• 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!

Chris Wallace: Taylor testimony 'very damaging to President Trump'

marke said:
Schiftt released his own version of Trump's phone call, which was filled with misrepresentations and outright lies. Sadly, his large mob of deluded followers still believe that is what Trump said, in spit of all evidence to the contrary. Taylor and Kent were not deceived, however. They both admitted there was nothing in the record or in the events as they played out to warrant impeachment.
Click to expand...

Throw out Schiff’s version then. Next ignore all the other witnesses, then the facts.
 
TomFitz said:
New Democratic smokescreen narrative???

What are you talking about?

And what is this idiotic nonsense about implicating himself in a show trial?????? That doesn’t even make sense, but it is full of the loaded rhetoric that the talk radio crowd responds to.

No one has summoned Trump to appear. Where do you get this nonsense from? Did it come out of your Fox tv, or did you make it up all on your own.

And repeatedly pointing out that yesterday’s witnesses are not direct witnesses does draw a line under the fact that Trump is obstructing the investigation by trying to block all the direct witnesses from testifying.

Just as the “star chamber” line blew up the moment that Schiff announced the inevitable public hearings.

Pasting a vitriolic label on that fact doesn’t change anything. Direct witnesses are what Trump is trying to hide.

He is exactly where Nixon was in 1974.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to inform the democrat dummasses in the House that asserting executive privilege is not a crime and that there is not even such a crime as obstructing Congress anyway.
 
TomFitz said:
They’re just parroting whatever Sham Hammity and Lush Limpballs tells them. And they’re only telling them that because that’s what they think sells to their target audience.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Democrats just blindly believe what their puissant leaders, governors, teachers and daddies tell them regardless of the facts to the contrary.
 
j brown's body said:
So it wasn't a total waste. One less utterly uniformed voter is probably a plus. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Not my point, but whatever. When the Senate gets their chance to reply and advance their case that too may add to the number of informed voters.
 
veritas1 said:
Yesterday's clown show was a total humiliation for Schiff and his merry henchmen. Their "star" witnesses were about as scintillating as cold porridge. A great day for Trump and they'll get better from here.
Click to expand...

The democrat farewell to Taylor after yesterday's hearing: 'Thank you, sir. We will certainly never be needing you again.'
 
TomFitz said:
That is the whole point.

TAke Trump out of it completely. Substitute Hillary Clinton if you want to.

The core issue remains the same.

There are other issues. Blatant and open obstruction of justice.

Blatant an open usurping of the powers of the purse, advise and consent, and oversight that this President has tried to assign to himself.

All of this must be stopped. Regardless of the last name of the occupant of the White House. Regardless.

Trump has built a roadmap for a future tyrant to go right around Congress and the Constitution.

He has stopped short of defying the top courts.

But he’s on the ragged edge there.
Click to expand...

He has built a road-map, and that is why this whole thing is so important.
Everyone here today thinking this is a nothing burger might want to look at the long-game narrative of this whole thing.
The long-con as it were.
 
j brown's body said:
Because he asked Zelinsky to announce corruption investigations into crowdstrike and Biden in return for aid.

By your logic he is innocent because not of what he did, but because of what he said.
Click to expand...

I read the transcript myself and here is what I DID NOT SEE:

"Listen up Zelenski, I'm only going to say this 8 times. I want you to dig up dirt on my most threatening opponent, Joe Biden, or you can kiss your load of missiles goodbye."
 
US&THEM said:
Which crimes and if there is anything to be investigated please do. That is how it works. This is not a left or right thing.
Click to expand...

Kent testified in the impeachment hearings that Burisma was under criminal investigation and that he was bothered by Joe and Hunter's involvement with the corrupt company because of the appearance of impropriety that such an involvement presented.
 
US&THEM said:
Facts matter, Rudy G and Sondland have embarrassed themselves at Trump’s behest, they’ll be lucky not be indicted.
Click to expand...

Embarrassed? For working to promote Trump's foreign policy in Ukraine? That is stupid and I'll tell you something else that is stupid - Taylor objected to Trump's foreign policy because it did not follow what he considered to be 'regular channels' in foreign policy. He called Trump's foreign policy "irregular", which is why he resisted it. Imagine one of Obama's ambassadors telling his staff, "Don't listen to Obama, listen to me. Obama is on a wrong, "irregular track," but I will lead you on the right path."
 
marke said:
Kent testified in the impeachment hearings that Burisma was under criminal investigation and that he was bothered by Joe and Hunter's involvement with the corrupt company because of the appearance of impropriety that such an involvement presented.
Click to expand...

I agree Hunter Biden is a jackass who should have not taken or even been offered the board seat.

But again, Burisma was under investigation before Hunter Biden was on the board and there is zero accusations surrounding Joe Biden with it.

Were you outraged when Ivanka received her patents from China after visiting and sitting with Chinese leadership?
 
the problem with democrats is that they believe crap about Trump they think gives them the moral authority, so when you dispute what their leaders who oppose Trump say , in their mind dem followers think, that can't be right , because Trump is a dirtbag, so he has to be the one wh9o is wrong.


bad logic.
 
US&THEM said:
I agree Hunter Biden is a jackass who should have not taken or even been offered the board seat.

But again, Burisma was under investigation before Hunter Biden was on the board and there is zero accusations surrounding Joe Biden with it.

Were you outraged when Ivanka received her patents from China after visiting and sitting with Chinese leadership?
Click to expand...

mmm I think it needs investigating again, with a less accomodating power structure, shall we say.
 
marke said:
I read the transcript myself and here is what I DID NOT SEE:

"Listen up Zelenski, I'm only going to say this 8 times. I want you to dig up dirt on my most threatening opponent, Joe Biden, or you can kiss your load of missiles goodbye."
Click to expand...

So I take it you think that Zelenski (sic) is as bad at subtleties as you appear to be?
Good argument.
 
marke said:
Swirling-eyed congenital liar Herr Democratista Oberst Schiftt has successfully brainwashed millions of gullible followers into believing some of the most honorable Americans in Congress are fools.
Click to expand...

Jim Jordan has been given proof of Trump wrongdoing on many occasions and every single time he has come up with outlandish and implausible excuses. Show me where Schiff has accused Trump of anything outlandish and implausible.

Brainwashing is what Jordan is trying to do given that trying to get people to believe implausible reasons for Trump doing something is the definition of "brainwashing". Dealing with a lying con man and accusing him of lying and conning is far from implausible, it is the highest probability possible.
 
marke said:
Embarrassed? For working to promote Trump's foreign policy in Ukraine? That is stupid and I'll tell you something else that is stupid - Taylor objected to Trump's foreign policy because it did not follow what he considered to be 'regular channels' in foreign policy. He called Trump's foreign policy "irregular", which is why he resisted it. Imagine one of Obama's ambassadors telling his staff, "Don't listen to Obama, listen to me. Obama is on a wrong, "irregular track," but I will lead you on the right path."
Click to expand...

Rudy G was not their for foreign policy issues, he became a policy issue when he started utilizing corrupt Ukrainians to personally attack remove a sitting US Ambassador.
 
marke said:
Kent testified in the impeachment hearings that Burisma was under criminal investigation and that he was bothered by Joe and Hunter's involvement with the corrupt company because of the appearance of impropriety that such an involvement presented.
Click to expand...

US&THEM said:
I agree Hunter Biden is a jackass who should have not taken or even been offered the board seat.

But again, Burisma was under investigation before Hunter Biden was on the board and there is zero accusations surrounding Joe Biden with it.

Were you outraged when Ivanka received her patents from China after visiting and sitting with Chinese leadership?
Click to expand...

Yes Marke, he was worried about the appearance of possible corruption. You will note that he did not actually accuse Hunter of impropriety.
You do understand the nuances of that, yes?
 
Hypothetical said:
the problem with democrats is that they believe crap about Trump they think gives them the moral authority, so when you dispute what their leaders who oppose Trump say , in their mind dem followers think, that can't be right , because Trump is a dirtbag, so he has to be the one wh9o is wrong.


bad logic.
Click to expand...

Hold a mirror up to that statement and explain to me how believing everything Trump and his gang says is better logic, on your part.
 
Hypothetical said:
mmm I think it needs investigating again, with a less accomodating power structure, shall we say.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Luckyone said:
Jim Jordan has been given proof of Trump wrongdoing on many occasions and every single time he has come up with outlandish and implausible excuses. Show me where Schiff has accused Trump of anything outlandish and implausible.

Brainwashing is what Jordan is trying to do given that trying to get people to believe implausible reasons for Trump doing something is the definition of "brainwashing". Dealing with a lying con man and accusing him of lying and conning is far from implausible, it is the highest probability possible.
Click to expand...

Jordan was an awesome wrestler.
 
marke said:
I read the transcript myself and here is what I DID NOT SEE:

"Listen up Zelenski, I'm only going to say this 8 times. I want you to dig up dirt on my most threatening opponent, Joe Biden, or you can kiss your load of missiles goodbye."
Click to expand...

You will never see Trump saying anything directly. He learned that from Roy Cohn "never do or say anything that legally compromises you"

As such, everything is innuendo. The reality is that he did say he wanted a favor in which the already-promised-by-congress funds would be released.

Perhaps referring to what Michael Cohen said about Trump:

Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That’s not how he operates.

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there’s no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.
Click to expand...
 
Luckyone said:
You will never see Trump saying anything directly. He learned that from Roy Cohn "never do or say anything that legally compromises you"

As such, everything is innuendo. The reality is that he did say he wanted a favor in which the already-promised-by-congress funds would be released.

Perhaps referring to what Michael Cohen said about Trump:
Click to expand...

Innuendo, conjecture and your wishful thinking isn't enough to impeach a POTUS.
The standard is just a tad higher, and for good reason.
 
trixare4kids said:
Innuendo, conjecture and your wishful thinking isn't enough to impeach a POTUS.
The standard is just a tad higher, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

So you are in favor of the innuendo continuing and the cult members doing what Trump illegally wishes is done with them being the fall guys (like Cohen)?

Is that your idea of what a President should do/be?

Didn't Trump vow to support the Constitution? I think that is what he is being impeached for.............not supporting the Constitution as innuendo from the president is considered an "abuse of power".
 
Pound4abrown said:
He was a slow-burn for me. I didn't really like him at first. Maybe it was the tie?
But seriously, the man knows his ****.
Click to expand...

A lot of those bow-tie people are pretty serious and they almost generally seem to believe deeply in ethics.
The most ethical administrator type person I ever met was Homer O. Elseroad, former Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland back in the 1970's.
He was the guy who pretty much shaped my high school years, everyone's high school years in MCPS.
And during his tenure MCPS schools consistently ranked in the top five in the nation.

homerelseroad0011359070391--296x240.jpg

I dunno, maybe it's just a gut thing, but then look at Bill Nye...again there is a slight similarity between all three of these people.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom