# Impeachment of Donald Trump



## nintendofan85 (May 17, 2017)

Recently, there have been talks that impeachment may be taken against Donald Trump pertaining to his firing of James Comey as Director of the FBI. Trump claimed his firing had to do with his handling of the email controversy involving Hillary Clinton, but many, especially members of Congress, believe Trump's true motive was to stop any investigations into possible connections with Russia, especially with discussions he has allegedly made with its leaders as of late. What's your position on the potential impeachment of Trump? If he is impeached, he will be only the second president that it has happened to, even though no U.S. president has ever been impeached out of office successfully before. Considering that Andrew Johnson's impeachment happened years upon years ago, the only modern example that can be given was the process that was done against Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999, which ended in acquittal by the Senate. However, there were plans to impeach Richard Nixon as the Watergate scandal unfolded from 1972 to 1974, just that Nixon chose to resign instead of face impeachment. There were also talks around 2006 to 2008 of impeaching George W. Bush over the Iraq War.


----------



## Brookie (May 17, 2017)

I really don't want to vote these kinds of issues on a public poll. D:


----------



## Corrie (May 17, 2017)

My opinion is that he should have been impeached months ago. He's been doing whatever the heck he wants and I don't agree with that. I'm not even American either so I couldn't imagine the rage I'd feel if he was my president. ^^;


----------



## LambdaDelta (May 18, 2017)

the whole ship needs to go down


----------



## nintendofan85 (May 18, 2017)

Brookie said:


> I really don't want to vote these kinds of issues on a public poll. D:



I mean, I probably shouldn't have made it public, but I don't think you'll be judged based on how you vote. But to each his own.


----------



## Corrie (May 18, 2017)

I'm not good with politics but wouldn't Mike Pence take over if he got impeached?


----------



## Soda Fox (May 18, 2017)

I don't mind that my vote it public.  I've been very public about my opinion here.

We'll have to see what turns up.  My understanding is that the call is in part to make Republicans call a "no" on the vote.  In my eyes it's like a big game of chess for one side to make the other look bad and the US citizens are the pawns regardless of who is on top at the moment.


----------



## LambdaDelta (May 18, 2017)

Corrie said:


> I'm not good with politics but wouldn't Mike Pence take over if he got impeached?



this depends on if he gets indicted or not as well


----------



## Bubblebeam (May 18, 2017)

Won't take long to see the results of this poll.


----------



## Mink777 (May 18, 2017)

It really doesn't matter to me at all.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 18, 2017)

The impeachment of donald trump is what my pet apples wished for. They really hate him a lot. 

I didn't raise them to hate Trump, but I raised them to behave. They just seemed to hate him.


----------



## Dim (May 18, 2017)

nintendofan85 said:


> but I don't think you'll be judged based on how you vote.


Hahaha if only!


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 18, 2017)

Here's one thing you guys do need to keep in mind if Trump gets impeached.

If this happens or not, the liberals still lose. Cause even if we have Trump out, the Republicans still dominate the House and the Senate. Plus, Neil Gorsuch is on the court, and most gubernational governments are Republican-dominant.


----------



## LambdaDelta (May 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Here's one thing you guys do need to keep in mind if Trump gets impeached.
> 
> If this happens or not, the liberals still lose. Cause even if we have Trump out, the Republicans still dominate the House and the Senate. Plus, Neil Gorsuch is on the court, and most gubernational governments are Republican-dominant.



small steps are still steps, but yeah

not that I have a ton of stock put into the modern democratic party myself


----------



## Brookie (May 18, 2017)

nintendofan85 said:


> I mean, I probably shouldn't have made it public, but I don't think you'll be judged based on how you vote. But to each his own.



I just want to remain as neutral as possible. I don't like arguing about politics on any forums, and I'd rather not go down that route.


----------



## BambieTheMayor (May 18, 2017)

Didn't he share top secret information with Russia, or has that claim been denied? Because he confirmed it on twitter so Idk


----------



## King Dorado (May 18, 2017)

I dont have enough facts yet to say whether Trump should be impeached or not.  I don't think firing the FBI director would be grounds even if it seems shady, would it?  can't Congress appoint a special prosecutor to continue the investigation?


----------



## Oblivia (May 18, 2017)

I went ahead and edited the poll so people can vote anonymously.


----------



## LambdaDelta (May 18, 2017)

BambieTheMayor said:


> Didn't he share top secret information with Russia, or has that claim been denied? Because he confirmed it on twitter so Idk



given how unfiltered his twitter rants end up being, him admitting to something on twitter sounds like one of the highest forms of evidence to it being true

also because there's literally no reason to say this, unless he either a) likes playing with fire b) has a death wish and/or c) baffling braggart idiot


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 18, 2017)

Oblivia said:


> I went ahead and edited the poll so people can vote anonymously.



Thanks for protecting the poll's privacy.


----------



## LambdaDelta (May 18, 2017)

Oblivia said:


> I went ahead and edited the poll so people can vote anonymously.



boo-urns

edit: dammit apples


----------



## N e s s (May 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> The impeachment of donald trump is what my pet apples wished for. They really hate him a lot.
> 
> I didn't raise them to hate Trump, but I raised them to behave. They just seemed to hate him.



It surprises me that you would say this, considering you voted for him.


----------



## Duzzel (May 18, 2017)

I'm going to refrain from ranting but I'll make my most solid point.

Trump should have been impeached long ago. For multiple reasons. 
But the biggest reason is the damage he is doing to the society of the country. Which, unfortunately, isn't an impeachable offense, but the amount of divisiveness he's caused is astounding. I refuse party alignment, and even though I am quite liberal, I think that bipartisan politics has shown just how terribly it can manipulate a country, especially one so easily influenced as the US. Parties aside, that man has gotten away with more than any president before him, and yet we see no action, a lack of inquiry, and a complex mixture of apathy and severe concern. 

I haven't approved of any decision he has made, but as long a a politician is behind it (Ryan, Gorsuch, Pence) I have tolerated simply because we've dealt with politicians we don't agree with. But those moments have been few and far between, and I'm terrified wondering just how much more he'll be allowed to get away with before he's forcibly removed.

(I apologize, but I have incredibly strong sentiment towards my country's political situation)


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 18, 2017)

N e s s said:


> It surprises me that you would say this, considering you voted for him.



Just because I supported him in the election doesn't mean my apples do. They hated him since he started running for the election. The only reason why I voted him is because I naturally vote Republican. Before he was left, I was a Cruz supporter, but that's because I hated Obama (though I hate him much, much less than most Trump haters hate Trump).


----------



## Bowie (May 18, 2017)

I have zero pity for people who voted for him and are unhappy about what he's doing/done to the country. You got more than enough warnings about it, as far as I'm concerned. You made your bed.

Anyway, yes, I'm in total support of it, 100%.


----------



## moonford (May 18, 2017)

Get that Orange out of the White House.


----------



## Legendery (May 18, 2017)

Zendel said:


> Get that Orange out of the White House.



It's comments like these which destroy conversation and discussion. Useless comments regarding a topic don't do anything but fan the flames and make people angry. Instead of writing unconstructive messages, why not tell other people why you think "that orange" should be impeached? 

The only somewhat rationale reason I have heard is Duzzel's comment on the separation of the American people.

Edit, I don't like Donald Trump as a president, but I also think impeaching is an overreaction and would cause more harm then good.


----------



## piichinu (May 18, 2017)

Lol I don't care but wouldn't mike pence just be in charge then

- - - Post Merge - - -



Legendery said:


> It's comments like these which destroy conversation and discussion. Useless comments regarding a topic don't do anything but fan the flames and make people angry. Instead of writing unconstructive messages, why not tell other people why you think "that orange" should be impeached?



It's not that deep


----------



## Legendery (May 18, 2017)

badgrl2 said:


> It's not that deep



Not deep from the point of view of someone who previously stated they don't care. So if you don't care, the somewhat mean and unfair comments wouldn't effect you at all, which makes sense. But from my world view and perspective, these mean a lot more. In your defense, I am the one who decided to participate in such a discussion, but I am simply just trying to have a fair, polite, and reasonable conversation; like of the type that is promoted heavily on TBT.

Once again, I DO NOT PROMOTE DONALD TRUMP. I feel like I am going to have to say this just because my politics and perspective are heavily conservative.


----------



## visibleghost (May 18, 2017)

idk i mean.. trump sucks but so does pence ????
honesty im just glad i dont live in the us hh


----------



## tumut (May 18, 2017)

I don't want Mike Pence lmao


----------



## Weiland (May 18, 2017)

I'm not involved in US politics (or politics in general) but yeah, after seeing and hearing the sorts of things he's doing, I'd like him impeached.


----------



## N e s s (May 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> Just because I supported him in the election doesn't mean my apples do. They hated him since he started running for the election. The only reason why I voted him is because I naturally vote Republican. Before he was left, I was a Cruz supporter, but that's because I hated Obama (though I hate him much, much less than most Trump haters hate Trump).


Then you have nobody to blame but yourself for him being in office. I find it incredibly ironic how you defended him tooth and nail when I discussed politics with you last year and now you're saying you want him impeached. Smart.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 18, 2017)

N e s s said:


> Then you have nobody to blame but yourself for him being in office. I find it incredibly ironic how you defended him tooth and nail when I discussed politics with you last year and now you're saying you want him impeached. Smart.



I don't regret either one of them, but to be honest, I never really liked him from the beginning. But to his defense, I felt that the media, not Russia, was the guilty party for meddling with the election. And it wouldn't matter if I voted him or not, the elections are still based on electoral college, winner-take-all, and voter turnout rather than popularity. It also wouldn't matter because he's going to win Texas anyway, even if I voted someone else.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I don't regret either one of them, but to be honest, I never really liked him from the beginning. But to his defense, I felt that the media, not Russia, was the guilty party for meddling with the election. And it wouldn't matter if I voted him or not, the elections are still based on electoral college, winner-take-all, and voter turnout rather than popularity. It also wouldn't matter because he's going to win Texas anyway, even if I voted someone else.



And I voted Trump in Colorado and it went blue anyway. It's true. If we really want to make a difference we need to start from the bottom up. If we as a country keep not caring about politics and voting until it comes to voting for the presidency we're never going to break out of this cycle of terrible candidates.


----------



## Brookie (May 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> And it wouldn't matter if I voted him or not, the elections are still based on electoral college, winner-take-all, and voter turnout rather than popularity.



Then we may have well not voted at all if you're going to say this. None of us.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 18, 2017)

Brookie said:


> Then we may have well not voted at all if you're going to say this. None of us.



What we should be doing is getting involved in our local and state politics more heavily. The state politicians choose who the electors are for each state. And get involved and try to turn your state so the electors have to vote according to the popular vote in the state if it isn't like that already. Honestly I think all states should have electors vote by popular and also split the votes between red and blue in accordance to how the citizens are voting. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Brookie (May 18, 2017)

"Politics have no relation to morals"
"No science is immune to the infection and politics and the corruption of power."
"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened."
"Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible."

Just some quotes to throw out there.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 18, 2017)

Brookie said:


> Then we may have well not voted at all if you're going to say this. None of us.



All of our votes make a difference. The reason why mine wouldn't matter to the rest of Bell Tree Forums is because I come from a state Trump is going to win anyway (which is Texas). Even the more liberal demographics in America are more conservative in Texas than anywhere else (even if they're still more liberal than conservative). It wouldn't matter who I voted as well because I'm always going to vote conservative. If Hillary Clinton was going to repeal Obamacare without replacement, is pro-life, anti-immigration, anti-SJW, pro-gun, pro-captial punishment, and never discussed a national issue on a private server, I would've voted Hillary. But none of this is true about her. In 2012, I voted Romney even if I prefer Herman Cain or Rick Perry over him. In 2016, I prefer Ted Cruz or Ben Carson over others. If I could vote in 2008, I would've voted John McCain (which I didn't since I was too young to vote back then). I know a lot of you hate the Sith Lord (aka Donald Trump), but I'm always going to vote Republican no matter what. And as long as we have the electoral college, my vote wouldn't matter if I don't agree with the rest of the state.


----------



## moonford (May 18, 2017)

Legendery said:


> It's comments like these which destroy conversation and discussion. Useless comments regarding a topic don't do anything but fan the flames and make people angry. Instead of writing unconstructive messages, why not tell other people why you think "that orange" should be impeached?
> 
> The only somewhat rationale reason I have heard is Duzzel's comment on the separation of the American people.
> 
> Edit, I don't like Donald Trump as a president, but I also think impeaching is an overreaction and would cause more harm then good.



I forgot I couldn't make lighthearted comments on TBT anymore, woops. You could be less ruder you know it's not hard. 

I have said my opinion enough times on several threads and I don't really care for discussion because this thread is going to end up like the rest anyway, closed and forgotten. 

--

And since you asked so politely I will share my opinion on Trump for the hundredth time on TBT. 

I think he is a cold hearted old fool who will destroy relations with other countries, he will cause wars with other countries because he is an idiot and doesn't really know what he is doing. His policies do not sit well with me as I agree with left wing policies more than right wing policies. I hate him as a person and I hate the things he has said and done. His impeachment has many advantages and disadvantages but I believe the USA would survive if he was impeached.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> All of our votes make a difference. The reason why mine wouldn't matter to the rest of Bell Tree Forums is because I come from a state Trump is going to win anyway (which is Texas). Even the more liberal demographics in America are more conservative in Texas than anywhere else (even if they're still more liberal than conservative). It wouldn't matter who I voted as well because I'm always going to vote conservative. If Hillary Clinton was going to repeal Obamacare without replacement, is pro-life, anti-immigration, anti-SJW, pro-gun, pro-captial punishment, and never discussed a national issue on a private server, I would've voted Hillary. But none of this is true about her. In 2012, I voted Romney even if I prefer Herman Cain or Rick Perry over him. In 2016, I prefer Ted Cruz or Ben Carson over others. If I could vote in 2008, I would've voted John McCain (which I didn't since I was too young to vote back then). I know a lot of you hate the Sith Lord (aka Donald Trump), but I'm always going to vote Republican no matter what. And as long as we have the electoral college, my vote wouldn't matter if I don't agree with the rest of the state.



I appreciate you sticking to your guns (literally! lol)

Personally my views are a mix so I don't consistently vote for either party. I might vote Democrat next time. It'll depend on who's running.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 18, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> I appreciate you sticking to your guns (literally! lol)
> 
> Personally my views are a mix so I don't consistently vote for either party. I might vote Democrat next time. It'll depend on who's running.



The only thing I know about the 2020 candidates is that one of them likes fish sticks.


----------



## Brookie (May 18, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> All of our votes make a difference. The reason why mine wouldn't matter to the rest of Bell Tree Forums is because I come from a state Trump is going to win anyway (which is Texas). Even the more liberal demographics in America are more conservative in Texas than anywhere else (even if they're still more liberal than conservative). It wouldn't matter who I voted as well because I'm always going to vote conservative. If Hillary Clinton was going to repeal Obamacare without replacement, is pro-life, anti-immigration, anti-SJW, pro-gun, pro-captial punishment, and never discussed a national issue on a private server, I would've voted Hillary. But none of this is true about her. In 2012, I voted Romney even if I prefer Herman Cain or Rick Perry over him. In 2016, I prefer Ted Cruz or Ben Carson over others. If I could vote in 2008, I would've voted John McCain (which I didn't since I was too young to vote back then). I know a lot of you hate the Sith Lord (aka Donald Trump), but I'm always going to vote Republican no matter what. And as long as we have the electoral college, my vote wouldn't matter if I don't agree with the rest of the state.



If you have noticed, I haven't knocked soda Fox for her vote nor will I knock yours.


----------



## Ghost Soda (May 18, 2017)

Only if we impeach the other homophobic trash can, too.


----------



## Stalfos (May 18, 2017)

I don't believe Trump should get off the hook just because Pence might be an even worse president. I'll never understand that kind of reasoning.


----------



## Chicha (May 18, 2017)

I absolutely support his impeachment. He has no sense of tact or any ounce of professionalism. The fact that you can become president without having any political experience is mind-boggling.

The electoral college needs to go. It was useful a long time ago but we're at the point it's no longer needed. It's causing more issues and encouraging attitudes where people don't think their vote would count. Hearing people say their vote wouldn't matter is so frustrating. No matter what your political views are, it's important to vote. Getting involved to vote for your local elections are very important because they will make a difference in the long run.


----------



## LambdaDelta (May 18, 2017)

Stalfos said:


> I don't believe Trump should get off the hook just because Pence might be an even worse president. I'll never understand that kind of reasoning.



I mean I'd liken this to Watergate, where Nixon wasn't the only domino to fall. (yes, I know he resigned, but for practical purposes the end result stays the same)

So if Trump is found guilty of high treason, then the matter becomes "just how deep into political ties does this go?", and if Pence is also found to be an accomplice or otherwise having fully known about it and turned a blind eye, well then...

(also disclaimer, I'm by no means saying I know any of this to be true. this is purely a hypothetical possibility)


----------



## nintendofan85 (May 18, 2017)

Legendery said:


> It's comments like these which destroy conversation and discussion. Useless comments regarding a topic don't do anything but fan the flames and make people angry. Instead of writing unconstructive messages, why not tell other people why you think "that orange" should be impeached?
> 
> The only somewhat rationale reason I have heard is Duzzel's comment on the separation of the American people.
> 
> Edit, I don't like Donald Trump as a president, but I also think impeaching is an overreaction and would cause more harm then good.



The thing is, while impeachment of presidents hasn't been popular with recent presidents (it wasn't popular during Clinton's impeachment in 1998 and 1999, and polls released in 2006 and 2014, respectively, didn't find much support for impeachment of Bush or Obama, which is surprising, especially considering how unpopular George W. Bush got in his second term), Trump is the first president where there is actually popular support to impeachment, for the first time since the presidency of Richard Nixon.

- - - Post Merge - - -



Chicha said:


> I absolutely support his impeachment. He has no sense of tact or any ounce of professionalism. The fact that you can become president without having any political experience is mind-boggling.
> 
> The electoral college needs to go. It was useful a long time ago but we're at the point it's no longer needed. It's causing more issues and encouraging attitudes where people don't think their vote would count. Hearing people say their vote wouldn't matter is so frustrating. No matter what your political views are, it's important to vote. Getting involved to vote for your local elections are very important because they will make a difference in the long run.



The thing is, I meet many Republicans (many of them my own family members, although I'm not a Republican myself) that argue that the Electoral College keeps our elections in check. While I don't agree with this assertion, perhaps it should become nationwide where the electoral college is based on congressional district, not a winner-takes-all system-this is already done by Maine and Nebraska (in the 2008 election, John McCain won most of Nebraska's electoral votes, but Barack Obama managed to get one from winning one of its congressional districts, and the same was seen in Maine in the past election, where Hillary Clinton won the majority of Maine's electoral votes but Donald Trump managed to get one for winning a congressional district).
I personally would rather have the electoral college not exist anymore like you said, but the idea of splitting electoral votes by congressional district may be the only idea with bipartisan support.


----------



## Corrie (May 18, 2017)

nintendofan85 said:


> The thing is, while impeachment of presidents hasn't been popular with recent presidents (it wasn't popular during Clinton's impeachment in 1998 and 1999, and polls released in 2006 and 2014, respectively, didn't find much support for impeachment of Bush or Obama, which is surprising, especially considering how unpopular George W. Bush got in his second term), Trump is the first president where there is actually popular support to impeachment, for the first time since the presidency of Richard Nixon.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> ...



The fact that Trump is getting such support to be impeached means something. He got in with no political experience and that, to me, was red flaggish to begin with.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 18, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> I mean I'd liken this to Watergate, where Nixon wasn't the only domino to fall. (yes, I know he resigned, but for practical purposes the end result stays the same)
> 
> So if Trump is found guilty of high treason, then the matter becomes "just how deep into political ties does this go?", and if Pence is also found to be an accomplice or otherwise having fully known about it and turned a blind eye, well then...
> 
> (also disclaimer, I'm by no means saying I know any of this to be true. this is purely a hypothetical possibility)



Honestly I wouldn't really mind dismantling and removing all politicians that are in office right now and start over as a popular vote going from local levels and up. But that would take a lot of time and most of us rely on the government in some way or another so that's not going to happen.


----------



## nintendofan85 (May 18, 2017)

Corrie said:


> The fact that Trump is getting such support to be impeached means something. He got in with no political experience and that, to me, was red flaggish to begin with.



I'm also not surprised at all about the chances that Russia's government got involved in this. Even if the Russians didn't rig American ballot boxes or anything, the fact that fake news managed to spread like a wildfire over the Internet and affect the opinions of so many people (which, sadly, my mom fell victim to, where I would on occasions notice her browsing such websites on her laptop and basically be brainwashed by it, and constantly asking me and my dad why news sources didn't mention it on television, and that comes down to one simple reason: none of it was true!) shows that there was foul play going on in this election. Also, when you consider the fact that James Comey was investigating the involvement that Trump's campaign had with Russian officials, and then all of a sudden he was fired around a week ago, there's no good reason why Trump's actions couldn't be considered fishy at all. My mom and several other people I know from my community here in the Jackson area of Mississippi firmly believe that Trump's firing of Comey had to do with how he handled the Hillary Clinton email controversy, but on that, I call BS.


----------



## Soigne (May 18, 2017)

tumut said:


> I don't want Mike Pence lmao



I'd rather die than have Mike Pence as president


----------



## Soda Fox (May 18, 2017)

nintendofan85 said:


> I'm also not surprised at all about the chances that Russia's government got involved in this. Even if the Russians didn't rig American ballot boxes or anything, the fact that fake news managed to spread like a wildfire over the Internet and affect the opinions of so many people (which, sadly, my mom fell victim to, where I would on occasions notice her browsing such websites on her laptop and basically be brainwashed by it, and constantly asking me and my dad why news sources didn't mention it on television, and that comes down to one simple reason: none of it was true!) shows that there was foul play going on in this election. Also, when you consider the fact that James Comey was investigating the involvement that Trump's campaign had with Russian officials, and then all of a sudden he was fired around a week ago, there's no good reason why Trump's actions couldn't be considered fishy at all. My mom and several other people I know from my community here in the Jackson area of Mississippi firmly believe that Trump's firing of Comey had to do with how he handled the Hillary Clinton email controversy, but on that, I call BS.



I mean... plenty of people on the Democrat side were calling for Comey to get fired for weeks before Trump did it.

There's fake news on both sides of the spectrum. That's why it's important for people to read all sides and make up their own minds on what's going on.

*fix auto correct errors


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 18, 2017)

Chicha said:


> I absolutely support his impeachment. He has no sense of tact or any ounce of professionalism. The fact that you can become president without having any political experience is mind-boggling.
> 
> The electoral college needs to go. It was useful a long time ago but we're at the point it's no longer needed. It's causing more issues and encouraging attitudes where people don't think their vote would count. Hearing people say their vote wouldn't matter is so frustrating. No matter what your political views are, it's important to vote. Getting involved to vote for your local elections are very important because they will make a difference in the long run.



I disagree with getting rid of the electoral college. Not that I'm trying to keep the democrats out of office (though I do wish it would be more difficult for them to win office as long as they are extreme to the liberal views), but by doing this, the rural communities would no longer be listened to, as only the coastlines or at least two states would be listened to. Also, the cities and coasts are heavily left-winged, and if you want a government to work, you need both sides. Having the urban votes being the only ones that matter would throw the government out of balance.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (May 18, 2017)

Chicha said:


> The electoral college needs to go.



The electoral college is an attempt to give a say to smaller states like Rhode Island in comparison to larger states like Texas. It wouldn't be fair to get rid of it.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Also you may have noticed that many democratic votes were in densely populated areas. I'm not trying to bash democrats, but giving them an advantage over smaller rural areas isn't fair at all. I agree with what apple said.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 22, 2017)

xSuperMario64x said:


> The electoral college is an attempt to give a say to smaller states like Rhode Island in comparison to larger states like Texas. It wouldn't be fair to get rid of it.
> 
> - - - Post Merge - - -
> 
> Also you may have noticed that many democratic votes were in densely populated areas. I'm not trying to bash democrats, but giving them an advantage over smaller rural areas isn't fair at all. I agree with what apple said.



I actually remembered back when the election ended, the left wing all of the sudden began to oppose the electoral college. Not just that it allowed Trump to win, but also because in the past 7 elections, 2 of them were won by a candidate that lost the popular vote (which was the conservative). But I thought they took it more seriously because it went in favor of Trump.

I also remember that since Trump won the election, people were trying to prevent Trump from getting in. They sued states to recount votes, they harassed electors to voting Hillary or wishing that there were enough faithless electors, and they rioted and protested. But look what happened. Recount efforts in Florida didn't happen, a judge blocked Pennsylvania from recounts, and the recounts in Wisconsin made Trump win even more. The electoral college had two faithless electors that denied Trump the votes, but there were more faithless electors that denied Hillary the votes. And Congress has approved of the electoral college process.

I believe that one reason why Trump lost the popular vote was because of how serious both Californians and New Yorkers took the election. If we get rid of the electoral college, it will take these two states to determine the winner of the election. I wouldn't want that to happen, which backs up my reasoning on why I support the electoral college.


----------



## Soraru (May 23, 2017)

even if we impeach, we still get mike. he/his administration made sure to get a vice president who is on the same agenda as he is on. so even if we impeach, sure we have a different person, but we are still going to go through the same shtstorm maybe even worse since they have the same agenda, so it wouldnt make any drastic difference. sure it can be some sort of political statement. but it still would have just as much value as those who chose third party/didnt vote. they make a statement but didnt make a difference. which is something we really need. action behind wisdom.

also, nearly half of americans love him and think the same way he does, nearly all of them not minorities. added with economic power.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 23, 2017)

Soraru said:


> even if we impeach, we still get mike. he/his administration made sure to get a vice president who is on the same agenda as he is on. so even if we impeach, sure we have a different person, but we are still going to go through the same shtstorm maybe even worse since they have the same agenda, so it wouldnt make any drastic difference. sure it can be some sort of political statement. but it still would have just as much value as those who chose third party/didnt vote. they make a statement but didnt make a difference. which is something we really need. action behind wisdom.
> 
> also, nearly half of americans love him and think the same way he does, nearly all of them not minorities. added with economic power.



I would also like to mention that whether or not he gets impeached, Obamacare would have already been repealed by the time his impeachment begins. So if you want him removed from office before the Obamacare repeal happens, I don't think it will happen.

I'm not sure why I decided to bring up Obamacare as an example of what Trump is doing, but some of the stuff he is doing are already in process, and a change in management won't change that.


----------



## vel (May 23, 2017)

if we're going to delve into the topic of impeachment of trump, let's talk about the vice first. he's a super righteous man, but the negative is he's extremely homophobic, transphobic, etc. when i say righteous, i mean he won't talk to another woman in private without his wife. so is that better than trump, although he's super against anything not "pure or holy" or some ****?? 

well, trump is not righteous AND homophobic so it's your flip


----------



## piichinu (May 23, 2017)

"wont talk to another woman in private without his wife"

sounds rather unhealthy

- - - Post Merge - - -

and ive always thought mike pence was a lot more extreme about the topic of LGBT?


----------



## Soraru (May 23, 2017)

the topic isnt on obamacare nor did i ever mention obamacare. the topic is about trump getting impeached. 

as ive said the point in my post, even if trump does get impeached, there is still going to be someone with the same agenda as him to continue the work.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 23, 2017)

vel said:


> if we're going to delve into the topic of impeachment of trump, let's talk about the vice first. he's a super righteous man, but the negative is he's extremely homophobic, transphobic, etc. when i say righteous, i mean he won't talk to another woman in private without his wife. so is that better than trump, although he's super against anything not "pure or holy" or some ****??
> 
> well, trump is not righteous AND homophobic so it's your flip



That's true too. Trump did cheat on his wife, several times. In fact, many politicians and celebrities have engaged in adultery, which is very shameful. But I feel the worst two cases of adultery in politics were the case with Bill Clinton and the case with John Edwards. One of them lied to a judge during a lawsuit over it, and the other cheated on his wife while she had breast cancer. The latter case was very horrible. If you betray a family member like that while they are in a serious condition, your moral behavior is just as deep as the darkness of hell. I can't think of a worse politician in moral behavior than that, not even Donald Trump.

And yes, Mike Pence may be a scarier man on the social issues than Donald Trump is, but at least he's more fit for the presidency.


----------



## vel (May 23, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> And yes, Mike Pence may be a scarier man on the social issues than Donald Trump is, but at least he's more fit for the presidency.



It comes down to who's the lesser evil really, and I agree Pence seems a lot more fit.


----------



## Barbara (May 23, 2017)

Of course! I'm not even American but I can't stand Trump.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 23, 2017)

badgrl2 said:


> "wont talk to another woman in private without his wife"
> 
> sounds rather unhealthy



Honestly for any person it's probably a good idea not to meet with anyone you don't absolutely trust in private, especially if you're famous or are thought to have a lot of money. Most people probably won't make up a story to get at what you have, but it only takes one falsehood to ruin your life forever.


----------



## Bubblebeam (May 23, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> Honestly for any person it's probably a good idea not to meet with anyone you don't absolutely trust in private, especially if you're famous or are thought to have a lot of money. Most people probably won't make up a story to get at what you have, but it only takes one falsehood to ruin your life forever.



Agreed. Even if he weren't famous or POTUS, this is an old tradition that I wish we still valued. Many things our great (and great great) grandparents did as couples were done for a reason. Divorce and breakups are more commonplace now than ever before, so who are we to talk about what's 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' in someone else's private relationship.

Of course, like most things, there's much more to it than that. Divorce was harder to obtain years ago, less world population etc, so it's hard to know anything for definite, but I do personally think the modern expected level of 'openness' has its own bag of risks that we are failing to acknowledge; possibly because our new age desire for 'independence' overpowers what years of history tell us?


----------



## King Dorado (May 23, 2017)

If Trump were to get impeached, by all appearances it would be over dealings with Russia.  So regardless whether the VP would "continue Trump's work," he presumably would at least be somebody who is not a traitor or put more gently somebody without ties to a nation that remains an adversary to and threat to the security of the USA....


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 23, 2017)

You know, George Washington has warned us all about a ridiculously high national debt, a deeply divided nation, and foreign interference over domestic policy. He did not want us to get to that point. Somehow, all of these have come true right when Donald Trump became president. Granted, Obama had lead us to that point, but Trump is continuing to let us stay there.

- Our elections and domestic issues is none of the other countries' business.
- We need to respect others no matter what they agree to, and stop opening issues that can divide us (like how many genders there are).
- The government needs to start cutting funding and pay off their high national debt.

The fact we got into this mess shows that America is the opposite of what Washington wanted. He'd be turning over his grave if he saw what we have done.


----------



## xSuperMario64x (May 23, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> You know, George Washington has warned us all about a ridiculously high national debt, a deeply divided nation, and foreign interference over domestic policy. He did not want us to get to that point. Somehow, all of these have come true right when Donald Trump became president. Granted, Obama had lead us to that point, but Trump is continuing to let us stay there.
> 
> - Our elections and domestic issues is none of the other countries' business.
> - We need to respect others no matter what they agree to, and stop opening issues that can divide us (*like how many genders there are*).
> ...



Well I'm pretty sure that someone in history once said that ignorance would be the death of us too, so there's that. 

And thank you for pointing out "national tragedies" that really don't mean anything. There are much bigger things going on in our country; instead of helping in some way in the war on terror, we complain about the fact that some people refuse to acknowledge that "there are more than 2 genders". Like what??


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 23, 2017)

xSuperMario64x said:


> Well I'm pretty sure that someone in history once said that ignorance would be the death of us too, so there's that.
> 
> And thank you for pointing out "national tragedies" that really don't mean anything. There are much bigger things going on in our country; instead of helping in some way in the war on terror, we complain about the fact that some people refuse to acknowledge that "there are more than 2 genders". Like what??



That's true. In fact, their bickering has created an even bigger issue - political correctness. Funny thing is that a long time ago, before Roe v Wade, it came to a general acceptation that human life begins at conception, as a fetus is not part of the woman's body. But now, we have thrown out a whole bunch of general acceptations (like there are only two genders) to where they aren't even facts anymore. And when we argue about stuff like that, we're not making progress. And don't get me started on how "all lives matter" is considered offensive or triggering. Actually, I got started on it. But here's the thing. If you think "all lives matter" appears to be very offensive, then it clearly shows that you're preaching hatred, and by doing that, you're proving to us that you are evil.

If we're deeply divided, we can't progress further. And we have to progress further to take care of larger issues like war, world hunger, and corruption beyond national soil.


----------



## Nooblord (May 23, 2017)

What I'm more curious about is what would happen, if after the investigation, Trump ends up being clear of all the accusations the media made so matter-of-factly, and that a lot of people seem to take as absolute truth.

I'm still waiting for the evidence of a Trump-Putin collusion.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 23, 2017)

Nooblord said:


> What I'm more curious about is what would happen, if after the investigation, Trump ends up being clear of all the accusations the media made so matter-of-factly, and that a lot of people seem to take as absolute truth.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the evidence of a Trump-Putin collusion.



I'm thinking he will come back free and clear. It is not uncommon for politicians or soon to be politicians to rub shoulders with foreign ambassadors. Actually it's kinda their job.

And if anyone thinks this is the first time a presidential campaign has been influenced by foreign powers, or that this is the first time a president gave a foreign entity classified information, I think they're very naive.

This might be the first time it's been so heavily talked about by the media (I only recently started paying attention to the news) but I highly doubt this is anything new.


----------



## King Dorado (May 23, 2017)

Nooblord said:


> What I'm more curious about is what would happen, if after the investigation, Trump ends up being clear of all the accusations the media made so matter-of-factly, and that a lot of people seem to take as absolute truth.
> 
> I'm still waiting for the evidence of a Trump-Putin collusion.



do you have links to any of these media accusations? i only recall accusations that Trump made buffoonish comments to a Russian ambassador that could be viewed as compromising an intelligence source in the middle east...


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 23, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> I'm thinking he will come back free and clear. It is not uncommon for politicians or soon to be politicians to rub shoulders with foreign ambassadors. Actually it's kinda their job.
> 
> And if anyone thinks this is the first time a presidential campaign has been influenced by foreign powers, or that this is the first time a president gave a foreign entity classified information, I think they're very naive.
> 
> This might be the first time it's been so heavily talked about by the media (I only recently started paying attention to the news) but I highly doubt this is anything new.



I felt that the media making Trump look like a villain because they're trying to take control of other people and turn America into an Orwellian state. They fear that they will be in trouble for attempting to do this, and with Trump in office, they can get in trouble for it. But he's not a strong president like I wanted. He did some things I greatly approve of (such as replacing Scalia with Gorsuch, withdrawn from the TPP, reduced undocumented immigration by 72%, and undone Obama's executive order on the bathrooms). But what I'm hoping to see that he hasn't done was punishing people for shoving political correctness down others' throats, shutting down news outlets like Salon and RollingStone, and passing anti-libel laws to protect conservatives, white people, men, and Christians from persecution (nobody should be persecuted, but whites, men, Christians, and conservatives were being bullied by the media). It may seem anti-Democratic and more fascist, but left-wingers in America have proven to be anti-Democratic and more fascist themselves.


----------



## Torterraxe (May 23, 2017)

As much as I absolutely despise Trump, if he were impeached, Mike Pence would take office. Mike pence is as terrible, if not even more terrible than Trump, and I wouldn't want Pence as president. And of course, I don't want Trump as president either.

Since I'm too young to vote, I haven't really gotten into politics much. I haven't really done my research. But from what I've heard and seen, I've formed an opinion on Trump and Pence already, and frankly, they both suck.


----------



## forestyne (May 23, 2017)

ya.


----------



## tumut (May 23, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I felt that the media making Trump look like a villain because they're trying to take control of other people and turn America into an Orwellian state. They fear that they will be in trouble for attempting to do this, and with Trump in office, they can get in trouble for it. But he's not a strong president like I wanted. He did some things I greatly approve of (such as replacing Scalia with Gorsuch, withdrawn from the TPP, reduced undocumented immigration by 72%, and undone Obama's executive order on the bathrooms). But what I'm hoping to see that he hasn't done was punishing people for shoving political correctness down others' throats, shutting down news outlets like Salon and RollingStone, and passing anti-libel laws to protect conservatives, white people, men, and Christians from persecution (nobody should be persecuted, but whites, men, Christians, and conservatives were being bullied by the media). It may seem anti-Democratic and more fascist, but left-wingers in America have proven to be anti-Democratic and more fascist themselves.


Whites, Christians, conservatives, and men are not persecuted at all in America. Yeah media tends to be more liberal since most outlets are centered in cities, but there's a decent amount of conservative outlets too that trash talk minorities, poor people, and women who shouldn't be silenced either. I think it's maybe a bit over the top to want to shut down news outlets for writing trash articles? Like what the **** we have free speech lol? This isn't Russia where you can censor the public because you get triggered by what someone' saying. Also "Shoving political correctness down someones throat" shouldn't be a punishable crime at all and if you think it should then you're antifa lmao bye. 

It's so ironic that you think they're trying to turn into an Orwellian state yet think we should make stricter libel laws (which would be abused by any and every politician no doubt) and criminalize "shoving political correctness down our throats". Also I think you should double check and make sure you know what fascism means.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 23, 2017)

tumut said:


> Whites, Christians, conservatives, and men are not persecuted at all in America. Yeah media tends to be more liberal since most outlets are centered in cities, but there's a decent amount of conservative outlets too that trash talk minorities, poor people, and women who shouldn't be silenced either. I think it's maybe a bit over the top to want to shut down news outlets for writing trash articles? Like what the **** we have free speech lol? This isn't Russia where you can censor the public because you get triggered by what someone' saying. Also "Shoving political correctness down someones throat" shouldn't be a punishable crime at all and if you think it should then you're antifa lmao bye.
> 
> It's so ironic that you think they're trying to turn into an Orwellian state yet think we should make stricter libel laws (which would be abused by any and every politician no doubt) and criminalize "shoving political correctness down our throats". Also I think you should double check and make sure you know what fascism means.



Sorry for sounding pretty extreme. But it's true that people have used political correctness to bully others or punish people wrongfully. And yes, there were some far-right articles that have done the same for the other groups, but I'm not going take them seriously since not all people from these groups are bad.

Also, I don't enjoy starting arguments or baiting for people. And even if I have some pretty far-right beliefs by TBT's standards, I would never try to be mean.


----------



## Nooblord (May 23, 2017)

King Dorado said:


> do you have links to any of these media accusations? i only recall accusations that Trump made buffoonish comments to a Russian ambassador that could be viewed as compromising an intelligence source in the middle east...



Really? The media doesn't constantly cover Russian conspiracies from anonymous leaks and insist that we should all worry for our safety without actual evidence? Go on almost any major news network that is covering Trump and you'll run into a Russian conspiracy in no time.


----------



## King Dorado (May 23, 2017)

Nooblord said:


> Really? The media doesn't constantly cover Russian conspiracies from anonymous leaks and insist that we should all worry for our safety without actual evidence? Go on almost any major news network that is covering Trump and you'll run into a Russian conspiracy in no time.



you said the media has been making matter-of-fact accusations of Trump-Putin collusion; i haven't heard of that, is there something specific that has been published?

aside from that, i don't think that demonizing the media is going to be a credible defense for the administration or its supporters. Trump's campaign is in fact being investigated for links to Russian efforts to influence the elections, isn't it?  by a government that Trump's own political party controls, yes?  and one of his former cabinet members, the National Security Advisor no less, is pleading the 5th Amendment instead of turning over documents to the congressional investigation...  so I think it's pretty fair to say that the investigation is not media-driven...


----------



## Nooblord (May 23, 2017)

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/19/15561842/trump-russia-louise-mensch

There's some links and quotes in that article that cover some accusations some news outlets run with (actually a good read and I don't even like Vox).

Strange how Twitter has become such a reliable source for news.

You can also just look up something like "CNN russia conspiracy" on youtube and and notice how convinced they are that a conspiracy is in the works even though the investigation is still going on. 
Kinda lost track on how many investigations have been going on and for how long. Can't wait to see some results.


----------



## Corrie (May 23, 2017)

Who do you guys think is better for office? Who would you rather have for president?

Trump or Pence?


----------



## forestyne (May 23, 2017)

Corrie said:


> Who do you guys think is better for office? Who would you rather have for president?
> 
> Trump or Pence?



A flake of dandruff in Donald Trump's hair. It can carry a campaign better than anybody.


----------



## Soraru (May 23, 2017)

Corrie said:


> Who do you guys think is better for office? Who would you rather have for president?
> 
> Trump or Pence?



honestly, theyre both people with ill-intentions for those who dont think and look like them. and have good intentions for those tho think, look, and are like them which is typically people who are already have power in this country. 

either way, its not going to be a good sign for anyone who isnt like them. 
- its either a man who has ill intentions for us who has no experience/dosent know his way around the government. 
(although he still has his administration and his vice pres to lead him there)
- or a man who has ill intentions for us who has experience/knows his way around the government.

there is no lesser evil in this case.


----------



## Soraru (May 24, 2017)

tumut said:


> Whites, Christians, conservatives, and men are not persecuted at all in America. Yeah media tends to be more liberal since most outlets are centered in cities, but there's a decent amount of conservative outlets too that trash talk minorities, poor people, and women who shouldn't be silenced either. I think it's maybe a bit over the top to want to shut down news outlets for writing trash articles? Like what the **** we have free speech lol? This isn't Russia where you can censor the public because you get triggered by what someone' saying. Also "Shoving political correctness down someones throat" shouldn't be a punishable crime at all and if you think it should then you're antifa lmao bye.
> 
> It's so ironic that you think they're trying to turn into an Orwellian state yet think we should make stricter libel laws (which would be abused by any and every politician no doubt) and criminalize "shoving political correctness down our throats". Also I think you should double check and make sure you know what fascism means.



yes. ^^^
they criminalize the term "political correctness" because they are comfortable and used to not be held accountable for their racist/sexist actions/words, and do not want to take responsibility or consequences of their racist/sexist actions/words. 

and in nearly all cases deny/excuse/sugar-coat the impact and meaning of their racist/sexist actions/words when being held accountable. and then try turn the tables, victimize themselves and call it "discrimination" "bullied" "reverse-racism" "evil liberal/feminist agenda" and try to equate their "discrimination" to the oppression of minorities. its like trying to equate their papercut to a minorities's bullet wound in the back.

they dont say or do anything for the minorities bullet wound _but when the heat is *on them*_ then all of a sudden "no one should be harmed. lets all love one another. hate is solved by hugs and kisses."


----------



## AnonymousFish (May 24, 2017)

I honestly don't know if impeachment is the right way to go or not. I'm opposed to him being president, but at the same time if we impeach him it doesn't disband his cabinet or anything like that, it just throws him out and makes him an embarassment. Pence would become POTUS and I'm not entirely confident that's a step in the right direction, considering his stance against gay marriage and other hot-button topics. I think we should work hard to make everyone we know become more politically aware and fight during the next election, but for now I'm just not sure what would benefit US citizens.


----------



## Bubblebeam (May 24, 2017)

tumut said:


> Whites, Christians, conservatives, and men are not persecuted at all in America.



Ever heard of Kent Hovind, and the countless like him? Christian teachers and scientists who have dared to mention the *fact* that science doesn't support Darwinian evolution, fired on the spot never to be allowed to work in their profession again?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 24, 2017)

Bubblebeam said:


> Ever heard of Kent Hovind, and the countless like him? Christian teachers and scientists who have dared to mention the *fact* that science doesn't support Darwinian evolution, fired on the spot never to be allowed to work in their profession again?



I knew it. Christians are being persecuted in America. In fact, America is on a watch list for Christian persecution already. Sure they don't have to be killed for their beliefs, but they face legal troubles. I mentioned that whites are being persecuted because they were accused of having more advantages because of their skin. There are no privileged groups. There are no underprivileged groups. There is only good and evil. Those "privileged" groups don't have to admit their privilege. But those who pull the privilege card have to admit their sins and confess. But the one group that is being bullied most out of these groups is conservatives.

On topic: I know discussing Trump's impeachment puts left-wingers between a rock and a saloon called "A Hard Place", but it happened to the right-wingers too. When Obama was in office, we hoped that he would get impeached, but we didn't want that either because if we did, that would put Biden in charge, who right-wingers hate even more as president. It appears that it's the left-wingers' turn on this. Do they want a person that believes in shock therapy for LGBT to get office, or would they rather have an offensive bully that is unqualified for office to hold it? It was technically their fault that we ended up with him in office because of their smearing of conservatives as "racist" and their political correctness (which lead the right wing to vote for Trump out of revenge).


----------



## tumut (May 24, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> I knew it. Christians are being persecuted in America. In fact, America is on a watch list for Christian persecution already. Sure they don't have to be killed for their beliefs, but they face legal troubles. I mentioned that whites are being persecuted because they were accused of having more advantages because of their skin. There are no privileged groups. There are no underprivileged groups. There is only good and evil. Those "privileged" groups don't have to admit their privilege. But those who pull the privilege card have to admit their sins and confess. But the one group that is being bullied most out of these groups is conservatives.
> 
> On topic: I know discussing Trump's impeachment puts left-wingers between a rock and a saloon called "A Hard Place", but it happened to the right-wingers too. When Obama was in office, we hoped that he would get impeached, but we didn't want that either because if we did, that would put Biden in charge, who right-wingers hate even more as president. It appears that it's the left-wingers' turn on this. Do they want a person that believes in shock therapy for LGBT to get office, or would they rather have an offensive bully that is unqualified for office to hold it? It was technically their fault that we ended up with him in office because of their smearing of conservatives as "racist" and their political correctness (which lead the right wing to vote for Trump out of revenge).


Anecdotal evidence =/= persecution. Also you're essentially saying everyone is treated equally in this country, and if you look at the education system and legal system it favors whites over minorities. And if you're born rich and able bodied with a family that's together, than you obviously have an advantage over others in life. Getting called "privileged" by a bunch of tumblr feminists isn't persecution try harder next time. 


Bubblebeam said:


> Ever heard of Kent Hovind, and the countless like him? Christian teachers and scientists who have dared to mention the *fact* that science doesn't support Darwinian evolution, fired on the spot never to be allowed to work in their profession again?


OH MY GODDDD ARE YOU SERIOUS JESUS CHRIST

Kent Hovind is a fundamentalist Chrisitian who has no degree in science or paleontology and was imprisoned because he doesn't believe in taxes.


----------



## Hopeless Opus (May 24, 2017)

yes get him outta here please lmao
but also lowkey i don't because i don't want mike pence in office either bc he's evil


----------



## Bubblebeam (May 24, 2017)

tumut said:


> OH MY GODDDD ARE YOU SERIOUS JESUS CHRIST
> 
> Kent Hovind is a fundamentalist Chrisitian who has no degree in science or paleontology and was imprisoned because he doesn't believe in taxes.



Kent Hovind withdrew his own ministry funds (to pay ministry bills) amounting to _under_ the taxable $10,000 over a period of 12 days. The law he supposedly broke says you have to have withdrawn an amount totally _over_ $10,000 in one or more transactions within ONE day. He was WELL within the law. You know what the judge did? She *changed the law on the spot* during his trial to say it is structuring even when under the lawful $10,000. This judge, Casey Rodgers, changed the law to her liking to get Kent Hovind convicted, and ultimately his teachings silenced (okay, that last part has no definite basis but lets put two and two together here - he was reaching millions of people with his message which was simply the truth and nothing more). So, Kent Hovind could have withdrawn $5 and still been guilty during this open and shut case.

Kent Hovind endured SWAT raids into his home twice, was robbed 8 years of his life in prison (consequently he didn't get to see his newborn grandchild grow up), and had his entire ministry fund seized due to this corrupt judge. And he is certainly not the only victim of this. Even elderly small diner owners who made minuscule $1,000 deposits each day have been framed this way. You would have to be incredibly naive to still be rejecting the reality on this increasingly prominent corruption.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 24, 2017)

tumut said:


> Anecdotal evidence =/= persecution. Also you're essentially saying everyone is treated equally in this country, and if you look at the education system and legal system it favors whites over minorities. And if you're born rich and able bodied with a family that's together, than you obviously have an advantage over others in life. Getting called "privileged" by a bunch of tumblr feminists isn't persecution try harder next time.



No it doesn't. What you're forgetting is human nature. Of course the legal system won't favor you if you have a poor sense of morals. Of course the education system won't smile at you if you didn't study or pay attention in class. The whole reason why it's tilting in favor of whites than non-whites is not because of race. It just appears to be that minorities have been less productive and less moral. By using that logic you're implying, it would mean that white people can become lazy or criminal, and can still get good grades or be excused from legal troubles because they're white. No, that's not how it goes.

This is why I think liberals are ignorant and intolerant. They think race is the reason behind racial inequality. No it isn't. I never got any advantages for being white. I got advantages for hard work. Them believing that is what costed them the election, not Russia or the FBI.


----------



## xanisha (May 24, 2017)

Bubblebeam said:


> Ever heard of Kent Hovind, and the countless like him? Christian teachers and scientists who have dared to mention the *fact* that science doesn't support Darwinian evolution, fired on the spot never to be allowed to work in their profession again?



Kent Hovind is known for being a scam artist and all of his known degrees are unaccredited. So, he is by no means even qualified by the most minimum standards to be considered a teacher or a scientist in any way. Also, the majority (not all) of the types of people you are talking about are not persecuted because they question Darwinism it is how they go about it. They usually don?t rely on any proven facts or apply true knowledge on biology or history instead they just spew nonsense to match their religion most them also have no concrete background in science or any field of relation. 

If any teacher especially in a public school actively refuses to teach Darwinism because of their religion or if they disavow Darwinism in front of their students using religion (any religion!!!) as an excuse then they must be removed from their positions not because they don?t believe in Darwinism but because as a teacher in a public school you cannot preach one religion over another. Ex: A teacher can?t say for a fact that the world is only 4,000 years old because 1) that is scientifically not true, nor is it an acceptable answer in any public school setting, like a district test and 2) because saying the world is 4,000 years old is from fictional religious collection of stories. However, a teacher can talk about why people believe this to be true Ex: Christians believe the world is 4,000 years old because it?s in their religious book. 1) this is okay because the teacher is talking about the fact that Christians believe this but they are not actually teaching the religious book as fact and 2) usually in schools it is okay to talk about religion in a historical manner, but you cannot preach the religious content as the truth in a public school setting. 

The reason people who actively teach their religion as fact in a public school setting often get fired is because not everyone believes in the same religion as them and if you teach one religion as fact you must teach all religions as fact. However, on their own time teachers can have their own religious beliefs, but the moment you preach your religion to students is the moment you will probably lose your job. I am also just using Christianity as an example, every religion is held to the same standard.

I am not trying to bash any religion here or be mean to those with religious beliefs. I am also only talking about public schools and accredited scientific settings. Private schools and unaccredited settings will have different religious standards depending on their religious affiliations. 

 As far as Trump goes I don?t care if he stays in office or not. It would be nice if he had more class, or at least could be more mindful with what he says.


----------



## tumut (May 24, 2017)

Alolan_Apples said:


> No it doesn't. What you're forgetting is human nature. Of course the legal system won't favor you if you have a poor sense of morals. Of course the education system won't smile at you if you didn't study or pay attention in class. The whole reason why it's tilting in favor of whites than non-whites is not because of race. It just appears to be that minorities have been less productive and less moral. By using that logic you're implying, it would mean that white people can become lazy or criminal, and can still get good grades or be excused from legal troubles because they're white. No, that's not how it goes.
> 
> This is why I think liberals are ignorant and intolerant. They think race is the reason behind racial inequality. No it isn't. I never got any advantages for being white. I got advantages for hard work. Them believing that is what costed them the election, not Russia or the FBI.


So it's black people's fault there's inequality. 





Yeah we're intolerant and ignorant for thinking black people aren't generally bad. Okay 



Spoiler



First off, you basically just stated that minorities generally (I'm not accusing you of saying ALL BLACKS ARE DUMB or anything) don't pay attention in school. Minorities were pushed into ghettos because of discrimination from long ago, and have since then been there for generations and have been kept from moving ahead in society because inner city schools are garbage and they treat them like criminals. Inner city schools are trash, I don't know if you've ever been to one but their programs are low budget and sometimes suburban schools get as much as twice as much funding. Vouchers can't always help since they still have a tuition fee to pay and a lot of them can't afford to. 

2nd off no one is accusing white people are lazy for being privileged and if they are then they're dumb. Whites often live in better neighborhoods and go to nicer schools. This isn't saying all whites are privileged or all blacks are disadvantaged.

3rd off you said blacks generally don't have good morals, and this is incredibly racist in itself. They don't always have the same public school extracurricular programs and if they do it's inferior due to low budgets, and again they can get caught up in crime. I go to a mostly white High School, and all of the minority kids here get good.

racism is still in the system lingering from years ago, and of course attitudes are often negative considering that there's people like you who think "they don't have good morals".


----------



## Bubblebeam (May 24, 2017)

Just as predicted, nobody read and/or could counteract the case of Kent Hovind. And no, skipping the details and starting at 'Kent Hovind is a con artist' does not count for zilch. Just as with the case of Donald Trump, it's guilty until proven innocent according to some of you.

Not wasting any more time here.


----------



## xanisha (May 24, 2017)

Bubblebeam said:


> Just as predicted, nobody read and/or could counteract the case of Kent Hovind. And no, skipping the details and starting at 'Kent Hovind is a con artist' does not count for zilch. Just as with the case of Donald Trump, it's guilty until proven innocent according to some of you.
> 
> Not wasting any more time here.




When I was talking about him being a scam artist that was in reference to his ?contest? and to the other scandals he was a part of in the 1990?s-2000?s. I didn?t even know he went to jail. So, I just looked into his criminal record and I checked to see why he was actually put into jail. He was arrested the first time because he owed the IRS more than* 3 million dollars in taxes*, he also refused to pay his workers, he also attempted to defraud the IRS by hiding and attempting to hide multiple assets from not only his amusement park but from other places too. The 10k money thing you were talking about was one of his attempts to hide money from the IRS. He was also convicted on other charges after his 8-year sentence for contempt of court. You seem to be missing a huge part of the story beside the 10k money withdrawals.  As a result of him defrauding the government of millions of dollars and other counts he was sentenced to prison and had many of his properties revoked and he still to this day owes the government money. I would advise you to go back and look through his court documents and look at his charges as he was charged with tens (more than 50) counts of fraud and fraud related actions.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 24, 2017)

Bubblebeam said:


> Kent Hovind withdrew his own ministry funds (to pay ministry bills) amounting to _under_ the taxable $10,000 over a period of 12 days. The law he supposedly broke says you have to have withdrawn an amount totally _over_ $10,000 in one or more transactions within ONE day. He was WELL within the law. You know what the judge did? She *changed the law on the spot* during his trial to say it is structuring even when under the lawful $10,000. This judge, Casey Rodgers, changed the law to her liking to get Kent Hovind convicted, and ultimately his teachings silenced (okay, that last part has no definite basis but lets put two and two together here - he was reaching millions of people with his message which was simply the truth and nothing more). So, Kent Hovind could have withdrawn $5 and still been guilty during this open and shut case.
> 
> Kent Hovind endured SWAT raids into his home twice, was robbed 8 years of his life in prison (consequently he didn't get to see his newborn grandchild grow up), and had his entire ministry fund seized due to this corrupt judge. And he is certainly not the only victim of this. Even elderly small diner owners who made minuscule $1,000 deposits each day have been framed this way. You would have to be incredibly naive to still be rejecting the reality on this increasingly prominent corruption.



I thought I had an idea on why he would still be punished but I rereading I see its due to tax evasion. I don't know the case or much regarding taxes, but I do know this sounds very similar to structuring, which as a banker we take very seriously regardless of who does it. In the past year I've had a white coworker fired because her construction worker husband was thought to be structuring to be under the cash reporting amount, and a middle eastern club owner have his accounts forcefully closed for the same reason.


----------



## cIementine (May 24, 2017)

i voted yes but i wouldn't care if he didn't. it's a lose lose situation. he gets impeached, mike pence steps in. he doesn't get impeached, donald trump and his ... questionable leadership lives on.


----------



## Alienfish (May 24, 2017)

Corrie said:


> I'm not good with politics but wouldn't Mike Pence take over if he got impeached?



Probably yeah, neither of those should really be in office though. It's a shame people still has such conservative views on things.


----------



## LambdaDelta (May 24, 2017)

Nooblord said:


> I'm still waiting for the evidence of a Trump-Putin collusion.



https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trump-biggest-scandal-us-history-he-tool-russians-both-frydenborg

not 100% direct factual evidence, but still worth a read I'd say for the information presented (is a slight bit old though, but it's pretty much entirely historical stuff related to Trump's business failings and business ties with Russia he made to bounce back, that could very well link to the current accusations he has, so)

- - - Post Merge - - -



Corrie said:


> Who do you guys think is better for office? Who would you rather have for president?
> 
> Trump or Pence?



holding out for both to be found guilty of/an accomplice to treason and imprisoned


----------



## Soda Fox (May 24, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trump-biggest-scandal-us-history-he-tool-russians-both-frydenborg
> 
> not 100% direct factual evidence, but still worth a read I'd say for the information presented (is a slight bit old though, but it's pretty much entirely historical stuff related to Trump's business failings and business ties with Russia he made to bounce back, that could very well link to the current accusations he has, so)
> 
> ...



I'm will to bet all my TBT that when everything is said and done Trump will not found guilty of treason or anything out of the ordinary. I think this will be business as usual.

Anyone want to take me up on that?


----------



## forestyne (May 24, 2017)

Wait, so what's actually happening with Trump now? Is there currently an active investigation against him? And if he comes back guilty of what, rigging the election or having ties to Russia, he gets impeached? I've been so caught up in other things, including being a social shut-in, that I haven't been keeping up with politics.


----------



## Soda Fox (May 24, 2017)

forestyne said:


> Wait, so what's actually happening with Trump now? Is there currently an active investigation against him? And if he comes back guilty of what, rigging the election or having ties to Russia, he gets impeached? I've been so caught up in other things, including being a social shut-in, that I haven't been keeping up with politics.



I've been following it a bit but with the move and now no Internet at home I haven't perfectly kept up with it.  In my understanding mainstream media is really pushing that Trump has connections with Russia and that there are facts from anonymous sources, from my understanding the biggest fact was that Trump had tried to get Comey to end the investigation. Comey, former FBI director, recently said he had a memo proving that Trump did try to force the investigation closed, but this memo pre-dates what he said under oath a few months ago - that never in his experience did a president try to forcefully stop an investigation for political reasons, only that the FBI has been given opinions that cases should be closed due to, I can't remember exactly what he said, but essentially if the case seems like a wild goose chase/waste of tax payers funds.

I haven't seen much the past few days so that's my most recent understanding.

For clarification - Comey interviews Trump, then he writes a memo about the meeting, then Comey goes to court and testifies nothing out of the ordinary, now he says he has that memo that has damning evidence (honestly not sure if Comey said that himself or just if Comey said "here's my memo from my interview with Trump." and then the media took that and ran it.)


----------



## Alolan_Apples (May 24, 2017)

I hate to say, but if the Russian investigations have been proven true, you'll have to deal with Mike Pence as our leader, or Paul Ryan if Pence couldn't take it.


----------



## Nooblord (May 24, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trump-biggest-scandal-us-history-he-tool-russians-both-frydenborg
> 
> not 100% direct factual evidence, but still worth a read I'd say for the information presented (is a slight bit old though, but it's pretty much entirely historical stuff related to Trump's business failings and business ties with Russia he made to bounce back, that could very well link to the current accusations he has, so)



Well, that was pretty long. Kinda blazed through it, not sure what the first half had to do with Trump, it mainly went over Yanukovych and Manafort's involvement in conspiring against Ukraine. Doesn't mention Trump being involved in that, but I guess the author wanted to give some background on Manafort, who did resigned from the campaign in 2016. Still relevant to the investigation, I'm sure.

Considering what was brought up about Podesta, I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary gets dragged back into the investigation. Based on speculation of course, just like everything else so far.

_"Manafort helped arrange a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney—they utilized the services of two Washington, DC, lobbying firms, including Podesta Group Inc., run by the brother of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Chairman and later victim of Russian-government hacking and WikiLeaks disclosures"_

Then it went into Trumps bad business deals with Russia and connections with money launderers, going back the 2000s. Still no definitive connection to the election, again something that is probably part of the ongoing investigations. And as an international businessman, I'm not surprised that he'd get involved with Russia and Sater.

The power Sater has to get away with as much as he did because of his "special relationships" with the U.S. government is probably the scariest part of the whole article.

"_Sater ended up assisting U.S. authorities for years, even, apparently, on CIA-related national security issues involving missile terrorism-related purchases in either Afghanistan or Russia, and the details on all this remain something of mystery: his operations with the government remain secret and the juiciest details of the Wall Street case were sealed and remain so despite repeated efforts to unseal them (they were sealed at the time, interestingly enough, by then-U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Loretta Lynch, who just stepped down as U.S. Attorney General the day Trump was inaugurated president)_."

_"Ernie Mennes, the owner of the Camelback property who had gone into a partnership with the Bayrock/Trump developers, sued in Bayrock in 2007 in federal court, accusing Sater of threatening to “cut off his legs and leave him ‘dead in the trunk of his car’” and of stealing money from the project for himself. The judge oversaw a settlement and the case was sealed, likely because of Sater’s special relationship with the government."_

_"When considering Sater, it is important to remember that he has been busted multiple times by law enforcement and yet has not served jail time in America (with the exception of one year for stabbing a man in the face with a margarita glass and severing a nerve in the man’s face"_

_"Sater’s cooperation with the government gave him government protection from being held liable in many cases for his misdeeds while also helping to suppress information about him and these misdeeds, and how, had his past and crimes been front and center over the past decade"_

_"Yes, if not for the favors the U.S. government did in protecting and, thus, abetting, Sater, it is far more likely that Trump would have collapsed in scandal than risen to be our current president. This abetting may very well be unwitting, but the two aforementioned lawyers—Lerner and Oberlander–believe differently, that the government cooperation with Sater yielded disappointing results, that Sater fooled and tricked the government into helping him in exchange for dubious assistance of questionable value and that this arrangement may have been such an embarrassment for the government that they covered up this and his past to save face and protect the careers of those involved."_

What I mostly got out of that article is that the government itself is deeply rooted in Russian ties, which has been true for decades, in both the Republican and Democratic party(however, the author decided to bring up just republicans. Bias maybe?) If anything, we might have to thank Trump for putting a corrupted government's dirty laundry out to air, (possibly indirectly) because up to now Trump's involvement is still speculation. Could end up thanking our corrupt government for putting Trump in the White House. Like I've been saying, lets see what the people actually doing the investigation have to say. Because as often as the media has its fear-mongering fits, I can admit that the often say they don't have all the answers and a lot of what's out there is speculation.

P.S. Found it odd that this article was on LinkedIn. Obviously written with a bias, but I learned a few things nonetheless.

P.P.S. I apologize for the big chucks of texts but those were the most interesting parts in that drawn-out article.

P.P.P.S. Ew, gross. I just saw what it looked like after I submitted. I wouldn't blame anyone who decides to skip this post, lol.


----------

