• 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!

Partisan Hate Is Becoming a National Crisis

Really, you have proof of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians. OK I ask who were these Russians and how many were there that colluded with Trump, and what did they collude to do to win the election. Simple question


I posted the proof. He asked for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, they did it.

If ANYONE other than Trump had done that, they’d be in jail already.

Cooperating to commit an illegal act.
 
I posted the proof. He asked for Russia to hack Clinton’s emails, they did it.

If ANYONE other than Trump had done that, they’d be in jail already.

Cooperating to commit an illegal act.
That's not proof, it's idiocy. Russia's hacking was already revealed BEFORE he made the HUMOROUS comment.

And you SERIOUSLY think he'd actually do something like that publicly?
 
Although he says he's skeptical about whether what Pelosi has said about not going down the road to impeachment unless the reason is compelling "represents a true shift from toxic partisanship," David French says that at least she's doing what more politicians should do, looking beyond one's one "tribe" and thinking of the larger body politic, and argues that this is a "national necessity." From his article:

This morning the New York Times’ Thomas Edsall published an important essay highlighting a new study that analyzed the extent of “lethal mass partisanship.” As Edsall observes, the paper contained some disturbing statistics. Among them, “42 percent of the people in each party view the opposition as ‘downright evil.’” A stunning 20 percent of Democrats and 16 percent of Republicans believe “we’d be better off as a country if large numbers of the opposing party in the public today just died.” And if the opposing party wins the 2020 election, 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans “feel violence would be justified.”

We hear quite a bit about “dehumanizing rhetoric” in American public life. Well, it appears that tens of millions of Americans now have dehumanizing beliefs. “One out of five Republicans and Democrats agree with the statement that their political adversaries ‘lack the traits to be considered fully human — they behave like animals.’”

...It’s in this atmosphere that I’m increasingly of the view that the vanishing, bipartisan class of civil libertarians represent an important ingredient in the glue that keeps America together. The fundamental idea that we should defend the rights of others that we would like to exercise ourselves often requires that we gain greater sympathetic understanding of our opponents’ points of view. After all, the defense of liberty in the public square can never be merely legalistic. To be effective it also has to humanize. Nancy Pelosi & Trump Impeachment -- Partisan Hate Is Becoming a National Crisis | National Review

If you see those with whom you disagree as "more jackal than human," then you're "justified" in the impulse to ruin their lives and livelihoods. But at what cost to the nation?

Come, let us reason together, showing respect for all and malice toward none.
The only reason Pelosi is not going with impeachment is because she knows if the American public sees a Kavanaugh style debacle again going into the 2020, Trump will be 100% guaranteed a second term. She's playing it safe nothing more. Her partisan hate is still there, she just can't emote it until after 2020.
 
Last edited:
That's not proof, it's idiocy. Russia's hacking was already revealed BEFORE he made the HUMOROUS comment.

I don’t find a candidate for President of the United States calling on a foreign power to commit illegal acts in order to gain an advantage in the coming election “humorous”. You can call it a joke. But I call it treason.
 
No, I quoted what I meant.



That obvious denial of reality.

What did he do? Oh yeah, I forgot. Trump may have broken this law. He could have broken that law. He possibly broke this law. It looks like Trump broke that law. He might have broken this other law. It's the left's TDS wishful fantasy thinking for purely partisan politics.
 
You believe that, you'll believe anything.



I’ll say it again. We have video of Trump calling on a foreign power to commit an illegal act in order to gain advantage in the coming election.

This is an undeniable fact.
 
I’ll say it again. We have video of Trump calling on a foreign power to commit an illegal act in order to gain advantage in the coming election.

This is an undeniable fact.
We have a video of Trump MAKING A FRIGGIN' JOKE about the incompetence of the State Department and the FBI being unable to find over 30k of Clinton's emails. Again, do you seriously think he'd seriously suborn a crime on national TV?
 
I am going to assume that you're aware of McConnell's vow made in 2009 on the eve of Obama's inauguration, and that you're just playing coy or playing dumb, pretending you don't know what he said.

Re Mourdock, this fits you like a glove:

“I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.”

Soledad O’Brien pressed him on his notion of compromise, saying, “In fact, the only compromise you’ll do is really getting other people on the other side of the aisle to come to your side of the aisle, which I guess is the definition against compromise...”

“Well, it is the definition of political effectiveness,” he replied.

First, the Huffington post is mindless crap that should be in the grocery check out lane. Second, what in the hell do I care about what Richard Mourdock says? He's a nobody. Third, I'm not sure what in the hell you are even talking about in regards to Mitch McConnel, unless it's when he said he wanted to make Obama a one term president. That doesn't have anything to do with bipartisanship. All parties want the other party's president to be a one term president. The left are doing their best at that with Trump now. What on Earth did you want McConnell to do, donate to Obama's re-election campaign?
 
We have a video of Trump MAKING A FRIGGIN' JOKE about the incompetence of the State Department and the FBI being unable to find over 30k of Clinton's emails. Again, do you seriously think he'd seriously suborn a crime on national TV?

It wasn’t a joke. He called on Russia to commit an illegal act. He TOLD us. He could commit MURDER and not lose a single supporter.

He called his supporters ignorant sheep straight to their faces and they cheered him for it!

You’re defending his treason as a joke? Trump was right. He didn’t lose a single supporter.
 
It wasn’t a joke. He TOLD us. He could commit MURDER and not lose a single supporter.
That was also a joke

Vidi said:
He called his supporters ignorant sheep straight to their faces and they cheered him for it!
Let's see a link

Vidi said:
You’re defending his treason as a joke? Trump was right.
Says the person slavishly spewing the LW loony mantras.
 
That was also a joke

Let's see a link

Says the person slavishly spewing the LW loony mantras.

Did Trump say he loved the poorly educated ? Ignorant

Did Trump say he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose a single supporter? Sheep

And they cheered.
 
It wasn’t a joke. He called on Russia to commit an illegal act. He TOLD us. He could commit MURDER and not lose a single supporter.

He called his supporters ignorant sheep straight to their faces and they cheered him for it!

You’re defending his treason as a joke? Trump was right. He didn’t lose a single supporter.

It was a joke, in fact it was spot on. The joke was we could uncover more information about Hillary's illegal email investigation than we coukd from Obama's cover up team. The joke was spot on.
 
I’ll say it again. We have video of Trump calling on a foreign power to commit an illegal act in order to gain advantage in the coming election.

This is an undeniable fact.

Then not to worry, Trump will be going to jail, all you libs will make it happen over your video. You control the House and as you said Trump broke the law, so Adam Schiff will be on it and get Trump indicted or at the very least impeached. However why is it taking so long for them to act, it's been well over 2 yrs. Christ Trump should have at least been impeached as soon as he took office.
 
Then not to worry, Trump will be going to jail, all you libs will make it happen over your video. You control the House and as you said Trump broke the law, so Adam Schiff will be on it and get Trump indicted or at the very least impeached. However why is it taking so long for them to act, it's been well over 2 yrs. Christ Trump should have at least been impeached as soon as he took office.

Trump will NOT being going to jail. That’s a fantasy.

The Republicans will obstruct any criminal charges being filed under the mantra of you can’t indict a sitting president and when the coward Democrats win next either in 2020 or 2024, they’ll say it’s time to move forward and put it all behind us.

Trump will most likely win in 2020. I take him at his word. The fix is in.
 
First let me remind you that the period I mentioned was 60's and 70's, did not mention the 50's.

Police brutality and killings have been going on for decades. So while "sinister" not something new.

As to mass shootings, some are sinister such as the church shooting. We had bombing of black churches in the period I mentioned.

I could point-counterpoint each item on your list. Bottom line is bad things happen. There are bad,crazy people in this world. To say this period is more sinister, I guess the hidden point because of our current president does not hold up IMO.

I think perhaps I haven't been clear in defining what I mean by "sinister." I'm using the term fairly exactly--it traces back to the Latin sinister, which denotes the left hand. This imagery of right and left hand was assimilated in the prose of the early Roman rhetoricians to the imagery of light and dark, visible and invisible, working by main force in the open vs working by subtlety and subterfuge in the shadows, and so on, respectively. "Sinister," as I am using the term here, refers to undercurrents that are not very visible in the national conversation, but that are still consequential in terms of societal outcomes.

Consider one of the issues I raised: environmental destruction. It's only been very recently that articles on environmental destruction have received very much attention in the mainstream presses--NY Times, CNN, ABC, etc. We've been bombarded with news about climate change since the 1980s, but climate change is a very small threat compared to the fact that we have now destroyed something like one third to one half of the ecosystem since 1970, and at the rate we're going, human life will be unsustainable in a matter of decades. To know all of that, you have to do a lot of digging in academic journals, keep up with studies commissioned by the UN, and so on. The usual lineaments of the economy of public information simply do not distribute it.

Similarly, corporations have been engineering monopsony power for decades. But how often do we see articles about monopsony in the mainstream press? We see articles on the ups and downs of the various stock markets, people make noise from time to time about minimum wage and living wages, but the real problem is the practices companies use to short-circuit market principles that would ideally put upward pressure on wages, and in so doing, they creates themselves monopsonies. That's how oligarchies, and eventually, monarchies or other authoritarian regimes are created. Government power is gradually becoming less and less relevant as corporations start to control more and more of people's daily lives. And having been an employer myself, I'm well familiar with how the program works--it's intentional, it's downright evil, and it's entirely legal. It's also secret.

All of this, and more besides, is kept from becoming part of the national conversation, and it is tempting to think there is some grand overarching conspiracy behind it (to be clear, I do not know that there is, and do not claim that there is--merely that one could be forgiven for thinking so).

My point is that someone standing in, say, 1957 and thinking about the coming fight over racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws that took place in the 60s and 70s could point to advantages had by those who would eventually fight in favor of racial equality and a more liberal and just society. We are roughly at that same point, looking ahead to decades in which these newer issues will be fought out, and the sinister truth is that there are no advantages to be had by those who would fight against the growing power of corporations and the continued destruction of the environment. Which means that, very likely, George Orwell's vision for the future of the human race will be a fait accompli before anyone knows it.
 
I have two words for this nonsense thread: Brown Mustard.
 
Did Trump say he loved the poorly educated ? Ignorant

Did Trump say he could shoot someone in Times Square and not lose a single supporter? Sheep

And they cheered.
Yep, because they enjoy humor.
 
It’s amazing how anytime Trump says something completely indefensible, it was just a joke.
Not "anytime", he says some dumb **** seriously as well - as have most Presidents. But some of us DO have a better developed understanding of English, including the use of hyperbole, cynicism, and sarcasm.
 
First, the Huffington post is mindless crap that should be in the grocery check out lane.

They made a DIRECT QUOTE, would you prefer I pull up the VIDEO so you can see and hear him say it instead? So much for your whiny attack on HuffPost. Other outlets covered the exact same story, by the way.
Mourdock's comment dovetails with the prevailing mindset of the GOP today, the GOP ever since Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert, in fact.

Second, what in the hell do I care about what Richard Mourdock says?

Because for you, it should be like looking in a mirror.

He's a nobody. Third, I'm not sure what in the hell you are even talking about in regards to Mitch McConnel, unless it's when he said he wanted to make Obama a one term president. That doesn't have anything to do with bipartisanship. All parties want the other party's president to be a one term president. The left are doing their best at that with Trump now. What on Earth did you want McConnell to do, donate to Obama's re-election campaign?

A few posts back I ASKED, what would you expect Obama to do when LOCKED OUT by record filibusters and obstructionism.
You want to play dumb on McConnell, I see...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”

Before the health care fight, before the economic stimulus package, before President Obama even took office, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation.
Republicans embraced it. Democrats denounced it as rank obstructionism. Either way, it has led the two parties, as much as any other factor, to where they are right now.

"They met on the night that he was sworn-in, and took a blood oath to each other that they would be obstacles to [Obama's] administration," Clyburn maintained. "They set out to do so in a way that demonstrates the ultimate in disloyalty to the country."
Assistant Democratic Leader Clyburn, added, "Every attempt by President Obama has made to 'light a candle' to help show the way for progress, for opportunity, for bringing us out of the darkness of the great recession that we just experienced, he had seen those candles, those flames blown out time and time again by these Republicans," Clyburn charged. "And then they have stood on the sidelines cursing the darkness."

So yes, Obama had a pen and a phone, and that is pretty much ALL he HAD because there was NO BIPARTISANSHIP, and you damn well know it.

But go ahead and play dumb.
 
By the way, I have news for you, it's not JUST "the Left" and it's not JUST Trump either.
The entire obstructionist values challenged Republican Senate is doomed.
Mitch McConnell is doomed. He just doesn't know it yet.
 
I am going to assume that you're aware of McConnell's vow made in 2009 on the eve of Obama's inauguration, and that you're just playing coy or playing dumb, pretending you don't know what he said.

Re Mourdock, this fits you like a glove:

“I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view.”

Soledad O’Brien pressed him on his notion of compromise, saying, “In fact, the only compromise you’ll do is really getting other people on the other side of the aisle to come to your side of the aisle, which I guess is the definition against compromise...”

“Well, it is the definition of political effectiveness,” he replied.
So, he's using the Democratic definition of compromise - so what?
 
Then not one of the people that Mueller had in his pocket wanted to save their asses.



Where is the collusion? Yes that is a question. Further you libs were 100% certain for over 2+ yrs you have a ton of proof positive evidence that Trump colluded with the Russian. Where is it? It's a question



Where is the collusion?



BS I keep asking where is the Collusion.



Christ, you don't understand a thing, I'm the one asking the question, which is! Where is the collusion, you libs have been telling the world for over 2 yrs you have proof of Trump/Russia collusion.

Here you go, your guy Adam Schiff:

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that there is now “more than circumstantial evidence” that Trump’s associates colluded with the Russians to interfere in the U.S. election.

In an interview on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press Daily,” host Chuck Todd asked if Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, currently has a circumstantial case.

“Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Schiff said.

Adam Schiff says there's "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion - CBS News

Good luck with that one. You're going to need it.

/// you libs were 100% certain there was tons of evidence Trump had colluded with Russians ///// <----- YOUR words, not MINE....Feel free to put forth ANY post in which I've ever made such a claim. Good luck with that one also. You'll be hard pressed to find where I made any such claim. See what happens when you make such silly, unfounded, blanket statements ? It leaves you looking foolish, ignorant of facts, and desperate.
 
Last edited:
So, he's using the Democratic definition of compromise - so what?

Excuse me? The entire Third Way branch of the Dems consisted of Democrats embracing GOP ideas.
It's entertaining to see you pretend that never existed.

You failed.
 
Back
Top Bottom