• 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!

Do you mind?

Do you agree that government money should be spent to defend trump in a sexual allegation lawsuit

  • Yes, I agree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No I do not agree

    Votes: 15 100.0%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
No, it didn't. Impeachment is a government thing. It is not a personal thing. Impeachment is about deciding whether a president should be president and it affects everyone. How does Trump raping that woman affect the government? How does it affect you? Should you be paying for it?

I often wonder about your ability to reason but this post made it clear. You have no ability and have no common sense.

Clinton was impeached over a personal thing. It cost me money, not to mention all of the other investigations related to other wrongdoings such as Whitewater, just to name one.
 
Clinton was impeached over a personal thing. It cost me money, not to mention all of the other investigations related to other wrongdoings such as Whitewater, just to name one.

Clinton was impeached because he lied to "Congress". This is a government thing.

Anyhow, let's get your answer right regarding the OP.

So what you are saying is that you don't mind paying for Trump's defense and subsequent fines if found guilty,pf raping this woman. Am I correct?
 
Clinton was impeached because he lied to "Congress". This is a government thing.

Anyhow, let's get your answer right regarding the OP.

So what you are saying is that you don't mind paying for Trump's defense and subsequent fines if found guilty,pf raping this woman. Am I correct?

LOL. Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about his personal affairs.

So, you're ok with it all if Trump is found innocent of raping this woman?

What about the money I paid for Whitewater investigations?
 
LOL. Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about his personal affairs.

So, you're ok with it all if Trump is found innocent of raping this woman?

What about the money I paid for Whitewater investigations?

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

I have the perfect answer for you. I will not respond to your posts. Congratulations, you have become the deflection king! You are the winner. Go and claim your prize............being ignored.
 
Deflect, deflect, deflect.

I have the perfect answer for you. I will not respond to your posts. Congratulations, you have become the deflection king! You are the winner. Go and claim your prize............being ignored.

Just pointing our your double standard. I personally paid money for a lot of **** due to any number of presidents covering their own asses. It's nothing new.
 
So that means you don't mind us (the citizens of the United States) paying for the lawsuits that Trump generated against him. We personally should be involved in paying for them, right?

I'm saying that the hypocritical members of Congress have an actual fund set up to cover these expenses that is stolen from the public monies they steal for this and other goodies.

Singling out one elected official to be encumbered by this sort of expense seems oddly preferential.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

That said, however, this seems to have been driven by the office of the man, not the actions of the man.

In all honesty, I can't think of a time in my life when I would have been in a position to be invited into a changing room in a lingerie store by a woman trying on the products that would not have interpreted as a sexual invitation.

How many times have you been invited into a changing room by a woman, disrobing, to try on lingerie, in a lingerie store? Might be a Billionaire's kind of a thingy...

This seems to be ANOTHER recovery from this strange 25 year amnesia that grips so many Democrat-Socialist women allowing them to remember things they never talked about, reported to authorities or had witnesses for from 25 years ago.

I apologize if I have offended the delicate sensibilities of any women who have casually invited men to their changing room, in lingerie stores, to witness them disrobing, who did so with no carnal motivation.
 

So the basis of the suit is that the Carrol made an unsubstantiated claim and the President said that it was not true.

Is that pretty much the basis of the case?

Seems to be the consistent line of attack against the President. The Democrat-Socialist propagandists level an accusation and if the enemy they have cited objects to being lied about, they call it a crime.

I should think that even the Democrat-Socialist drones would be getting wise to this tactic.
 
Last edited:
So the basis of the suit is that the Carrol made an unsubstantiated claim and the President said that it was not true.

Is that pretty much the basis of the case?

Seems to be the consistent line of attack against the President. The Democrat-Socialist propagandists level an accusation and if the enemy they have cited objects to being lied about, they call it a crime.

I should think that even the Democrat-Socialist drones would be getting wise to this tactic.

Case has alot of steam, why else would Barr step in to try to get it dismissed?
 
I'm saying that the hypocritical members of Congress have an actual fund set up to cover these expenses that is stolen from the public monies they steal for this and other goodies.

Singling out one elected official to be encumbered by this sort of expense seems oddly preferential.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

That said, however, this seems to have been driven by the office of the man, not the actions of the man.

In all honesty, I can't think of a time in my life when I would have been in a position to be invited into a changing room in a lingerie store by a woman trying on the products that would not have interpreted as a sexual invitation.

How many times have you been invited into a changing room by a woman, disrobing, to try on lingerie, in a lingerie store? Might be a Billionaire's kind of a thingy...

This seems to be ANOTHER recovery from this strange 25 year amnesia that grips so many Democrat-Socialist women allowing them to remember things they never talked about, reported to authorities or had witnesses for from 25 years ago.

I apologize if I have offended the delicate sensibilities of any women who have casually invited men to their changing room, in lingerie stores, to witness them disrobing, who did so with no carnal motivation.

This OP was not about whether Trump is guilty or not. This OP is about us having to get involved economically in paying for Trump's personal problems. We had nothing to do with them and I certainly don't want to put money out of my pocket to defend him and pay the fine if found guilty. Let him handle his own problems. He certainly is rich enough to pay for a lawyer himself.
 
Case has alot of steam, why else would Barr step in to try to get it dismissed?

Could be that the action has something to do with legality.
 
This OP was not about whether Trump is guilty or not. This OP is about us having to get involved economically in paying for Trump's personal problems. We had nothing to do with them and I certainly don't want to put money out of my pocket to defend him and pay the fine if found guilty. Let him handle his own problems. He certainly is rich enough to pay for a lawyer himself.

Would this "problem" have come to light if the President was not the nominee of his party or the elected President?

Seems like waiting 20 years to react to something is a little slow.
 
Would this "problem" have come to light if the President was not the nominee of his party or the elected President?

Seems like waiting 20 years to react to something is a little slow.

Again, not important. The question remains the same. Why should we pay for his personal problems.
 
Again, not important. The question remains the same. Why should we pay for his personal problems.

Seems to be a pretty common thing for the Swamp Creatures.

Are you saying that our laws should be applied selectively?
 
Seems to be a pretty common thing for the Swamp Creatures.

Are you saying that our laws should be applied selectively?

No, it is not common at all. In fact, never before has the Justice Department taken on the personal lawsuit of any president.

As such, why are they taking this on "selectively"?

Explain that to me!
 
No, it is not common at all. In fact, never before has the Justice Department taken on the personal lawsuit of any president.

As such, why are they taking this on "selectively"?

Explain that to me!

Did Congress Use a 'Slush Fund' to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed?

<snip>
In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a “slush fund” to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers.

Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.

Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports — for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under “Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance.” In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97.



Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to “Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances,” then click on the report for the Legislative Branch).
<snip>
 
Did Congress Use a 'Slush Fund' to Pay $17 Million to Women They Sexually Harassed?

<snip>
In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a “slush fund” to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers.

Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.

Unlike a “slush fund” which would be off the books, the fund is a line item and every year its activity can be viewed by the public in Treasury reports — for example money laid out from the fund in Fiscal Year 2016 can be viewed here under “Awards and Settlements, Office of Compliance.” In FY 2016 the fund paid out a total of $491,733.97.



Yearly breakdowns dating back to 1995 can be viewed here (click on the year desired then scroll to “Part Three Fiscal Year 2016 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances,” then click on the report for the Legislative Branch).
<snip>

Though the article is interesting, it is not official nor proven that there is a slush fund and that it was used to pay off sexual harassment suits.

In THIS case, this is official and there is no doubt that tax payer money is being used to defend trump against a personal lawsuit.
 
Though the article is interesting, it is not official nor proven that there is a slush fund and that it was used to pay off sexual harassment suits.

In THIS case, this is official and there is no doubt that tax payer money is being used to defend trump against a personal lawsuit.

This fact checker specifically says that the fund exists, was voted into law by the Congress, has paid out millions in settlements and has been functioning to cover the tracks of our lying thieves since 1995.

Did you read the link or the pull quote at all?

They DO stipulate that this is NOT a slush fund since it is officially sanctioned and uses Treasury money to do its cover up duties.
 
Back
Top Bottom