• 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!

Here's a House Member who gets it.

trixare4kids said:
Rep. Michael Waltz@RepMichaelWaltz
"I’m potentially expected to vote on impeaching the President of the United States, yet as a member of Congress I’m not “allowed” to see transcripts of the witness testimony?

If my Democratic colleagues truly care about the constitution & not politics, they will demand the same."

Rep. Michael Waltz on Twitter: "I’m potentially expected to vote on impeaching the President of the United States, yet as a member of Congress I’m not “allowed” to see transcripts of the witness testimony?

If my Democratic colleagues truly care about the constitution & not politics, they will demand the same.… https://t.co/YNHBdJQLBG"

So why aren't Waltz's colleagues demanding the same? We're only getting what they want us to hear, tidbits and leaks made to the media. Who exactly does this benefit?
Click to expand...

Well, maybe you guys should have prevailed upon your mobbed up Prezzy-dint and begged him not to do the equivalent of Solozzo sending a fish wrapped in newspaper to their families.
That's one of the reasons much of this IS happening behind closed doors, or did you forget that Donald Trump has been issuing fatwahs on the heads of all the folks who felt inspired to talk?

f132ca7de4e6a7675e94f66a3c5cc82f--caricature-art-celebrity-caricatures.jpg


(I searched for severed horse head gifs but they were all pretty intense but you get the point)
 
akyron said:
King Beeto Hussein Oroarke isn't so much an office as a proud mantle to wear.

He needs to come back and pick up the trash he left everywhere in the state.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you don't actually have a point, just name calling. Unfortunately what the right has fallen to these days.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Mitch McConnell on line 1......something about job one being to make Obama a one term president.

John Boehner on line 2, by the way.....something about doing everything they can to make sure nothing Obama supports goes anywhere.

Please dont act like Republicans didnt come out and openly adopt this policy...for ****s sake....it hasnt even been 10 years since they pulled this ****.
Click to expand...

Obama should have been a no term president. That aside, there is no reason not to pass USMCA for example. It only languishes because the Dems won't give Trump anything, even when it's good for the country. They don't care about the country, only their warped ideology and Trump hate.
 
rocket88 said:
That's fine, but you're missing my point altigether. Trump's record on gun bans is worse than Obama's and your retort is that it's a small number of people. If a right doesn't extend to everyone it isn't a right.
Click to expand...

What guns is Trump banning? A bumpstock is not a gun.
 
veritas1 said:
Obama should have been a no term president. That aside, there is no reason not to pass USMCA for example. It only languishes because the Dems won't give Trump anything, even when it's good for the country. They don't care about the country, only their warped ideology and Trump hate.
Click to expand...

Youre upset about one piece of legislation?

The 569 House passed bills that are in Mitchs pocket currently would like for you to advocate for them as well.

Im sure you could probably get a 1 to 1 trade deal going if you really tried. Get on your congress critter about that.
 
veritas1 said:
Obama should have been a no term president. That aside, there is no reason not to pass USMCA for example. It only languishes because the Dems won't give Trump anything, even when it's good for the country. They don't care about the country, only their warped ideology and Trump hate.
Click to expand...

One other thing regarding the no term president thing....the people apparently disagreed with you TWICE, and in larger numbers than in your beloved Trumps election to boot. Both times Obama won, he had more electoral votes than Trump got in his election.

So neither his inaugural turnout nor his vote total were as large as he claimed they were....lol
 
Acadia said:
Now the Dems are calling this "taking depositions".
Click to expand...

And for anyone who is interested, there are rules when taking "depositions".

Deposition legal definition of deposition

After the examining attorney's questions are completed, the attorney representing the adverse party in the litigation is permitted to ask followup questions to clarify or emphasize the deponent's testimony. In litigation involving a number of represented parties, any other attorney present may also ask questions.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Youre upset about one piece of legislation?

The 569 House passed bills that are in Mitchs pocket currently would like for you to advocate for them as well.

Im sure you could probably get a 1 to 1 trade deal going if you really tried. Get on your congress critter about that.
Click to expand...

I'll advocate for anything that I think is good policy. However, you need both sides to participate.
 
veritas1 said:
I'll advocate for anything that I think is good policy. However, you need both sides to participate.
Click to expand...

Same apparently applies to those in Congress. They apparently disagree with you that the USMCA is good policy. Thats kinda how works.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Same apparently applies to those in Congress. They apparently disagree with you that the USMCA is good policy. Thats kinda how works.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They disagree that Trump should get any legislative victories.
 
ocean515 said:
And for anyone who is interested, there are rules when taking "depositions".

Deposition legal definition of deposition

After the examining attorney's questions are completed, the attorney representing the adverse party in the litigation is permitted to ask followup questions to clarify or emphasize the deponent's testimony. In litigation involving a number of represented parties, any other attorney present may also ask questions.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for this information.
 
trixare4kids said:
Rep. Michael Waltz@RepMichaelWaltz
"I’m potentially expected to vote on impeaching the President of the United States, yet as a member of Congress I’m not “allowed” to see transcripts of the witness testimony?

If my Democratic colleagues truly care about the constitution & not politics, they will demand the same."

Rep. Michael Waltz on Twitter: "I’m potentially expected to vote on impeaching the President of the United States, yet as a member of Congress I’m not “allowed” to see transcripts of the witness testimony?

If my Democratic colleagues truly care about the constitution & not politics, they will demand the same.… https://t.co/YNHBdJQLBG"

So why aren't Waltz's colleagues demanding the same? We're only getting what they want us to hear, tidbits and leaks made to the media. Who exactly does this benefit?
Click to expand...

A bit like my ex wife who demanded I slow down when passing an accident.
 
veritas1 said:
No they don't. They disagree that Trump should get any legislative victories.
Click to expand...

And you are any different how? It could be said that you didnt inherently disagree with Obama, you just didnt want him to have legislative victories. Does that make you and unamerican jackwad?
 
bullseyelqcs said:
And you are any different how? It could be said that you didnt inherently disagree with Obama, you just didnt want him to have legislative victories. Does that make you and unamerican jackwad?
Click to expand...

Most of Obama's victories were actually losses, like his brilliant Iran deal. USMCA will be good for the US, Mexico and Canada. But Trump!!!
 
veritas1 said:
Most of Obama's victories were actually losses, like his brilliant Iran deal. USMCA will be good for the US, Mexico and Canada. But Trump!!!
Click to expand...

You mean the deal that Iran was honoring according to EVERY agency tasked with making sure they were doing so? The one that was limiting thier advance towards a nuke that Trump tore up, giving them carte blanche to do whatever the **** they want since they no longer have to abide by any rules? Yeah.....that is somehow better than them at least playing by some sort of rules in the sandbox.

As for the USMAC, I cant agree or disagree since I havent extensively studied it at this point.....I mean I know WHAT it is, but I dont know what it IS per se.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You mean the deal that Iran was honoring according to EVERY agency tasked with making sure they were doing so? The one that was limiting thier advance towards a nuke that Trump tore up, giving them carte blanche to do whatever the **** they want since they no longer have to abide by any rules? Yeah.....that is somehow better than them at least playing by some sort of rules in the sandbox.

As for the USMAC, I cant agree or disagree since I havent extensively studied it at this point.....I mean I know WHAT it is, but I dont know what it IS per se.
Click to expand...

The deal was limiting nothing. Without widespread unhindered inspections carried out at irregular intervals, there is no way to know what they were doing. It operated on the basis that we could trust them to be forthcoming in what they showed inspectors. There is no reason for such trust.
 
veritas1 said:
The deal was limiting nothing. Without widespread unhindered inspections carried out at irregular intervals, there is no way to know what they were doing. It operated on the basis that we could trust them to be forthcoming in what they showed inspectors. There is no reason for such trust.
Click to expand...

So the words of multiple agencies tasked with checking these things matters nothing, eh?

I'll have to remember that if you ever quote the word of experts in the future.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
So the words of multiple agencies tasked with checking these things matters nothing, eh?

I'll have to remember that if you ever quote the word of experts in the future.
Click to expand...

If there's anything we should have learned over the last 50 years or so, it's to be very skeptical of "experts".
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You mean the deal that Iran was honoring according to EVERY agency tasked with making sure they were doing so? The one that was limiting thier advance towards a nuke that Trump tore up, giving them carte blanche to do whatever the **** they want since they no longer have to abide by any rules? Yeah.....that is somehow better than them at least playing by some sort of rules in the sandbox.

As for the USMAC, I cant agree or disagree since I havent extensively studied it at this point.....I mean I know WHAT it is, but I dont know what it IS per se.
Click to expand...

The deal that allowed Iran to have nuclear missiles, long range missiles to carry them, and allowed Iran to sponsor terrorism throughout the Middle East.
 
Moderate Right said:
The deal that allowed Iran to have nuclear missiles, long range missiles to carry them, and allowed Iran to sponsor terrorism throughout the Middle East.
Click to expand...

How is our current situation any different than what you just expressed? Oh, thats right.....its not. As a matter of fact, its worse, since now they don't have to even give the appearance of giving a **** what we think. We at least had THAT going for us before the President went and threw it away.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
How is our current situation any different than what you just expressed? Oh, thats right.....its not. As a matter of fact, its worse, since now they don't have to even give the appearance of giving a **** what we think. We at least had THAT going for us before the President went and threw it away.
Click to expand...

We are putting the screws on Iran, which is what Obama was doing before his deal. The error was in making a bad deal when we could have kept on applying the screws to Iran and getting a better deal, which is what we are trying to accomplish here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom