• 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

iguanaman said:
That is exactly what every single witness has said so I assume it is true. It's not like there is any disagreement in the testimonies is there? You act like this is a revelation of some sort.
Click to expand...

Quit lying.

No witnesses have said any such thing.
 
ecofarm said:
I like how the redundant adjectives of hackery can go both ways. Like "lefty liberal socialist democrats". "Nonpartisan unbiased objective history". See? Same thing.
Click to expand...

Same thing is what you do daily, personal vendetta against the President of the U.S. on an issue that is irrelevant with no broken laws except in your own mind. There is nothing independent in anything you post, pure liberalism and basically promotion of the entitlement mentality and social engineering by the bureaucrats I D.C.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Read this decision and then tell me my contention is without legal merit and represents my personal opinion alone:

COMMITTEE ON JUD., US HOUSE OF REPRES. v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 – CourtListener.com

Pay attention to this section:





We already know how the Court is likely to rule. We know this based on the logic of the Constitution, and the rulings in the previous cases.

If you'd like to offer a rebuttal, I'm all ears, but that would require you to exert some effort to actually study this issue.
Click to expand...

Well, before I get too far into this, you'll have to explain to me exactly how a potential legal issue to be rightfully decided by the federal courts makes Trump the problem when the case has not been presented to the courts to start with. Further, the case involving Miers was not one involving national security or foreign policy. Foreign policy and national security issues are those in which the courts have granted the president significant leeway in the claim of executive privilege.

Respectfully, we do not know how a court is going to rule on such issues until they do, and unless the U.S. SC is the first to make a ruling, appeal is guaranteed.
 
Conservative said:
Just redundant anti Trump arguments on different threads. Such a vendetta, why?
Click to expand...

That's a lie. Why do you lie about members?

I support the tax cut, the Iranian strike and moving the embassy. I also defend Trump against the misconstruing of "fine people".

Lying is all you have. Well, and redundant adjectives.
 
Conservative said:
Please give it your best shot, I don't worship Trump and don't worship any President, but I do recognize results. I recognize that this is a fishing expedition and witch hunt by people who don't want to support the changes Trump is initiating. Before you enter into something you wish you hadn't I suggest you read O'Reilly's book The United States of Trump, a very non partisan unbiased objective history of Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

[emoji38] sure. I'll keep it on the shelf next to "What Happened", the very non partisan unbiased look at the 2016 election by Hillary Clinton. [emoji14]

Is Trump a true conservative, probably not
Click to expand...

Indeed. If your response is to agree that he's not a Conservative, I have to ask why, exactly, you think that it's odd that Conservativism would so often juxtapose against him.

although I really have no idea what a true conservative is
Click to expand...

If you have no idea what a Conservative is, how and why do you claim to be one?

Based upon what I am reading doubt there is anyone who would meet your definition of a true conservative as your standards defy reality.
Click to expand...

I've supported a broad range of conservatives - who often disagreed with each other, but who all fell broadly within the sphere of conservativism. I'm a fan of honest debate and - prior to 2015 - thought the greater intellectual and ideological diversity within the conservative movement a strength. I've since learned that most of those claiming "conservative" as an identity were really "Republicans" or "people who listen to talk radio" or "anti-leftists". :(

Carry on and give me your best shot. I have always respected you and your opinions but this one I disagree with but that doesn't mean I respect you any less
Click to expand...

Well, that's kind, and I thank you. Do me the favor, then, or recognizing that - on this - I haven't changed a whit since I was warning in 2015 that Trump was a big-government progressive by instinct, and certainly no conservative. I maintained conservative positions on trade, on foreign policy, on individual liberties - the GOP chose Trump instead.


I have no loyalty to a party but loyalty to an ideology
Click to expand...

Respectfully, were that true of "conservatives" writ large, they would have been more unwilling to sacrifice the latter to the former :(
 
cpwill;1071249887][emoji38] sure. I'll keep it on the shelf next to "What Happened", the very non partisan unbiased look at the 2016 election by Hillary Clinton. [emoji14]

Indeed. If your response is to agree that he's not a Conservative, I have to ask why, exactly, you think that it's odd that Conservativism would so often juxtapose against him.
Click to expand...

because the question was is he a true Conservative and of course I don't believe there is any political person that can make that claim and back it up 100%. Looks to me like the major conservatives values are being promoted, so why don't you tell me which ones aren't and please don't go to the deficit issue without providing specifics on the line items that Trump controls?



If you have no idea what a Conservative is, how and why do you claim to be one?

I've supported a broad range of conservatives - who often disagreed with each other, but who all fell broadly within the sphere of conservativism. I'm a fan of honest debate and - prior to 2015 - thought the greater intellectual and ideological diversity within the conservative movement a strength. I've since learned that most of those claiming "conservative" as an identity were really "Republicans" or "people who listen to talk radio" or "anti-leftists". :(
Click to expand...

Again being a conservative is something I have been since I was old enough to vote, starting with being a Conservative Democrat promoting the private sector economic policies. that is what JFK supported and proposed. That party left me so I had a choice, vote for the candidate closest to my ideology or stay home, I chose the former. I voted for Trump to get the results we are getting today and will do the same in 2020. there is no valid reason to vote for a Democrat


Well, that's kind, and I thank you. Do me the favor, then, or recognizing that - on this - I haven't changed a whit since I was warning in 2015 that Trump was a big-government progressive by instinct, and certainly no conservative. I maintained conservative positions on trade, on foreign policy, on individual liberties - the GOP chose Trump instead.
Click to expand...

The problem is we were given a choice Hillary or Trump, I chose wisely, refusing to stay home and voting for what I had hoped would be the results we are getting today. A true conservative won't stay home and let the radical Democratic Party give is a non viable alternative all out of principle. My principle remains keep the liberals out of power the best way possible and that is Trump. It has been proven that the liberal base is strong and full of radicals with none of their minds ever changed, that puts them in complete power because people like you let your principles overcome logic and common sense. Isn't Trump better than Hillary or any of the Democrats running for the office?
 
ecofarm said:
That's a lie. Why do you lie about members?

I support the tax cut, the Iranian strike and moving the embassy. I also defend Trump against the misconstruing of "fine people".

Lying is all you have. Well, and redundant adjectives.
Click to expand...

If you can point me to a positive post about Trump in any of your thread posts I will officially apologize? I have seen no evidence of what you claim, maybe I missed it as I am on many threads right now. IMO, the Ukraine issue doesn't even come close to the tax cuts, Iranian Strike, or moving of the Embassy in Israel. Nor does it trump the economic results being generated.

I have constantly stated that I don't like Trump, have never liked Trump but voted for Trump for the results we are getting today, none of the vendettas against Trump making any sense as they don't impact you, your family, or anyone else in the country, nothing like the harm that Obama did or the Democrats running for the office would do with a Pelosi led House
 
humbolt said:
Well, before I get too far into this, you'll have to explain to me exactly how a potential legal issue to be rightfully decided by the federal courts makes Trump the problem when the case has not been presented to the courts to start with.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this general notion that the President should be allowed to temporarily do unconstitutional things just because the Supreme Court has not yet stepped in to forbid that specific unconstitutional action the President is engaged in, short of some sort of immediate and existential national crisis. I think the President has the duty to REFRAIN from doing unconstitutional things, to begin with.

And, keep in mind, Trump is not refuting some aspect of the various subpoenas. Trump is refusing nearly every aspect of nearly every subpoena. This sort of blanket stonewalling is not supported by the U.S. Constitution, by the case law, or by our political traditions. It has no precedent. And it is so far outside the scope of what the President's authority is, and should be, that I consider the act of asserting such a legal argument, on Trump's Part, to be tyrannical in nature. If Trump thinks our Presidents should be above the law. **** him. Get him out. Remove him from office. And if you actually cherished the U.S. Constitution and the general political philosophy of the Framers of the Constitution that would be your opinion too.

Let me give you an example, what if Trump, tomorrow, decreed by Executive Order, that Congress is dissolved?

How long would Congress wait, or how long would even just regular American citizens wait, for the Supreme Court to judge the legitimacy of the Executive Order before Trump is frog-marched out of the White House?

Further, the case involving Miers was not one involving national security or foreign policy. Foreign policy and national security issues are those in which the courts have granted the president significant leeway in the claim of executive privilege.
Click to expand...

The courts have not "granted" the President the ability to forbid senior aides from testifying before Congress, even those related to foreign policy and national security, in fact, according to Miers and the recent case decided by Jackson involving McGahn, they have expressly rejected the notion.

Respectfully, we do not know how a court is going to rule on such issues until they do, and unless the U.S. ST is the first to make a ruling, appeal is guaranteed.
Click to expand...

This is not true. We have a good idea of how the Supreme Court is likely to rule. The logic of the framework of Executive Privilege, as it exists now, based on the previous rulings of the courts both at the Supreme Court and the lower levels gives us an idea of the way things have worked and the way things should work.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
If you can point me to a positive post about Trump in any of your thread posts I will officially apologize?
Click to expand...

On "fine people":

ecofarm said:
There's a video. Some people will tell you he says it right there. Just like some people tell you Hillary meant Russian agent. Just like some people will tell you Bush was announcing the end of US involvement. Just like some people will tell you Hillary meant the deaths when she asked 'what does it matter now'.

All political hit jobs. All objected to by me.
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
You should stop believing wing rags and their politically convenient interpretations. Or join the crowd that claims Trump called nazis "fine people".
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
"Fine people" is a lie of context, just like "mission accomplished" and "what does it matter".
Click to expand...

ecofarm said:
You know I've always maintained Trump was referring to the debate upon which the event was advertised. I bet I can find such a proclamation with a 'like' by you.

You know I don't believe he said there are fine nazis. You don't believe that either.

But still you make the joke. Scruples.
Click to expand...


I could go on about that but, next, the strike against Iran:

ecofarm said:
Don't tempt me to, for the first time, employ the term TDS.


Read the wiki. Your claims are ignorant bs.
Click to expand...



You want the tax cut quotes or the embassy moving quotes? I could give you more about the strike against Iran, but I think contemplating claiming someone has TDS is sufficient.
 
ecofarm said:
On "fine people":










I could go on about that but, next, the strike against Iran:





You want the tax cut quotes or the embassy moving quotes? I could give you more about the strike against Iran, but I think contemplating claiming someone has TDS is sufficient.
Click to expand...

NOPE, what I want is for people like you to explain the vendetta against Trump over a non issue, one that doesn't resonate with the American people only the radicals.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says - The New York Times

Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says



After this revelation, the likelihood that at least some witnesses will be called is now significantly greater.

This, combined with the Parnas revelations, make it significantly more difficult to refute the argument that more witnesses are not necessary.
Click to expand...

Bolton has proved himself to be even more of a chickenhawk than I previously believed.
Not only has he made a lifetime career of banging the war drum while studiously avoiding service WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY becoming famous for angry tirades that were worth the ticket price of admission, he has now scored a book deal from acting like a coward and hiding behind technicalities that a fifth grader would ignore.

He is perhaps the biggest coward of them all, and I want to see him strung up by his genitalia no matter what his book says.
 
Conservative said:
NOPE, what I want is for people like you to explain the vendetta against Trump over a non issue, one that doesn't resonate with the American people only the radicals.
Click to expand...

That's dishonest scumbaggery. I demonstrated my support of Trump's actions and my defense of Trump's words. And you will continue to lie about members.
 
ecofarm said:
That's dishonest scumbaggery. I demonstrated my support of Trump's actions and my defense of Trump's words. And you will continue to lie about members.
Click to expand...

Then you can't explain it either, got it!
 
Fiddytree said:
The ancients understood that democracy, while purporting to stand for what the masses want, can easily become corrupted into becoming what one man says the masses want.
And then the masses gleefully enter in a contract with the man to become their wish fulfillment, whether the masses even know what their wishes are or not. By then it is too late. He and they became the state.
Click to expand...

Gordon Woods in The Radicalism of the American Revolution, reported that in their later lives, John Adams and Madison were unhappy with the way the American political system had turned out. They feared it had become too democratic and therefore prey to an uneducated, uninterested common folk too easily swayed by passions rather then their intellect.

I'd say we hadn't really seen that skepticism completely vindicated until Trump got elected.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
I don't agree with this general notion that the President should be allowed to temporarily do unconstitutional things just because the Supreme Court has not yet stepped in to forbid that specific unconstitutional action the President is engaged in. I think the President has the duty to REFRAIN from doing unconstitutional things, to begin with.
Click to expand...

Again, you believe it to be unconstitutional. You are not the SC. I believed that Obama's DACA was unconstitutional. And even Obama himself claimed it was beforehand, but it remains because it hasn't been presented to the court for a ruling. I've never argued here about it one way or the other because until the court rules on it, if it should ever see the case, it remains in effect. The same circumspection is required here for thoughtful people.

And, keep in mind, Trump is not refuting some aspect of the various subpoenas. Trump is refusing nearly every aspect of nearly every subpoena. This sort of blanket stonewalling is not supported by the U.S. Constitution, by the case law, or by our political traditions. It has no precedent. And it is so far outside the scope of what the President's authority is, and should be, that I consider the act of asserting such a right to be tyrannical in nature. If Trump thinks our Presidents should be above the law. **** him. Get him out. Remove him from office. And if you actually cherished the U.S. Constitution and the general political philosophy of the Framers of the Constitution that would be your opinion too.
Click to expand...

That Trump is consistent would naturally be another way of looking at it. Of course, that Schiff denied those potential witnesses the right of counsel, which is unprecedented by the way, could be another reason. When you wrap yourself in the constitution, try to remember that due process is also in that wrapping element you claim to be so fond of.



The courts have not "granted" the President the ability to forbid senior aides from testifying before Congress, even those related to foreign policy and national security, in fact, according to Miers and the recent case decided by Jackson involving McGahn, they have expressly rejected the notion.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I predict no outcome unless and until the courts actually receive, hear, and rule on the case. Why didn't you prevail upon Schiff and Nadler to pursue it, and especially so if you're so certain of the outcome?



This is not true. We have some idea of how the Supreme Court is likely to rule. The logic of the framework of Executive Privilege, as it exists now, based on the previous rulings of the courts both at the Supreme Court and the lower levels gives an idea of the way things should work.[/QUOTE

Please see the immediate above.
Click to expand...
 
Impeachment Live: Trump’s Defense Brings Up Giuliani and Due Process but Not Bolton

President Trump’s defense lawyers are arguing about the originating basis of the House’s impeachment inquiry and the president’s rights of due process and executive privilege. So far, they have also offered an alternative rationale for why he froze security aid for Ukraine, ignoring revelations from the president’s former national security adviser that directly contradict their case. John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser, revealed in a manuscript that Mr. Trump wanted to continue freezing security aid to Ukraine until he got help with investigations into Democrats, and calls are intensifying for witnesses to appear in the trial.

For the first time, President Trump’s defense team focused on his personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. Jane Raskin argued that Democrats presented Mr. Giuliani as playing a key role in an effort to pressure Ukraine to announce politically motivated investigations, but did not subpoena him because he would not have supported their case.

Republicans are angrily pressing the White House in private about the revelations from the manuscript, saying they were blindsided by the former adviser’s account — especially because the administration has had a copy of it since Dec. 30. Many Republicans have adopted the arguments offered by Mr. Trump’s defense team, but Mr. Bolton’s assertions directly contradict them.
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
You ask and beg like a needy woman. How about I get my apology first.
Click to expand...

Look, the needy person seems to be you but I really don't see much positive Trump posts in those of yours but what the hell, if you supported the tax cuts, the Iranian action, and the move of the Embassy, great, I apologize, Now explain to me why this issue of Ukraine seems to trump anything positive that Trump has done?
 
vegas giants said:
Good. Then you want to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney
Click to expand...

Indeed to include of course Lt.-Col. Vindman who listened in on the call as a part of his duties.




Fiddytree said:
The ancients understood that democracy, while purporting to stand for what the masses want, can easily become corrupted into becoming what one man says the masses want.

And then the masses gleefully enter in a contract with the man to become their wish fulfillment, whether the masses even know what their wishes are or not. By then it is too late. He and they became the state.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

In the US we've never had a state counteraction against such a state.

The reason is of course that in the US we've never had such a state.

I am certain that if such a corrupted and outrageous state did install itself there would be a broad based civilian-military counteraction of state to dismiss the corrupted government forthwith. I am confident of this in the absolute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom