• 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!

OK Libs?

iguanaman said:
What I included was a quote from my link. But even still the code DOES say that anything of value is included in the law and there is nothing wrong with clarifying it to include derogatory info about you opponent as one of those things of value. You can't argue about that can you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I can. Because the code clearly is in reference to monetary "donations" or physical goods that have value, i.e. a car. Something tangible that would have value to anyone who receives it.

I'm not arguing that the information wouldn't be valuable to Trumps campaign, but it would only be valuable to them and the actual value cannot be determined since it's not tangible. That's why information is not considered "something of value" in this code.
 
Chomsky said:
At this point, yes!

Unless you chose to recant your accusation.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was about to write that it was actually the poster you were responding to previously that said that, but then I was like "wait a minute....that's all he's going to address?". Hence my reaction.
 
volsrock said:
What law was broke?

So if Clinton met with a lawyer from say Germany that said they had info on Trump?


Russian government? you got proof this lawyer was employed by the Russian government?


col·lu·sion

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others or conspiracy



OK this was not a secret meeting, or illegal...getting dirt on your rival is not cheating
Click to expand...

For Don Jr probably none. Others? We Will see what happens.
 
holbritter said:
Actually, I was about to write that it was actually the poster you were responding to previously that said that, but then I was like "wait a minute....that's all he's going to address?". Hence my reaction.
Click to expand...
Alright.

Anyway, Trump Jr. is the immediate situation in the news and being discussed. But if he or Hillary broke or conspired to break laws, they should be prosecuted. We have no need for criminal behaviour in our government.
 
holbritter said:
All I hope is it be a fair investigation. Both sides did the same thing, so both sides should be investigated. Actually, Jr. didn't actually receive anything, while the Clinton campaign people did receive information from the Ukraine government from their investigation of Trump. Both were candidates at the time, both need to be held to the same rules/laws.
Click to expand...

No. The DNC talked to the Ukraine about Paul Manafort's role in working for the Putin-backed regime. So, I presume, did our own Intelligence officials.

Nobody in the Clinton campaign itself had a clandestine meeting based on a potential quid-pro-quo for dirt on an opponent.

You guys have to stop tap dancing to the tune of "but...but Hillary!" every time Trump does something incompetent, corrupt or just plain stupid.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Absolutely. That's why I want to see the fire, logs, embers and ashes beneath all of this smoke. IMO, you have to be quite over in the CT realm to think this is all 'deep state' or 'lib media'.

If Sessions, Trump, & the GOP don't spike it, we'll get the truth from Mueller. At least I hope so. The 9/11 investigation turned a blind eye to the House of Saud, and I hop that doesn't happen here.

The media (most of it) isn't helping. Maybe after this experience they'll relearn their duty to the Republic. It was absent circa the Bush Jr., & Obama administrations.

If what the investigations add up makes sense, I'll buy it, but they have a lot of explaining to do to excuse the Trump admin.
Click to expand...

Doubtful. That would require not only a new wave of personnel, but an entirely new birth-to-employment training pipeline. :(
 
DiAnna said:
No. The DNC talked to the Ukraine about Paul Manafort's role in working for the Putin-backed regime. So, I presume, did our own Intelligence officials.

Nobody in the Clinton campaign itself had a clandestine meeting based on a potential quid-pro-quo for dirt on an opponent.

You guys have to stop tap dancing to the tune of "but...but Hillary!" every time Trump does something incompetent, corrupt or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

All they have is "But Hillary!" or "But, Obama!", it is tragically hilarious.
 
holbritter said:
Yes, I can. Because the code clearly is in reference to monetary "donations" or physical goods that have value, i.e. a car. Something tangible that would have value to anyone who receives it.

I'm not arguing that the information wouldn't be valuable to Trumps campaign, but it would only be valuable to them and the actual value cannot be determined since it's not tangible. That's why information is not considered "something of value" in this code.
Click to expand...

Now you are the one adding words that are not there. But more importantly you seem to miss the whole purpose of the law which is to prevent a foreign Govt. from using bribery to gain favor with elected officials. What the bribe is "worth" has nothing to do with it whatsoever. It is still a bribe and one that Trump Jr. was anxious to accept too.
 
DiAnna said:
No. The DNC talked to the Ukraine about Paul Manafort's role in working for the Putin-backed regime. So, I presume, did our own Intelligence officials.

Nobody in the Clinton campaign itself had a clandestine meeting based on a potential quid-pro-quo for dirt on an opponent.

You guys have to stop tap dancing to the tune of "but...but Hillary!" every time Trump does something incompetent, corrupt or just plain stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, to the bolded above, not so sure about that, since it's been reported Fusion GPS, and Hillary backers, are involved in this mess.

Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr linked to investigation group behind salacious Steele Dossier | The Independent

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/19/is-russiagate-really-hillarygate/#7b92ad3b5cf6

Although seemingly impossible for some to do, perhaps it would be best to let Mueller and his team do their job.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, to the bolded above, not so sure about that, since it's been reported Fusion GPS, and Hillary backers, are involved in this mess.

Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr linked to investigation group behind salacious Steele Dossier | The Independent

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/06/19/is-russiagate-really-hillarygate/#7b92ad3b5cf6

Although seemingly impossible for some to do, perhaps it would be best to let Mueller and his team do their job.
Click to expand...

LOL.

I was wondering where this crap was coming from.

Reading the article... the source is..... TRUMPS LAWYER!

So it hasn't 'been reported'. It's been claimed by an obvious partisan source who is putting it out there to shill for his client, who's paying him $800/hr to do it.
 
cuban smokes said:
your statement is SPOT ON

Strange thing is, we saw this type scenario before; Watergate ............. we know how that movie ended ..............
Click to expand...
Something to remember:

Nixon still had positive approval ratings and support from the GOP up to the the day he left office! He was only 30% nationally, but north of 50% within the GOP!
 
iguanaman said:
Now you are the one adding words that are not there. But more importantly you seem to miss the whole purpose of the law which is to prevent a foreign Govt. from using bribery to gain favor with elected officials. What the bribe is "worth" has nothing to do with it whatsoever. It is still a bribe and one that Trump Jr. was anxious to accept too.
Click to expand...

No, those are my words trying to describe what "something of value" is. There was no bribe involved.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

I was wondering where this crap was coming from.

Reading the article... the source is..... TRUMPS LAWYER!

So it hasn't 'been reported'. It's been claimed by an obvious partisan source who is putting it out there to shill for his client, who's paying him $800/hr to do it.
Click to expand...

BS. Do some work on your own threegoofs. Nothing has been claimed by a lawyer, it's been proven.

Why don't you prove that isn't true?
 
ocean515 said:
BS. Do some work on your own threegoofs. Nothing has been claimed by a lawyer, it's been proven.

Why don't you prove that isn't true?
Click to expand...

'proven'??

From what you posted, the only source of this information is coming from a spokesman for Trumps personal counsel.

That's about as unreliable a source as Johnnie Cochran telling you OJ didnt do it.


Yet since you cant be bothered to back up your claim, it's somehow my responsibility to 'do some work' to source your wingnuttishness.
 
Threegoofs said:
'proven'??

From what you posted, the only source of this information is coming from a spokesman for Trumps personal counsel.

That's about as unreliable a source as Johnnie Cochran telling you OJ didnt do it.


Yet since you cant be bothered to back up your claim, it's somehow my responsibility to 'do some work' to source your wingnuttishness.
Click to expand...

LOL

I provided two different links. You disagree with what has been reported. Your burden to prove them wrong if you have a problem with them.

Not to worry, you won't, you'll just rant.

:cuckoo:
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

I provided two different links. You disagree with what has been reported. Your burden to prove them wrong if you have a problem with them.

Not to worry, you won't, you'll just rant.

:cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Two links, both pointing out that the source is Trumps personal lawyer...
 
ocean515 said:
And you have provided what in rebuttal? A demand that I provide more?

That dog don't hunt Threegoofs, and you know that.

:peace
Click to expand...

LOL.

This is what you get when you ask a Trumpeteer to back up their claim. An unsupported allegation that *I* have to prove is false.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

This is what you get when you ask a Trumpeteer to back up their claim. An unsupported allegation that *I* have to prove is false.
Click to expand...

LOL

Well, as expected, a hater refuses to back their game, and asks someone who has to do more work.

Can you play to stereotype any better?

:rock
 
Democrat, Republican, Green party or whatever, we're all Americans. We're part of the same family. We may disagree but we all love our country. We don't work with our enemies to attack other Americans. That's disloyalty to your country. Period.

Russia is a hostile foreign power. They've invaded our allies. They hack into our computer systems. Putin assassinates his enemies with radioactive substances or has them shot or imprisoned. Putin runs a vast mafia-like criminal enterprise. Working with Putin is lying making a deal with the Devil. He's going to want something in return. He's not helping you because he's kind and generous, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom