• 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!

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT

jmotivator said:
No you don't.

The power of the House to subpoena is rooted in authority granted by a House vote... a vote that Schiff didn't have before issuing his subpoenas.

The constitution sets out three coequal branches of Government and a series of checks and balances to ensure that no one branch has primacy over the other. Schiff's foolish "Obstruction of Congress" gambit presumes that the House has superior authority to the other two branches.

The whole foundation of the Democrats argument is patently unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The constitution says the house makes its own rules regarding impeachment. Trump is the first president in history to unilaterally refuse to comply with a lawful impeachment inquiry.

And this, my firends, is the regime cleavage I mentioned earlier. No defense of what was done; so instead, draw into question and diminish the mechanisms of our government itself.

This is why the rift will not be solved.
 
Obscurity said:
I militantly support the constitution; and I oppose you right wingers. For 20 some odd years you've projected your madness onto the democrats. Since Newt and the "Moral Majority" and the "tea Party" and everything else, you've managed to construct a house of cards claiming the left is the problem.

This is unacceptable. History will not look kindly on you folks.
Click to expand...

Based on the bolded, then you should be absolutely 100% opposed to the these articles of impeachment.....right?
 
sjmay said:
Based on the bolded, then you should be absolutely 100% opposed to the these articles of impeachment.....right?
Click to expand...

I 100% support the house's right and authority to impeach a rogue president who is conditioning bipartisan aid to a country we support unilaterally against a geostrategic foe waging an illegal war against them.

I oppose the unitary executive theory you, and others like you, are unwittingly embracing, in your sickening, unamerican, unpatriotic worship of Donald John Trump, rapist, demagogue, mob boss, worthless mushroom dicked little authoritarian wannabe.

Does that tingle you in the right places?
 
Obscurity said:
I 100% support the house's right and authority to impeach a rogue president who is conditioning bipartisan aid to a country we support unilaterally against a geostrategic foe waging an illegal war against them.

I oppose the unitary executive theory you, and others like you, are unwittingly embracing, in your sickening, unamerican, unpatriotic worship of Donald John Trump, rapist, demagogue, mob boss, worthless mushroom dicked little authoritarian wannabe.

Does that tingle you in the right places?
Click to expand...

So then, you don't really support the constitution 100% do you?
 
sjmay said:
So then, you don't really support the constitution 100% do you?
Click to expand...

Of course I do. Anyone who says this isn't impeachable doesn't support the constitution. It's clear none of you have broken out of your sickening little fox news echo chamber. Instead, you pearl clutch, run to your little gun shows, shout to the heavens your theocratic nonsense, declare everyone else bat**** insane, claim only you know DJT and what he means.

It's a cult. And Cultists have no credibility. And I won't treat them, or the words they THINK deserve to be heard that they speak, with even one ounce of respect, or dignity.

Cultists and their leaders do not deserve to be heard.
 
Obscurity said:
I 100% support the house's right and authority to impeach a rogue president who is conditioning bipartisan aid to a country we support unilaterally against a geostrategic foe waging an illegal war against them.

I oppose the unitary executive theory you, and others like you, are unwittingly embracing, in your sickening, unamerican, unpatriotic worship of Donald John Trump, rapist, demagogue, mob boss, worthless mushroom dicked little authoritarian wannabe.

Does that tingle you in the right places?
Click to expand...




I can't imagine what Trump did to you to get a response like that. It's hyperbole at the least.
 
swing_voter said:
I can't imagine what Trump did to you to get a response like that. It's hyperbole at the least.
Click to expand...

Destroyed our government, the respect of the office, empowered a lunatic fringe right wing voter bloc that continues to parrot the rhetoric of seditious traitors like Hannity and others, expanded the power of the executive beyond what I see as a libertarian as acceptable, insults, slanders, smears people including me in his generalizations and tirades.

He is a sickening cult leader, a demagogue of the worst sort.
 
Obscurity said:
Of course I do. Anyone who says this isn't impeachable doesn't support the constitution. It's clear none of you have broken out of your sickening little fox news echo chamber. Instead, you pearl clutch, run to your little gun shows, shout to the heavens your theocratic nonsense, declare everyone else bat**** insane, claim only you know DJT and what he means.

It's a cult. And Cultists have no credibility. And I won't treat them, or the words they THINK deserve to be heard that they speak, with even one ounce of respect, or dignity.

Cultists and their leaders do not deserve to be heard.
Click to expand...

For the 1000th time, I don't have fox, I actually watch the proceedings and I am capable of fully developing my own thoughts.

I think Dershowitz put a huge hole in the Dems theory that these are actual impeachable offenses.

Seems like you on the other hand, swallowed the Dems talking points hook, line, and sinker, and are incapable of moving off of that for whatever reason.

IF Abuse of power is TRULY a constitutional impeachable offense, then the entire lists of President's that Dershowitz recited, could have been impeached for abuse of power, and more can in the future. Is that what you want? To have abuse of power allegations enable impeachment to be wielded as a weapon? Doesn't sound very constitutional does it?
 
sjmay said:
For the 1000th time, I don't have fox, I actually watch the proceedings and I am capable of fully developing my own thoughts.

I think Dershowitz put a huge hole in the Dems theory that these are actual impeachable offenses.

Seems like you on the other hand, swallowed the Dems talking points hook, line, and sinker, and are incapable of moving off of that for whatever reason.

IF Abuse of power is TRULY a constitutional impeachable offense, then the entire lists of President's that Dershowitz recited, could have been impeached for abuse of power, and more can in the future. Is that what you want? To have abuse of power allegations enable impeachment to be wielded as a weapon? Doesn't sound very constitutional does it?
Click to expand...

Abuse of power is absolutely a constitutional impeachable offense. Just because past president's poor behavior wasnt treatedthe way it should does not mean we should turn a blind eye now.

Arguments from hypocrisy are not arguments; they're stating opinion.

Impeachment is a weapon. Against a rogue president ordering political hits (suleimani) and political investigations (Biden).

I support the constitution. Unpatriotic right wingers shielding themselves under their pearl clutching overlords falsehoods do not.
 
Obscurity said:
Abuse of power is absolutely a constitutional impeachable offense. Just because past president's poor behavior wasnt treatedthe way it should does not mean we should turn a blind eye now.

Arguments from hypocrisy are not arguments; they're stating opinion.

Impeachment is a weapon. Against a rogue president ordering political hits (suleimani) and political investigations (Biden).

I support the constitution. Unpatriotic right wingers shielding themselves under their pearl clutching overlords falsehoods do not.
Click to expand...

Impeachment is not a weapon, that's your problem, that's why you don't truly support the Constitution.

The Framers did not want it to be a weapon, at all. In fact, they feared it would be, and that's why they tried to set the bar as high as they could.

This impeachment article, lowers the bar so far, that anytime a future president does something Congress doesn't like, they can impeach him, that's what you are rooting for.
 
HumblePi said:
I just started a thread on this same topic. Maybe I can get a mod to merge the two.

This is actually blockbuster information that will prove exactly what the democrats have impeached Trump for.
Click to expand...

Blockbuster. Yes. This is the one!
 
Obscurity said:
Sorry, you dont get to dictate the terms. You conservatives are all the same.
Click to expand...

:lamo I guess that means you arent all that interested in Boltons testimony after all. You liberals are so predictable.
 
Obscurity said:
Destroyed our government, the respect of the office, empowered a lunatic fringe right wing voter bloc that continues to parrot the rhetoric of seditious traitors like Hannity and others, expanded the power of the executive beyond what I see as a libertarian as acceptable, insults, slanders, smears people including me in his generalizations and tirades.

He is a sickening cult leader, a demagogue of the worst sort.
Click to expand...

You know, there isnt a single word of truth in that hate-filled rant of yours. Not one.
 
itstony said:
This is why there needs to be witnesses. If Trump is so pure in this, what is he hiding?

Multiple sources familiar with Bolton's book told The New York Times that he writes that President Trump personally told him that $391 million in aid to Ukraine should be frozen until Ukrainian officials announced the investigations, including one into the Democratic National Committee.

Bolton book alleges Trump tied Ukraine aid freeze to Biden investigations: NYT | TheHill
Click to expand...

Has Bolton confirmed any of this, or are we supposed to continue relying on what the NYT says, that a confidential source says, that a manuscript says, that Bolton says, that Trump said to Bolton?
 
Tlrmln said:
Has Bolton confirmed any of this, or are we supposed to continue relying on what the NYT says, that a confidential source says, that a manuscript says, that Bolton says, that Trump said to Bolton?
Click to expand...

I think at this point Bolton needs to call a press conference and tell what he knows. If he confirms the story, the senate may very well vote to have him testify. If he does not then it is likely over. The nation is in the midst of a process to remove a president and Bolton is more interested in book sales.
 
Tlrmln said:
Has Bolton confirmed any of this, or are we supposed to continue relying on what the NYT says, that a confidential source says, that a manuscript says, that Bolton says, that Trump said to Bolton?
Click to expand...

No, we're supposed to call him to testify about what Trump told him directly. If he refuses he goes to jail, see how simple?
 
rickc said:
Kind of humorous to me that all the documents, all the witnesses and now bolton who has first hand knowledge all say the same thing.

Trump's defense puts up no witnesses to rebutt the evidence. They just wave their hands and say it is all BS.

Republican Senators

View attachment 67272650
Click to expand...

Too funny

download.jpg
 
Fletch said:
You know, there isnt a single word of truth in that hate-filled rant of yours. Not one.
Click to expand...

Oh FFS, go read his twitter account. Get back to me when you break out of your grotesque media bubble. The man has no dignity, no integrity. He's a chump, a ****ing bum, a loser who inherited a gang of money from his dad and paid a corrupt lawyer to badger local politicians into greasing his ****, and managed to sleaze his way into the presidency.
 
Obscurity said:
Wrong. The constitution says the house makes its own rules regarding impeachment. Trump is the first president in history to unilaterally refuse to comply with a lawful impeachment inquiry.

And this, my firends, is the regime cleavage I mentioned earlier. No defense of what was done; so instead, draw into question and diminish the mechanisms of our government itself.

This is why the rift will not be solved.
Click to expand...

The house makes its own rules about impeachment, but not about the things that are already in the law, like authorization to subpoena.

Easy proof: Could the House just arrest Trump and shoot him in the Rotunda? After all, the House makes the rules! :roll:
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Could he fire her for being a woman?
Click to expand...

Sure. The same way you could replace a male ambassador because you think you need a woman.

Not that I think anyone would ever voice that as the reason for firing an ambassador when you could just as easily claim you have a problem with how they chew with their mouth open and have it be valid, and only distance yourself from some ASMR voters.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The correct answer is no he couldn't. That would violate anti-discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

Well, you missed my point. The president can say any reason they want for firing an ambassador and that is the reason they are fired. It's pretty much impossible to enforce anti-discrimination laws when the president just has to avoid admitting they fired someone for being a member of a protected group.

So you want to fire someone because they are a woman, then just don't say why they were fired. They server at the will of the president, so giving no reason is a sufficient reason.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, you missed my point. The president can say any reason they want for firing an ambassador and that is the reason they are fired. It's pretty much impossible to enforce anti-discrimination laws when the president just has to avoid admitting they fired someone for being a member of a protected group.

So you want to fire someone because they are a woman, then just don't say why they were fired. They server at the will of the president, so giving no reason is a sufficient reason.
Click to expand...

Here you admit that he can't fire one "for any reason". Thanks for proving my point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom