• 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!

McConnell should not take the oath

digitusmedius said:
Your Dear Dirtbag committed a crime under 52USC30121 as you and his other worshippers have been told many times.
Click to expand...

You just admitted that shsring information isn't a crime.
 
digitusmedius said:
That kind of response only works in your echochamber but you're not in the echochamber here. In this, the real world, you're just absurdly ranting against something that anyone with a speck of sense and honesty can see.
Click to expand...

How much was the information worth? If it's a thing of value, what's it's value?
 
humbolt said:
There is in fact a red fox attempting to establish a residency at the barn in one of the hay storage stalls. Given that only ten of the thirty stalls there are in use, I'd greatly appreciate it if the fox would select an unused one.
Click to expand...

I can bring Champ down to run him for you. She loves to run foxes. She never catches them. But she lives for the chase!
 
TomFitz said:
I can bring Champ down to run him for you. She loves to run foxes. She never catches them. But she lives for the chase!
Click to expand...

I don't mind having the fox around at all. I'd just prefer he select a vacant stall and not foul the hay.
 
digitusmedius said:
The presidency. C'mon, quit playing stupid.
Click to expand...

There has to be a $ amount. If information has a dollar amount, then a piece of information from a citizen of the republic could easily exceed the $2,500 limit on campaign contributions to one campaign. So, where's the table used to determine the value of information. Let's see it.
 
Craig234 said:
Because you're projecting. You have no idea what morals or the rule of law are, so to you, they're just words to seize power, because that's all it would be to you, which is what you want to do to the next president in revenge.
Click to expand...

Why? The democrats would do it if this is any republicans presidential. You know I heard that democrats should have won because they know what they are doing. Isn’t that one party system?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
digitusmedius said:
I particularly enjoyed watching your republican ankle-biters on the Judiciary Committee whining about the wording in the impeachment articles and then having the identical wording read back to them from the Clinton impeachment documents. Some of those moral and intellectual midgets were in Congress at the time and their massive hypocrisy had no effect on them. How does it feel to be in the party of complete immorality, cowardice and anti-Americanism?
Click to expand...

The Clinton situation does look like a joke despite he lied to Congress about it. You know if polygraph results were admissible in criminal trials. You people wouldn’t care you would want to impeach trump because he is a threat to the democrats

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
independentusa said:
Impeachment Trials and the Senator’s Oath of Impartial Justice | Take Care
For McConnell will certainly violate that oath by the way he is handling the trial against Trump in the Senate. He will work with the defendant, Trump, to see that there is a little hurt to Trump's chances of re-election as possible and has stated that the outcome is already predetermined. All of which violates the oath he will take as a juror in the trial. Of course, we have seen that McConnell has never even taken his oath of office seriously, so I guess that violating this oath means even less to him. I wonder if he has gone to one knee and taken a solemn oath to subjugate himself to the will of Trump as it seems he must have done. Perhaps that is the oath he is really willing to obey?
Click to expand...

He should not be ALLOWED to take the oath because he is now required to utterly recuse himself from any further impeachment proceedings for the duration of Donald Trump's tenure in office.

Any judicial officer who administers this oath to him with foreknowledge of his comments is liable for disbarment.
 
TheRepublican said:
Why? The democrats would do it if this is any republicans presidential. You know I heard that democrats should have won because they know what they are doing. Isn’t that one party system?
Click to expand...

No, the better party winning is not one party rule. If one party decides to be terrible - as the Whigs and Republicans both have done - then they don't deserve to get elected.
 
TheRepublican said:
The Clinton situation does look like a joke despite he lied to Congress about it. You know if polygraph results were admissible in criminal trials. You people wouldn’t care you would want to impeach trump because he is a threat to the democrats

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I notice there's no defense of your Dear Dirtbag in that pile of words.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
He should not be ALLOWED to take the oath because he is now required to utterly recuse himself from any further impeachment proceedings for the duration of Donald Trump's tenure in office.

Any judicial officer who administers this oath to him with foreknowledge of his comments is liable for disbarment.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. We all know that the Cult of Dirtbag will make McConnell one of its saints if not one of their demi-gods for this betrayal. He's been doing variations on this theme ever since he's been the Dictator of the Senate.
 
apdst said:
There has to be a $ amount. If information has a dollar amount, then a piece of information from a citizen of the republic could easily exceed the $2,500 limit on campaign contributions to one campaign. So, where's the table used to determine the value of information. Let's see it.
Click to expand...

The statute reads "a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value." And nowhere in the law does it say: "as defined by Trump cultists." Your idea that the presidency is not "a thing of value" is that cult mentality in high gear again.
 
Craig234 said:
No, the better party winning is not one party rule. If one party decides to be terrible - as the Whigs and Republicans both have done - then they don't deserve to get elected.
Click to expand...

This cracks me up...
The Republican: "I-i-i-i-i-i Hear-r-r-r-rd ♪ ♫♪"
 
digitusmedius said:
The statute reads "a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value." And nowhere in the law does it say: "as defined by Trump cultists." Your idea that the presidency is not "a thing of value" is that cult mentality in high gear again.
Click to expand...

If information is a thing of value and is considered a contribution, different pieces of information can't have the same value. Therefore, a table applying value to information has to exist showing the different $ values so that citizens making contributions to a campaign can know if the information they shared meets, or exceeds the legal cap on campaign contributions. Can you show us that table?

The presidency is a thing of value? Hell, that would make ANY contribution legal, even if it came from a citizen. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom