• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump fires FBI Director James Comey [W:839]

Erod said:
LOL, no it's not. And this has absolutely no comparison whatsoever to do with Nixon.

You guys are flailing wildly. On everything. It's so pathetic.
Click to expand...

3a94a606a4ceb6031faae19f6b232ba8.jpg
 
Conservative said:
You seem to have a passion for this issue and I asked for YOUR OPINION. You seem to be waiting for someone else to give it to you.
Click to expand...
You can't help yourself from continuing to make up moronic drivel. There is no opinion as intelligent people formulate opinions based on real information, something you clearly can not do.

My opinion is no laws were violated and this is nothing more than an investigation to demonize and destroy Trump and I base that on no law that I can find that he violated.
Click to expand...
As I said, rational intelligent people do not formulate opinions without information. You on the other hand do. Then again I seriously doubt that you can grasp the real issue or will understand whatever the investigations reveal.
Just by dismissing the investigations, you are demonstrating a total lack understanding. You really think that you are smarter and better informed than the FBI, Congress and Senate, since they ARE investigating?
 
prometeus said:
You can't help yourself from continuing to make up moronic drivel. There is no opinion as intelligent people formulate opinions based on real information, something you clearly can not do.

As I said, rational intelligent people do not formulate opinions without information. You on the other hand do. Then again I seriously doubt that you can grasp the real issue or will understand whatever the investigations reveal.
Just by dismissing the investigations, you are demonstrating a total lack understanding. You really think that you are smarter and better informed than the FBI, Congress and Senate, since they ARE investigating?
Click to expand...
However the passion for this issue is all yours I stated my opinion but you are waiting for someone else to give you yours. Therein lies the problem

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
However the passion for this issue is all yours I stated my opinion but you are waiting for someone else to give you yours.
Click to expand...
As I said, you just can't help but spew the same idiocy over and over. I assure you it will never make sense.

Therein lies the problem
Click to expand...
The problem is entirely yours and it stems from the inability to grasp the issue at hand.
 
MTAtech said:
As I said above, Lester Holt of NBC News interviewed Trump, who said, he was going to fire him regardless of any recommendation and basically admitted that the Clinton emails had nothing to do with the decision. Instead, he fired Comey for pursuing the Russian connection: “And in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story,’”

In other words, Trump wanted to stop the investigation of the Russian connection, because Trump decided it was "a made up story," unworthy of investigation.
Click to expand...

Well, I am sure no translator of 'Trumpspeak'. But, another possibility is that he felt that with the former DNI, CIA director, NSA director, and to date, the FBI have all said there is "NO evidence of collusion with Russia to effect the election".... So, it is possible that he thought that rather than continue to pursue a conclusion in search of a crime, that at some point enough is enough.

Prosecutors have another term for it: obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

Oh please bring those charges....I'd love to watch them get slapped down....Truth is that liberal democrats are overplaying their hand, and coming unglued at the prospect that they can't force bogus charges and get Trump out....
 
j-mac said:
Well, I am sure no translator of 'Trumpspeak'. But, another possibility is that he felt that with the former DNI, CIA director, NSA director, and to date, the FBI have all said there is "NO evidence of collusion with Russia to effect the election".... So, it is possible that he thought that rather than continue to pursue a conclusion in search of a crime, that at some point enough is enough.



Oh please bring those charges....I'd love to watch them get slapped down....Truth is that liberal democrats are overplaying their hand, and coming unglued at the prospect that they can't force bogus charges and get Trump out....
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the FBI and CIA, etc. made no determination as to whether it effected the election.
 
MTAtech said:
My understanding is that the FBI and CIA, etc. made no determination as to whether it effected the election.
Click to expand...

Former DNI Clapper said, there is NO evidence of collusion, Comey in Senate hearing said there is NO evidence so far of collusion etc....So, I am just wondering, how many do you have to hear say that they don't have that before you move on to things that are problematic...Surely there is enough, and Trump is on a path that he is stumbling now....Why are you guy's so sure that Trump himself had some nefarious connection to Russian hijinx? I just don't get it....
 
IMO, If Trump asked for Comey's allegiance and he refused to give it, that gives Trump every right to fire him.

A loyalty pledge is simply an admiration that both parties are on the same page. Imo Comey was trying to usurp Trump. insubordination should never be tolerated.
 
Redress said:
Trump fires FBI Director James Comey - POLITICO



The timing could not be worse for how this appears.
Click to expand...


Trump is a novice and an OJT. The FBI Director, though serving at the pleasure of the President, is one of those few positions given the respect by all branches of government as being non-political. To the point, you dance with the one that's there. Trump chose otherwise, badly timed, with a ten-year term, poorly executed, with much disdain, and with zero respect of letting his senior people know what was going on so that they could properly cover his a**. And the pundits point out that the people voted him in to drain the swamp, and make change. Well, that kind of excuse can go a long way. It already has. You can't drain the swamp by just clearing of the scum from the top. Fire McCabe. Then, he's living up to his word. McCabe directly, as Trump's officer, contradicted his Commander in Chief as to Comey's support among the rank and file of the FBI. How much more infamy can Trump endure. He has never shown any tolerance as has McCabe assaulted him with.
 
Bucky said:
IMO, If Trump asked for Comey's allegiance and he refused to give it, that gives Trump every right to fire him.

A loyalty pledge is simply an admiration that both parties are on the same page. Imo Comey was trying to usurp Trump. insubordination should never be tolerated.
Click to expand...
Only a narcissistic dick like Trump would ask for such a thing and only idiots can accept such as insignificant. The director swore an oath upon taking the office and that is ALL that is needed, not allegiance to a jackass.
 
MTAtech said:
My understanding is that the FBI and CIA, etc. made no determination as to whether it effected the election.
Click to expand...

No, I believe what they have said is that there is NO evidence that actual vote tally's were affected....Which makes sense, because we have so many different ways in each state that votes are cast, not to mention that nearly all are NOT connected to any internet. What they did say is that basically what Russia did, is what Russia has been doing since at least the 50s, only in a 21st century way. By making public the email of Podesta, and the DNC, and through the use of internet trolls, and bots they were attempting to undermine confidence in the US election system, and our system of government...Democrats have helped them beyond their wildest dreams in that....

But, if you have even the slightest bit of confirmable evidence that Trump himself colluded with the Russian's to aid them in that, then by all means, make some news right here and publish it.
 
JasperL said:
It's evidence he's got bigger problems than lying to Pence, yes. His legal bills are ringing up by the thousands per day right about now. Doesn't matter if he's 'innocent' of all charges - he and his associates are in the cross hairs of the FBI. That's not a fun place to be.
Click to expand...

It's the Democrats who are trying to mount a partisan witch hunt - they don't care about Flynn - they care about going after Trump.


We don't fish with nets around here. We do troll for various species of fish, like crappie, striper, even trout in some cases.
Click to expand...

The internet context of "Troll" doesn't come from fishing - it specifically refers to the idea of the "troll under the bridge" who sits on an online forum harassing others. So your mistaken connection of "Troll" with something else is your own mistake.


And both Sessions and Trump praised Comey in October and November, Trump knew what happened in July and October and still kept him on as FBI head. HYPOCRITE!!

Point is that hypocrisy charge works both ways here.
Click to expand...

Nope - Trump praised Flynn too - even after firing him.


We disagree. Many conservatives and republicans recognize the problem as well.
Click to expand...

Those are Swamp Republicans, who disagree with Trump's reformism.

I'll stick with the topic, thanks.
Click to expand...
 
MTAtech said:
My understanding is that the FBI and CIA, etc. made no determination as to whether it effected the election.
Click to expand...

Nor will they because public opinion, election results and politics is not in the scope of their investigations.
 
Threegoofs said:
3a94a606a4ceb6031faae19f6b232ba8.jpg
Click to expand...

I think some really do want to let it all burn, and then break out their survival kits, their weapons safe, and get to raping and pillaging. Some may even admit it if we coaxed them out patiently.
 
sanman said:
It's the Democrats who are trying to mount a partisan witch hunt - they don't care about Flynn - they care about going after Trump.
Click to expand...

Say what? It's the FBI doing the investigation, a grand jury that issued subpoenas for Flynn's associates, and the Senate IC that issued the subpoenas for Flynn, which is headed by the GOP last I checked. Which one of those is controlled by the evil Democrats?

The internet context of "Troll" doesn't come from fishing - it specifically refers to the idea of the "troll under the bridge" who sits on an online forum harassing others. So your mistaken connection of "Troll" with something else is your own mistake.
Click to expand...

Trawl/troll - same general idea but trawling is with a net, trolling is with a line or lines with bait or lures attached to the end. That's what I was referring to, just making a lighthearted point that different regions use different terms. In the context you used 'trawl' everyone around here would use 'troll.' No big deal - just an observation.

Nope - Trump praised Flynn too - even after firing him.
Click to expand...

I am missing the point...

Those are Swamp Republicans, who disagree with Trump's reformism.
Click to expand...

Ah, right, the No True Scotsman defense. Got it!
 
j-mac said:
Former DNI Clapper said, there is NO evidence of collusion, Comey in Senate hearing said there is NO evidence so far of collusion etc....So, I am just wondering, how many do you have to hear say that they don't have that before you move on to things that are problematic...Surely there is enough, and Trump is on a path that he is stumbling now....Why are you guy's so sure that Trump himself had some nefarious connection to Russian hijinx? I just don't get it....
Click to expand...
Nobody can take you seriously if you make up your own facts. The links below completely contradict your uncited statements.

James Clapper: "There was no evidence that rose to that level, at that time, that found its way in to the intelligence community assessment, which we had pretty high confidence in," the former director of national intelligence said of collusion between Trump campaign aides and Russians, referring also to the US intelligence assessment that Russia tried to influence the presidential election in favor of Trump. "That's not to say there wasn't evidence, but not that met that threshold."

WSJ on James Comey: Mr. Comey started receiving daily instead of weekly updates on the investigation, beginning at least three weeks ago, according to people with knowledge of the matter and the progress of the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe. Mr. Comey was concerned by information showing possible evidence of collusion, according to these people.
 
nota bene said:
Rosenstein denies threatening to quit. Deputy AG Rosenstein: 'I'm not quitting,' didn't threaten to quit over Comey firing | WJLA
Click to expand...
Amazing. You have no problem refusing to consider links in a threadstarter's history when said person is pushing a clear political agenda and using the rape of a child to do it, but when it comes to a discussion about Trump, you have absolutely ZERO problem pulling up links from uncommon sources which don't even contradict (or support) what I said.

Amazing which links you choose to read and which you choose not to read. Is there a manual some place where I can read your seemingly arbitrary rules on what links you'll read and which you won't? Would I find said manual in the "P-R" section of the library?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Amazing. You have no problem refusing to consider links in a threadstarter's history when said person is pushing a clear political agenda and using the rape of a child to do it, but when it comes to a discussion about Trump, you have absolutely ZERO problem pulling up links from uncommon sources which don't even contradict (or support) what I said.

Amazing which links you choose to read and which you choose not to read. Is there a manual some place where I can read your seemingly arbitrary rules on what links you'll read and which you won't? Would I find said manual in the "P-R" section of the library?
Click to expand...

Look in the "F" section under "failed responses," and if you don't find it there, try under "L" for "lame."
 
nota bene said:
Look in the "F" section under "failed responses," and if you don't find it there, try under "L" for "lame."
Click to expand...
Do you regularly assess the quality of your posts to be "failed" and "lame"? Don't get me wrong, I may be tempted agree with it in this case.

After all, at no point did you even attempt to rebut the points I made. Is it not true that, for the purpose of defending President Trump, you sought out a source from an uncommon and rarely cited source, while not so long ago, you definitely claimed you would not read any links provided, links which just so happened to undermine your entire position? And is it not true the link you sourced is in no way relevant to what I said?

Do you have a valid position or not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom