• 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!

Should Trump resign?

Should Trump resign?

  • Total voters
    129
  • Poll closed .
grip said:
I don't like Trump on a personal level but the facts are that he's doing very well as POTUS. I didn't like Reagan but even the Left admits his success.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, Trump is not the best on a personal level. But I sure support his policies. I liked the policies of JFK, Clinton, Reagan, and now Trump.
 
Verax said:
I think the country is quite sick of the entire Trump / Russia / Collusion / Obstruction / Election controversy. Now that we have FBI vetted proof, would resignation not be the best thing for the country? Impeachment is ugly and would guarantee a couple more years of this crap and I don't think anyone really wants it, especially if it will be blocked by Republicans.

Should Trump resign?
Click to expand...

Resignation is the act of a person who

1)feels shame at committing bad acts,
2)feels shame at having been exposed for committing those bad acts, and
3)recognizes that having been exposed, and understands that resigning is the best course for the benefit of the country.

None of these three describe Trump or the Republican party that supports him, so we're stuck with him til at least 2020.
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
It's been factually demonstrated that he did exactly that.

That you cannot emotionally accept that is of no matter to me.

Fun to think of the 20 active investigations into Trump and his family, business and campaign.

I love the pain that causes some people.
Click to expand...

Man you are in left field on this and are so wrong. In about 6 weeks you are going to find out just how wrong you were.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Excellent. Thanks for admitting you lied again, and for running screaming from your claim.
Click to expand...

Here's all the facts, quotes and sources you require to substantiate my claims. It's even from one of your liberal News sources. Hurts don't it?

No Impeachment in View, but Democrats Push On With Investigations of Trump - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr’s summary on Sunday of the special counsel investigation keeps the impeachment of President Trump off the table, at least for now, but Democrats vowed to push forward with investigations into every aspect of the presidency and for access to the full report of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Click to expand...
 
LouC said:
Well, he did ban bump stocks.

Perhaps he believed they caused shoulder spurs?
Click to expand...

So I'm looking at Reagan's film titles (for evidence of collusion) and I see his films in the thirties have some weird titles. Some I'm not sure what it means but it sounds dirty. 1937-1939: Love is on the Air, Hollywood Hotel, Swing your Lady, Accidents will Happen, The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse, Boy meets Girl, Girls on Probation, Going Places, Secret Service of the Air, Naughty but Nice, The Angels wash their Faces, Smashing the Money Ring, Sword Fishing.
 
Cardinal said:
Resignation is the act of a person who

1)feels shame at committing bad acts,
2)feels shame at having been exposed for committing those bad acts, and
3)recognizes that having been exposed, and understands that resigning is the best course for the benefit of the country.

None of these three describes Trump or the Republican party that supports him, so we're stuck with him til at least 2020.
Click to expand...

The Hat Trick of ignominy in play by the GOP!

Ayup!

May enough sane and rational people, I pray, in the right places in the right states save us from 4 more years of Trumpism, come 2020.

Alas I don't see that happening. I just don't see him losing. The 62,984,828 folks that voted for him in 2016 are highly likely to vote for him again, and if unemployment is still this low, the market still this high, and we are not yet at a shooting war with North Korea or Mexico he will likely gain from former Hillary voters because they won't want to change horses in mid stream. So I have already resigned myself to 8 and out for Obese Donald. Much to my chagrin!

I see some exciting candidates in the Democratic field, but none that I feel have a message that will capture the American electorate in sufficient margins to overcome ensconced Obese Donald.

:( :roll: :doh
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Excellent. Thanks for admitting you lied again, and for running screaming from your claim.
Click to expand...


And this...

"With other congressional investigations of Mr. Trump swirling, the Democrats’ stance raised the prospect that they could undertake months, if not years, of scrutinizing federal prosecutors and top officials of the Justice Department — a prospect that echoes Republicans’ yearslong pursuit of the federal officials who handled the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Taken together, the investigations still threaten to damage Mr. Trump politically."
Click to expand...
 
More...

Mr. Nadler’s committee is not the only one scrutinizing the president and his administration. Since they took control of the House, Democrats have been investigating Mr. Trump’s businesses, his role in hush money payments during the campaign to a pornographic film actress who claimed to have had an affair with him, accusations of corruption in various federal agencies and other topics.

“I don’t know that any of our investigations depended on the red herring concept of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin’s forces,” Representative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat and former constitutional law professor, said in an interview, referring to a series of ongoing investigations into numerous aspects of the Trump White House and Mr. Trump’s businesses.
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
So I'm looking at Reagan's film titles (for evidence of collusion) and I see his films in the thirties have some weird titles. Some I'm not sure what it means but it sounds dirty. 1937-1939: Love is on the Air, Hollywood Hotel, Swing your Lady, Accidents will Happen, The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse, Boy meets Girl, Girls on Probation, Going Places, Secret Service of the Air, Naughty but Nice, The Angels wash their Faces, Smashing the Money Ring, Sword Fishing.
Click to expand...

Wait, you left out his (kinky) weird animal film, BEDTIME FOR BONZO.

Bedtime for Bonzo.jpg

He is hugging that chimp rather fondly...
 
vesper said:
Man you are in left field on this and are so wrong. In about 6 weeks you are going to find out just how wrong you were.
Click to expand...

It's OK that you can't accept the reality that your god has not been exonerated.

The mental anguish is fun to watch, though.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Which is not abuse of the investigatory promise, no matter how much you wish it were.
Click to expand...

Oh! You need more proof?


The collusion theory is the basis, at least in part, for the House Intelligence Committee’s own investigation of Russian election interference, and it was less clear on Sunday how Democrats leading that panel would incorporate Mr. Mueller’s definitive conclusion that there had been no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to undermine the 2016 election. Then again, the committee’s chairman, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, had in a sense already built in a response, framing his inquiry as not just about Russia, but any other foreign powers that could have financial or other leverage over Mr. Trump and his associates.
Click to expand...


Say Uncle.
 
Integrityrespec said:
If obstruction is so plain to see why did Mueller not bring charges of obstruction? Why? Come on now, think quick. .
Click to expand...

Mueller has said that the activity did not rise to indictable offenses because Trump's aides refused to carry out his orders. Malicious intention alone is apparently not an indictable offense. But it certainly is impeachable.
 
Born Free said:
The hell it's not, your tried for over 2 yrs to destroy Trump with all you lies and false claims. Trouble is all your false claims we're rejected.
Click to expand...

LOL! No, it's not, and what 'false claims'? Twumpie isn't exonerated, and the investigations are continuing. It's frankly a pleasure to watch you dance around that fact.
And you say it's not about Trump winning. Bull ****. You Lost and Trump Won
Click to expand...

Fun to watch you run screaming from the 20 active and ongoing investigations into your god.
 
grip said:
Oh! You need more proof?





Say Uncle.
Click to expand...

LOL! That's simply not proof of any abuse. It's you wishing that it were, but wishing won't make it magically true.

I accept your surrender and admission that you simply can't back up your asinine claim.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
That link doesn't substantiate your asinine claims. Doing their job, oversight of the executive branch, is their constitutional duty; it's not abusive except in your imagination.
Click to expand...

Some people, Obese Donald included, just don't understand how our Constitutional and or Governmental processes work.

It truly is amazing.
 
grip said:
Oh! You need more proof?





Say Uncle.
Click to expand...

There is no "proof" in that, well except for the proof that you don't understand, don't appear to have a clue, how House oversight committees work.

:lamo
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! That's simply not proof of any abuse. It's you wishing that it were, but wishing won't make it magically true.

I accept your surrender and admission that you simply can't back up your asinine claim.
Click to expand...

You're being awful arrogant for someone who's been clobbered by my quotes of facts from the NY Times source. Are you reading them? More....


At least on the question of impeachment — a constitutional remedy so grave it has been pursued seriously against a president only twice in modern American history — the outlook appeared to be clearer. Mr. Nadler and Ms. Pelosi, students of the failed Republican attempt to remove Bill Clinton from office in the 1990s, have warned repeatedly that they would not go down that path unaccompanied by Republicans.

“Unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Ms. Pelosi told The Washington Post two weeks ago. “And he’s just not worth it.”

Though Ms. Pelosi did not address impeachment in her statement with Mr. Schumer, Republicans’ jubilant declaration of presidential innocence seemed to all but foreclose the kind of defection from his own party that she and Mr. Nadler had said would be necessary.
Click to expand...

That's a full stop!
 
LouC said:
There is no "proof" in that, well except for the proof that you don't understand, don't appear to have a clue, how House oversight committees work.

:lamo
Click to expand...

Up your game and I'll answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom