Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

America under President Trump


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • bush_cheney2004

    2639

  • Omni

    1845

  • Boges

    1483

  • taxme

    1291

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I see Trump went all "crybaby" toward the press yet again today in Florida. Is it perhaps that orange crap he sprays himself with that makes his skin so thin?  

His first 100 days will be a flurry of activities to implement most of the policies he'd promised. Here's an excerpt from a lengthy article how he says it would look: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05

maybe they share an addiction. Does Oxy make you sniff a lot I wonder?

Posted Images

37 minutes ago, Shady said:

I think this sums things up perfectly.

What the Dems/CNN are doing amounts to the justification of further aggression by Iran and their terrorist followers. Everything that comes out of the mouths of Dem/CNN talking heads right now is just juicy propaganda for islamic terrorists.

They're acting like the US was in no further danger of attacks from Iran before Trump killed Soleimani, like Trump's decision was against the urgings of the intelligence community, and like Trump killed a legitimate hero of the Iranian people, etc.

If I was Iranian and I watched CNN I'd feel like the media and the Dems were giving me all the reasons/justification that I need to make an attack on the US.

They tell this story as if the Iranians hadn't been taking tankers hostage, attacking the US Embassy in Iraq, and like they hadn't just killed an American contractor in Iraq, etc.

The Iranians or their legions of terrorists will definitely make several attacks on Americans citizens, and when they do, CNN and the Dems will blame Trump. 

What the Dems/CNN refuse to acknowledge right now is that when Obama was President, the ratio of dead American civilians/military personnel to terrorists & their leaders was horrible for the US. Since 2016 the number of American military/civilian deaths to terrorists and their leaders has swung drastically in favour of the US. 

Edited by WestCanMan
added a comma.
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses. 

Name one witness they weren't allowed to call.

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The Dems called hearsay witnesses, they didn't bring in any witnesses who had anything relevant to add in an actual trial.

Yeah, all the called was Trump's hand-picked EU ambassador in charge of persuading Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, who testified about his personal phone calls with Trump, and the ambassador to Ukraine, who testified about how she was smeared and pushed aside for not cooperating, and other embassy officials who testified to hearing trump talking on the phone, and a variety of state department officials with inside knowledge about it all. They also called a number of Republican officials involved but all of them ran away screaming in terror, refusing to testify.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2020 at 6:45 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

The Democrats only allowed witnesses to testify who were going to say things that they thought would hurt Trump, and refused to wait and allow other witnesses to testify,

You mean wait for people like the secretary of state and people from the white house who refused to testify? Gee, you'd think they'd have wanted to testify to refute this outrageous charge! Yet, bizarrely, not one single Republican official was willing to do so! :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the impeachment thing still on? Because I haven't heard much about it lately. I guess it's fallen off the news cycle radar, so no longer interesting then? Or what.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought it was an emergency...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Argus said:

You mean wait for people like the secretary of state and people from the white house who refused to testify? Gee, you'd think they'd have wanted to testify to refute this outrageous charge! Yet, bizarrely, not one single Republican official was willing to do so! :o

Because it was a partisan witch hunt not worth wasting their time on. If the Democrats thought they had a smoking gun, they would have waited for them to testify, instead of rushing things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Because it was a partisan witch hunt not worth wasting their time on.

I'm not a Democrat. In fact, I would, given my views, be a likely Republican - if the Republican party still existed.
And looking at the testimony it is abundantly clear to me that Trump violated all kinds of rules, threatened his country's national security interests, and blackmailed a foreign leader to try to persuade him to investigate his political rival over something no American or Ukrainian police agency thinks is worth investigating.

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If the Democrats thought they had a smoking gun, they would have waited for them to testify, instead of rushing things.

Wait? Until when? The Supreme court isn't likely to even issue a verdict about several previous subpoenas for things like Trump's tax receipts until the middle of the year. If they fought the subpoenas for testimony all the way to the supreme court too, which they would, they'd have to wait until September or October to get testimony.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Argus said:

Wait? Until when? The Supreme court isn't likely to even issue a verdict about several previous subpoenas for things like Trump's tax receipts until the middle of the year. If they fought the subpoenas for testimony all the way to the supreme court too, which they would, they'd have to wait until September or October to get testimony.

As long as it takes, if they got a smoking gun. If smoking gun testimony is an October surprise, all the better for Dems, but they know they don't have it, which is why they didn't want to wait. If you want to remove Trump from office, going forward with what they have doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, if they have a smoking gun, they could flip a lot of Republicans.

If you have the goods, there is no need to rush, and every reason to get your ducks in a row, if you don't have the goods, then there is every reason to rush and make impeachment go away before it does more damage than it already has to your election efforts.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

As long as it takes, if they got a smoking gun. If smoking gun testimony is an October surprise, all the better

The testimony already given by apolitical public servants plus Trump's hand picked ambassador to Europe has already proven what he did. And if the Republicans involved could have in any way refuted this they would have testified willingly. They couldn't, therefore, they refused to testify. This is an open and shut case. Even the so-called Republicans aren't denying what he did. They're just saying they don't care.

 

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Argus said:

The testimony already given by apolitical public servants plus Trump's hand picked ambassador to Europe has already proven what he did. And if the Republicans involved could have in any way refuted this they would have testified willingly. They couldn't, therefore, they refused to testify. This is an open and shut case. Even the so-called Republicans aren't denying what he did. They're just saying they don't care.

 

Americans don't agree, especially Americans in swing states, they don't care and are against the witch hunt. It's political suicide, you thinking they have enough does not make it so. They didn't even charge him with a crime, that's how little the Democrats have on him. If they had proof of a crime as you suggest, they would have included it in the articles of impeachment, but they pussed out, because they know they had nothing.

Sondland said Trump said no quid pro quo, Sondland not believing Trump is not proof that Trump was acting in the way Sondland imagined he was. Hearsay and speculation is not proof of a crime.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Argus said:

Name one witness they weren't allowed to call.

Yeah, all the called was Trump's hand-picked EU ambassador in charge of persuading Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, who testified about his personal phone calls with Trump, and the ambassador to Ukraine, who testified about how she was smeared and pushed aside for not cooperating, and other embassy officials who testified to hearing trump talking on the phone, and a variety of state department officials with inside knowledge about it all. They also called a number of Republican officials involved but all of them ran away screaming in terror, refusing to testify.

I don't know what witnesses they wanted to call, they were just given a list of witnesses that they were allowed to call and they couldn't add names to the list.

No one testified to being in the room and listening to the call in question, no one has ever heard Trump asking anyone to "dig up dirt", no one has ever said that they heard Trump say that US aid was predicated on the Ukrainians investigating Biden. No one.

Republicans shouldn't have to participate in this witch hunt until there's some actual evidence. There's nothing right now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't know what witnesses they wanted to call, they were just given a list of witnesses that they were allowed to call and they couldn't add names to the list.

No one testified to being in the room and listening to the call in question, no one has ever heard Trump asking anyone to "dig up dirt", no one has ever said that they heard Trump say that US aid was predicated on the Ukrainians investigating Biden. No one.

Republicans shouldn't have to participate in this witch hunt until there's some actual evidence. There's nothing right now. 

The evidence is there. Try read it before you deny it exists. It will be placed in the Senate trial and raised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't know what witnesses they wanted to call, they were just given a list of witnesses that they were allowed to call and they couldn't add names to the list.

No one testified to being in the room and listening to the call in question, no one has ever heard Trump asking anyone to "dig up dirt", no one has ever said that they heard Trump say that US aid was predicated on the Ukrainians investigating Biden. No one.

Republicans shouldn't have to participate in this witch hunt until there's some actual evidence. There's nothing right now. 

Go check out what was produced as evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans unilaterally voted no to impeachment. Dems did not unilaterally vote yes. In my opinion, the allegations were not 100% substantiated. In fact there was some doubt, some of the testimony appeared to show, fairly clearly, that the money was not being held up for this reason. And in the end the Ukraine received the transfer money on time, without having made any statements about Biden et al. I think at worst this was dirty politics, but not impeachable if I get the definition.

Turning to the Biden part, I think it does look sleazy, and there's little reason to doubt that Biden gave his son a choice position, that it helped to grease the wheels within US government. That too is just ordinary, everyday dirty politics.

Dems and their supporters are promoting a naive view that politics is conducted by honest people,and that we should judge anyone according to their double-standard. It's immature and stupid to think like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 2:43 PM, WestCanMan said:

The Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses. 

The Dems called hearsay witnesses, they didn't bring in any witnesses who had anything relevant to add in an actual trial. 

We know how the Dems feel about impeachment, we just haven't seen any evidence that it is warranted.

Actually they called several witnesses that could provide first-hand accounts. Trump denied them from testifying. I wonder why? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Boges said:

Actually they called several witnesses that could provide first-hand accounts. Trump denied them from testifying. I wonder why? :lol:

First hand accounts of hearsay is nothing. The Democrats didn't want to wait to allow those Trump didn't want to testify from testifying, I wonder why? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Americans don't agree, especially Americans in swing states, they don't care and are against the witch hunt.

They can not care but that doesn't mean what he did wasn't an incredible violation of presidential power and utterly undemocratic. So no, it's not a witch hunt for congress to point this out.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Republicans unilaterally voted no to impeachment. Dems did not unilaterally vote yes. In my opinion, the allegations were not 100% substantiated. In fact there was some doubt, some of the testimony appeared to show, fairly clearly, that the money was not being held up for this reason.

NONE of the testimony gave any reason why the money was held up. No one ever suggested any reason. According to those who testified, 100% of the US government agencies concerned wanted the aid to be sent to Ukraine. It was held up right after his phone call with the Ukraine president.

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

And in the end the Ukraine received the transfer money on time, without having made any statements about Biden et al.

After they were found out, after the whistle blower told on them and the IG informed them of this fact, then Trump removed the hold.

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

I think at worst this was dirty politics, but not impeachable if I get the definition.

Holding up aid money to a purported ally you are helping because it is in your national security interests is, by definition and all logic AGAINST your national security interests. For the president to do this in hopes of forcing that government to launch a phony investigation of his political rival is definitely impeachable.

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Turning to the Biden part, I think it does look sleazy,

What?

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

and there's little reason to doubt that Biden gave his son a choice position,

Evidence?

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

that it helped to grease the wheels within US government

Evidence?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't know what witnesses they wanted to call,

Then you have no business complaining about it.

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

They were just given a list of witnesses that they were allowed to call and they couldn't add names to the list.

Evidence?

18 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

No one testified to being in the room and listening to the call in question,

Because the White House refused all subpoenas and ordered everyone not to testify. However, the information about the call led to witnesses of the whole scheme and their testimony about what Trump was doing was incontrovertible. Nor has any Republican even tried. Even Trump's biggest suckholes in the Republican party don't deny he did it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

First hand accounts of hearsay is nothing. The Democrats didn't want to wait to allow those Trump didn't want to testify from testifying, I wonder why? :lol:

Why would they have to wait? Were they not available in November? 

The Chief of Staff admitted to a Quid Pro Quo to the Media. I'm sure he would have more insight testifying under oath. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Argus said:

They can not care but that doesn't mean what he did wasn't an incredible violation of presidential power and utterly undemocratic. So no, it's not a witch hunt for congress to point this out.

It was perfectly with his presidential power to do so. It is a witch hunt to pretend it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Boges said:

Why would they have to wait? Were they not available in November? 

The Chief of Staff admitted to a Quid Pro Quo to the Media. I'm sure he would have more insight testifying under oath. 

They have to wait for the courts to verify that the process for calling those witnesses was correct, as they were legally challenging them on it. If they wanted Mulvaney to testify, they could have waited, they simply choose not to. Democrats are trying to pretend that's obstruction the Republicans aren't entitled to and it's an abuse of power, but it is their legal right to do so, and the Democrats are impatient because they know there is no smoking gun and stretching out impeachment would play against them, so they rushed it. All those witnesses you are complaining about not testifying is 100% on the Democrats for not waiting, so stop blaming Republicans for exercising what they are legally entitled to do, as if that is proof they have the goods on Trump, when if that was the case the Dems would have been more than happy to wait.

Edited by Yzermandius19
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They have to wait for the courts to verify that the process for calling those witnesses was correct, as they were legally challenging them on it. If they wanted Mulvaney to testify, they could have waited, they simply choose not to. Democrats are trying to pretend that's obstruction the Republicans aren't entitled to and it's an abuse of power, but it is their legal right to do so, and the Democrats are impatient because they know there is no smoking gun and stretching out impeachment would play against them, so they rushed it. All those witnesses you are complaining about not testifying is 100% on the Democrats for not waiting, so stop blaming Republicans for exercising what they are legally entitled to do, as if that is proof they have the goods on Trump, when if that was the case the Dems would have been more than happy to wait.

That's the Trump tactic, delay delay delay. He'll challenge every court case that goes against him. 

Every court has said that he should release his tax returns and he's taking it to SCOTUS. If they let the courts rule, this wouldn't be addressed until well after the election. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...