• 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!

Republicans issue 123-page defense of Trump ahead of Democrats’ impeachment report

W_Heisenberg said:
Trump supporters have decided, for various reasons, that the things they want to accomplish politically are more important than Republic itself. That's why they have dispensed with the burden of having to deal honestly with their political opponents. You see, they do not view members of the Democratic Party to be legitimate participants in the same political system, but only as enemies worthy of total destruction. Having a Democratic Senator or Congressman sit in judgment of Trump is just as ludicrous as having the Supreme Leader of Iran or Kim Jong-un of North Korea sit in judgment of Trump.

The same thing happened immediately before the Civil War. Southern plantation owners decided that slavery was an institution more valuable to themselves than the Republic.

The same thing happened during the Roman Republic in the 2nd century BC when the Gracchus brothers attempted to implement land reform policies that diminished the wealth of the Senators. So the Senators just murdered them.

Land reform in the Roman republic - Wikipedia

This is what Trump supporters think of their political opponents:

Four Were Hanged In 1865 Democrat Coup Involving Lincoln’s Assassination - None from 2016 Democrat Coup to Take Out Trump
Click to expand...

I got chills when I read the Gateway Pundit article.
 
Obscurity said:
Lmao. It blames Rudy.

Let's see that insurance policy, Rudy.

Let's see it.

Not that it will matter. The entire rotten edifice is laying in smouldering ruins. No FISA abuse. No FBI "spying". No Ukrainian meddling. Quid Pro Quo Confirmed at the direction of Trump, as noted in various testimony that the Manhattan Ghoul was operating at his directive.

Conservatives, this is what "checkmate" looks like. You guys can keep flipping out and tossing the table but the facts are right in your faces.

How the **** can you be so blind to this?
Click to expand...

Thirty years of coordinated conditioning.

Simple as that.
 
What if...? said:
Thirty years of coordinated conditioning.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...

You can thank the likes of Salem Media and the Epoch Times, Revanchist Christian Nationalists seeking to use an engaged voter base to forward their own vile christian nationalist garbage.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
It's not hearsay. That republican talking point was demolished long ago.
Click to expand...

LOL it is hearsay, ****, your own Congressman said it was ****ing hearsay when he literally said, hearsay evidence sometimes is better than direct evidence.

The only reason it's "allowed" is because this isn't legal, it's political. Doesn't change the fact that hearsay is hearsay.
 
sjmay said:
LOL it is hearsay, ****, your own Congressman said it was ****ing hearsay when he literally said, hearsay evidence sometimes is better than direct evidence.

The only reason it's "allowed" is because this isn't legal, it's political. Doesn't change the fact that hearsay is hearsay.
Click to expand...

you have to realize that leftist don't care about facts. they never have and never will which is why they avoid them at all costs and never address them.
 
sjmay said:
LOL it is hearsay, ****, your own Congressman said it was ****ing hearsay when he literally said, hearsay evidence sometimes is better than direct evidence.

The only reason it's "allowed" is because this isn't legal, it's political. Doesn't change the fact that hearsay is hearsay.
Click to expand...

Vindman and Sondland aren't hearsay, for example. Your talking point is quite dated.
 
Obscurity said:
You can thank the likes of Salem Media and the Epoch Times, Revanchist Christian Nationalists seeking to use an engaged voter base to forward their own vile christian nationalist garbage.
Click to expand...

The Powell Memo. The revanchist Christiban crap came later, after Powell and Ailes softened the Earth for them.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Vindman and Sondland aren't hearsay, for example. Your talking point is quite dated.
Click to expand...

sondland testified that he had no evidence and that he presumed that was the case.
he was never told. when asked what evidence he had he said none.

vindman simply stated an opinion that he didn't like the policy of trump.
we don't care if he doesn't like the policy when asked what evidence he had
again he said none.

so your talking point is quite dated.
that or in typical leftist fashion you ignored all the parts you didn't like.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Vindman and Sondland aren't hearsay, for example. Your talking point is quite dated.
Click to expand...

LOL holy ****,

Ok....Vindman isn't hearsay, let's see his testimony, k?

Can you point anything out that wasn't prefaced with, I thought, I believe, I felt?

Anything at all?
 
sjmay said:
LMAO says the guy who literally stopped at the 3rd paragraph,

But let's see, let's go to page 33 and 34....ill cut and paste for you since you stopped reading, now go through, see the #1. that's them postulating their position, they then provide EXAMPLES of previous statements from Trump, to back up that postulation, and then they use WITNESS TESTIMONY to further backup their postulation.


"1. President Trump has been skeptical about U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign
assistance.
Evidence suggests that President Trump is generally skeptical of U.S. taxpayer-funded
foreign assistance. President Trump’s skepticism of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign assistance is
long-standing. On June 16, 2015, when President Trump announced his candidacy for president,
he said:
It is time to stop sending jobs overseas through bad foreign trade
deals. We will renegotiate our trade deals with the toughest
negotiators our country has… the ones who have actually read “The
Art of the Deal” and know how to make great deals for our country.
It is time to close loopholes for Wall Street and create far more
opportunities for small businesses.
It is necessary that we invest in our infrastructure, stop sending
foreign aid to countries that hate us and use that money to rebuild
our tunnels, roads, bridges and schools—and nobody can do that
better than me.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump continued to express his
skepticism of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid. In March 2016, he told the Washington Post, “I
do think it’s a different world today and I don’t think we should be nation building anymore. I
think it’s proven not to work. And we have a different country than we did then. You know we
have 19 trillion dollars in debt. . . . And I just think we have to rebuild our country.”222 That
same month, then-candidate Trump told the New York Times, “We’re going to be friendly with
everybody, but we’re not going to be taken advantage of by anybody. . . . I think we’ll be very
worldview [sic], but we’re not going to be ripped off anymore by all of these countries.”223
As president, President Trump has sought to reduce U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign
assistance. In his fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, the President proposed “to reduce or end
direct funding for international programs and organizations whose missions do not substantially
advance U.S. foreign policy interests. The Budget also renews attention on the appropriate U.S.
share of international spending . . . for many other global issues where the United States
currently pays more than its fair share.”224 The President’s 2020 budget proposal—submitted in
March 2019—likewise “supports America’s reliable allies, but reflects a new approach toward
countries that have taken unfair advantage of the United States’ generosity.”225 The President’s
Click to expand...

Trump saying things at campaign rallies and in interviews is not proof that something didn't happen. No one asked Republicans to prove a negative. Evidence was provided that Democrats claim proves that Trump did things deserving impeachment. Republicans aren't effectively refuting that evidence by pasting Trump quotes from 3 years ago.
 
Nalu said:
Trump saying things at campaign rallies and in interviews is not proof that something didn't happen. No one asked Republicans to prove a negative. Evidence was provided that Democrats claim proves that Trump did things deserving impeachment. Republicans aren't effectively refuting that evidence by pasting Trump quotes from 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

they have refuted it.
democrats own witnesses refuted it.

facts don't care about your feelings.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Vindman and Sondland aren't hearsay, for example. Your talking point is quite dated.
Click to expand...
And what did Sondland say Trump said when he directly asked Trump what he wanted. I don't want anything no Quid Pro Quo.

Vindman heard no Quid Pro Quo.
 
ludin said:
yet you are still repeating the same misinformation or at this point lies that you were before.
so obviously you didn't read anything.

so before you say that you are not lying i will go ahead and post the definitions for you.

Being misinformed is simply not knowing information.
lying is either knowing or been giving the information yet continued to say the wrong thing over and over again.
Click to expand...

.
And you are consistently guilty of both.

The only reason I ever read your ramblings is for their comedic value. They are so far from reality they are just flat out funny...
 
GDViking said:
.
And you are consistently guilty of both.

The only reason I ever read your ramblings is for their comedic value. They are so far from reality they are just flat out funny...
Click to expand...

not at all. i post facts and in typical leftist fashion you address nothing.
i have posted all of the testimony that none of the people that testified had any evidence of wrong doing or anything else illegal
that happened in 2 weeks of investigations.

yes what leftist post is hilarious more so because they claim to be so smart but are so stupid that they don't understand basic definition of words.

such as when someone is asked
well what evidence do you have to support what you said?

their response was well i don't have any evidence is simply assumed it even though i was never told.

GUILTY burn him GUILTY.

that is the leftist logic of stupid.

when a rational logical person see's that statement they go: "ol well he doesn't have any evidence of wrong doing he is simply stating an opinion".
so i guess that means he honestly doesn't know so therefore it is meaningless.

this is called speculation. speculation is not evidence.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Sure, no problem. :shrug:


Read White House Summary of Trump'''s Ukraine Call | Time


I mean, did you REALLY just say that? Trump himself asked Ukraine to "look into" the thing "about Biden's son". The White House put out that call summary.

God, I swear Trump defenders say the stupidest things.


So let's get back to my question:

Please address that. If Trump has a long distrust and a "deep-seated" distrust of Ukraine due to "pervasive corruption", why would the President of the United States want them to investigate a United States citizen?

Please answer that question. Or run away, which is what I suspect you will do.



Then why would the President of the United States ask a country known for corruption to investigate an American citizen living in America?

Please answer the question that sjmay clearly doesn't want to answer.
Click to expand...

pretty simple.... because it is a new Ukrainian president he is asking and Ukraine is where Biden very likely DID something corrupt according to the video we have on him. .
 
Last edited:
Nalu said:
Wouldn't that have been nice? In one place, the report says, "Ukraine felt good about its relationship with the United States." This is the Republicans' report to themselves to rebut a congressional committee report that hasn't been released. There is not a splinter of light between it and the Fox News narrative. It's sad that the congressional staffers who wrote the report think that's what their job is supposed to be and that they think that it meets the standards of a real congressional report.
Click to expand...

Hi, and thanks for the response. It is possible, of course, that the Republican report is little more than a bit of fluff aimed at the 'true believers'. If so, excerpts of it may turn up on AM conservative talk radio. Today, at least one show contented itself with discussing the hair on Mr. Joseph Biden's legs. And so it goes.

Regards.
 
Nalu said:
Trump saying things at campaign rallies and in interviews is not proof that something didn't happen. No one asked Republicans to prove a negative. Evidence was provided that Democrats claim proves that Trump did things deserving impeachment. Republicans aren't effectively refuting that evidence by pasting Trump quotes from 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

No, but it is evidence to support their postulation, which was Trump has been skeptical about US Foreign Aid, for a LONG TIME.

Seriously, do you just not read this ****, or can you not comprehend what you are arguing?
 
sjmay said:
LMAO says the guy who literally stopped at the 3rd paragraph,

But let's see, let's go to page 33 and 34....ill cut and paste for you since you stopped reading, now go through, see the #1. that's them postulating their position, they then provide EXAMPLES of previous statements from Trump, to back up that postulation, and then they use WITNESS TESTIMONY to further backup their postulation.


"1. President Trump has been skeptical about U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign
assistance.
Evidence suggests that President Trump is generally skeptical of U.S. taxpayer-funded
foreign assistance. President Trump’s skepticism of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign assistance is
long-standing. On June 16, 2015, when President Trump announced his candidacy for president,
he said:
It is time to stop sending jobs overseas through bad foreign trade
deals. We will renegotiate our trade deals with the toughest
negotiators our country has… the ones who have actually read “The
Art of the Deal” and know how to make great deals for our country.
It is time to close loopholes for Wall Street and create far more
opportunities for small businesses.
It is necessary that we invest in our infrastructure, stop sending
foreign aid to countries that hate us and use that money to rebuild
our tunnels, roads, bridges and schools—and nobody can do that
better than me.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump continued to express his
skepticism of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid. In March 2016, he told the Washington Post, “I
do think it’s a different world today and I don’t think we should be nation building anymore. I
think it’s proven not to work. And we have a different country than we did then. You know we
have 19 trillion dollars in debt. . . . And I just think we have to rebuild our country.”222 That
same month, then-candidate Trump told the New York Times, “We’re going to be friendly with
everybody, but we’re not going to be taken advantage of by anybody. . . . I think we’ll be very
worldview [sic], but we’re not going to be ripped off anymore by all of these countries.”223
As president, President Trump has sought to reduce U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign
assistance. In his fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, the President proposed “to reduce or end
direct funding for international programs and organizations whose missions do not substantially
advance U.S. foreign policy interests. The Budget also renews attention on the appropriate U.S.
share of international spending . . . for many other global issues where the United States
currently pays more than its fair share.”224 The President’s 2020 budget proposal—submitted in
March 2019—likewise “supports America’s reliable allies, but reflects a new approach toward
countries that have taken unfair advantage of the United States’ generosity.”225 The President’s
Click to expand...





:lamo:lamo:lamo

I quit reading when the art of the deal was referenced.

Trump has publicly admitted to never reading it, or any of the other books he supposedly wrote...
 
Khayembii Communique said:
That's not hearsay...
Click to expand...

It's not ****ing direct evidence though....is it?

Holy **** lmao.

When DIRECTLY asked if he had any knowledge of a QPQ, or linkage to aid etc, VINDMAN SAID NO.

That is direct evidence.....show me where Vindman testified DIRECTLY to something the President said or did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom