• 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!

Lindsey Graham's Dilemma

Oborosen said:
Here..


Where has this been proven, even remotely. When Trump's so called quid pro quo is in question?

Because in Biden's case, there is a possibility that this was done to help protect his son.

At no point in any of these testimonies, has anyone even come close to tagging such a standard on Trump.
Click to expand...

You gotta be kidding me, man.

The personal benefit for Trump was plainly obvious to anyone who wasn't blinded by faithfulness to Trump. The ONLY reason to have Zelensky announce there was going to be an investigation into Biden would be to smear him prior to the election when he felt like Biden was the frontrunner to run against him next year. That is proven by the fact that the investigation that had already happened had already cleared Hunter Biden of any wrongdoing, thereby meaning that there would be no reason to reopen the investigation.

I mean, seriously.....the investigation into Burisma was completed before Biden ever took a seat on the board. Even if they WERE corrupt, it was long before he was part of the company.

You gotta do better than that.
 
Lindsey Graham is the closest thing that Doanld Trump has to a pet.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You gotta be kidding me, man.

The personal benefit for Trump was plainly obvious to anyone who wasn't blinded by faithfulness to Trump. The ONLY reason to have Zelensky announce there was going to be an investigation into Biden would be to smear him prior to the election when he felt like Biden was the frontrunner to run against him next year. That is proven by the fact that the investigation that had already happened had already cleared Hunter Biden of any wrongdoing, thereby meaning that there would be no reason to reopen the investigation.

I mean, seriously.....the investigation into Burisma was completed before Biden ever took a seat on the board. Even if they WERE corrupt, it was long before he was part of the company.

You gotta do better than that.
Click to expand...

Seeing as Biden wasn't even a threat to Trump, you might need to find something more than an assumption, to simply base your claim on.

Because this business with Burisma still involves him, and his son. No matter how hard you want to believe that it doesn't.

Do you have a citation that shows this was going to be done for those purposes exactly, or are you still going to run on assumption?
 
Oborosen said:
Hence why no one can supply any evidence to you. You'd simply claim that it's a conspiracy theory and push it aside.

Though I can simply do the same here..(ahem)

Trump broke the law... (pssh) a leftist conspiracy theory... he pulled quid pro quo with Ukraine (lol) another leftist conspiracy theory. He broke the law asking for an investigation into Barisma..(fml) Another conspiracy theory, cooked up by Epstein's faithful.

See it's easy to dismiss myself from responsibility. I can see why the lot of you do it so much.
Click to expand...

Yawn. You have a long, documented history of rejecting objective reality.

You can repeat memes from Russian intelligence services to your heart's content; I'm simply not interested.

It explains a lot about your rank dishonesty and your hatred of this country.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
You gotta be kidding me, man.

The personal benefit for Trump was plainly obvious to anyone who wasn't blinded by faithfulness to Trump. The ONLY reason to have Zelensky announce there was going to be an investigation into Biden would be to smear him prior to the election when he felt like Biden was the frontrunner to run against him next year. That is proven by the fact that the investigation that had already happened had already cleared Hunter Biden of any wrongdoing, thereby meaning that there would be no reason to reopen the investigation.

I mean, seriously.....the investigation into Burisma was completed before Biden ever took a seat on the board. Even if they WERE corrupt, it was long before he was part of the company.

You gotta do better than that.
Click to expand...

You cannot reason w/either a True Believer or a twump sycophant (or both).

They are immune to the factual record and reality.
 
Oborosen said:
Seeing as Biden wasn't even a threat to Trump, you might need to find something more than an assumption, to simply base your claim on.

Because this business with Burisma still involves him, and his son. No matter how hard you want to believe that it doesn't.

Do you have a citation that shows this was going to be done for those purposes exactly, or are you still going to run on assumption?
Click to expand...

If i see a guy in the woods drop trow and squat, i dont need him to tell me his intent.

Same goes for this. Why, you ask? Let me cover that for you.

If this REALLY was the problem that Donald and people like you are trying to make it out to be, why did it take 3 years for him to say word one about it? The answer, of course, is the same as why the wall isnt fully funded even though he had both houses of Congress and a rubber stamp basically to do what he wanted.....because it wasnt really an issue. Burisma is only an issue NOW to divert attention from himself.

I dont need a citation for discernable reality. It kinda is what it is.
 
Oborosen said:
Seeing as Biden wasn't even a threat to Trump, you might need to find something more than an assumption, to simply base your claim on.

Because this business with Burisma still involves him, and his son. No matter how hard you want to believe that it doesn't.

Do you have a citation that shows this was going to be done for those purposes exactly, or are you still going to run on assumption?
Click to expand...

Oh....and even as badly as Biden did in the debate the other night, he is STILL polling good enough to beat Trump in the election. That sounds like a threat to me. And it should tell you all you need to know about how people feel about Trump at this point. Outside of his base, hes pretty much toast.

And how does the Burisma thing involve or his son? That investigation was into matters that occurred back in 2012.....Hunter didnt come in until years later for the love of all that is good and holy.

You gotta stop letting Rush and Hannity tell you **** that simply isnt true and has been shown as such time and again. Ill bet you will reply you dont watch ot listen to them...let me guess, James O'Keefe was your source for that line of tripe?
 
Last edited:
Tanngrisnir said:
Yawn. You have a long, documented history of rejecting objective reality.

You can repeat memes from Russian intelligence services to your heart's content; I'm simply not interested.

It explains a lot about your rank dishonesty and your hatred of this country.
Click to expand...

Pot and kettle my friend.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
If i see a guy in the woods drop trow and squat, i dont need him to tell me his intent.

Same goes for this. Why, you ask? Let me cover that for you.

If this REALLY was the problem that Donald and people like you are trying to make it out to be, why did it take 3 years for him to say word one about it? The answer, of course, is the same as why the wall isnt fully funded even though he had both houses of Congress and a rubber stamp basically to do what he wanted.....because it wasnt really an issue. Burisma is only an issue NOW to divert attention from himself.

I dont need a citation for discernable reality. It kinda is what it is.
Click to expand...

Seeing as no one has dropped trow, and squatted in the woods thus far. You're kind of **** out of luck in that regard.

You can honestly assume all you want about this, but I really don't care for assumptions. Currently we have more reason to be suspicious of Biden, than of Trump, and even if Trump asked for quid pro quo. That still wouldn't be illegal.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Oh....and even as badly as Biden did in the debate the other night, he is STILL polling good enough to beat Trump in the election. That sounds like a threat to me. And it should tell you all you need to know about how people feel about Trump at this point. Outside of his base, hes pretty much toast.

And how does the Burisma thing involve or his son? That investigation was into matters that occurred back in 2012.....Hunter didnt come in until years later for the love of all that is good and holy.

You gotta stop letting Rush and Hannity tell you **** that simply isnt true and has been shown as such time and again. Ill bet you will reply you dont watch ot listen to them...let me guess, James O'Keefe was your source for that line of tripe?
Click to expand...

That's your assumption. Which is still all you have at this point.
 
element94 said:
The first few paragraphs of that article contain hearsay evidence from an unnamed executive, that requested anonymity, LOL. You guys aren't suppose to like that sort of thing, remember?
Oh boy! FAIL!
Click to expand...

So go ahead and run from the conversation.

I could care less either way.
 
Oborosen said:
So go ahead and run from the conversation.

I could care less either way.
Click to expand...

How am I running away? It is a legitimate point. Also, if you didn't care either way you wouldn't say anything, yet you did.:wink2:
Don't bull**** me, pal.
 
element94 said:
How am I running away? It is a legitimate point. Also, if you didn't care either way you wouldn't say anything, yet you did.:wink2:
Don't bull**** me, pal.
Click to expand...

He does that each and every time he's beaten.

Which, ironically enough, is each and every time he posts.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You should have an adult explain that to you, since you cannot cite a single instance of me doing that.

Enjoy your magical thinking and fantasy life.
Click to expand...

Yay, more personal insults. But then again, you're just mulling at the same base level that you always do.

I'm just happy to see you continue in acting like a scorned child.
 
Oborosen said:
Here..


Where has this been proven, even remotely. When Trump's so called quid pro quo is in question?

Because in Biden's case, there is a possibility that this was done to help protect his son.

At no point in any of these testimonies, has anyone even come close to tagging such a standard on Trump.
Click to expand...
I dont think people are looking far back enough in the timeline. The question is why was he hired at the time. We need to go back to 2014 and start there.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I dont think people are looking far back enough in the timeline. The question is why was he hired at the time. We need to go back to 2014 and start there.

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

It's possibly deeper than that. There have been stories bumping around about Biden and his family for a long time now. Because even when I was still a democrat, I'd still hear things.
 
Oborosen said:
Yay, more personal insults. But then again, you're just mulling at the same base level that you always do.

I'm just happy to see you continue in acting like a scorned child.
Click to expand...

Yay, more you pretending that I've insulted you so you can remain in your security blanket of gleeful, blissful ignorance.

Fun to see you running from your claim yet again.
 
Oborosen said:
Here..


Where has this been proven, even remotely. When Trump's so called quid pro quo is in question?

Because in Biden's case, there is a possibility that this was done to help protect his son.

At no point in any of these testimonies, has anyone even come close to tagging such a standard on Trump.
Click to expand...


That simply is not true. Ambassador Sondland talked to Trump several times on the phone, and he testified that the only thing Trump cared about was making Biden look bad by getting Zelensky to launch an investigation. Trump didn't care at all about corruption in Ukraine, just like he doesn't care about corruption in Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else for that matter.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
That simply is not true. Ambassador Sondland talked to Trump several times on the phone, and he testified that the only thing Trump cared about was making Biden look bad by getting Zelensky to launch an investigation. Trump didn't care at all about corruption in Ukraine, just like he doesn't care about corruption in Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else for that matter.
Click to expand...

Well, that's his assumption. Something that he admitted to it being. But given what he's told that was actually said, we can see it's nothing like that.
 
Oborosen said:
Well, that's his assumption. Something that he admitted to it being. But given what he's told that was actually said, we can see it's nothing like that.
Click to expand...

And that's your faulty assumption. Sondland knew exactly what Trump wanted and testified accordingly. Sondland believes the military aid was withheld because Zelensky would not publicly announce an investigation of the Bidens. Trump's hand-picked guy stated that. That's a devastating indictment of Trump.
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
And that's your faulty assumption. Sondland knew exactly what Trump wanted and testified accordingly. Sondland believes the military aid was withheld because Zelensky would not publicly announce an investigation of the Bidens. Trump's hand-picked guy stated that. That's a devastating indictment of Trump.
Click to expand...

So if congress tecieves some testimony from someone that says they believe that Biden removed the Ukrainian prosecutor as a political payoff, that will be a devastating indictment of Biden for you? Thats all it takes for you, someone opinion?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Kerry Won Ohio said:
And that's your faulty assumption. Sondland knew exactly what Trump wanted and testified accordingly. Sondland believes the military aid was withheld because Zelensky would not publicly announce an investigation of the Bidens. Trump's hand-picked guy stated that. That's a devastating indictment of Trump.
Click to expand...

So, now if I were to say that I assume that you're a sex offender. That just immediately means that you are actually a sex offender, no proof required at all. Just my assumption and your proven to be as such?
Do you not see a weakness in your argument at this point?

Because as we've seen through the testimony, we know that this is nothing but what Sondland said that he assumed, and he didn't even ascertain what the aid was being held up for either.

You're going to need something better than sheer guesswork, if you're going to prove Trump actually did anything wrong.
 
Oborosen said:
So, now if I were to say that I assume that you're a sex offender. That just immediately means that you are actually a sex offender, no proof required at all. Just my assumption and your proven to be as such?
Do you not see a weakness in your argument at this point?

Because as we've seen through the testimony, we know that this is nothing but what Sondland said that he assumed, and he didn't even ascertain what the aid was being held up for either.

You're going to need something better than sheer guesswork, if you're going to prove Trump actually did anything wrong.
Click to expand...

If the person already admitted that he was a sex offender on national TV (i.e. Trump), then it doesn't really matter what anyone else says at that point.

But it certainly wouldn't help if someone else who works for the sex offender (i.e. Sondland) testifies that he also believes his boss is a sex offender, even if he has no evidence.

Yes, your sorry analogy just blew up in your face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom