• 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!

Republicans, do you have the guts to ask yourself this question and answer it honestly?

OscarLevant

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
16,876
Reaction score
7,398
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If a democratic president withheld needed arms to a country who needed those arms to fight Russia who is attacking them, arms appropriated by congress, and just after they were withheld,
that democratic president wanted the leader of that country to investigate that president's opponent in an effort to discredit that opponent in order to improve that president's reelection bid,
and the timing of that request made it chrystal clear the two were tied to each other, despite the "plausible deniability" of a clever president's wording, would you be okay with a democratic president doing this?

Don't give me this crap that Trump hasn't done this, he's been on TV every day saying he wants China and Ukraine to investigate biden, WHEN THERE NO EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTS.


If a democratic president accused a republican intel committee chief of violating his oath of office where that Intel chief was doing a routine handling of a whistleblower complaint, the violation of which is to help the whistleblower craft the complaint, when there is in point of fact absolutely no evidence, just the fact that accusing the intel chief forwards the democratt's agenda, would you be okay with that?


Would you, really?
 
OscarLevant said:
If a democratic president withheld needed arms to a country who needed those arms to fight Russia who is attacking them, arms appropriated by congress, and just after they were withheld,
that democratic president wanted the leader of that country to investigate that president's opponent in an effort to discredit that opponent in order to improve that president's reelection bid,
and the timing of that request made it chrystal clear the two were tied to each other, despite the "plausible deniability" of a clever president's wording, would you be okay with a democratic president doing this?

Don't give me this crap that Trump hasn't done this, he's been on TV every day saying he wants China and Ukraine to investigate biden, WHEN THERE NO EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTS.


If a democratic president accused a republican intel committee chief of violating his oath of office where that Intel chief was doing a routine handling of a whistleblower complaint, the violation of which is to help the whistleblower craft the complaint, when there is in point of fact absolutely no evidence, just the fact that accusing the intel chief forwards the democratt's agenda, would you be okay with that?


Would you, really?
Click to expand...
I think you should ask yourself your question

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
OscarLevant said:
If a democratic president withheld needed arms to a country who needed those arms to fight Russia who is attacking them, arms appropriated by congress, and just after they were withheld,
that democratic president wanted the leader of that country to investigate that president's opponent in an effort to discredit that opponent in order to improve that president's reelection bid,
and the timing of that request made it chrystal clear the two were tied to each other, despite the "plausible deniability" of a clever president's wording, would you be okay with a democratic president doing this?

Don't give me this crap that Trump hasn't done this, he's been on TV every day saying he wants China and Ukraine to investigate biden, WHEN THERE NO EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTS.


If a democratic president accused a republican intel committee chief of violating his oath of office where that Intel chief was doing a routine handling of a whistleblower complaint, the violation of which is to help the whistleblower craft the complaint, when there is in point of fact absolution no evidence, just the fact that accusing the intel chief forwards the democratt's agenda, would you be okay with that?
Click to expand...

Read this

 
Republicans like this corruption.

Similar to people in John Gotti's neighborhood.
 
Here's what you need to remember every time it occurs to you to ask a "Just answer this, Republicans" type of question: they hate you. Calculate that into your expectations before you click "start new thread."
 
Cardinal said:
Here's what you need to remember every time it occurs to you to ask a "Just answer this, Republicans" type of question: they hate you. Calculate that into your expectations before you click "start new thread."
Click to expand...

When Rush Limbaugh took what we all learned in church, wrapped it in the flag and promoted Republicans while painting every Democrat as Satan I knew we were in trouble.
 
OscarLevant said:
If a democratic president withheld needed arms to a country who needed those arms to fight Russia who is attacking them, arms appropriated by congress, and just after they were withheld,
that democratic president wanted the leader of that country to investigate that president's opponent in an effort to discredit that opponent in order to improve that president's reelection bid,
and the timing of that request made it chrystal clear the two were tied to each other, despite the "plausible deniability" of a clever president's wording, would you be okay with a democratic president doing this?

Don't give me this crap that Trump hasn't done this, he's been on TV every day saying he wants China and Ukraine to investigate biden, WHEN THERE NO EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTS.


If a democratic president accused a republican intel committee chief of violating his oath of office where that Intel chief was doing a routine handling of a whistleblower complaint, the violation of which is to help the whistleblower craft the complaint, when there is in point of fact absolutely no evidence, just the fact that accusing the intel chief forwards the democratt's agenda, would you be okay with that?


Would you, really?
Click to expand...

Hmm... didn't Obama do just that (bolded above)?

Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine - The New York Times
 
You won't get an honest answer. You'll get this crap.

The Ukranian prosecutor was corrupt. The EU, IMF and Ukranian anti-corruption groups wanted him gone. Even Republicans in Congress wanted him gone...

CNN uncovered a letter dated February 12, 2016, in which Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Ron Johnson (R-WI), and Mark Kirk (R-IL), along with several Democratic senators, called for Ukraine’s then-president to “press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General’s office and judiciary.” Four days later, Shokin resigned (although he didn’t officially leave until the following month when Ukraine’s Parliament voted him out).

In other words, both Republicans and Democrats in the US — and many European nations — wanted Shokin gone for failing to clamp down on graft.
Click to expand...

This 2016 letter proves GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense - Vox

GhostlyJoe said:
Read this

Click to expand...
 
Republicans and honesty have not been uttered together in the same sentence for a long time.
 
OscarLevant said:
If a democratic president withheld needed arms to a country who needed those arms to fight Russia who is attacking them, arms appropriated by congress, and just after they were withheld,
that democratic president wanted the leader of that country to investigate that president's opponent in an effort to discredit that opponent in order to improve that president's reelection bid,
and the timing of that request made it chrystal clear the two were tied to each other, despite the "plausible deniability" of a clever president's wording, would you be okay with a democratic president doing this?

Don't give me this crap that Trump hasn't done this, he's been on TV every day saying he wants China and Ukraine to investigate biden, WHEN THERE NO EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTS.


If a democratic president accused a republican intel committee chief of violating his oath of office where that Intel chief was doing a routine handling of a whistleblower complaint, the violation of which is to help the whistleblower craft the complaint, when there is in point of fact absolutely no evidence, just the fact that accusing the intel chief forwards the democratt's agenda, would you be okay with that?


Would you, really?
Click to expand...

Republicans don't know what honesty is. And Trump cultists believe honesty is a weakness for suckers and losers. They voted for Trump because of his cruelty, not in spite of it.

If Obama had done anything remotely as insidious as the things that Trump has done, Republicans would have voted for impeachment 60 times...instead of voting to repeal ObamaCare 60 times.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I'm out of NYTimes reads but if I remember the story Obama didn't want the war to escalate. He provided aid in other forms.

Trump withheld aid in order to coerce the Ukranian president to help him politically be investigating Biden.
Click to expand...

Trump delayed aid and had stated other reasons for doing so.
 
OscarLevant said:
If a democratic president withheld needed arms to a country who needed those arms to fight Russia who is attacking them, arms appropriated by congress, and just after they were withheld,
that democratic president wanted the leader of that country to investigate that president's opponent in an effort to discredit that opponent in order to improve that president's reelection bid,
and the timing of that request made it chrystal clear the two were tied to each other, despite the "plausible deniability" of a clever president's wording, would you be okay with a democratic president doing this?

Don't give me this crap that Trump hasn't done this, he's been on TV every day saying he wants China and Ukraine to investigate biden, WHEN THERE NO EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTS.


If a democratic president accused a republican intel committee chief of violating his oath of office where that Intel chief was doing a routine handling of a whistleblower complaint, the violation of which is to help the whistleblower craft the complaint, when there is in point of fact absolutely no evidence, just the fact that accusing the intel chief forwards the democratt's agenda, would you be okay with that?


Would you, really?
Click to expand...

What a joke!! Is this how you build a strawman? And you want honesty?
 
"Republicans, do you have the guts to ask yourself this question and answer it honestly?"


Democrats, ask yourselves ... Do you feel lucky after today's fiasco with pencil-neck Schiff and Kurt Volker? :lol:
 
OscarLevant said:
If a democratic president withheld needed arms to a country who needed those arms to fight Russia who is attacking them, arms appropriated by congress, and just after they were withheld, that democratic president wanted the leader of that country to investigate that president's opponent in an effort to discredit that opponent in order to improve that president's reelection bid, and the timing of that request made it chrystal clear the two were tied to each other, despite the "plausible deniability" of a clever president's wording, would you be okay with a democratic president doing this?
Click to expand...

A) Correlation is not causation. The timing of the withholding of the funds is suspicious but does not by itself make it "crystal clear" the two were tied to each other. In fact, when the money was finally released, Ukranian officials said there did not even know the money was being withheld. A necessary component of withholding money to compel an investigation is that the withholdees are aware of the quid-pro-quo.

A better example of money being withheld to compel acquiescence would be when Biden proudly confessed doing the same thing. Do you have the guts to ask yourself why and honestly answer it?

B) While Biden is certainly a candidate, that doesn't make him immune from investigations. In fact, before we entrust him with the highest office in the land, we need to make DAMN sure he's not dirty.

Don't give me this crap that Trump hasn't done this, he's been on TV every day saying he wants China and Ukraine to investigate biden, WHEN THERE NO EVIDENCE OF ILLEGAL ACTS.
Click to expand...

There's Biden's own confession. That's about as strong as evidence gets.

If a democratic president accused a republican intel committee chief of violating his oath of office where that Intel chief was doing a routine handling of a whistleblower complaint, the violation of which is to help the whistleblower craft the complaint, when there is in point of fact absolutely no evidence, just the fact that accusing the intel chief forwards the democratt's agenda, would you be okay with that?

Would you, really?
Click to expand...

You mean if a Dem president sicced the FBI onto a candidate with a tainted FISA warrant and had his phones tapped? No, I would not be okay with that. OTOH, I'm fine with what Trump is doing because there's actual evidence of Biden's abuse of his office.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
You won't get an honest answer. You'll get this crap.

The Ukranian prosecutor was corrupt. The EU, IMF and Ukranian anti-corruption groups wanted him gone. Even Republicans in Congress wanted him gone...



This 2016 letter proves GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense - Vox
Click to expand...

Biden is literally taking credit for the dismissal in that video. Now you're implying that three senators sent a letter and that's what did it, huh? Come on. The OP said there's no evidence. There is just as much evidence to accuse Biden as there is Trump. A little intellectual honesty would go a long way, especially considering this is the exact incident that Trump was referring to in his phone call with the Ukrainian president. Your stance really only makes sense if you cast Biden's actions in the best possible light and Trump's in the worst possible.
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
I think you should ask yourself your question

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's more of an attempted dodge, than an actual dodge, let alone answering the question.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Trump delayed aid and had stated other reasons for doing so.
Click to expand...

Well, heck. Trump giving his personal attorney the authority of the AG of the United States, and the official backing of the White House, to dig up dirt on Biden that will be 'very, very helpful' to Trump and, who knows, might benefit the United States is AOK! After all, if there's no explicit quid pro quo, what could be the problem in that?
 
Barnacle said:
"Republicans, do you have the guts to ask yourself this question and answer it honestly?"


Democrats, ask yourselves ... Do you feel lucky after today's fiasco with pencil-neck Schiff and Kurt Volker? :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean when the whistleblower came to Schiff and Schiff told him to take it through the proper channels?
 
eman623 said:
A) Correlation is not causation. The timing of the withholding of the funds is suspicious but does not by itself make it "crystal clear" the two were tied to each other. In fact, when the money was finally released, Ukranian officials said there did not even know the money was being withheld. A necessary component of withholding money to compel an investigation is that the withholdees are aware of the quid-pro-quo.

A better example of money being withheld to compel acquiescence would be when Biden proudly confessed doing the same thing. Do you have the guts to ask yourself why and honestly answer it?

B) While Biden is certainly a candidate, that doesn't make him immune from investigations. In fact, before we entrust him with the highest office in the land, we need to make DAMN sure he's not dirty.



There's Biden's own confession. That's about as strong as evidence gets.



You mean if a Dem president sicced the FBI onto a candidate with a tainted FISA warrant and had his phones tapped? No, I would not be okay with that. OTOH, I'm fine with what Trump is doing because there's actual evidence of Biden's abuse of his office.
Click to expand...

Money Shmoney, arms were withheld and that is pain they felt, such pain the relief of which came in the form of a simple question "would you do me a favor?"

Repubs are not going to get away with this word play as any fool can see through repub criminality

Did Biden do a quid pro quo to benefit himself or the United States?

Politicians horse-trade all the time as long as the quo of the quid is in the United States interest and not the furtherance of the politicians interest. It seems I have to repeat this message over and over again
 
Last edited:
CaughtInThe said:
When Rush Limbaugh took what we all learned in church, wrapped it in the flag and promoted Republicans while painting every Democrat as Satan I knew we were in trouble.
Click to expand...

if you are learning something in church, I question your fountain of wisdom
 
HAL9000 said:
That's more of an attempted dodge, than an actual dodge, let alone answering the question.
Click to expand...
I dont engage when the question is blatantly dishonest. If you want to indulge the op by joining in his political circle jerk, be my guest.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom