• Trump approval rating hits new low in Quinnipiac poll
    48 replies, posted
It still disturbs me that the percentage of people who actually look at what Trump and his administration are doing - and approve - is that high. I have a hard time believing they're thinking about it all that much.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52324819]Are these polls as accurate as all the ones that predicted Hillary winning in a land slide?[/QUOTE] Can this please be a bannable post?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52324984]It really is amazing the lengths conservative people will go to believe that every champion of conservatism is incapable of doing wrong, and when implicated in said wrong doing, is somehow entirely unrelated to said events. He literally fired Comey for "The russian thing", in his own words, so unless you're going to be the millionth person to tell us what the "Man who says it like it is" [B]really fucking meant[/B], develop a real argument. No, we don't know he's guilty yet, and trusting, as blindly as you appear to be doing, the systems of governance under said un-trustworthy leader as being incorruptible is beyond shortshighted. But I'm sure you're totally right and a special prosecutor was required for a non issue of something that doesn't really exist and you have nothing to fear that your faith was misplaced.[/QUOTE] See I read this a few times and didn't see any evidence to this boring russian narrative. Read Comey's statement to the SSCI because I didn't see any proof of an impeachable offence, in fact he went on record saying there was no investigation against Trump. [url]https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf[/url] Secondly don't patronise and strawman me by pretending I said the guy was incorruptible. You'd think 'innocent until proven guilty' would be bipartisan but apparently flinging your narrative around is more important.
[B][/B][QUOTE=Cabbage;52325033]in fact he went on record saying there was no investigation against Trump. [/QUOTE] Haha oh my god are you kidding me Did you actually read his statement? Are you that blind or are you intentionally being misleading?
[QUOTE=Cabbage;52324959]Yeah, until that is proven with actual evidence by the supreme court and decided on by the house, I won't take that as 'reality' since you're just a condescending ass on an internet forum[/QUOTE] Oh please, you're deluded. The evidence of his incompetence is all around you. This isn't an argument you can win, though I'm sure you'll try as hard as you can.
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;52325055] Haha oh my god are you kidding me Did you actually read his statement? Are you that blind or are you intentionally being misleading?[/QUOTE] [quote]"In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him."[/quote] One of the three points in the statement in which he says there was no investigation. Do you know something I do not? [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=New Cidem;52325059]Oh please, you're deluded. The evidence of his incompetence is all around you. This isn't an argument you can win, though I'm sure you'll try as hard as you can.[/QUOTE] fucking stellar i am convinced, i rescind my statement
[QUOTE=Cabbage;52325061]fucking stellar i am convinced, i rescind my statement[/QUOTE] Good, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;52325061]One of the three points in the statement in which he says there was no investigation. Do you know something I do not?[/QUOTE] I agree that it sounds like there wasn't an investigation into Trump personally, but the whole document is detailing how Trump was attempting to obstruct justice by demanding loyalty from the FBI director and asking him to end investigations.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52325122]I agree that it sounds like there wasn't an investigation into Trump personally, but the whole document is detailing how Trump was attempting to obstruct justice by demanding loyalty from the FBI director and asking him to end investigations.[/QUOTE] Nowhere in the document did Comey speculate that this was in to order obstruct justice. If there was no investigation, it's hard to argue there was any justice to obstruct. Secondly, It's not exactly unusual to want loyalty from your subordinates. But yeah if you can impeach a president based on some subtext you read into the statement, expect Trump's resignation in the morning.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;52325061]One of the three points in the statement in which he says there was no investigation. Do you know something I do not?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]On Jan. 6, Comey was sent to brief Trump on the contents of the Russia dossier. “In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.” Note what is NOT said when Comey writes, “We did not have.” That does not mean a case was not opened subsequently. The written testimony confirms Trump’s claim Comey told him three times he was not being investigated. Did Comey subsequently open a file?[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/07/the-critical-information-in-james-comeys-written-statement/"]The source is an opinion piece but says it better than I could and most of the quote is Comey's own words.[/URL] I also saw elsewhere on WaPo, and I can't find which of the many similar articles about Comey it's from, that Comey was unwilling to make a public statement that the POTUS was not under investigation because, were that to occur later, it would create a duty to correct the record with the new information. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/i-expect-loyalty-trump-told-comey-according-to-written-testimony/2017/06/07/46413298-4bab-11e7-a186-60c031eab644_story.html"]Meanwhile, in a non-opinion piece from the WaPo (the rest is also worth reading):[/URL] [QUOTE]The written testimony also recounts a face-to-face conversation the two men had on Feb. 14 in the Oval Office, where many senior officials had gathered for a counterterrorism briefing. After the meeting, the president asked everyone to leave. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and senior adviser Jared Kushner lingered in the room, but the president told them to leave, too, according to Comey. When the door by the grandfather clock closed, Comey wrote, the president said, “I want to talk about Mike Flynn’’ — the former national security adviser who was forced out after disclosures about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Flynn had resigned a day earlier. [B]“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go,” the president said, according to Comey.[/B] The FBI director replied only that “he is a good guy.’’ In that conversation, the president repeatedly complained to the FBI director about leaks, and Comey said he agreed with him about the harm caused by leaks of classified information. Comey said he understood the president to be asking for him to “drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the president to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign.’’ The former FBI director wrote that he found the conversation “very concerning, given the FBI’s role as an independent investigative agency.’’[/QUOTE] This is obstruction of justice, even if it doesn't apply directly to the Trump-Russia connection. "Hey, can you just let go of investigating Flynn?" is the level of interference that was enough to make Nixon resign before he could be impeached. Comey's testimony isn't smoking-gun evidence, but damn if it isn't worrying. And he supposedly took meticulous notes of the interactions at the time; such contemporaneous documents from FBI directors have been treated as evidence in the past. [QUOTE=Cabbage;52325145]Nowhere in the document did Comey speculate that this was in to order obstruct justice.[/QUOTE] That's not up to Comey to determine when he is giving testimony. He's answering questions, not offering his own opinions to Congress. His letter is about facts, not feelings. jfc It's unusual to demand loyalty from the FBI, which is supposed to act independently of the White House. Trump is demonstrating a flagrant disregard for separation of powers. And you think this is ok, Cabbage?
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52325149][URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/06/07/the-critical-information-in-james-comeys-written-statement/"]The source is an opinion piece but says it better than I could and most of the quote is Comey's own words.[/URL] [/QUOTE] Your WaPo opinion piece indulges in speculation that a case against him was opened after the fact and wasn't disclosed to anyone, not even leaked. Seems watertight. [quote]I also saw elsewhere on WaPo, and I can't find which of the many similar articles about Comey it's from, that Comey was unwilling to make a public statement that the POTUS was not under investigation because, were that to occur later, it would create a duty to correct the record with the new information.[/quote] Given that his statement is now public record, I think this point is moot, if I'm understanding you correctly. [quote]This is obstruction of justice, even if it doesn't apply directly to the Trump-Russia connection.[/quote] A court could never rule that as obstruction, you cannot prove intent, or any actual interference with the subjects of the investigation. Worrying, indeed, as you said - but not evidence. Lastly, my opinion of whether it's "okay" or not is irrelevant, we were discussing Trump's culpability for impeachment.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52324819]Are these polls as accurate as all the ones that predicted Hillary winning in a land slide?[/QUOTE] Yeah she won by 3 million votes didn't she
[QUOTE=Cabbage;52325061]One of the three points in the statement in which he says there was no investigation. Do you know something I do not? [editline]8th June 2017[/editline] fucking stellar i am convinced, i rescind my statement[/QUOTE] You are playing semantics games and calling yourself the winner. Good job. You missed something though. Personally. That word is telling in this context.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52324819]Are these polls as accurate as all the ones that predicted Hillary winning in a land slide?[/QUOTE] If the odds are 95% to 5%, you can still win with 5%. It's just unlikely. You can guess how people are going to vote, but you can still be wrong. Opinion polls aren't polling anything beyond "do you think this person is doing a good job, yes or no". They're not trying to predict an outcome here, it's literally just an averaging of opinions. So your comparison really doesn't make much sense.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52325222]You are playing semantics games and calling yourself the winner. Good job. You missed something though. Personally. That word is telling in this context.[/QUOTE] Which part of that was semantical? Most of my reply was a quote from Comey.
[QUOTE=Cabbage;52325240]Which part of that was semantical? Most of my reply was a quote from Comey.[/QUOTE] Yes, and using the particulars of those words to play semantic word games. Trump himself, personally, as a singular human entity, was the only thing confirmed to not be under investigation in that statement. Follow up statements from Comey show that he was in fact investigating the Trump team, campaign, staff, and by association, Trump. But please, all you did was quote him and then follow it up with your own personal spin of it, which you're surely to tell me wasn't a spin, but a factual take.
[QUOTE=MrRalgoman;52324819]Are these polls as accurate as all the ones that predicted Hillary winning in a land slide? [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - Novangel))[/highlight][/QUOTE] I wonder if he's going to pull a "I was only pretending to be retarded, get trolld xd" or just flat-out forget this ever happened next time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.