• 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!

And so it begins...

Mach said:
The transcript is of Trump directly asking Zelinsky for a "favor though".
Click to expand...

Yes, a favor to investigate the Ukraine server conspiracy theory as it following a comment about Ukraine buying Javelin missiles.

Mach said:
Rudy cannot hold up OMB and OMB doesn't answer to Rudy...
Click to expand...

He can if the President puts him charge of foreign policy relating to Ukraine. As all of the testimony demonstrates, Trump never directly ordered his subordinates to do anything regarding Ukraine except talk to Rudy Giuliani.

Mach said:
Mick said it was held up because POTUS was concerned about Ukraine. Not Rudy.
Click to expand...

Yet he never said the President directed that action in response to his concerns. He hasn’t said who made that decision or even who told him the President was concerned.

Mach said:
Rudy was "acting on behalf" of POTUS.
Click to expand...

Which doesn’t answer whether or not Rudy abused that role to pursue his own interests in Ukraine.

Mach said:
Stop acting like you have some bar that can reasonably be reached to evidence his (obvious) guilt for you...there is none.
Click to expand...

Stop being a partisan hack. The bar is direct rather than circumstantial evidence. The same bar that must be met if you, me, and every other person in this country were to be accused of a crime.
 
ludin said:
you evidently do not know what sedition means.

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority.
Click to expand...

Like the whitehouses attacks on the impeachment process and witnesses? It's obstruction of congress?

I thought you were a trump defender of some stripe.
 
TurtleDude said:
the dog and pony show is a waste of tax dollars as the petulant losers try to undo the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

Spare me the crocodile tears about tax money, after Republican's pushed through a trillion dollars in tax cuts.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Spare me the crocodile tears about tax money, after Republican's pushed through a trillion dollars in tax cuts.
Click to expand...

that isn't wasting tax dollars unless you belong to the school of thought that holds that all wealth belongs to the government. Smart people realize tax cuts save the citizenry money.
 
Pound4abrown said:
So you believe that Rudy was going rogue and Trump was oblivious?
That is an even scarier prospect, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I believe that is the door the Democrats open for a defense when they have no direct evidence implicating Trump. And I believe Trump would exploit it and throw Giuliani under the bus to save himself. This has already happened before. Reagan claimed to know nothing about Iran-Contra. There was even a phone call where they discussed the deal with Reagan, but he couldn’t be nailed for it because his response was to silently hang up the phone. So the people that could be conclusively proven to be the architects fell on their own swords.
 
TurtleDude said:
that isn't wasting tax dollars unless you belong to the school of thought that holds that all wealth belongs to the government. Smart people realize tax cuts save the citizenry money.
Click to expand...

Yes, but not $1tril dollars. The tax cuts were to enrich the already ultra rich. Don't play daft.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Yes, but not $1tril dollars. The tax cuts were to enrich the already ultra rich. Don't play daft.
Click to expand...


who exactly are the ultra rich? the top one percent pay over 40% of the income tax which is far more than their percentage of the income.
 
Napoleon said:
I believe that is the door the Democrats open for a defense when they have no direct evidence implicating Trump. And I believe Trump would exploit it and throw Giuliani under the bus to save himself. This has already happened before. Reagan claimed to know nothing about Iran-Contra. There was even a phone call where they discussed the deal with Reagan, but he couldn’t be nailed for it because his response was to silently hang up the phone. So the people that could be conclusively proven to be the architects fell on their own swords.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree in so much as this is a lot like Iran Contra in that respect. Maybe that is why Bill Barr is AG? I don't know though, is Rudy like Ollie North? I don't see him falling on his sword, but then again, I don't know what he is going to say from moment to moment.
Also different, Reagan didn't have a Mick Mulvaney giving up the game in the 3rd inning by admitting to QPQ on national TV. To say that Mick didn't know what he was talking about means that you subscribe to the fact that only Trump can know.
 
TurtleDude said:
who exactly are the ultra rich? the top one percent pay over 40% of the income tax which is far more than their percentage of the income.
Click to expand...

Again, with the Daftness. Is there a trillion on the books or not? Yes. Yes there is. So do away with your tears over tax dollars.
 
Pound4abrown said:
I don't disagree in so much as this is a lot like Iran Contra in that respect. Maybe that is why Bill Barr is AG? I don't know though, is Rudy like Ollie North? I don't see him falling on his sword, but then again, I don't know what he is going to say from moment to moment.
Also different, Reagan didn't have a Mick Mulvaney giving up the game in the 3rd inning by admitting to QPQ on national TV. To say that Mick didn't know what he was talking about means that you subscribe to the fact that only Trump can know.
Click to expand...

I don’t know if Trump can have the same assurances as Reagan just because of the character of the people involved this time around. Rudy Giuliani’s scruples are for sale to the highest bidder if he has any at all. But it’s a good bet that Trump didn’t just pull Barr’s name out of a hat.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Again, with the Daftness. Is there a trillion on the books or not? Yes. Yes there is. So do away with your tears over tax dollars.
Click to expand...

the rich don't have a duty to pay more and more taxes because irresponsible government spends more and more. The middle class is paying less a percentage of income taxes now than at any time in the last 70 years
 
Napoleon said:
I don’t know if Trump can have the same assurances as Reagan just because of the character of the people involved this time around. Rudy Giuliani’s scruples are for sale to the highest bidder if he has any at all. But it’s a good bet that Trump didn’t just pull Barr’s name out of a hat.
Click to expand...

Agreed on all accounts.
 
TurtleDude said:
the rich don't have a duty to pay more and more taxes because irresponsible government spends more and more. The middle class is paying less a percentage of income taxes now than at any time in the last 70 years
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a yes to the Trillion on the books.
Thanks.
 
Pound4abrown said:
I'll take that as a yes to the Trillion on the books.
Thanks.
Click to expand...

which has nothing to do with my point that tax cuts are not wasting tax dollars
 
TurtleDude said:
which has nothing to do with my point that tax cuts are not wasting tax dollars
Click to expand...

Nor does it refute my assertion that you should stop crying about the money "wasted" on these hearings while not being concerned at all about the trillion on the books for tax cuts.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Nor does it refute my assertion that you should stop crying about the money "wasted" on these hearings while not being concerned at all about the trillion on the books for tax cuts.
Click to expand...

I support cutting the taxes of those who pay far more than they should. I oppose the progressive income tax
 
TurtleDude said:
I support cutting the taxes of those who pay far more than they should. I oppose the progressive income tax
Click to expand...

And yet, the money is still on the books. And you care not.
So again, get up off your fainting couch.
 
Pound4abrown said:
And yet, the money is still on the books. And you care not.
So again, get up off your fainting couch.
Click to expand...

I care about a government that wastes too much money. You apparently do not as long as people who earn more than you are getting screwed over.
 
TurtleDude said:
I care about a government that wastes too much money. You apparently do not as long as people who earn more than you are getting screwed over.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you got me there, I am not concerned about billionaires having to pay more in taxes, money they couldn't ever possibly spend in three lifetimes.
I am concerned that we have a corrupt president and I am ok with my tax dollars going to ferret that out.
 
Pound4abrown said:
Yeah, you got me there, I am not concerned about billionaires having to pay more in taxes, money they couldn't ever possibly spend in three lifetimes.
I am concerned that we have a corrupt president and I am ok with my tax dollars going to ferret that out.
Click to expand...

if democrat tax schemes only applied to billionaires, I doubt many would complain. But like most of their schemes-they use a loaded term, that enrages the low wattage voters, but target far more than the term normally would seen to encompass
 
Pound4abrown said:
I am not concerned about billionaires having to pay more in taxes, money they couldn't ever possibly spend in three lifetimes.
Click to expand...

Trump loses billions just by being President.

People are saying a second term could send him back to bankruptcy court.
 
TurtleDude said:
if democrat tax schemes only applied to billionaires, I doubt many would complain. But like most of their schemes-they use a loaded term, that enrages the low wattage voters, but target far more than the term normally would seen to encompass
Click to expand...

You keep arguing about your apples, meanwhile the oranges are rotting.
You should just say, Yeah, you're right, I don't care about that trillion dollars, but I am going to feign anger about hearings into a corrupt president.
Did you also cry about the multiple Benghazi hearings? I am sure you did. And loudly.
Peace out. :peace
 
less right said:
Trump loses billions just by being President.

People are saying a second term could send him back to bankruptcy court.
Click to expand...

Well, he has his own wing there, so I'm sure he will feel right at home.
 
TurtleDude said:
I support cutting the taxes of those who pay far more than they should. I oppose the progressive income tax
Click to expand...

I oppose rewarding shills who abuse natural resources for personal gain. If you refuse to allow shared ownership of the earth's bounty, in the form of oil, minerals, etc, then you will be forced to do so via taxation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom