Trump Resignation Deal

[haymarket]

In other words, you are admitting that you would take Trump's resignation, even if he broke no laws? That's how biased you are.

He is a piece of offensive crap that is stinking up our nation and is a major threat to our nation and its people. That is reason enough.

 

[haymarket]

I didn't realize that illegality was the only reason to accept a resignation.

Come on now Airyaman - do you think it is fair to expose the phony little trap that the poster thought he had created here with an insightful observation like you just offered.

 

[Moderate Right]

I don't really expect Trump to actually go to prison. So, a resignation would be acceptable if he directed Don Jr. to lie to Congress.

We know that Don Jr. lied to Congress for his father.



Dem lawmaker: Trump Jr. lied to Congress on two occasions

But my question was if Trump had broken no laws, would the left be happy if Trump resigned having done nothing wrong illegally in exchange for saving his son, assuming his son had actually broken laws.

 

[Fledermaus]

The publicly known evidence is extremely compelling. Mueller will have more.

Compelling =/= Convicting

 

[Fledermaus]

Well, according to the DOJ policy , charges can not be filed against a sitting president, although they can be impeached. That statement is saying 'No matter what the evidence, we can only suspect'. That is false.

Then we can agree Clinton was a perjurer... Yes.?

BTW - The question had to do with Don Jr. and the post I responded to included Ivanka. So, yes. Charges.

 

[RAMOSS]

Then we can agree Clinton was a perjurer... Yes.?

Hum. Intent, but not the letter. He was very slick about his testimony, asking for definitions of what they specifically were asking. Ken Starr defined sex in a very narrow definition, which precluded oral sex as part of sex. So, technically, when Bill Clinton said he did not have have sex with Monica Lewinsky, he technically was telling the truth. On the other hand, that kind of deflection avoided the spirit of the question.

 

[Xelor]

It's just a question. Why would anyone say that they know Mueller is going to get Trump when they don't have enough information to know the case? In fact, I clearly asked that if Mueller finds Trump didn't do anything illegal, would they accept Trump's resignation to save D Jr, assuming Jr actually did something illegal?

Red:
Actually, no, that predicate is not part of your OP.

...Would you accept Trump's resignation, even if the Mueller probe finds he didn't violate any laws, in exchange for D Jr not being indicted for anything?

FWIW, an implication of your OP question, and your recasting of it, is that justice under the law is a thing that can be at least bartered, if not bought and sold. Some folks may ascribe to that, but I don't.

• If prosecutors have a prosecutable case against Don, Jr., they should bring it and give Jr. his day in court.
• If Trump resigns, I'll accept his resignation, but if his resignation is offered in exchange for something, I wouldn't accept it.

Would, were Trump to have a 55%+ approval rating, I accept Trump's resignation in exchange for a "get out of jail free" card for Don, Jr? No. Trump's resignation is something I'd consider accepting or rejecting on its own and Trump's de-/merits, not on the basis of something pertaining to someone other than Trump.

Quite simply, I'm not a relativist. Any given action/idea must have sufficient merit in its own right, and if it does, it'll obtain my approbation. If it doesn't, it won't, and nothing, short of violent coercion and even that may not do, is going to cause that action/idea to obtain my approbation.

 

[Fledermaus]

Hum. Intent, but not the letter. He was very slick about his testimony, asking for definitions of what they specifically were asking. Ken Starr defined sex in a very narrow definition, which precluded oral sex as part of sex. So, technically, when Bill Clinton said he did not have have sex with Monica Lewinsky, he technically was telling the truth. On the other hand, that kind of deflection avoided the spirit of the question.

He tried that tactic when he lied to the American people.

I'll have to see if Starr precluded oral sex since oral sex was what got Clinton gigged.

 

[Perotista]

I was kind of curious how many lefties would applaud Trump resigning, even if he had broken no laws, which would be a very sad comment on society.

I'm sure a majority would be jumping up and down with glee. Then once Trump is gone, they would turn their virile vindictiveness on Pence in an attempt to destroy him also. Like I said, we have entered the era of political destruction of an opponent at any cost. I'm sure if Hillary had won, most republicans would have set out to destroy her as most democrats are trying to to to Trump.

Perhaps the era of calmingly accepting an election result is over. That is unless your side wins. So far I have heard the hateful attacks on the Democratic House from the right. I should say, as yet I haven't as the Democratic House hasn't been seated. Are we seeing the right more willing to accept an election result than the left? Time will tell.

 

[Airyaman]

But my question was if Trump had broken no laws, would the left be happy if Trump resigned having done nothing wrong illegally in exchange for saving his son, assuming his son had actually broken laws.

I would assume there are millions of people who would be happy if Trump resigns for any reason under the sun. He is the worst president of modern, if not all, times.

 

[tres borrachos]

Question for the left: Would you accept Trump's resignation, even if the Mueller probe finds he didn't violate any laws, in exchange for D Jr not being indicted for anything?

So you're concerned that Junior committed a crime.

 

[Moderate Right]

I didn't realize that illegality was the only reason to accept a resignation.

In other words, you are fine with Trump resigning, even if he did nothing legally wrong.

 

[Airyaman]

In other words, you are fine with Trump resigning, even if he did nothing legally wrong.

Yes.

People resign every day without doing anything illegal.

Is that how things work in your world? That people should only resign if they commit crimes?

 

[tres borrachos]

In other words, you would accept the resignation of someone who has done nothing illegal just to get rid of him?

You apparently don't know anything about the real business world. People who are not performing their jobs up to the required standard resign all the time. You don't have to resign because you did something illegal. Trump is the worst world leader in decades. He has no business being POTUS or CIC. He is an epic disaster. Legality has nothing to do with anything.

 

[sangha]

In other words, you are fine with Trump resigning, even if he did nothing legally wrong.

Were you this upset when Mattis and others resigned?

 

[Moderate Right]

I'm sure a majority would be jumping up and down with glee. Then once Trump is gone, they would turn their virile vindictiveness on Pence in an attempt to destroy him also. Like I said, we have entered the era of political destruction of an opponent at any cost. I'm sure if Hillary had won, most republicans would have set out to destroy her as most democrats are trying to to to Trump.

Perhaps the era of calmingly accepting an election result is over. That is unless your side wins. So far I have heard the hateful attacks on the Democratic House from the right. I should say, as yet I haven't as the Democratic House hasn't been seated. Are we seeing the right more willing to accept an election result than the left? Time will tell.

We have entered an era that when someone or a party wins an election 50.1% to 49.9% a mandate is declared and they try to cram their policies down the throats of the 100%.

 

[Helix]

SIAP. Because YOU are worried about JR. Yes, I can be flippant at times.

not really. Mueller might be interested in him, but i don't give much of a ****. i do want his idiot dad to be voted out of the White House, though.

 

[Deuce]

Question for the left: Would you accept Trump's resignation, even if the Mueller probe finds he didn't violate any laws, in exchange for D Jr not being indicted for anything?

Why would Sr. resign for crimes committed by Jr? I don’t understand how your scenario makes any sense.

 

[Deuce]

We have entered an era that when someone or a party wins an election 50.1% to 49.9% a mandate is declared and they try to cram their policies down the throats of the 100%.

46% to 48% actually.

 

[Cardinal]

Question for the left: Would you accept Trump's resignation, even if the Mueller probe finds he didn't violate any laws, in exchange for D Jr not being indicted for anything?

Yes. But he would have to do it extremely soon for the resignation to have any meaning.

 

[Perotista]

We have entered an era that when someone or a party wins an election 50.1% to 49.9% a mandate is declared and they try to cram their policies down the throats of the 100%.

It doesn't even have to be a simple majority, 46% will do nicely. You can look at it this way, 54% of America voted against Trump. The 48% who voted for Hillary and the 6% who voted third party. The third party votes were against both candidates. Trump was smart enough to center his campaign on the electoral college. Whereas Hillary was just trying to get more electoral votes than Obama did. Trump had the better campaign strategy and it worked for him.

Now as you stated, in a two party system, that is how it works. We're given a choice in any one election of either a far right agenda or a far left agenda. Although more Americans are in the middle between our two existing major parties. Going by Gallup, the Democrats, the far left agendist make up 30% of the total electorate, the Republican, home to the far right make up but 26%. Independents, 42% of the electorate, the non-affiliated, most who are in the center, center right or center left, in-between these two far left and right agenda's, must choose one or the other. It's the two major parties who choose their nominees, candidates, for the rest of us to choose from. It is the two major parties who, like you state, govern like they just received a mandate. Far from it. It is basically a choice of the lesser of two evils, the choice of voting for the party you are less angry at, the party you least dislike at the moment.

These major parties can govern as they choose, they have a monopoly on our two party election system. Even though one only represents 26% of Americans, the other 30%. So whoever wins, which ever party, 100% of American is governed over by either 26% or 30% which sets the agenda, like it or not.

Become angry at their agendas, we vote them out. We voted the Republicans out of congress in 2006 and followed that up electing a Democratic president in 2008 because we were more angry at the republicans than Democrats. Not that we wanted the democrats, we just wanted them instead of the GOP. Then in 2010 we got angry at the democrats, gave the Republicans the House, followed that up by giving the Republican senate in 2014 and electing a Republican president in 2016 all because we were more angry at the Democrats. So what happens, we get angry at the Republican president, we then elect Democrats to the house.

In a two party system like ours, it is whomever we are least angry at that wins. Not that we want the winner to win, we just want the loser to lose more than the other party.

 

[sangha]

Why would Sr. resign for crimes committed by Jr? I don’t understand how your scenario makes any sense.

Correct

prosecuters do not make deals with innocent people. If Trump Jr wants a deal, he will have to testify about someone higher up

 

[Moderate Right]

It doesn't even have to be a simple majority, 46% will do nicely. You can look at it this way, 54% of America voted against Trump. The 48% who voted for Hillary and the 6% who voted third party. The third party votes were against both candidates. Trump was smart enough to center his campaign on the electoral college. Whereas Hillary was just trying to get more electoral votes than Obama did. Trump had the better campaign strategy and it worked for him.

Now as you stated, in a two party system, that is how it works. We're given a choice in any one election of either a far right agenda or a far left agenda. Although more Americans are in the middle between our two existing major parties. Going by Gallup, the Democrats, the far left agendist make up 30% of the total electorate, the Republican, home to the far right make up but 26%. Independents, 42% of the electorate, the non-affiliated, most who are in the center, center right or center left, in-between these two far left and right agenda's, must choose one or the other. It's the two major parties who choose their nominees, candidates, for the rest of us to choose from. It is the two major parties who, like you state, govern like they just received a mandate. Far from it. It is basically a choice of the lesser of two evils, the choice of voting for the party you are less angry at, the party you least dislike at the moment.

These major parties can govern as they choose, they have a monopoly on our two party election system. Even though one only represents 26% of Americans, the other 30%. So whoever wins, which ever party, 100% of American is governed over by either 26% or 30% which sets the agenda, like it or not.

Become angry at their agendas, we vote them out. We voted the Republicans out of congress in 2006 and followed that up electing a Democratic president in 2008 because we were more angry at the republicans than Democrats. Not that we wanted the democrats, we just wanted them instead of the GOP. Then in 2010 we got angry at the democrats, gave the Republicans the House, followed that up by giving the Republican senate in 2014 and electing a Republican president in 2016 all because we were more angry at the Democrats. So what happens, we get angry at the Republican president, we then elect Democrats to the house.

In a two party system like ours, it is whomever we are least angry at that wins. Not that we want the winner to win, we just want the loser to lose more than the other party.

Neither party seems to understand that election results are nothing but a teeter totter. We get upset with one party and vote them out only to be upset with the new party and vote them out and so on and so on. The winning party always assumes that when they win the teeter totter will stay in the up position.

 

[markjs]

In other words, you would accept the resignation of someone who has done nothing illegal just to get rid of him?

Only in your delusional alt-right "reality"!:2rofll:

 

[justabubba]

Question for the left: Would you accept Trump's resignation,

ABSO****INGLUTELY!

... even if the Mueller probe finds he didn't violate any laws,

of course. if the president chooses to abdicate that is his decision

and i hope Mueller finds him to have clean hands ... altho i do not believe that will be the ultimate determination

... in exchange for D Jr not being indicted for anything?

small price to pay. the public already knows junior is a prevaricating weasel. his future is dim no matter what Mueller finds