• 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!

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says (1 Viewer)

You've strayed far from available facts. Trump didn't testify, and he never said anything remotely close to what you've offered. What he said, in the call memo, was investigate the Biden's. In public, he's said, investigate the Biden's. We have testimony that Trump only wanted an announcement of an investigation. Into the Biden's. We have testimony that Trump doesn't give a **** about Ukraine, only about investigating the Biden's. Not one word about rooting out corruption.

That should be enough, but I'll leave you to show how:

Announcing an investigation, on CNN, involving only the Biden's, into events that happened years ago, after all the players have gone, amounts to "rooting out corruption." Take your time.

The claim of "corruption" is less believable than the example I provided in the arson analogy.

You have the above defense from Trump.

You have the charge of digging up dirt on the Biden's

Which is more plausible?




Do you have links to the testimony that he only wanted an announcement of an investigation and not an investigation?

Investigation into the Bidens would be rooting out corruption if you believe the situation to be corrupt.
 
Do you have links to the testimony that he only wanted an announcement of an investigation and not an investigation?
It came from Sondland. I'm sure you can find it readily.

Investigation into the Bidens would be rooting out corruption if you believe the situation to be corrupt.
Exactly, except the situation occurred in 2015, not 2019. Furthermore, aid was released in 2017 and 2018. I'll say this again:

To believe Trump's defense, that aid was held up in 2019 out of concern for corruption, we must ask what happened between 2018 and 2019 to alert Trump? The answer we've gotten from Trump is, "2015." Sarcasm, of course, but I hope you see my point.
 
It came from Sondland. I'm sure you can find it readily.


Exactly, except the situation occurred in 2015, not 2019. Furthermore, aid was released in 2017 and 2018. I'll say this again:

To believe Trump's defense, that aid was held up in 2019 out of concern for corruption, we must ask what happened between 2018 and 2019 to alert Trump? The answer we've gotten from Trump is, "2015." Sarcasm, of course, but I hope you see my point.

I don't get your point as I have yet to see any proof of the allegation that this was done to help his campaign rather than rooting out corruption. I'm not even at the point of evaluating Trump's defense because I have yet to see any evidence backing the original allegation.
 
I don't get your point as I have yet to see any proof of the allegation that this was done to help his campaign rather than rooting out corruption. I'm not even at the point of evaluating Trump's defense because I have yet to see any evidence backing the original allegation.

Okay Nap. Don't know what to tell you. The evidence is out there for you to evaluate. I don't know how closely you've followed these events, but maybe you need more information. I wouldn't be coming to any conclusions until you do. I've given you what I can at the moment. I can't fathom why it's not convincing you of anything. It seems like you're just closing your eyes.

Joe Biden is in Iowa. Hunter Biden is in Santa Monica, I believe. The former owner of Burisma has fled Ukraine. The corrupt prosecutor has been fired.

What on earth is there to investigate? Please, use your common sense.

Okay, one more try. I'll be more direct. If Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, even specifically Burisma, he would have asked Zelensky to investigate Burisma and its current practices. He would not have asked Zelensky to investigate the Biden's. Trump never asked for an investigation into Burisma or its practices. Only the Biden's. That's clear as day for most of us.
 
Last edited:
Okay Nap. Don't know what to tell you. The evidence is out there for you to evaluate. I don't know how closely you've followed these events, but maybe you need more information. I wouldn't be coming to any conclusions until you do. I've given you what I can at the moment. I can't fathom why it's not convincing you of anything. It seems like you're just closing your eyes.

Joe Biden is in Iowa. Hunter Biden is in Santa Monica, I believe. The former owner of Burisma has fled Ukraine. The corrupt prosecutor has been fired.

What on earth is there to investigate? Please, use your common sense.

I haven't been following it all, which is why I asked for someone to link to any evidence to the allegation. My eyes are open, nothing compelling has been presented.

As far as what on earth there was to investigate, possible corruption. Just because it was several years ago doesn't mean it is still not in the nation's interest to uncover past corruption.
 
I haven't been following it all, which is why I asked for someone to link to any evidence to the allegation. My eyes are open, nothing compelling has been presented.
Fair enough.

As far as what on earth there was to investigate, possible corruption. Just because it was several years ago doesn't mean it is still not in the nation's interest to uncover past corruption.
How would it be in our interest for a foreign nation to uncover past corruption, when the claim is to root out corruption? ("Rooting out corruption" implies the present tense) That doesn't make sense, Nap. I mean it doesn't make sense as an exercise, much less as being in the interest of anyone other than a historian.

If you have to quit drinking to get your license back, the judge is going to evaluate your behavior since the DUI, not two years before getting it.

btw, you don't need compelling evidence to evaluate plausibility. You only need to compare the prosecution and defense narratives. Which is more plausible?
 
Last edited:
Fair enough.


How would it be in our interest for a foreign nation to uncover past corruption, when the claim is to root out corruption? ("Rooting out corruption" implies the present tense) That doesn't make sense, Nap. I mean it doesn't make sense as an exercise, much less as being in the interest of anyone other than a historian.

If you have to quit drinking to get your license back, the judge is going to evaluate your behavior since the DUI, not two years before getting it.

btw, you don't need compelling evidence to evaluate plausibility. You only need to compare the prosecution and defense narratives. Which is more plausible?

So by your logic, the next administration shouldn't investigate any possible instances of corruption by the current administration?

Before I look at Trump's defense I want to hear the allegations and evidence presented by the prosecution. If there is no compelling evidence by the prosecution then I don't have any interest in the case as it is nothing but a political dog and pony show.

I don't even personally care if Trump gets impeached, I'm not a supporter and believe him to be a dunce but Democrats have pretty much lost their minds regarding anything that has to do with Trump.
 
So by your logic, the next administration shouldn't investigate any possible instances of corruption by the current administration?
No, that's not my logic at all. You're making a leap without bringing everything along. Whether any administration should investigate a past administration is irrelevant. Let's stick to the facts of the case. Trump didn't say he was investigating the Obama administration. He said he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine.

Before I look at Trump's defense I want to hear the allegations and evidence presented by the prosecution. If there is no compelling evidence by the prosecution then I don't have any interest in the case as it is nothing but a political dog and pony show.

You've already made up your mind. Thanks for the discussion.

I don't even personally care if Trump gets impeached, I'm not a supporter and believe him to be a dunce but Democrats have pretty much lost their minds regarding anything that has to do with Trump.
Everybody has lost their minds over Trump, it seems.
 
:sigh:

Post 211
Post 217
Post 436
Post 305

If you want to try to claim that your attempt to goalpost-shift to "quote" means anything semantically, feel free to fail at that, too.



That is, in fact, precisely the issue. That was the accusation YOU laid at my feet in Post 197, and was what started this entire exchange. I tried to let you retract the accusation in post 213, and avoid this whole mess, but instead YOU chose to double down, challenging me to give it my “best shot”.

Well, I did so. I accept that your refusal to deal with what I provided you, combined with your derision of the same "principles" you previously claimed to prioritize, implies your acknowledgement that, in fact, the GOP and so-called "Conservatives" were the ones who changed their positions and principles in order to serve Trump, rather than myself.



If that were the case, you would have been able to answer it, instead of avoiding it and trying desperately to change the subject. :shrug:



:roll: This is only the third time I've had to tell you this. I wholeheartedly agree there are no perfect conservatives because there are no perfect people - we are all fallen. But I can support - and have supported - lots of people from across the conservative spectrum. I supported Bush, McCain, and Romney. In the 2016 Primary, I would have been able to vote for pretty much any of the GOP candidates except for Trump and possibly Carson and Christie (their VP picks would have mattered).

But I support Conservatives. I don't support Republicans. Many people claimed that as their banner - you falsely did earlier – but were, in fact, Republican party / Talk Radio tribal loyalists, who would value Unity Of The Tribe and Support For The Leader way above those silly, replaceable, “Principles”. I also tend to support people who I won’t be personally ashamed of having supported. I didn’t like Romney much or think highly of him as a Conservative (because he wasn’t much of one), but I was never at risk of being ashamed by associating myself with him. I never had to feel like I would be acting immorally to defend his actions and declare them virtuous, as you attempted to do.

It's not that Trump is an imperfect conservative or an imperfect Christian. It's that he is not a Conservative, and he is not a Christian.



The number of people on this forum who care about this data point is precisely one - and it is you. You voting for Trump is not a piece of evidence in his favor.



My seeking of the Perfect Conservative is nonexistant, as (as I told you repeatedly) I don't do such. Are you unwilling, or unable to read and comprehend the posts you are responding to? But does this mean you have finally decided once and for all that I am, in fact, too conservative? Or are you about to change that and go back to accusing me of being someone who is too purist of a conservative, and therefore a leftist? :roll:.

So the fact remains I didn't give you any quotes from O'Reilly? My quotes continue to come from bea.gov, bls.gov and treasury.org which you cannot refute and are what the American people actually are seeing in their own homes and bank account

I am quite willing to read the posts I am responding to and dismiss as nothing but hearsay or partisan anti Trump rhetoric based upon his personality and not the results generated. Results matter not rhetoric. My vote for Trump is support of the results being generated as it is my strong opinion that there isn't a Democrat in the field that would generate those results which then would affect the American people along with state and local revenue. Prove me wrong?
 
You're right, he's wrong, so he needs to reply to your righteousness and you can ignore his lies.

Just say it man. Stop beating around the bush.

The American people will always vote their pocket books and their own self interest. Apparently it is yours to get back to that Obama malaise, massive gov't spending, and greater dependence on the federal bureaucrats. Mine is to see Americans keeping more of what they earn and state/local governments benefiting and spending on infrastructure and social programs. People keeping more of what they earn takes power away from bureaucrats in D.C. States with term limits are under the control of the people, not the federal bureaucrats who control people with federal spending
 
No, that's not my logic at all. You're making a leap without bringing everything along. Whether any administration should investigate a past administration is irrelevant. Let's stick to the facts of the case. Trump didn't say he was investigating the Obama administration. He said he was concerned about corruption in Ukraine.



You've already made up your mind. Thanks for the discussion.


Everybody has lost their minds over Trump, it seems.

You can't be this dense. Biden was a member of the Obama administration and his dealings with Ukraine are the focus of Trump's investigation.
 
5d7886535301d75a6e25a67a1467ac85.jpg

I've never seen a worse picture of someone smoking weed.
The expression on his face would make most people assume weed is a horrible thing to partake of.
Elon Musk should not be allowed to be photographed smoking weed because he's ruining it for everyone else.

There, that's much better! :D

weedandchicks_43984700_1719787764799806_5112176047601375535_n-copy.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom