Support for Donald Trump's Impeachment Is Way Higher Than His Latest Approval Rating

[Root of Jesse]

It's sort of cute how you demand proof but then refuse to look at it when it's posted.
tulc(understands how facts do tend to have that whole "liberal bias" some people find...scary)

Because proof from a biased source is no proof at all. That's why we use juries in court. To provide unbiased judgement.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I did even better then that, I posted a page with links to all the lies. That you refused to look at it isn't actually a problem I need to solve.


wait...I was under the impression all of President Trumps supporters were convinced the Snopes web site was a vast left wing conspiracy and nothing on it was true. Now suddenly it's being used because they posted something you guys liked?
tulc(thinks it sounds less like Presidents Trumps supporters are looking for the "truth" and more they're looking for someone to agree with them)

So I use your own sources to prove something and you don't like it??? Now who's questioning sources???

 

[Go Braves]

Well, I'm not into Twitter, so I don't know about that. Secondly, I did go to the site, and I commented. It wasn't because it wasn't a right-wing site, it's because I couldn't find ANY neutral site agreeing with NYT.

You don't have to be into Twitter to know what Trump's lied about on Twitter, since it gets reported elsewhere. Usually with screenshots, to see for yourself.

What sites do you think of as being neutral?

 

[tulc]

So I use your own sources to prove something and you don't like it??? Now who's questioning sources???

I agree with Snopes, there's plenty of things President Trump has done that I don't agree with, I don't think anyone should make stuff up about him.
Also? I did notice you never actually answered the point I made about how (until they said something President Trump's supporters could agree with) Snopes was "PART OF THE EVIL FAKE NEWS CONSPIRACY AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP!!"
also (part 2) I'd appreciate you pointing out the part of my post where I said I didn't agree with your source? I can't seem to find that part.
tulc(has looked and looked but it still doesn't seem to be there)

 

[tulc]

Because proof from a biased source is no proof at all.

I'd be interested in a list of the "biased sources" (with a link to show why you think they were biased) for the stories...or is this one of those: "If it's on this page it just HAS to be biased!" sort of things? Because I have to be honest here, what I'm seeing? seems to smack more of "fingers in the ears" rather then looking for the truth.

That's why we use juries in court. To provide unbiased judgement.

Fine, if you want that: please provide rebuttal witnesses to show where the link I provided is wrong, and we can let "the jury decide".
tulc(will watch for the links)

 

[Rion]

I'd be interested in a list of the "biased sources" (with a link to show why you think they were biased) for the stories...or is this one of those: "If it's on this page it just HAS to be biased!" sort of things? Because I have to be honest here, what I'm seeing? seems to smack more of "fingers in the ears" rather then looking for the truth.


Fine, if you want that: please provide rebuttal witnesses to show where the link I provided is wrong, and we can let "the jury decide".
tulc(will watch for the links)

Media Bias/Fact Check News - Media Bias/Fact Check

Left (CNN, MSNBC, Salon), left-center (WaPo, NYT), etc. all listed via handy listings. Also has right and right-center, along with least-biased/center options.

 

[tulc]

Media Bias/Fact Check News - Media Bias/Fact Check

Left (CNN, MSNBC, Salon), left-center (WaPo, NYT), etc. all listed via handy listings. Also has right and right-center, along with least-biased/center options.

Did you notice this part:
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check
(which is the web site that does the "Pants-on-Fire")
it got

LEAST BIASED

and:

Notes: PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets “fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups”. They publish original statements and their evaluations on the PolitiFact.com website, and assign each a “Truth-O-Meter” rating. The ratings range from “True” for completely accurate statements to “Pants on Fire” (from the taunt “Liar, liar, pants on fire”) for false and ridiculous claims. Politifact has been called left biased by Extreme right wing and questionable sources. Our research indicates that Poltifact is an accurate fact checker and is considered the gold standard for political fact checking. (emph. added)

from your link?
tulc(so...thanks Rion)

 

[Rion]

Did you notice this part:
Politifact - Media Bias/Fact Check
(which is the web site that does the "Pants-on-Fire")
it got

and:

from your link?
tulc(so...thanks Rion)

No site is perfect.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Most of the ones talking about impeaching Trump do not even know how the process works and don't even realize there needs to be a crime which there has been none just smoke blowing in the wind more fake news.

M-Bob

 

[Mountainmanbob]

If Trump is impeached I will give our two favorite goats away for free to the taco stand at the bottom of the mountain. Sure would not score any points with my wife but, I have no real concerns regarding impeachment.

M-Bob

 

[jgarden]

No, why would I go to a left-leaning website to see those lies? Are one groups lies any worse than another's?

The President should have been totally embarrassed that there were no Trump products on display for his Administration's "Made in America" display at the White House!

 

[tulc]

No site is perfect.

LOL! No , but acknowledging the site I posted is the best is pretty close to perfect as far as I'm concerned.
tulc(hopes Rion has a blessed night!)

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'd be interested in a list of the "biased sources" (with a link to show why you think they were biased) for the stories...or is this one of those: "If it's on this page it just HAS to be biased!" sort of things? Because I have to be honest here, what I'm seeing? seems to smack more of "fingers in the ears" rather then looking for the truth.


Fine, if you want that: please provide rebuttal witnesses to show where the link I provided is wrong, and we can let "the jury decide".
tulc(will watch for the links)

So we can say, according to the article you provided, that Trump is a liar like Obama is a liar, like Clinton is a liar, like Bush is a liar. I got it.
So because Trump says he was on the cover of Time 5 more times than he was actually on it, he's a liar. And because Obama said 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.' and something about 56 states, he's a liar. And because Bush said "Mission accomplished", he's a liar, and because Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman", he's a liar. Some of those lies are much more important than others, don't you think? How many times someone thinks he's on Times is much less important than "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
Donald Trump and the Iraq War - FactCheck.org shows that Trump was sort of non-committal on Iraq, though there's no definitive yes or no.
And there's no evidence that illegals did not vote in the election, either. I can very easily believe, based on the very loose rules where I live, that lots of illegals and dead voted in the election of 2016. Also, when launching an investigation into that very allegation, many states refuse to cooperate. And in Colorado, a lot of people have withdrawn their voter registration. I wonder why.

That's enough for me not to believe the NYT.

 

[HighCherub]

There's never been an impeachment in American history- and there have been plenty of worse presidents.
I personally support Trump, I think he's a wonderful man but this country is so split and bitter it can't recognize a good thing- he's doing as a president ought to do and considering everybody; not conservatives or liberals, but Americans collectively.

Nonetheless, the Presidency is not something ever meant to be so easily overturned- the Founding Fathers ensured a certain and reliable security in this matter.

 

[tulc]

(snip)
That's enough for me not to believe the NYT.

uhmmm...you do understand that the website link I sent wasn't to the New York Times, right?
tulc(is just checking)

 

[tulc]

There's never been an impeachment in American history- and there have been plenty of worse presidents.

Well...I'm pretty sure there's never been one as ill-prepared or as lacking in any idea how to do the job he's gotten as President Trump.

I personally support Trump, I think he's a wonderful man

Ok, I'm not sure what you're basing that on but, ok.

but this country is so split and bitter it can't recognize a good thing-

or the "good thing" you see isn't what some others would think of as "a good thing"?

he's doing as a president ought to do and considering everybody; not conservatives or liberals, but Americans collectively.

Really? I find that hard to believe considering the legislation he's pushing for and the plans he wants to put in place. I suspect he doesn't care about anyone in America except the Trump family bottom line and his friends among the 1%.

Nonetheless, the Presidency is not something ever meant to be so easily overturned-

I agree.

the Founding Fathers ensured a certain and reliable security in this matter.

I suspect the founding fathers would be appalled at someone becoming President who had about 3,000,000 less votes then the another candidate.
tulc(welcome to CF by the way!)

 

[Root of Jesse]

uhmmm...you do understand that the website link I sent wasn't to the New York Times, right?
tulc(is just checking)

But the source was.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well...I'm pretty sure there's never been one as ill-prepared or as lacking in any idea how to do the job he's gotten as President Trump.

Which means that "community organizer' prepares one to be President? I don't believe so. There is nothing that can prepare one for being President, sorry.

Ok, I'm not sure what you're basing that on but, ok.

Which means "I guess I'll let you have your point of view." I don't know if he's a wonderful man, but he does have good ideas, and a business-like way of getting them done.

or the "good thing" you see isn't what some others would think of as "a good thing"?

I believe people have different opinions of what's a good thing. Mine is to get the government out of our pockets as the Founding Fathers meant it to be.

Really? I find that hard to believe considering the legislation he's pushing for and the plans he wants to put in place. I suspect he doesn't care about anyone in America except the Trump family bottom line and his friends among the 1%.

I don't think he has many friends in the 1%. People he does business with, but not really friends.
I like some of his plans, which is more than I can say about his predecessor.

I agree.


I suspect the founding fathers would be appalled at someone becoming President who had about 3,000,000 less votes then the another candidate.
tulc(welcome to CF by the way!)

Is that why they built the Electoral College? I think they'd be appalled at how close the election was, given the red/blue map of the country.

 

[tulc]

Which means that "community organizer' prepares one to be President? I don't believe so. There is nothing that can prepare one for being President, sorry.

Well...except of course having to learn how to work with other people instead of just try and boss them around of course.

Which means "I guess I'll let you have your point of view." I don't know if he's a wonderful man, but he does have good ideas, and a business-like way of getting them done.I believe people have different opinions of what's a good thing. Mine is to get the government out of our pockets as the Founding Fathers meant it to be.I don't think he has many friends in the 1%. People he does business with, but not really friends.

I'd say he seems to be about as good at being President as does with running his businesses. what with having 6 bankruptcies to his credit, among a plethora of other business failures.

I like some of his plans, which is more than I can say about his predecessor.

And that would be a right you have as an American. Just like I have the right to point out everything I think is wrong with them.

Is that why they built the Electoral College? I think they'd be appalled at how close the election was, given the red/blue map of the country.

Perhaps.
tulc(will agree to disagree about that)

 

[Vyrzaharak]

It's only too bad that it's easier to vote people into federal office instead of impeaching them.