• 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!

Trumps defense?

haymarket said:
What is it that so befuddles you when I state that your concern has already been answered?
Click to expand...

When you have never answered the question but act like you have. But its what Liberals do so we have all become used to it.
 
Condor060 said:
When you have never answered the question but act like you have. But its what Liberals do so we have all become used to it.
Click to expand...

Your question was answered.
 
haymarket said:
Your question was answered.
Click to expand...

Then clearly it must be my mistake. Forgive me for being so forgetful.

Would you mind reminding me of your answer or just post the quote.

Here is the question I never found the answer too.

Can you explain how naive I am (as you stated) by explaining the many other conflicts of interest there are in the Senate.
 
Condor060 said:
Then clearly it must be my mistake. Forgive me for being so forgetful.

Would you mind reminding me of your answer or just post the quote.

Here is the question I never found the answer too.

Can you explain how naive I am (as you stated) by explaining the many other conflicts of interest there are in the Senate.
Click to expand...

my post 256 explained it to you.
 
haymarket said:
my post 256 explained it to you.
Click to expand...

Your post was

haymarket said:
None of the Senators would take Trumps job if he is convicted and removed. They would first have to win the election in November.
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer the question

You stated I was naive to think there were no other conflicts of interest other than Senators running for president.
I have asked you repeatedly what other conflicts of interest are there in this Senate other than Senators running for president.

But you can't answer the question.
 
Last edited:
Condor060 said:
Your post was



That doesn't answer the question

You stated I was naive to think there were no other conflicts of interest other than Senators running for president.
I have asked you repeatedly what other conflicts of interest are there in this Senate other than Senators running for president.

But you can't answer the question.
Click to expand...

Every Republican has the reality of Trump at the top of the ticket and with them being dragged along for the ride - either this year or later. His total and complete hijacking of the GOP makes it the Trump party and all of them adoring Trumpkins.

Actually I have answered your question since my reply demonstrates quite clearly that the four Senators in that who who are running for president have no more conflict than any other of the 96. And the Framers set it up this way with those realities in existence.
 
haymarket said:
Every Republican has the reality of Trump at the top of the ticket and with them being dragged along for the ride - either this year or later. His total and complete hijacking of the GOP makes it the Trump party and all of them adoring Trumpkins.

Actually I have answered your question since my reply demonstrates quite clearly that the four Senators in that who who are running for president have no more conflict than any other of the 96. And the Framers set it up this way with those realities in existence.
Click to expand...

So what are all these other legal conflicts of interest in the Senate? Liking Trump isn't a conflict of interest. Arguing 4 Senators not having a conflict of interest doesn't address all the other conflicts of interest you claim.

Why don't you just admit there are no other conflicts of interest and move on instead of all the gibberish.
 
Condor060 said:
So what are all these other legal conflicts of interest in the Senate? Liking Trump isn't a conflict of interest. Arguing 4 Senators not having a conflict of interest doesn't address all the other conflicts of interest you claim.

Why don't you just admit there are no other conflicts of interest and move on instead of all the gibberish.
Click to expand...

I explained it to you in post 284. I would strongly urge you to read it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The same could have been said for Obama's "bending" of federal immigration law to create DAPA/DACA with no congressional action. Obviously, Trump's "abuse of power" resulted in nothing but a delay in foreign aid to Ukraine while Obama's "abuse of power" continues to serve as the law of the land.
Click to expand...

That's BS sand you know it. If Obama had done anything wrong, you don't think McConnell and the GOP would have been all over his behind - I want what you're smoking. WOW
 
bongsaway said:
And I'm pretty sure you never will no matter what evidence comes out.
Click to expand...

Act as asinine and childish as you like. When all your side can do is just stomp their feet and cry foul.

It only pushes everyone from deciding in your favor and not the other way around, or has your lot not learned this lesson from the election in 2016?
 
jghiretire said:
That's BS sand you know it. If Obama had done anything wrong, you don't think McConnell and the GOP would have been all over his behind - I want what you're smoking. WOW
Click to expand...

There was GOP action to try to get the courts to overturn DAPA/DACA. Not every policy decision disagreement is going to result in partisan impeachment wishes. My point was that "abuse of power" means whatever someone says that it does if they have (or can get) the votes to back it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom