• 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!

Mueller should indict Trump for obstruction before the midterms

Bullseye said:
LOL, you guys always use that faulty logic. You skip right past the very first, and only specific task, to pounce on the boilerplate.
Click to expand...

:lamo...you're running and ducking now.
Yep, that's what "we guys" always do: We use FACTS and OBJECTIVE information! And in this case, the FACTS are that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. And, once corrected, you deflect and obfuscate. Just like a blind ideologue, you are governed by your biases and feelings (which are not dependent, or even based upon, objective data or facts). As you've just demonstrated, you have no use for facts unless those facts serve to reaffirm your existing biases.

Sorry, no. It's not me that doesn't understand the meaning of "evidence". It's you.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. We've already established that much. Sorry.

Show any proof of a collusion between Trump and Russia. Not crap like Manafort's shady business dealing ten years ago. or Papadopous's lying to the FBI.
Click to expand...

Didn't I already tell you to stop using the word "collusion"? You're making yourself look like an idiot. Now, if you want to talk about CONSPIRACY evidence (between Trump and Russia)....there is PLENTY of it already publicly available. We can discuss that, if you wish. Only Mueller knows what he has uncovered, and he's not talking yet. But the public evidence of conspiracy and obstruction by Trump and his incompetent minions is already enough to convict, according to a bunch of former federal prosecutors and DOJ officials.

LOL, your ridiculous buffoonery is funnier. IF you have any actual proof of collusion show it. But first look up what it means.
Click to expand...

Stop saying collusion, Trumpster....unless you enjoy looking like a fool.
 
Excon said:
Your argument sounds far more ridiculous and delusional.
You can't even cite Trump's words or context correctly.
Nothing there shows what you allege.

Your bs is only a reflection of your own delusional arguments.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I've made no attempt to post full quotes from Trump. And I've taken nothing out of context.

Put the pipe down, or something.

Now, if you want to debate something....state your case, and be prepared to defend it with something more credible than your own, strongly-held feelings, ok?

If not, please don't waste my time.
 
ultmd said:
:lamo...you're running and ducking now.
Yep, that's what "we guys" always do: We use FACTS and OBJECTIVE information! And in this case, the FACTS are that you didn't know what the hell you were talking about. And, once corrected, you deflect and obfuscate. Just like a blind ideologue, you are governed by your biases and feelings (which are not dependent, or even based upon, objective data or facts). As you've just demonstrated, you have no use for facts unless those facts serve to reaffirm your existing biases.



Yes, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. We've already established that much. Sorry.



Didn't I already tell you to stop using the word "collusion"? You're making yourself look like an idiot. Now, if you want to talk about CONSPIRACY evidence (between Trump and Russia)....there is PLENTY of it already publicly available. We can discuss that, if you wish. Only Mueller knows what he has uncovered, and he's not talking yet. But the public evidence of conspiracy and obstruction by Trump and his incompetent minions is already enough to convict, according to a bunch of former federal prosecutors and DOJ officials.



Stop saying collusion, Trumpster....unless you enjoy looking like a fool.
Click to expand...
Never mind you aren't worth my time.
 
ultmd said:
What are you talking about? I've made no attempt to post full quotes from Trump. And I've taken nothing out of context.

Put the pipe down, or something.

Now, if you want to debate something....state your case, and be prepared to defend it with something more credible than your own, strongly-held feelings, ok?

If not, please don't waste my time.
Click to expand...
I suggest you follow your own advice, as you are citing his words and saying they say something they do not. And yes, you are doing that without posting quotes, likely because you know they prove what you say wrong.
And before you get hung up on your understanding of the word, I used "cite" as in "to refer to".
 
ultmd said:
LOL, gotta love the way the Trump acolytes cling desperately to the faux facts they've been given.

Anyone claiming that there is no evidence of obstruction by the Trump campaign/administration is either delusional, or dishonest. I've already posted a partial list of things that Trump has done which constitute obstruction of justice.

The "if Mueller had evidence, he'd have indicted Trump by now" argument..............is a reflection of delusion or ignorance from people who neither understand, nor respect, how a special prosecutor investigation is conducted.

The "if the investigation is based on the dossier, it should be shut down" argument............is a classic strawman argument. First, the investigation has NEVER been based on the so-called "dossier"....and, more importantly, while some of the allegations and details of the "dossier" have yet to be validated, the FACTS show that all of the publicly available information that has been corroborated via journalistic investigation...has been VALIDATED. So, any/all attempts by Trump and his acolytes to discredit Christopher Steele and his "dossier"...have failed.

History will note, as the legitimate news industry has already noted, that the people calling the Mueller investigation a "joke", were (are) themselves, the joke. And you will all be the butt of jokes, for as long as you continue to behave as Trumpbots. History also teaches us that, as time passes in the wake of the Trump presidency (which will not end well for him), most of his acolytes will quietly change their tune and pretend that they never supported him and his traitorous, racist policies.
Click to expand...

And if you use any kind of open mind, you would see that everything liberals accuse Trump of doing (without any proof), you can see the said crimes from the Clintons and FBI, with proven documents from said criminals, but let’s over look those.
Why don’t we want to investigate both sides and see for sure, wouldn’t that be the proper thing to do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bullseye said:
Never mind you aren't worth my time.
Click to expand...

LOL, that might be what I'd say if I was someone like you and quickly realized I was in over my head.

But, I'm not like you.

I'm someone who knows enough to not let the fact-free, empty-headed musings of right wingers like you go unchallenged.

You are dismissed.
 
Excon said:
I suggest you follow your own advice, as you are citing his words and saying they say something they do not. And yes, you are doing that without posting quotes, likely because you know they prove what you say wrong.
And before you get hung up on your understanding of the word, I used "cite" as in "to refer to".
Click to expand...

I've posted nothing that I'm not prepared to defend and back up with objective facts and information. I never do.

So, be precise.

What exactly are you talking about? Right now, you're being ambiguous. I posted a few instance in which Trump as admitted obstruction. Which ones do you dispute?
 
MrShangles said:
And if you use any kind of open mind, you would see that everything liberals accuse Trump of doing (without any proof), you can see the said crimes from the Clintons and FBI, with proven documents from said criminals, but let’s over look those.
Why don’t we want to investigate both sides and see for sure, wouldn’t that be the proper thing to do?
Click to expand...

My mind is always open to objective facts and information. Unlike most conservatives, I do not believe that "facts" have ideologies. Contrary to most conservatives' beliefs, there are no 'liberal' facts, nor are there any "conservative" facts.

That said, your argument, above, is just silly.

First, this is not a court room. "Proof" is up to whatever a jury or judge decides. But there is plenty of evidence related to everything I've ever said about Trump and his dealings with Russia. So, be specific. What exactly is your beef?

Next...NO, there were NOT any crimes committed by Clinton with regard to her email server issue. That has already been investigated....by a HOST of republican elected officials, as well as a republican FBI director.....NONE of whom could find even a single indictable "crime". So let's deal with reality and let go of the right wing conspiracy theory nonsense, ok?

There is no "both sides". There is only Trump's dealings with a hostile foreign government during (and after) the 2016 campaign. Clinton's email and Benghazi were both investigated.....for YEARS....by EIGHT different Republican congressional committees, and a Republican FBI director. That witch hunt failed miserably; whereas the current "witch hunt" has already produced about a half dozen witch pelts on the wall, lol.

So, bottom line.......any attempt to make this Trump-Russia scandal a "both sides" issue are just silly, and I think you know it.
 
ultmd said:
I've posted nothing that I'm not prepared to defend and back up with objective facts and information. I never do.

So, be precise.

What exactly are you talking about? Right now, you're being ambiguous. I posted a few instance in which Trump as admitted obstruction. Which ones do you dispute?
Click to expand...

So you don't even know what you were talking about. Figures. And no I wasn't ambiguous. Literally, "nothing there shows what you allege."

If nothing there shows what you allege (of Trump), that would mean everything you said was bs. Everything is not ambiguous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom