN beat trump and his disgusting perverted movement if we motivate the majority of Americans. We can't win wasting time debating with true believer trumpists like you. Almost none of your type will change their views on him. Also probably engaging the trumpist hard core might even motivate them more to show up. I think it's best to not even engage. They represent about ONE THIRD of Americans. Don't bother! Just get the vast majority involved. That's the only reason that clown won last time. Too many decent Americans stayed home. 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Jingthing

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

 

Nice try. The fact that you missed is that my original comments matched the Harvard study. End of story. Whether or not Fox's coverage of Obama or Saddam Hussein or whoever else is not relevant. But way to go trying to divert. Furthermore, your "objective" view of Trump's performance is not objective, it is subjective. The left wing media do as much as possible to downplay or not bother reporting on his accomplishments. Or I suppose you think that the stock market at an all time high, unemployment at a 17 year low, illegal border crossings down by 70%, etc etc represent "bad performance".

Nice try.  What I did was point out the absurdity of stating that balanced reporting requires 50% positive and 50% negative coverage, and that by that absurd definition Fox is far from balanced. 

 

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the marginal improvements in unemployment are a continuation of the Obama recovery.  The stock market increase is partly Obama recovery and partly foolish optimism about tax reform, and does little to improve the lot of the average citizen.  I don't know the source of you illegal border crossing claim, but never regarded people sneaking into the country to do jobs that US citizens don't want to do as a major problem.

 

Reputable news sources are largely negative about Trump because he routinely demonstrates that he is dangerously unqualified for the job.  I don't want a misleading attempt at "balance", I want pertinent facts about national and world affairs.

[348GTS]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I couldn't care less whether you watch or like Real Time or not. It's obvious you're a hard core pro-trumpist, and no rational argument of facts in the world could ever move you. That's the point. We CAN beat trump and his disgusting perverted movement if we motivate the majority of Americans. We can't win wasting time debating with true believer trumpists like you.

 

What you could or couldn't care less about is irrelevant. I couldn't care even less that you couldn't care less about what I watch or not. It is not "obvious" I am anything of the sort. The irony in your comments is that you spout about rational arguments and facts yet use none in your own arguments. Most / all anti Trump rhetoric is based in the denial to accept reality that your side lost the election to a man that you don't like personally or whose politics you disagree with. So you will do anything you can to remove him from power, regardless of how bad that will be for the country. You wax lyrical about Trump and his "disgusting perverted movement" while glossing over the reality that had he lost the election the alternative would have been a lot worse. Apart from the fact that you would have the most corrupt person to ever run for office as president, someone how has actually broken several federal laws already, but you would have an actual "pervert" in the White House as her husband. You people crack me up. Wait till the investigations are done into the corruption of the Obama FBI and the Uranium One scandal. Trump will come out looking like a choirboy in comparison.