• 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!

Surprise New Leader In Recent Iowa Poll

ocean515 said:
Especially when they belong to a group of similarly bigoted people.
Click to expand...

and yet the fact remains by definition there was no bigotry in the post you claimed there was . . .

but here is a perfect example of bigotry LOL
ocean515 said:
Hispanics are one issue voters. The primary issues all relate to legality & immigration, & how they can make their illegal relatives safe in the US.
Click to expand...
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. Well, we've had three years now of Democrats getting overly excited about the smallest bit of good news. They were foaming at the mouth for two years during the Mueller investigation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you’re right, they did. And in the end, Mueller concluded that although there wasn’t sufficient proof to support a claim of conspiracy with Russia, Trump and his campaign welcomed the interference. Also, Mueller stated “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” and "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." He didn’t so state.

There’s more, of course, but you’re not really interested in debating actual facts. Just spewing fake Trumpster made up nonsense.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Yeah, you’re right, they did. And in the end, Mueller concluded that although there wasn’t sufficient proof to support a claim of conspiracy with Russia, Trump and his campaign welcomed the interference. Also, Mueller stated “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” and "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." He didn’t so state.

There’s more, of course, but you’re not really interested in debating actual facts. Just spewing fake Trumpster made up nonsense.
Click to expand...

LOL. Democrats want to impeach Trump so badly and yet they knew that absolutely nothing from the Mueller report was impeachable, that's why nothing from the Mueller report is in the articles of impeachment. How long are you going to keep mouthing off partisan talking points that even Democrats themselves realized were a nothingburger?
 
Moderate Right said:
LOL. Democrats want to impeach Trump so badly and yet they knew that absolutely nothing from the Mueller report was impeachable, that's why nothing from the Mueller report is in the articles of impeachment. How long are you going to keep mouthing off partisan talking points that even Democrats themselves realized were a nothingburger?
Click to expand...
How long are you going to continue parroting stupid Trumpster chants and lies?

1. Obstruction of justice is impeachable.

2. The Dems have been clear that they want to keep the focus of the ongoing impeachment process on Trump’s attempt to strong arm another country’s leader for his personal gain.

You really need to better attention.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
How long are you going to continue parroting stupid Trumpster chants and lies?

1. Obstruction of justice is impeachable.

2. The Dems have been clear that they want to keep the focus of the ongoing impeachment process on Trump’s attempt to strong arm another country’s leader for his personal gain.

You really need to better attention.
Click to expand...

So you're disputing that the Democrats articles of impeachment don't include a damn thing from the Mueller investigation?
 
Excast said:
I'm shocked that Trump has small leads in a rural state made up of 91% white people that he won by 10% 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

Iowa has a long history of voting for the Democratic presidential candidate. Iowa did so in 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008 and 2012. Only in 2004 and 2016 has Iowa gone Republican. So yes, it's a surprise that Trump leads. Iowa has 3 Democratic Representatives vs 1 Republican although both senators are Republican.
 
Excast said:
I'm shocked that Trump has small leads in a rural state made up of 91% white people that he won by 10% 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

Trump is not generally popular among black voters who have been programmed for years to believe white republicans hate blacks.
 
Moderate Right said:
The obstruction of justice charges in the article have to do with the Ukraine deal, nothing to do with Mueller.
Click to expand...
You are confused and wrong, again. As usual.

Trump is being charged with Obstruction of Congress, NOT Obstruction of Justice.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6572308/Articles-of-Impeachment.pdf

Mueller noted numerous instances of Obstruction of Justice in his report.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Hopefully, a tiny light will go on in your head now.

Probably not.
 
Moderate Right said:
Facts is facts. Ignore them at your own peril. The Democratic party stands up for everyone but white people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ocratic-party-heres-how-the-nation-got-there/
Click to expand...

That's not true. I know tons of white Democrats. The white people who feel alienated by the Democratic party tend to feel alienated by the entire world. They're scared about having to live the life of a minority because they realize how badly they've treated minorities all their lives. Those people would probably be welcomed by the Democrats (both major parties are whore houses) but not by me.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You are confused and wrong, again. As usual.

Trump is being charged with Obstruction of Congress, NOT Obstruction of Justice.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6572308/Articles-of-Impeachment.pdf

Mueller noted numerous instances of Obstruction of Justice in his report.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

Hopefully, a tiny light will go on in your head now.

Probably not.
Click to expand...

There is no obstruction of Congress because Democrats refused to wait and let the courts decide. They are putting their cart before the horse. Thanks for admitting though that Democrats apparently don't believe there was obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation or they would have put that in an article.
 
Nalu said:
That's not true. I know tons of white Democrats. The white people who feel alienated by the Democratic party tend to feel alienated by the entire world. They're scared about having to live the life of a minority because they realize how badly they've treated minorities all their lives. Those people would probably be welcomed by the Democrats (both major parties are whore houses) but not by me.
Click to expand...

Ah. Now I get it. You're saying that many white Democrats are disgusted with both parties and have now become Nationalists.
 
Moderate Right said:
There is no obstruction of Congress because Democrats refused to wait and let the courts decide. They are putting their cart before the horse. Thanks for admitting though that Democrats apparently don't believe there was obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation or they would have put that in an article.
Click to expand...
Seek help from an ophthalmologist or hire a tutor to help you with reading comprehension.

First, you confused my reference of the ongoing impeachment with the Mueller report, then you were confused as to what the two articles of impeachment are, still you foolishly believe you understand enough to opine. Ridiculous.

And as for the instances of obstruction of justice noted in the Mueller report, the Dems didn’t move to impeach because Trump refused to allow members of his administration to cooperate.

Thankfully, this time Pelosi said “**** it”, we're gonna impeach the prick.

I know impeachment is a very bad thing for our country to have to go through, but that won’t, in the least, diminish my happiness that Trump will be held accountable for at least some of his criminality.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Seek help from an ophthalmologist or hire a tutor to help you with reading comprehension.

First, you confused my reference of the ongoing impeachment with the Mueller report, then you were confused as to what the two articles of impeachment are, still you foolishly believe you understand enough to opine. Ridiculous.

And as for the instances of obstruction of justice noted in the Mueller report, the Dems didn’t move to impeach because Trump refused to allow members of his administration to cooperate.

Thankfully, this time Pelosi said “**** it”, we're gonna impeach the prick.

I know impeachment is a very bad thing for our country to have to go through, but that won’t, in the least, diminish my happiness that Trump will be held accountable for at least some of his criminality.
Click to expand...

The very people you opine about are asking the courts to decide if they are compelled to testify or not and yet the Democrats absolutely refuse to wait for the final verdict. There can't be any obstruction of Congress until the courts decide these people must testify and then Trump himself refuses to let them. If they refuse to testify at that time, and Trump isn't directing them to, then there is still no impeachment charge against Trump for obstruction of Congress. It would then fall on the individuals. By the way, Bolton doesn't work for Trump anymore so Trump can't actually force him to not testify. And, Obama could have been impeached by Congress for obstruction of Congress for Eric Holder refusing to testify to Congress when asked. Holder was found in contempt of Congress but the precedent is nothing happens to you or the president under such circumstances. And presidents are allowed to use executive privilege without being in contempt of Congress. Pretty much all of them have done it.
 
Moderate Right said:
The very people you opine about are asking the courts to decide if they are compelled to testify or not and yet the Democrats absolutely refuse to wait for the final verdict. There can't be any obstruction of Congress until the courts decide these people must testify and then Trump himself refuses to let them. If they refuse to testify at that time, and Trump isn't directing them to, then there is still no impeachment charge against Trump for obstruction of Congress. It would then fall on the individuals. By the way, Bolton doesn't work for Trump anymore so Trump can't actually force him to not testify. And, Obama could have been impeached by Congress for obstruction of Congress for Eric Holder refusing to testify to Congress when asked. Holder was found in contempt of Congress but the precedent is nothing happens to you or the president under such circumstances. And presidents are allowed to use executive privilege without being in contempt of Congress. Pretty much all of them have done it.
Click to expand...

1. Congress has no duty to play delaying games with Trump or his administration.

2. Although Bolton is no longer a member of Trump’s administration, he is still bound by executive privilege. That is, except for any criminal behavior. Then there is no privilege. For now we’ll just have to wait and see with Bolton.

3. Woulda, coulda, shoulda with regards Obama and Holder.

5. Prohibiting any member/office within the administration to cooperate at all with the impeachment inquiry is obstructing. At least one federal judge has already affirmed that.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
1. Congress has no duty to play delaying games with Trump or his administration.

2. Although Bolton is no longer a member of Trump’s administration, he is still bound by executive privilege. That is, except for any criminal behavior. Then there is no privilege. For now we’ll just have to wait and see with Bolton.

3. Woulda, coulda, shoulda with regards Obama and Holder.

5. Prohibiting any member/office within the administration to cooperate at all with the impeachment inquiry is obstructing. At least one federal judge has already affirmed that.
Click to expand...


An impeachment trial is a legal court. A president cannot be charged with obstruction of Congress before it has been determined that he has obstructed Congress, as the courts have not made a final decision on executive privilege in this case. Come back again when the courts have made their final decision and Trump still claims executive privilege and refuses them to testify to Congress. And, there is a precedent from Obama/Holder that obstruction of Congress can occur with no consequences, including impeachment. So, that article is totally moot. That leaves only your bribery article in which every witness testified that there was no bribery. Just the fact that you whine and complain about other witnesses not testifying proves that even you realize that there currently is no case, otherwise other witnesses would not be required.
 
Moderate Right said:
An impeachment trial is a legal court. A president cannot be charged with obstruction of Congress before it has been determined that he has obstructed Congress, as the courts have not made a final decision on executive privilege in this case. Come back again when the courts have made their final decision and Trump still claims executive privilege and refuses them to testify to Congress. And, there is a precedent from Obama/Holder that obstruction of Congress can occur with no consequences, including impeachment. So, that article is totally moot. That leaves only your bribery article in which every witness testified that there was no bribery. Just the fact that you whine and complain about other witnesses not testifying proves that even you realize that there currently is no case, otherwise other witnesses would not be required.
Click to expand...
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Impeachment is expressly NOT a legal matter. It is a political process.

I’m not going to waste any more time with someone who is utterly lost, but doesn’t know it.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Impeachment is expressly NOT a legal matter. It is a political process.

I’m not going to waste any more time with someone who is utterly lost, but doesn’t know it.
Click to expand...

You are utterly lost but don't know it. Impeachment was used by Democrats as a partisan political tool. The founders did not plan it that way, that's why in all this time only 3 presidents have actually been impeached, because the House didn't abuse their power. They certainly did this time and you can argue that the Republican House did with Bill Clinton. But, the founders never intended impeachment to be such a partisan thing that every president was to be impeached. Now, in the Senate, impeachment is NOT a partisan thing. It is a court proceeding with the Chief Justice overseeing the process and a 2/3's vote is needed by jurors to remove the president from office. Democrats have made the House impeachment nothing but partisan, going so far as to claim that the president need not even commit any criminal acts to be impeached.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom