Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, let me ask you this - Do you think that Trump is going to get impeached or resign? If your answer is "yes" then you've been watching/reading too much liberal mainstream media.
That is the story they've been selling for the past 14 months or more. A recent analysis found that the mainstream media coverage in 2017 was 90% against Trump. That is not balanced, any way you look at it.
Since you ask, here is what I think:
I had predicted, even before the election, that if Mr. Trump became President, I thought it highly likely that he would resign after two years in office, saying that he had accomplished all that he set out to do. I still hold that view as a distinct possibility, in that Mr. Trump does not seem to enjoy the duties of the Presidency, and he probably views with some alarm how the "Trump Brand" is taking a hit.
As for impeachment: who knows? I happen to be one of those that thinks that Mr. Trump, himself, did not conspire with the Russians or Wikileaks. I think it much more likely that members of his campaign staff (Manafort, Flynn, etc.) did so.
Mr. Trump is not known for keeping his mouth shut. If I were one of his campaign staff, and I wished to ensure, as far as possible (and without regard to legality), his election, I would certainly have been in favor of keeping him 'out of the loop' regarding such activities. Mr. Trump cannot keep a secret, as his campaign staff probably knew very well (if they were indeed in engaged in such activities).
However, as noted before (by me and others), Mr. Nixon himself did not order or have knowledge of the break-in to the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex. He learned about it (as we now know) three days afterwards. Where Mr. Nixon got into trouble was his endeavors to protect those that engaged in the burglary (or, those that ordered the burglary), called a 'cover up' or 'obstruction of justice'.
Mr. Nixon did not help his cause by ordering the firing of the special prosecutor (Saturday Night Massacre). I recall that event of October 1973, and it outraged members of Congress, even of his own party.
Now, many have spoken before of Mr. Trump being a 'loyal person. The question to me is: if Mr. Trump were unaware of the Russian activities carried on by his campaign staff, did he, if he learned about it, begin to engage in 'cover up' activities? We do not know. It may well be that the Mueller investigation will result in legal problems for many of Trump's staff, but exonerate Mr. Trump himself.
I tend to think that Mr. Trump became aware of at least some of the activities. At the least, one may look at that infamous June 2016 meeting with 'the Russians' in Trump Tower, at which Don Jr. and others attended. Their initial story about their concern about Russian baby adoptions fell apart pretty quickly. I will not go into the other reports concerning the meeting (Trump dictating the initial response, etc.).
I am not in favor, as a rule, of impeachment. I was a supporter of Mr. Nixon. I did not vote in 1972, since I was 17 years of age, but I, along with many in my age group, were very desirous of our continual withdraw from Vietnam (Peace with Honor!), as well as the cessation of the draft.
Of course, when the 'smoking gun' recordings were finally released by Nixon in late July 1974*, it became clear to me, and all, that Mr. Nixon had indeed 'obstructed justice'. I was glad that he then resigned, rather than put our country through the first impeachment proceedings since Mr. Johnson of Civil War era.
I was also against the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Recall that it started out as an investigation of Whitewater, but as the years dragged on, Mr. Clinton finally screwed up by having an affair with Monica (which started well after the investigation began), and then, most importantly, lying about it under oath. So, after all of that investigating, we were left with the President of the United States being on trial in the Senate for lying about oral sex with an intern. It did not help our country's standing.
I would also much rather that Mr. Trump not be subjected to impeachment proceedings. It is not good for the country, although I have no doubt some Liberals would rejoice. I utterly reject the calls by Congresswoman Waters and a few others about starting such proceedings. It is premature by any measure, and looks simply like a personal vendetta.
As I said, I would not be surprised if Mr. Trump resigned next year, simply on the basis that he feels that he accomplished what he set out to do. Of course, if the Mueller investigation comes back with indictments against him, I imagine he would also resign, as per Mr. Nixon, rather than defend himself in the Senate.
Also, per Mr. Nixon, if Mr. Trump fires Jeff Sessions, then brings in Rudy (for instance), whom then fires Mr. Mueller, then I do feel that impeachment becomes much more of a possibility.
My question to you: if there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trump engaged in 'obstruction of justice', would you be for impeachment? Of is the 'person' more important to you than 'the office'?
*I have noted before that Mr. Nixon's downfall was, in large part, caused by his recording all conversations in the Oval Office, as well as all telephone calls. He had 'state of the art' recording equipment.
Today, we have cell phones that can record conversations (and video) with a slight touch of a button. We know that the White House has now prohibited such phones into the Oval Office. Yet, such is probably of an example of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. There must be recordings of conversations that Mr. Trump or his staff wish, if conspiracies there be, to not be brought out into the light of day.
Agreed. However, there are very few centrist, or conservative media outlets. You basically have Fox News, and a few talk radio shows. Comparatively few view, or listen to these outlets.
CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, NYT, Washpo, AP, etc are all LEFT wing biased. Also Yahoo, Google, MSN, Facebook, Twitter, etc all Left wing biased. Therefor the vast majority of people are being bombarded with the Far Left Democrat/Progressive agenda. That is all they know, because that is all they see, and hear.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
foxnews is the only conservative outlet, on TV at least.
I watch Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, etc on yourtube as well.
Conservatives often complain about the "left-leaning media" telling "lies" to make liberals look good and conservatives look bad. But, based on what I've seen, they rarely support their claims with specific details nor do they generally provide links to examples of the lies they say are being told. As I see it, many of the things they think are "lies" are often just some reasonably well-verified facts that cast a bad light on their views. (In a lot of examples posted in this forum, the media is reporting something that some politician, scientist, or celebrity has said, so if a "lie" is being told it is not the news organization that is lying; they are simply reporting what the person said. If there is a lie, it is the person who made the statements - not the media who reports what they said. In some other cases I've seen, the "lie" is a factual error that is later retracted by the news organization. In which case, it wasn't actually a "lie" but, rather, a mistake that was later corrected.)
On the other hand, it seems to me that Fox News has been rather blatant about their right-leaning views. In principle, I don't really mind this. Conservative views certainly should be part of our national conversations. But I've been thinking that some aspects of "Trumpism" have derailed Fox News over the past couple of years, and now it seems that a famous conservative commentator has taken the words right out of my mouth:
He continued: “Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration.”
BTW: What I really wish is that more news organizations would make a stronger effort to offer opposing perspectives on controversial issues. It seems to me that NPR makes a good effort toward this, but not many others do. I hate that so much of our news is now tailored to that people tend to see only the perspectives that they want to see.
Of course one of my hopes for this thread is that some conservatives will try to find a way to show that the commentator is wrong about Fox News. We already know that Ralph Peters is "off the deep end" in many ways, but this does not, in itself, mean that he is wrong about Fox News. I will be interested in hearing comments for and against Fox News, and for/against Peters' accusations.
I'm going to beg everyone to offer good arguments or evidence for any major claims that you make here (but, based on past experience, I'm not going to hold my breath for that).
and if you don't like your job or the company you work for, you should quit. of course he barely worked for them. How often did anyone of us see him on any of the prime time programs. Rarely even before Trumps election was Peters even part of the programming. I do give him credit for one thing, he had the guts to leave when he felt the programming was out of line, That is better than some contributors on other networks. It might help to understand just because he was a contributor and a military person doesn't mean he was a conservative in any way, means or form. He was a Hillary supporter. I am sure he wasn't happy with FOX>
I watch FOX. I watch CNN. I watch MSNBC. I watch PBS. I watch them all. I was watching Ingraham last night and the spin on the congratulatory phone call Trump made to Putin under the radar that was announced by Moscow TV. There was the usual, but Obama did it after Putin took back the presidency from Medvedev. Yep he did. I would never have known that if I didn't watch FOX and it's venomous but Obama rhetoric. Obama did it so it's okay for Trump to do it?
Well lets look at it without the spin. Obama did it with an agenda to talk about Syria and to introduce other American talking points. Obama did it with the right protocols in place and in the public eye. We were also in a different place with Russia at the time. Trump did it against his advisors advice. Trump never discussed what happened in England, nor mention the cyber aggression against our country. It was like two buddies talking about getting together for yet another super secret meeting soon. So you get two different perspectives, each biased, but, take out the spin and what do you conclude?
Kudos to Peter's for having some sense of country first. Each side is in it for the bucks. Each side is biased. One side says that Trump can do no wrong. The other sides looks at everything Trump does wrong. Put the two together and do your own research.
and if you don't like your job or the company you work for, you should quit. of course he barely worked for them. How often did anyone of us see him on any of the prime time programs. Rarely even before Trumps election was Peters even part of the programming. I do give him credit for one thing, he had the guts to leave when he felt the programming was out of line, That is better than some contributors on other networks. It might help to understand just because he was a contributor and a military person doesn't mean he was a conservative in any way, means or form. He was a Hillary supporter. I am sure he wasn't happy with FOX>
He was NOT a Hillary supporter..sheesh!
Trump and Clinton..he said that he thought Clinton was the safer pick. He went a great pains to elaborate on why he disliked Clinton..and thought her, "despicable". This was over a year ago.
“I’m much more alarmed and concerned about Donald Trump’s adoration of Vladimir Putin and Putin’s… intent to do all he can to help Trump get elected,” he told the FOX Business Network’s Maria Bartiromo. Peters said while the military is divided, the people close to him “fear Trump” deeply. “I detest Hillary Clinton, I find her despicable. But I still think she’s a safer bet for President than Donald Trump. His attacks on NATO, crazy statements on Aleppo and Syria about Iran, his insistence that he knows more about ISIS than the generals… I just can’t swallow that,” he said. He added, “I’m not getting on anyone’s bandwagon but when asked a question by God… I will give the American people my honest view… On foreign policy and national security Hillary Clinton is clearly preferable to the irresponsible and madcap Donald Trump.”
... his insistence that he knows more about ISIS than the generals… I just can’t swallow that,” he said.
I had a lot of reason for not liking Trump but, when he was elected, one of the things that sent chills down my spin was this thought: A guy who thinks he is smarter than everyone is probably just the opposite.
This observation is so blatantly biased I do not even know how to begin a response. I guess I'll simply repeat it:
honest with themselves = left
makes every story fit a certain pre-settled narrative = right
Does anyone else see contradiction?
If you carefully read the words you will probably conclude that they don't include everybody......
A person with a deep and wide education who is world traveled and experienced with lots of trades, philosophies, cultures, etc. - and who entered into all of this with an open mind - is usually classified as "Left" these days. Even my Jesuit Priest buddy would be considered far left...due to his experiences and world-view. He truly believes in equality, something the Right spends a LOT of time telling us about (that we are NOT equal)....
On the other hand, those who are somewhat ignorant of the world (ignorant meaning lack of the experiences mentioned above) are more likely to have been raised with a single narrative and then, when older, expose themselves to media, people and sources that reflect that narrative.
Although this may anger some, ANYONE who watches a lot of TV news/politics is, IMHO, somewhat ignorant. If said person tells me they read 50+ books a year on history and current events....I'd make an exception.
But, again IMHO, anyone who "learns" from Infotainment Radio or TV is missing 90% of the story.
I say this as one who has read history deeply for 55 years. You can't just "know" this stuff (history, government, society, civilization, etc.). You have to study it for your entire lifetime. Furthermore, even then, you only have a small piece of the puzzle.
I've watch Sean Hannity, listened to Rushbo and other haters.....and I've even watched Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow (all on rare occasion). One can simply say they are not the same. No way. The first two are just spewing entertainment or hate or even humor. The other two have actual life experience which goes beyond having however many wives signing non-disclosure agreements.
Our current POTUS, the head of the GOP and Right, is a know-nothing. I know a LOT more about most subjects than he does.....and so do millions of Americans.
You'll forgive me for thinking we can do better...and coming to the conclusion that those who want a "know nothing" to hold the highest office are "off" in one way or another.
Trump himself is responsible for the negative coverage. Seems you guys always need a refresher:
1) Cheated on wife w/Porn Star
2) Paid said porn star hush money to remain quiet
3) Fired Comey to stunt FBI investigation
4) Publicly ridicules AG Sessions (ongoing)
5) Fires SoS 14 months in
6) Reckless turnover rates on staff
7) Sr. Advisor operating w/o top level security clearance
These are just a few of the things that come to mind but there are countless others. This is all on your hero. Whats the old sang? Make your bed, you lie in it.
"Cheated on wife w/Porn Star"
JFK, RFK and Bill Clinton ALL cheated on their wives and the left NEVER COMPLAINED
In FACT during the Clinton scandal the left said. "It is only sex, WHO CARES."
Why the sudden care NOW?
"Paid said porn star hush money to remain quiet"
JFK, RK and Clinton did the same. Prove otherwise.
"Fired Comey to stunt FBI investigation"
Pure biased opinion.
Even Comey said " I serve at the pleasure of the President and can be fore for ANYTHING or NOTHING"
"Publicly ridicules AG Sessions (ongoing)"
More biased OPINION.
" Fires SoS 14 months in"
So? When one of your appointees dos NOT agree with your policies you go. Common sense.
"Reckless turnover rates on staff"
"Sr. Advisor operating w/o top level security clearance"
SR position of Sect. of State had a privite server which received, had and sent CLASSIFIED material and Obama did NOTHING about it.
What good is a top level clearance if you are NOT going to follow the laws pertaining to it.
I had predicted, even before the election, that if Mr. Trump became President, I thought it highly likely that he would resign after two years in office, saying that he had accomplished all that he set out to do. I still hold that view as a distinct possibility, in that Mr. Trump does not seem to enjoy the duties of the Presidency, and he probably views with some alarm how the "Trump Brand" is taking a hit.
As for impeachment: who knows? I happen to be one of those that thinks that Mr. Trump, himself, did not conspire with the Russians or Wikileaks. I think it much more likely that members of his campaign staff (Manafort, Flynn, etc.) did so.
Mr. Trump is not known for keeping his mouth shut. If I were one of his campaign staff, and I wished to ensure, as far as possible (and without regard to legality), his election, I would certainly have been in favor of keeping him 'out of the loop' regarding such activities. Mr. Trump cannot keep a secret, as his campaign staff probably knew very well (if they were indeed in engaged in such activities).
However, as noted before (by me and others), Mr. Nixon himself did not order or have knowledge of the break-in to the Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex. He learned about it (as we now know) three days afterwards. Where Mr. Nixon got into trouble was his endeavors to protect those that engaged in the burglary (or, those that ordered the burglary), called a 'cover up' or 'obstruction of justice'.
Mr. Nixon did not help his cause by ordering the firing of the special prosecutor (Saturday Night Massacre). I recall that event of October 1973, and it outraged members of Congress, even of his own party.
Now, many have spoken before of Mr. Trump being a 'loyal person. The question to me is: if Mr. Trump were unaware of the Russian activities carried on by his campaign staff, did he, if he learned about it, begin to engage in 'cover up' activities? We do not know. It may well be that the Mueller investigation will result in legal problems for many of Trump's staff, but exonerate Mr. Trump himself.
I tend to think that Mr. Trump became aware of at least some of the activities. At the least, one may look at that infamous June 2016 meeting with 'the Russians' in Trump Tower, at which Don Jr. and others attended. Their initial story about their concern about Russian baby adoptions fell apart pretty quickly. I will not go into the other reports concerning the meeting (Trump dictating the initial response, etc.).
I am not in favor, as a rule, of impeachment. I was a supporter of Mr. Nixon. I did not vote in 1972, since I was 17 years of age, but I, along with many in my age group, were very desirous of our continual withdraw from Vietnam (Peace with Honor!), as well as the cessation of the draft.
Of course, when the 'smoking gun' recordings were finally released by Nixon in late July 1974*, it became clear to me, and all, that Mr. Nixon had indeed 'obstructed justice'. I was glad that he then resigned, rather than put our country through the first impeachment proceedings since Mr. Johnson of Civil War era.
I was also against the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. Recall that it started out as an investigation of Whitewater, but as the years dragged on, Mr. Clinton finally screwed up by having an affair with Monica (which started well after the investigation began), and then, most importantly, lying about it under oath. So, after all of that investigating, we were left with the President of the United States being on trial in the Senate for lying about oral sex with an intern. It did not help our country's standing.
I would also much rather that Mr. Trump not be subjected to impeachment proceedings. It is not good for the country, although I have no doubt some Liberals would rejoice. I utterly reject the calls by Congresswoman Waters and a few others about starting such proceedings. It is premature by any measure, and looks simply like a personal vendetta.
As I said, I would not be surprised if Mr. Trump resigned next year, simply on the basis that he feels that he accomplished what he set out to do. Of course, if the Mueller investigation comes back with indictments against him, I imagine he would also resign, as per Mr. Nixon, rather than defend himself in the Senate.
Also, per Mr. Nixon, if Mr. Trump fires Jeff Sessions, then brings in Rudy (for instance), whom then fires Mr. Mueller, then I do feel that impeachment becomes much more of a possibility.
My question to you: if there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trump engaged in 'obstruction of justice', would you be for impeachment? Of is the 'person' more important to you than 'the office'?
*I have noted before that Mr. Nixon's downfall was, in large part, caused by his recording all conversations in the Oval Office, as well as all telephone calls. He had 'state of the art' recording equipment.
Today, we have cell phones that can record conversations (and video) with a slight touch of a button. We know that the White House has now prohibited such phones into the Oval Office. Yet, such is probably of an example of closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. There must be recordings of conversations that Mr. Trump or his staff wish, if conspiracies there be, to not be brought out into the light of day.
Enjoyed the read, well done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
