• 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!

Schiff says whistleblower testimony is 'redundant and unnecessary'

Could you link me to some of your posts where you said much the same about Trump only being willing to answer written questions? And as has been pointed out over and over, the WB isn't the accuser anymore than the guy pulling the fire alarm started the fire.

These folks are the kings of double standards.

I remember Lindsey Graham saying that "the president doesn't really need to have committed high crimes to be impeached and removed. If the House and the Senate simply consider that he has demonstrated a moral failure, that's quite enough."

Of course, he meant Bill Clinton at the time. Regarding Trump, he says the very opposite.
 
Last edited:
*L* Well, I figure if you're going to start thinking like my wife, I might as well use the same conversational tactics I use to respond to her too.... zingers are my only defense!

I'd say both you and your wife are clever people. I like your thinking.
 
Don't imagine for a moment that the thought hasn't crossed his mind.

Well, I think the thought has crossed his mind even more of making of her his incestuous lover than the next queen... but he'd love the latter, too.
 
That is where the third co-equal branch comes in. The courts will decide which, if any, of the subpoenas issued by Congress are more important than executive privilege. It is almost like it was designed that way. To top it off, it works that way no matter which political party is in the white house or is in control of Congress. It makes it a little bit harder for the process to be purely partisan, which is probably why you do not like it.

Trump isn't asserting executive privilege as it is commonly known, instead, he's saying Congress isn't entitled to view anything or talk to anyone in the executive branch. It's a broad assertion of executive power that no President has ever made before.

This isn't like some sort of honest disagreement about a previously uncontested aspect of the Constitutional system. You think this is like some gentlemanly contest. No, this is Trump trying to rip the Constitution to shreds and saying, "F** you. I'm the President. I can do anything I want."

A better analogy is this is more like a criminal murdering someone in cold blood and being held to account for that murder. Yes, of course the courts would intervene to put a murderer in jail. As they should. But that doesn't mean the murderer had any right to go around killing people to begin with.

And, yes, I am partisan now. But I have become partisan because so-called conservatives and Republicans have sold their soul to the devil and now support someone who argues in court that he is above the law and is immune from criminal investigation. These kinds of assertions have no basis in our laws, or history, or in the Constitution and are completely contrary to our traditional values and principles.
 
I'm thinking there might be a "soft on Cuba" angle here as well..... back in the 1960 campaign debates, Senator Kennedy attacked the Eisenhower Administration for being "soft on Cuba" and Vice President Nixon couldn't respond, because if he did, it'd expose what he was doing behind the scenes to plan for what became the Bay of Pigs invasion.

What if the identity of the WB couldn't be released because he's covered under the "covert agent" law, and therefore covered by National Security? The odds are pretty good the President knows who the WB is... I think it's probably about as much an open secret as the Bay of Pigs was.... so what if he's hammering on it precisely because he knows the WB's identity can't be revealed?


Could be a possibility. He knows, but keeps screaming about it so his base with head into overload demanding the name be revealed and then cry about mean old Schiff. :thumbs:
 
I'd say both you and your wife are clever people. I like your thinking.

Thanks. I always say she's got the intelligence to tear any argument to shreds and I've got the wisdom to stay on her good side.... I'm thinking that's probably sound advice where it comes to you as well.
 
Trump isn't asserting executive privilege as it is commonly known, instead, he's saying Congress isn't entitled to view anything or talk to anyone in the executive branch. It's a broad assertion of executive power that no President has ever made before.

This isn't like some sort of honest disagreement about a previously uncontested aspect of the Constitutional system. You think this is like some gentlemanly contest. No, this is Trump trying to rip the Constitution to shreds and saying, "F** you. I'm the President. I can do anything I want."

A better analogy is this is more like a criminal murdering someone in cold blood and being held to account for that murder. Yes, of course the courts would intervene to put a murderer in jail. As they should. But that doesn't mean the murderer had any right to go around killing people to begin with.

And, yes, I am partisan now. But I have become partisan because so-called conservatives and Republicans have sold their soul to the devil and now support someone who argues in court that he is above the law and is immune from criminal investigation. These kinds of assertions have no basis in our laws, or history, or in the Constitution and are completely contrary to our traditional values and principles.

What concerns me more, is that Crossfire seems to believe that the Courts will set Trump straight. Well, Trump has ensured that the majority in the Supreme Court is on his side, and has stuffed lower federal courts with judges appointed by him. No, I don't have high hopes that the Courts will rein him in.

The only hope is a landslide 2020 Dem victory, one that gives no opportunity for appeals and contestation (or else the SCOTUS will side with him like they did for George Bush against Gore).

My pessimism stems from my belief that a landslide victory will be extremely difficult to pull off, given how weak the Dem field is. The Dems don't really have ANY candidate who would beat Trump in a landslide. I don't even know if they have one who will beat Trump by a small margin, much less a landslide.

Such person (the one capable of beating Trump in a landslide) does exist, and her name is Michelle Obama (might be the very only one who would achieve that) but sadly she abhors politics and won't run.

I'm predicting four more years of Trump, either by winning straight, or by losing narrowly but overturning the result with the help of the SCOTUS.

If someone would just convince Michelle to run, saying to her "just run, pick a good veep like Buttigieg, win, then a couple of months later resign, claiming the need to be with your family, and let him take over; otherwise we'll have four more years of Trump, and who knows what happens to American democracy if the onslaught continues! Save us now, because in 4 years there may be nothing left to be saved."
 
Last edited:
Could be a possibility. He knows, but keeps screaming about it so his base with head into overload demanding the name be revealed and then cry about mean old Schiff. :thumbs:

It certainly wouldn't be out of character.... if he had one, anyway.
 
What concerns me more, is that Crossfire seems to believe that the Courts will set Trump straight. Well, Trump has ensured that the majority in the Supreme Court is on his side, and has stuffed lower federal courts with judges appointed by him. No, I don't have high hopes that the Courts will rein him in.

The only hope is a landslide 2020 Dem victory, one that gives no opportunity for appeals and contestation (or else the SCOTUS will side with him like they did for George Bush against Gore).

My pessimism stems from my belief that a landslide victory will be extremely difficult to pull off, given how weak the Dem field is. The Dems don't really have ANY candidate who would beat Trump in a landslide. I don't even know if they have one who will beat Trump by a small margin, much less a landslide.

Such person (the one capable of beating Trump in a landslide) does exist, and her name is Michelle Obama (might be the very only one who would achieve that) but sadly she abhors politics and won't run.

I'm predicting four more years of Trump, either by winning straight, or by losing narrowly but overturning the result with the help of the SCOTUS.

Looking at the Electoral Map, I don't know how you pull of a landslide.... the only States I can see that have a realistic chance of flipping are Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.... that's the whole enchilada right there.
 
Ouch... too far *Wincing*

Well, it comes directly from the horse's mouth. Have you listened to his interview with Howard Stein; what he said about Ivanka?
There is no disgusting thought that doesn't find a nest inside Trump's head.
 
Well, it comes directly from the horse's mouth. Have you listened to his interview with Howard Stein; what he said about Ivanka?
There is no disgusting thought that doesn't find a nest inside Trump's head.

I know... and I don't doubt it, either. I just don't like dwelling on it.
 
Looking at the Electoral Map, I don't know how you pull of a landslide.... the only States I can see that have a realistic chance of flipping are Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.... that's the whole enchilada right there.

No, I think Michelle Obama would overturn more states. North Carolina, Florida... and the voting difference would be bigger, making recount attempts and challenges more difficult.

Don't underestimate Michelle's popularity. She would get all the progressives (being that she is to the left of her husband), everybody who misses Obama among the independents and moderates, all the African Americans, and she would motivate turnover like no other Dem has done since Obama.

She would also completely destroy all other Dems in the primaries. She would win the primaries by historical margins, with both hands tied to her back. For one thing, Biden's biggest claim to fame, that he would continue Obama's policies, would completely melt away as everybody thinking of voting for him for this reason would immediately abandon him and flock to her. Think of the progressives, having to support the completely charmless old white male Bernie Sanders... or the fake Native American Elizabeth Warren... they could vote instead for the very charming and inspirational Michelle Obama. Can you imagine the rallies, with her husband showing up to support her?
 
No, I think Michelle Obama would overturn more states. North Carolina, Florida... and the voting difference would be bigger, making recount attempts and challenges more difficult.

Don't underestimate Michelle's popularity. She would get all the progressives (being that she is to the left of her husband), everybody who misses Obama among the independents and moderates, all the African Americans, and she would motivate turnover like no other Dem has done since Obama.

She would also completely destroy all other Dems in the primaries. She would win the primaries by historical margins, with both hands tied to her back. For one thing, Biden's biggest claim to fame, that he would continue Obama's policies, would completely melt away as everybody thinking of voting for him for this reason would immediately abandon him and flock to her. Think of the progressives, having to support the completely charmless old white male Bernie Sanders... or the fake Native American Elizabeth Warren... they could vote instead for the very charming and inspirational Michelle Obama. Can you imagine the rallies, with her husband showing up to support her?

Why would you wish that on her? I liked the Obamas - I think they're both great people. He was a hopeless President, though. And I think Michelle has pretty much had her fill of politics.... she's not cut out for it. I don't know... if I had to pick someone in the field right now, I think it'd probably be Kamala Harris... but that's not going to happen. I think it's already in the cards that Elizabeth Warren is going to win Iowa and then she's going to win New Hampshire, and then it'll all be over but the crying. She'll probably pick Russ Feingold for her running mate.
 
Thanks. I always say she's got the intelligence to tear any argument to shreds and I've got the wisdom to stay on her good side.... I'm thinking that's probably sound advice where it comes to you as well.

My wife is to my left, politically speaking. She is definitely very progressive. She is even more horrified about Trump than I am (which is not a small feat), and she likes the left wing of the Democratic Party much more than I do. But she knows that I mean well when I support the center. It's not because I don't want to see the social changes she hopes for. It's because I do, but I believe that they are more possible through patient and slow reform than by next-day revolution.

She does frown about some of my more right-wing positions - I tend to be more left wing regarding domestic and social issues, and more right wing regarding the military and foreign policy, thus my self-definition as a centrist, because it all balances out to a middle position of the pendulum - but I know better, after several years living harmoniously with her in a very mutually loving relationship, than trying to convince her of my views or trying to challenge her too strongly about hers. We enjoy the positions we agree upon, and peacefully agree to disagree about the opinions we don't share.

When push comes to shove, we tend to vote exactly the same way, though, because like me, she does recognize the need to pick the lesser evil. For example, she liked Bernie Sanders but unlike the idiotic Bernie or Bust crowd, ended up wholeheartedly supporting Hillary Clinton because she knew that she was the lesser evil as compared to Trump. Me, I consider Bernie Sanders to be a full-blown idiot, but I don't say so to my wife, hehe. I just say that I consider him a dreamer, but not a pragmatic one, and the way he goes about his ideas will just alienate people and make it even less likely that they'll ever come to pass. She actually agrees with this assessment. But I don't go out of my way to say "I think that the candidate you admire is a vacuous and opportunistic populist who is actually, in terms of these aspects, the Trump of the Left."
 
Why would you wish that on her? I liked the Obamas - I think they're both great people. He was a hopeless President, though. And I think Michelle has pretty much had her fill of politics.... she's not cut out for it. I don't know... if I had to pick someone in the field right now, I think it'd probably be Kamala Harris... but that's not going to happen. I think it's already in the cards that Elizabeth Warren is going to win Iowa and then she's going to win New Hampshire, and then it'll all be over but the crying. She'll probably pick Russ Feingold for her running mate.

No, I respect her disgust for politics, because American politics has turned out to be quite disgusting, indeed. And I like the Obamas too... both great people. I do blame Obama for being a bit passive especially in foreign policy, and I think his wife would actually be more energetic. But see, I'd only want her to help us in accomplishing the very important task of dislodging Trump, then she could resign in favor of her veep, and walk into the sunset. That's not wishing her anything bad. Sure, it would disappoint her followers and make them feel betrayed, but she would be able to be persuasive enough to explain to them what she had to do, and to say that she did it for them, and for their children and grand-children. They'd forgive her.

Sure, Warren it will be... but I'm just afraid she won't defeat Trump.
 
My wife is to my left, politically speaking. She is definitely very progressive. She is even more horrified about Trump than I am (which is not a small feat), and she likes the left wing of the Democratic Party much more than I do. But she knows that I mean well when I support the center. It's not because I don't want to see the social changes she hopes for. It's because I do, but I believe that they are more possible through patient and slow reform than by next-day revolution.

She does frown about some of my more right-wing positions - I tend to be more left wing regarding domestic and social issues, and more right wing regarding the military and foreign policy, thus my self-definition as a centrist, because it all balances out to a middle position of the pendulum - but I know better, after several years living harmoniously with her in a very mutually loving relationship, than trying to convince her of my views or trying to challenge her too strongly about hers. We enjoy the positions we agree upon, and peacefully agree to disagree about the opinions we don't share.

When push comes to shove, we tend to vote exactly the same way, though, because like me, she does recognize the need to pick the lesser evil. For example, she liked Bernie Sanders but unlike the idiotic Bernie or Bust crowd, ended up wholeheartedly supporting Hillary Clinton because she knew that she was the lesser evil as compared to Trump. Me, I consider Bernie Sanders to be a full-blown idiot, but I don't say so to my wife, hehe. I just say that I consider him a dreamer, but not a pragmatic one, and the way he goes about his ideas will just alienate people and make it even less likely that they'll ever come to pass. She actually agrees with this assessment. But I don't go out of my way to say "I think that the candidate you admire is a vacuous and opportunistic populist who is actually, in terms of these aspects, the Trump of the Left."

I like Bernie... I think he's a great Senator - not because he's legislative magician like LBJ or Nancy Pelosi... but because when the deals get struck, he's always a voice for the people that tend to get forgotten about. We always need to have that conscience there to remind us what's right. That doesn't necessarily make someone a great President, though. A President has got to be willing to be a prick from time to time as well if they're going to be respected.... and often they have to settle for that half-loaf. The perfect is always going to be the arch-nemesis of the good.
 
No, I respect her disgust for politics, because American politics has turned out to be quite disgusting, indeed. And I like the Obamas too... both great people. I do blame Obama for being a bit passive especially in foreign policy, and I think his wife would actually be more energetic. But see, I'd only want her to help us in accomplishing the very important task of dislodging Trump, then she could resign in favor of her veep, and walk into the sunset. That's not wishing her anything bad. Sure, it would disappoint her followers and make them feel betrayed, but she would be able to be persuasive enough to explain to them what she had to do, and to say that she did it for them, and for their children and grand-children. They'd forgive her.

Sure, Warren it will be... but I'm just afraid she won't defeat Trump.

No... she won't. She'll win the popular vote, of course, just like the Democrats always do... but she'll flub the Electoral vote. She's not going to get the turn-out, and Trump will dump so much negative advertising into this campaign that she'll come across as Attila the Nun.
 
No, I respect her disgust for politics, because American politics has turned out to be quite disgusting, indeed. And I like the Obamas too... both great people. I do blame Obama for being a bit passive especially in foreign policy, and I think his wife would actually be more energetic. But see, I'd only want her to help us in accomplishing the very important task of dislodging Trump, then she could resign in favor of her veep, and walk into the sunset. That's not wishing her anything bad. Sure, it would disappoint her followers and make them feel betrayed, but she would be able to be persuasive enough to explain to them what she had to do, and to say that she did it for them, and for their children and grand-children. They'd forgive her.

Michelle is too real. I don't think there's a fake bone in her body. What you see is what you get. The real deal.

That's a problem though. People don't want the "real" - they always say they do, but they don't.... that's why they don't sell cereal in see-through packages.
 
Trump isn't asserting executive privilege as it is commonly known, instead, he's saying Congress isn't entitled to view anything or talk to anyone in the executive branch. It's a broad assertion of executive power that no President has ever made before.

This isn't like some sort of honest disagreement about a previously uncontested aspect of the Constitutional system. You think this is like some gentlemanly contest. No, this is Trump trying to rip the Constitution to shreds and saying, "F** you. I'm the President. I can do anything I want."

A better analogy is this is more like a criminal murdering someone in cold blood and being held to account for that murder. Yes, of course the courts would intervene to put a murderer in jail. As they should. But that doesn't mean the murderer had any right to go around killing people to begin with.

And, yes, I am partisan now. But I have become partisan because so-called conservatives and Republicans have sold their soul to the devil and now support someone who argues in court that he is above the law and is immune from criminal investigation. These kinds of assertions have no basis in our laws, or history, or in the Constitution and are completely contrary to our traditional values and principles.

Okay, that was completely rational. You just keep blaming others for your loosening grip on rationality. That always works.
 
I like Bernie... I think he's a great Senator - not because he's legislative magician like LBJ or Nancy Pelosi... but because when the deals get struck, he's always a voice for the people that tend to get forgotten about. We always need to have that conscience there to remind us what's right. That doesn't necessarily make someone a great President, though. A President has got to be willing to be a prick from time to time as well if they're going to be respected.... and often they have to settle for that half-loaf. The perfect is always going to be the arch-nemesis of the good.

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think he is not a very effective senator. He's been in the Senate for decades and doesn't have a lot to show. I think many of his positions are naive or frankly misleading. Some of the vacuous promises, I see as not very different from saying that the Mexicans will pay for a beautiful wall, as Bernie must know that his more extreme proposals would never get enough support to be voted into bills and become laws. I'd be a lot more comfortable if he talked about ideals but added that we aren't ready for those things yet, but he'd slowly work for them to one day be possible. And some of his ideas are frankly utterly absurd. His latest add-ons to his platform amount to effectively open borders (decriminalizing illegal immigration and freezing deportation is actually, effectively, allowing anyone to come in and stay), and this, added to extending free elective healthcare to illegal aliens, would only result in people with expensive health conditions (cancer, need for transplant, for heart or brain surgery) to flock to the United States for free care, something that is utterly untenable. So, he doesn't think through the unintended consequences of things, and doesn't seem to understand the importance of Wall Street to middle class families (the middle class families themselves don't understand it, but they are a lot more dependent on Wall Street than they imagine). His positions are ultimately destructive and if implemented would plunge the United States into the deepest of crises. The very fabric of society would convulse like a volcano. I think that actually, if made president, and if by some sort of miracle he obtained a complacent Congress with supporting sycophants like Trump has, Bernie would manage to be more destructive to the United States than Trump.

Bernie is pretty much the only Dem (I mean, fake Dem; the opportunism is mind-boggling - anytime the doesn't need the Dems to run, he says he is an independent and deeply criticizes the Democratic Party's rules, but anytime he needs them, he rushes to join, then disrespects the party's rules) I might not vote for, if running against Trump, because I'd have a bit of a hard time establishing for myself, which one I consider to be the lesser evil. I probably would have to sit out, because I wouldn't be able to vote for Trump, but I feel that I wouldn't be able to vote for Bernie either.

Thankfully, I think Bernie is the past, in terms of electoral chances. He still lives in 2016, hasn't changed his views except for the worse (even more extreme, even more out of touch with the silent majority in the middle), is four years older, his health is failing, and he is no longer alone in terms of the progressive vote. I think that Bernie has very poor chances of actually winning the nomination, which will be a relief, because it will spare me the doubt of being torn about the lesser evil. Pretty much anybody else, I'll vote for with no hesitation, against Trump. Even Elizabeth Warren. Not to forget, I won't have to disagree with my wife, in November 2020... and I really love my dear wife and don't want to upset her. So hopefully Bernie will bow out before his candidacy becomes a point of discord between us, hehe.
 
Could you link me to some of your posts where you said much the same about Trump only being willing to answer written questions? And as has been pointed out over and over, the WB isn't the accuser anymore than the guy pulling the fire alarm started the fire.
Slight difference between the President of the United States and an ordinary citizen.
 
No... she won't. She'll win the popular vote, of course, just like the Democrats always do... but she'll flub the Electoral vote. She's not going to get the turn-out, and Trump will dump so much negative advertising into this campaign that she'll come across as Attila the Nun.

Yes, exactly. I *always* thought that the Pocahontas issue is more damaging than people realize. Trump will have a field day with it. It's not just the character flaw, but also, how stupidly she went about it, showing bad judgment, and doing the stupid genetic test which played entirely into Trump's hands. If she tries to face him in his terms, he will always win. If she doesn't have the good judgment to know that, I'm afraid she will commit unforced errors, just like Hillary did.
 
Michelle is too real. I don't think there's a fake bone in her body. What you see is what you get. The real deal.

That's a problem though. People don't want the "real" - they always say they do, but they don't.... that's why they don't sell cereal in see-through packages.

Yes, Michelle is too real... she wouldn't run, then resign. But she is the only possible salvation. She is the only person who would CERTAINLY both easily win the Dem primary, and then easily win the General Election. I don't see anybody else able to do it. So I would like her to sacrifice herself for the sake of saving the nation.

I know that she won't do it, though, which is a pity, because the alternative is four more years of Trump, and then I don't even know if we'll have presidential elections in 2024. Seriously. That's not being catastrophic. It's perfectly possible that Trump, given 8 years, will manage to destroy American democracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom