• 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!

Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses

dairyair said:
D's don't have majority in Senate. Losing more seats won't help them in the least. Will it.
The Rs lost seats in both houses. Do you think that is what D's want?
Click to expand...

I responded to most of this in another post. We just disagree on the strategy here. The Democrats were fired up in 2018 and look like they are again now. Being timid in the face of Trump's assault on institutions, etc. is IMO a huge mistake. I'm roughly 100% sure if the tables were turned, the GOP wouldn't be clutching their pearls about impeaching Hillary. They know it fires up their voters, damages the candidate, the party, the brand, and works politically, which is why they've been doing it for a couple decades now.

Heck, we know what the Democrats have BEEN doing has failed, so let's try something else.
 
Cardinal said:
Setting aside the fact that you seem unable to comprehend the extraordinary degree to which the GOP took over the entirety of the Federal government after Clinton left office, do you see Democrats having a difficult time winning elections?

Bevin ran on impeachment, believing it would turn out his base. How did that work out for him? How did impeachment work out for Republicans in Virginia?
Click to expand...
Took over? They had it. All but the prez.

Why do you think Pelosi is being cautious?

Why are you so triggered by my statement? Try to be adult about this.
 
dairyair said:
Took over? They had it. All but the prez.

Why do you think Pelosi is being cautious?

Why are you so triggered by my statement? Try to be adult about this.
Click to expand...

Google "2000 Presidential election." You don't seem to know anything immediately past Clinton's impeachment.
 
JasperL said:
Right, but what you're kind of ignoring is the scorched earth policy of the GOP with regard to Clinton started basically the minute he got inaugurated and it worked beautifully. Impeachment was just the final act of that long play. You could argue THAT was a stop too far, but the damage was minimal if any, as Gore ran away from the damaged Clinton in a lot of ways, and lost. The GOP took the same path with Obama and it also worked pretty well by all accounts.

The point is there is just no evidence that the tactics hurt the GOP. The electoral results from Gingrich forward have been pretty good for the GOP. Obama, for example, was inevitable post-crash. But he had a majority in Congress for only two years.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I want tRUMP gone from the WH. And McConnell gone also for being such a stool for tRUMP.

Why do you think Pelosi has been cautious about this impeachment process? She has much less room for error than the R's did in the 90s.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, but that means Warren is likely to win the DNC primary.
Click to expand...

I hope not.
But why would that mean Warren win primary? She claiming to be a uniter?
 
eman623 said:
I think what Joe and Hunter Biden did in the Ukraine is very much at issue in the impeachment. It goes to why Trump allegedly asked for the QPQ in the first place.

If Joe's idiot son Hunter had never been employed at Burisma and Joe had not threatened to withhold $1B in aid until the prosecutor looking into it was fired, then Trump wouldn't have asked for an investigation and none of this would be a thing today.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it is. If there's a murder, does the defense of "Yeah, but that guy was a real asshole" mean the murderer is not guilty?
 
JasperL said:
I responded to most of this in another post. We just disagree on the strategy here. The Democrats were fired up in 2018 and look like they are again now. Being timid in the face of Trump's assault on institutions, etc. is IMO a huge mistake. I'm roughly 100% sure if the tables were turned, the GOP wouldn't be clutching their pearls about impeaching Hillary. They know it fires up their voters, damages the candidate, the party, the brand, and works politically, which is why they've been doing it for a couple decades now.

Heck, we know what the Democrats have BEEN doing has failed, so let's try something else.
Click to expand...

D's gave up on Middle America. Which had been their bread and butter.
R's picked up those voters. Even though R's crapped on Middle America with NAFTA and other trade agreements of the 90s.
 
Last edited:
It's smart.

Trump is guilty of extortion. Best to put the spotlight on everyone else.

Remember, this is the party of God and the 10 Commandments.
 
Cardinal said:
Google "2000 Presidential election." You don't seem to know anything immediately past Clinton's impeachment.
Click to expand...

I haven't said anything about the 2000 prez election. Just that they lost seats in both houses in 98 and 2000.
The D's are already in the minority in the Senate. I am quite sure they don't want to risk losing more. My entire point.

I think, if publicly supported, they go through with Impeachment.
 
Rexedgar said:
Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses




Republicans also plan to call the younger Biden's former long-time business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the board of Burisma. Republicans claim Archer can help the public to understand "the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country."
Fox News has also learned that Republicans plan to call the whistleblower—whose identity remains anonymous—to testify publicly as part of the inquiry. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in September the whistleblower would appear before Congress "very soon," but in recent weeks has suggested that testimony is unnecessary.


This was always going to be a circus.
Click to expand...
With Congress's resident loony in charge how could it be anything else?
 
dairyair said:
I hope not.
But why would that mean Warren win primary? She claiming to be a uniter?
Click to expand...

If anyone could win then why not the one promising the most "free" stuff?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
If anyone could win then why not the one promising the most "free" stuff?
Click to expand...

Nothing is free.
And D's are voting for free stuff.

But you're sounding like you are a Faux TV enthusiast.
 
dairyair said:
I haven't said anything about the 2000 prez election.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's sort of the problem. You should be saying something about it, because Clinton's impeachment led to that result, and it's a big part of why things are the way that they are.
 
dairyair said:
Nothing is free.
And D's are voting for free stuff.

But you're sounding like you are a Faux TV enthusiast.
Click to expand...

Not especially, but Warren is promising loads of new "free" stuff without a middle class tax increase. It's a lie, of course, but one that many want to believe.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Not especially, but Warren is promising loads of new "free" stuff without a middle class tax increase. It's a lie, of course, but one that many want to believe.
Click to expand...

No middle tax increase is not the meaning of 'FREE'.
She isn't lying, unless she knows she will raise taxes on the middle class.

Did Bush 1 lie when he said 'read my lips, no new taxes'?
I don't think so, I think he broke a promise he couldn't keep. Which is not lying.
 
dairyair said:
No middle tax increase is not the meaning of 'FREE'.
She isn't lying, unless she knows she will raise taxes on the middle class.
Click to expand...

She won't do anything - that's the beauty of making campaign promises or setting legislative goals. If she wanted such legislation she could have written it - after all, she is in the Senate.

In that sense M4A is like TrumpCare, which costs less and covers everyone, but also does not exist in legislative form.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
She won't do anything - that's the beauty of making campaign promises or setting legislative goals. If she wanted such legislation she could have written it - after all, she is in the Senate.

In that sense M4A is like TrumpCare, which costs less and covers everyone, but also does not exist in legislative form.
Click to expand...

So, not lying?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, lying - she has no intention of ever writing such a bill.
Click to expand...

You know this how?
She did put out a calculator for Billionaires to use to see how her plan would affect them.
 
Rexedgar said:
Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses




Republicans also plan to call the younger Biden's former long-time business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the board of Burisma. Republicans claim Archer can help the public to understand "the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country."
Fox News has also learned that Republicans plan to call the whistleblower—whose identity remains anonymous—to testify publicly as part of the inquiry. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in September the whistleblower would appear before Congress "very soon," but in recent weeks has suggested that testimony is unnecessary.


This was always going to be a circus.
Click to expand...


Why Hunter? It's not like his dad is running for president or something.
 
Rexedgar said:
Republicans want Hunter Biden, Ukraine whistleblower as impeachment inquiry witnesses




Republicans also plan to call the younger Biden's former long-time business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the board of Burisma. Republicans claim Archer can help the public to understand "the nature and extent of Ukraine's pervasive corruption information that bears directly on President Trump's longstanding and deeply-held skepticism of the country."
Fox News has also learned that Republicans plan to call the whistleblower—whose identity remains anonymous—to testify publicly as part of the inquiry. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in September the whistleblower would appear before Congress "very soon," but in recent weeks has suggested that testimony is unnecessary.


This was always going to be a circus.
Click to expand...

You asked for it, you got it. Don't worry too much though. Schiffy will stifle any witnesses feel don't help the impeachment case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom