• 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!

Mueller

Should Mueller Be Fired?

  • Total voters
    99
Moderate Right said:
I never said it wasn't "factual". I said it only presents the left wing ideology facts that is their agenda while Fox News presents facts based on their right wing ideology. Neither should be believed to represent anything without a bias. One side says Obamacare was good. The other side says Obamacare was bad. One side says the tax plan is good. The other side says the tax plan is bad. ETC, ETC. Both sides have carefully cherry picked facts where they try and push their agendas on their readers.
Click to expand...

Agendas or not, it only makes sense to follow a news source that consistently wins awards for journalism. As opposed to one who does ... well, not.

You may as well get your news from the Disney Channel, or E! Entertainment TV.
 
Chomsky said:
My prediction:

This poll will give us a reasonable depiction of the ratio of Trump supporters to Trump detractors, currently active today on the board!
Click to expand...
'Yes '= 11

'No' = 82

:shock:

Wow! I really called that one, eh? :doh

Oh well, no guts no glory. I stand (very) humbly before you.


X Factor said:
It’s usually the way these things shake out.
Click to expand...

Middleground said:
Based-on the current results, seems to me that the Trump supporters are:

1) no longer supporting his lying ass
2) too embarrassed to vote
Click to expand...

Mycroft said:
There will be some outliers. For example, I'm a Trump supporter and I don't think Mueller should be fired.

I DO think his job should be ended for lack of reason for the investigation and lack of results.
Click to expand...
Cardinal said:
Yeah, but it's more than a little sad that the ratio of Trump supporters to Trump detractors is almost exactly the same as the ratio of people who believe the President is above the law to people who don't.

For the trump supporters who voted that he shouldn't be fired, I'd be curious what you believe the consequences should be if he is.
Click to expand...
 
Chomsky said:
'Yes '= 11

'No' = 82

:shock:

Wow! I really called that one, eh? :doh

Oh well, no guts no glory. I stand (very) humbly before you.
Click to expand...

There is an unsubtle difference between "Trump shouldn't fire Mueller" and "Trump should face consequences if he does fire Mueller." This is analogous to their wish that he stop tweeting, but they're hardly going to punish him for it. In the other thread where I asked if Trump should go to prison if it's proven conclusively that he committed serious crimes, every Trump supporter either answered "no" or didn't answer at all. Not one for the "yes" column.
 
Superfly said:
Agendas or not, it only makes sense to follow a news source that consistently wins awards for journalism. As opposed to one who does ... well, not.

You may as well get your news from the Disney Channel, or E! Entertainment TV.
Click to expand...

LOL. They get awards from the same liberal sources that they are part of.
 
Moderate Right said:
Just because Wapo is not as far to the left as Fox News is to the right doesn't mean they aren't a biased media plugging the left wing agenda they want to plug. Therefore, their facts cannot be trusted.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I seriously disagree with your assertion that their facts cannot be trusted. If they were not to be trusted with their facts they would get found out by those who focus on what the WAPO writes (like the Pee Brain in the WH and his supporters).

Now you can disagree with the conclusions they infer from those facts but that is something different than the facts being untrustworthy IMHO.
 
Peter King said:
I have to disagree, WAPO is much more fair and balanced compared to Fox News IMHO. Something that is evident from all the journalistic awards they received for excellence, something Fox News will be unlikely to receive. Hence the 2 are absolutely not comparable when it comes to label of being trustworthy
Click to expand...

You're only saying that because you agree with the stories they publish.
 
Superfly said:
Agendas or not, it only makes sense to follow a news source that consistently wins awards for journalism. As opposed to one who does ... well, not.

You may as well get your news from the Disney Channel, or E! Entertainment TV.
Click to expand...

Look at all the awards Dan Rather has won. It didn't stop him from using faked documents to accuse a sitting president of being AWOL from the service.
 
apdst said:
You're only saying that because you agree with the stories they publish.
Click to expand...

No, but they usually did investigate the facts they are using for their stories seriously and extensively. The conclusions may be very biased but for example there was a meeting between Trump the son and the Russians, that is a fact, now as to what was discussed there the WAPO may draw conclusions based on what they have found out that Trump Jr. disagrees with but the fact that the 2 sided met is not in doubt.

And I mostly read Dutch news and then do my own reading up about a story. I do not accept any story at face value, especially not from a partizan source without doing a bit of investigating myself. Personally I do not read that much WAPO.
 
Peter King said:
No, but they usually did investigate the facts they are using for their stories seriously and extensively. The conclusions may be very biased but for example there was a meeting between Trump the son and the Russians, that is a fact, now as to what was discussed there the WAPO may draw conclusions based on what they have found out that Trump Jr. disagrees with but the fact that the 2 sided met is not in doubt.

And I mostly read Dutch news and then do my own reading up about a story. I do not accept any story at face value, especially not from a partizan source without doing a bit of investigating myself. Personally I do not read that much WAPO.
Click to expand...

And you like the speculatory conclusion the come to and accept it as fact. That's not journalism.
 
20 million was wasted on Hillary on her using the wrong electronic device for messages / email. sorry boss the Russians and trump is very big problem concerning our country and sorry its taking so long... thats the way it is done... if nothing was out there it would have been over a long time ago
 
Do you really believe the FBI are democrats!!!! Really!!!
 
sKiTzo said:
I don't think anyone can argue that this investigation was not opened purely for political reasons and based on nothing more than wishful speculation. Well over a year later (however many man hours that is - it'a LOT of taxpayer money)

At some point, one has to consider that this man has been "investigating" this every day for more than a year now. He obviously has not come up with anything with which to bring charges or he would have done so. Neither will he close the investigation. Instead, he chooses to conduct an illegal raid on the office of Trumps attorney while the "Russia" investigation goes on in limbo.

Clearly, he is either incompetent, or he is abusing his position in government by using it for personal political exploitations AGAINST a sitting POTUS (at the expense of taxpayers), and for this he should be fired. Both are valid reasons to fire him.
Click to expand...

Looks like you're in the very small minority.
 
apdst said:
And you like the speculatory conclusion the come to and accept it as fact. That's not journalism.
Click to expand...

I clearly just stated that I did not take anything as a fact if it was based on speculation. And WAPO gets awards for journalism so I am pretty sure they regularly do journalism besides what you claim is speculation.
 
Peter King said:
Yeah, but I seriously disagree with your assertion that their facts cannot be trusted. If they were not to be trusted with their facts they would get found out by those who focus on what the WAPO writes (like the Pee Brain in the WH and his supporters).

Now you can disagree with the conclusions they infer from those facts but that is something different than the facts being untrustworthy IMHO.
Click to expand...

Each side has their own sets of cherry picked facts they use. One side says the sky is blue. One side says the sky is black. Another side says the sky is grey. They're all facts.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Mueller's investigative scope is - as written by Rosenstein - as expansive as new leads permit.

The Mueller investigation will be finished after all leads are exhaustively followed and Rosenstein agrees that the investigation is complete.
Click to expand...

Mueller has made up new directions for his probe to follow that are outside of the original scope of his authority, un less you are claiming that he can do anything desired in an attempt to "get" Trump, which makes it purely political and partisan.
 
I think this is the 319th thread on this question and for some strange reason the response is always the same.
 
plutonium said:
Do you really believe the FBI are democrats!!!! Really!!!
Click to expand...

Law enforcement officers are more often Republicans I would assume than democrats. Law and order has always been more in the republicans wheelhouse than the democrats wheelhouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom