• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox calls white black.

Jonsa said:
technically true. nobody used the words quid pro quo. The PRESIDENT introduced the term in his conversation with sondland. It just vexes me that simple connect the dots analysis of the timeline, and the entirety of the activity going on within the administration as this disruptive, criminal domestic political errand was being run by a bevy of forever trumpers, including his personal lawyer.

The stink is overwhelming, but I also understand how becoming nose blind to it is the first line of emotional and intellectual defense of the indefensible.
Click to expand...

I gotta be honest, I'm getting tired of explaining that I was searching for a promised confession or proof and what I get - over and over I have tried to show that there is such a smarter way to get rid of the stain on the presidency and it just becomes repetitive and that is not your fault at all because you weren't on the other 30 conversations

We both want him out, I just want a successful route and note another failed hearing that pushes independents farther away
 
Bodhisattva said:
Just because an investigation is opened does not mean that a person being investigated is guilty. This is the problem with partisan hack posts. Trump might be guilty, but then again maybe he made the 'no quid pro quo' statement after the investigation was opened to clear up that there was none from the beginning too... see, I am open and wait for the facts... you and people like you rush to judgement.
Click to expand...


I totally agree. OTOH, the investigation has already uncovered enough evidence of nefarious and criminal behavior. IN fact, we now know that TWO officials at OMB were so concerned about the illegality they resigned.

People like me are definitely rushing to judgement when that kind of evidence keeps piling up.

And lets not forget that Donnie as ADMITTED to the illegal behavior and proffered a number of ridiculous debunked excuses (lies) as his motivation for doing it.

N
 
Keridan said:
I gotta be honest, I'm getting tired of explaining that I was searching for a promised confession or proof and what I get - over and over I have tried to show that there is such a smarter way to get rid of the stain on the presidency and it just becomes repetitive and that is not your fault at all because you weren't on the other 30 conversations

We both want him out, I just want a successful route and note another failed hearing that pushes independents farther away
Click to expand...

A confession? is that your standard of what is worthy of impeachment? You'd let him get away with thumbing his nose at the constitution and the laws of the land because he should be removed from office by "the people", except we know that "the people" (majority) don't actually elect the president or else he wouldn't have been president in the first place.

I believe most independents are smart enough to recognize the weasely obstruction and obfuscation trump and his cronies are shovelling.

I was struck by the scathing judgement on Trump's obstructive argument of "absolute immunity" in the recent mcgahn ruling. How any independent could read those words and not understand how intellectually and legally bankrupt such an argument is within the body of precedence of 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence, is truly beyond me.
 
Oborosen said:
And another empty post..

So go ahead and keep playing. I'll just find someone who's actually capable of making a point somewhere else.
Click to expand...

considering your obvious need for one, I wish you all the best in your quest.
 
Bodhisattva said:
twotwo

What do you want me to do next?
Click to expand...

take a refresher course on how to use inference, implication and deduction? I don't know, might help.


(btw - rather witty if obvious response)
 
Jonsa said:
A confession? is that your standard of what is worthy of impeachment? You'd let him get away with thumbing his nose at the constitution and the laws of the land because he should be removed from office by "the people", except we know that "the people" (majority) don't actually elect the president or else he wouldn't have been president in the first place.

I believe most independents are smart enough to recognize the weasely obstruction and obfuscation trump and his cronies are shovelling.

I was struck by the scathing judgement on Trump's obstructive argument of "absolute immunity" in the recent mcgahn ruling. How any independent could read those words and not understand how intellectually and legally bankrupt such an argument is within the body of precedence of 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence, is truly beyond me.
Click to expand...

Again, not your fault, but (like so many other moderates) I'm tired of breaking down the problems - thanks for trying to engage me
 
Jonsa said:
I see context isn't one of your strong points.

Trump did claim "no quid pro quo". He stated this OUT OF THE BLUE in response to the question "WTF was happening. He stated it the DAY AFTER SHIFF ANNOUNCES AN CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CLUSTERMUCK..
Click to expand...


More importantly right after Sonland admits at that point he has no idea what Trump wants and has only been "hearing all these different ideas and theories".
These ideas and theories were nothing more than the characterization of those opposed to Trump.
 
Mycroft said:
Click to expand...


Great line, great movie. When young folk ask me what the 60’s were about, I tell them to watch Cool Hand Luke and Bonnie and Clyde to get a taste.
 
SheWolf said:
He says immigrants are ruining America. I say Fox News is ruining the GOP and ruining America... :lol:
Click to expand...

I have some hope for the daytime Fox news folk. Not much for the evening commentators. And people like Carlson have been saying that immigrants are ruining America since the 1830s. Not to say Tucker is responsible, but it’s frightening when people like the El Paso shooter use similar language.
 
Nickyjo said:
I have some hope for the daytime Fox news folk. Not much for the evening commentators. And people like Carlson have been saying that immigrants are ruining America since the 1830s. Not to say Tucker is responsible, but it’s frightening when people like the El Paso shooter use similar language.
Click to expand...

Strange, another one of the many claims that I've seen over the years that have had no actual evidence to support them.
 
dixon01767 said:
More importantly right after Sonland admits at that point he has no idea what Trump wants and has only been "hearing all these different ideas and theories".
These ideas and theories were nothing more than the characterization of those opposed to Trump.
Click to expand...

EXcept there is no record of that call. Isn't that conveeeeeeeeeenient?

BTW, Sondland supposedly asked that, but in his other testimony AND corroborated by other's testimony - well before this supposed Sept 9 call, EVERYONE knew about trump's demands for a quid pro quo.
Funny how he was telling everyone (in his own sworn testimony and corroborated in other's testimony) that there was no aid coming without the investigations and a public announcement of them BEFORE he supposedly called Trump to ask him what was happening because he was getting direct heat TAylor.

there seems to be a lot of "chaff" being thrown up in trump's defense, but there isn't any exculpatory evidence. NONE and he refuses to allow the people who could clear him in a jiffy to testify.
 
Jonsa said:
EXcept there is no record of that call. Isn't that conveeeeeeeeeenient?

BTW, Sondland supposedly asked that, but in his other testimony AND corroborated by other's testimony - well before this supposed Sept 9 call, EVERYONE knew about trump's demands for a quid pro quo.
Click to expand...

You mean all those who deny Sunlands claims?
 
dixon01767 said:
You mean all those who deny Sunlands claims?
Click to expand...

No all those that corroborate his testimony that everyone knew there was a quid pro quo demanded by the President. Try to keep up man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom