Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Harris/Ernst 2020

Trump Poll

Poll  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe that Trump is guilty of Collusion?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Possibly yes or no, but need more info first before deciding
  2. 2. Do you believe that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Possibly yes or no, but need more info first before deciding
  3. 3. Do you believe that Trump should be impeached and removed from office SHOULD he be found guilty of one or both of the above accusations?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Possibly yes or no, but need more info first before deciding


Recommended Posts

-I dont think he personally colluded but he was aware so he is guilty.

 -Yes.He blackmailed and fired Comey

-Yes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Patine said:

@ThePotatoWalrus hasn't voted...

I too misread the third one, but I still wouldn't automatically say yes. I voted No, but I meant the third "more info" option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

I too misread the third one, but I still wouldn't automatically say yes. I voted No, but I meant the third "more info" option.

Because, of course, the Exalted Great Leader and God-Emperor on Earth (at least to impressionable and gullible people caught in his cult of personality, like obviously @ThePotatoWalrus) Donald Trump deserves special protections from investigatory, judicial, and legal consequences, even potentially, and demands a FAR higher burden of proof before any action is even CONSIDERED to be taken than other American citizen AT ALL - that's how special and on a high pedestal he is, by nature, regardless of what he does or says (or fails to do) - at least to his devoted sheep followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I am curious as to why do you all say no  or not yet to the last question? @jvikings1 @Kingthero @ThePotatoWalrus

I firmly believe I've answered this above, though I expect utter denial of my reasoning - I'm still convinced I'm more or less correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

I am curious as to why do you all say no  or not yet to the last question? @jvikings1 @Kingthero @ThePotatoWalrus

It's a hypothetical question which is usually asked to bait one into an answer.  I'd like to look at the facts of a case before making a judgement.

40 minutes ago, Patine said:

I firmly believe I've answered this above, though I expect utter denial of my reasoning - I'm still convinced I'm more or less correct.

Whether you think so or not, I am not one of those Trump loyalist types.  I still would have preferred other GOP candidates.  I am neither never Trump nor always Trump.  I'll criticize him when he is in the fault and acknowledge when he does something positive.  I am concerned by the number of sheep followers on both sides.  I don't trust anyone blindly, especially politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

It's a hypothetical question which is usually asked to bait one into an answer.  I'd like to look at the facts of a case before making a judgement.

Whether you think so or not, I am not one of those Trump loyalist types.  I still would have preferred other GOP candidates.  I am neither never Trump nor always Trump.  I'll criticize him when he is in the fault and acknowledge when he does something positive.  I am concerned by the number of sheep followers on both sides.  I don't trust anyone blindly, especially politicians.

For some reason, I had misread in my mind earlier, partially due to fatigue, and partially due to the smoke from forest fires in B.C. hanging in the air the last two days, that the question had included "if irrefutable evidence had been found against Trump," or some paraphrasing, which is how @vcczar had worded it in a similar poll several months ago. I now see, upon closer inspection, that this question is NOT as carefully worded as @vcczar. So I apologize, on that behalf, for the jumping to a conclusion too quickly, @jvikings1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

For some reason, I had misread in my mind earlier, partially due to fatigue, and partially due to the smoke from forest fires in B.C. hanging in the air the last two days, that the question had included "if irrefutable evidence had been found against Trump," or some paraphrasing, which is how @vcczar had worded it in a similar poll several months ago. I now see, upon closer inspection, that this question is NOT as carefully worded as @vcczar. So I apologize, on that behalf, for the jumping to a conclusion too quickly, @jvikings1.

Accepted.

On another note, my grammar was flat out awful in that response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Accepted.

On another note, my grammar was flat out awful in that response.

BTW, what does your new avatar represent? I can't read the full word/phrase below the white cutout figure, because the left and right edges of it are cut off by the circular border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

BTW, what does your new avatar represent? I can't read the full word/phrase below the white cutout figure, because the left and right edges of it are cut off by the circular border.

Standwithrand. I literally just checked it out. Though I have to say that these last couple of weeks he's disappointed me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Standwithrand. I literally just checked it out. Though I have to say that these last couple of weeks he's disappointed me.

I always had more respect for his father, even though I only agreed with him in a few areas (monetary policy - as in the base of currency and the retention and universal purchasing power of hard currency, NOT his budget or taxation scheme) and his military and foreign intervention policy (or, complete abolition thereof outside a powerful defensive only military meant to fight solely on home ground and a strong international trade policy, but not military intervention, political meddling, and international criminal behaviour with intelligence, covert ops, and spec ops, of which he planned to outright abolish all of, among other unaccountable and criminal or dubious-in-activity "alphabet soup" agencies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

In which cases would you support removal and which cases would you not @jvikings1

It's too difficult to answer such a hypothetical question.  There are just so many ways in which one could go with it.

49 minutes ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Standwithrand. I literally just checked it out. Though I have to say that these last couple of weeks he's disappointed me.

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harris/Ernst 2020 said:

Mainly his softening of his stance on Russia. 

He's gone all over the place on Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

l,amo

Just an '80's sitcom laughtrack response. Nothing insightful or meaningful here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

He's gone all over the place on Russia.

I'd like to see where you are getting this assumption from.

His position is dialogue is good and we should stop antagonizing Russia by continuing to expand NATO.  I'd like you to show where he was ever against that position.  He's also always been critical of US intelligence services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I'd like to see where you are getting this assumption from.

His position is dialogue is good and we should stop antagonizing Russia by continuing to expand NATO.  I'd like you to show where he was ever against that position.  He's also always been critical of US intelligence services.

The problem with his point of view on NATO and Russia, logistically speaking, is at NATO is an alliance and the U.S. does not have the full and singular decision of who joins the organization and who doesn't. In fact, NATO doesn't even formally have the need for absolute consensus among standing members the EU does, which effectively gives each and every EU member a full veto on new members (one of the big reasons Turkey hasn't been admitted yet, after quite a few years as an applicant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Patine said:

The problem with his point of view on NATO and Russia, logistically speaking, is at NATO is an alliance and the U.S. does not have the full and singular decision of who joins the organization and who doesn't. In fact, NATO doesn't even formally have the need for absolute consensus among standing members the EU does, which effectively gives each and every EU member a full veto on new members (one of the big reasons Turkey hasn't been admitted yet, after quite a few years as an applicant).

Actually, and expansion of NATO (which would technically be an alteration of the treaty) does require unanimous consent.  Greece has blocked any action regarding Macedonia because of the name dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×