• 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!

Pam Bondi left ‘blindsided and annoyed’ by Tulsi Gabbard’s sudden Obama crusade

Lycanthrope said:
Watching Taco's admin is like watching baboons shriek and throw shit everywhere.
Click to expand...
A crude, yet apt description. Don't like the visual, but it seems pretty on target. That said, I think baboons are more intelligent creatures.
Careyap87 said:
Not what President Trump says. He says if you don't like our country you can get out of hell of here.
Click to expand...
I love our country, its Trump that I hate. The man promises to make America great, yet has zero clue what makes America great. It is NOT the path he walking. The man has done far more damage to America than Osama Bin Laden could ever dream. Hijacking four airlines was minor league; he should have just backed the Trump presidency.

The question is, will Trump do us all a favor and get the hell out of here? That would put us back on the path to American greatness.
 
upsideguy said:
I love our country, its Trump that I hate. The man promises to make America great, yet has zero clue what makes America great. It is NOT the path he walking. Will he do us all a favor and get the hell out of here?
Click to expand...
Then I hate Biden Obama and all those commies. Trump will not get a 3rd impeachment.
 
Hello My Son said:
"We're" not back to anything. I stated my opinion that I want total transparency when it comes to the actions of elected officials, and I honestly don't care what it costs. After all, what good is any form of government going to be if the leaders get to engage in backdoor dealings knowing full well that they'll never get caught or face any consequences?

This demonstrates the stupidity of party politics. Partisans actually want their own leaders to not face scrutiny rather than inviting it. That says a lot about whether or not they truly believe their own side is doing things on the up and up. I would gladly invite scrutiny of anyone for whom I voted (and I did vote for Obama--twice).

This is my stance on the matter, regardless of who's releasing information or what their motivations are, and regardless of the costs. I'm completely in favor of everything possible being released to the voters, and that's that.
Click to expand...

You are not addressing what I wrote that disputes your point, which you are only reiterating. So then what your position is..."I know it's useless but sure, let's waste taxpayer $ to achieve no purpose because it makes me feel better". (If you think I'm "declaring some victory," a) I dont do that, and b) I'm pointing out that you appeared not to even read my post, since your's reflects no acknowledgement of that, except to say you want to reiterate yours. :rolleyes:)
 
Fledermaus said:
You are not addressing what I wrote that disputes your point, which you are only reiterating. So then what your position is..."I know it's useless but sure, let's waste taxpayer $ to achieve no purpose because it makes me feel better". (If you think I'm "declaring some victory," a) I dont do that, and b) I'm pointing out that you appeared not to even read my post, since your's reflects no acknowledgement of that, except to say you want to reiterate yours. :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

Imagine the cost of this absurd investigation, and all because Gabbard was on the outs with Trump over Iran.

My God, will we survive this incompetence and chaos?
 
Lursa said:
You are not addressing what I wrote that disputes your point, which you are only reiterating. So then what your position is..."I know it's useless but sure, let's waste taxpayer $ to achieve no purpose because it makes me feel better". (If you think I'm "declaring some victory," a) I dont do that, and b) I'm pointing out that you appeared not to even read my post, since your's reflects no acknowledgement of that, except to say you want to reiterate yours. :rolleyes:)
Click to expand...

Why are you dishonestly misquoting me? I never said that it's "useless" or that it would achieve no purpose or that it makes me feel better. You just made that up and put quotes around it as if I said it.

I said that I don't care what the cost of full transparency is. If you don't like that, I don't really care. If the electorate is fully informed on the actions of their leadership, that certainly isn't useless. Elections have consequences, and voters have a right to get the full scope of how all of those consequences transpired. As I said, you let the cards fall where they may. I didn't say that the cards need to fall where Lursa wants them to fall, which is why you're failing to understand my point.

If you can't see on its face why this is useful for a society, then I really can't help you, and it's not worth it for you to keep belaboring the matter.
 
Hello My Son said:
Why are you dishonestly misquoting me? I never said that it's "useless" or that it would achieve no purpose or that it makes me feel better. You just made that up and put quotes around it as if I said it.

I said that I don't care what the cost of full transparency is. If you don't like that, I don't really care. If the electorate is fully informed on the actions of their leadership, that certainly isn't useless. Elections have consequences, and voters have a right to get the full scope of how all of those consequences transpired.

If you can't see on its face why this is useful for a society, then I really can't help you, and it's not worth it for you to keep belaboring the matter.
Click to expand...

You didnt present any purpose other than 'you wanted it.' I asked you for a purpose and my post 154 demonstrated that it served none. So it was up to you to dispute mine. All you did was reiterate YOUR FEELINGS about it. And since "you dont care what it costs"...that's baseless feelings (without a valid purpose), not reasoned debate.

I'm not making up words here, ya know? The bold it bullshit, based on exactly what I wrote in my other post, 154.
 
Last edited:
Hello My Son said:
I said that I don't care what the cost of full transparency is. If you don't like that, I don't really care. If the electorate is fully informed on the actions of their leadership, that certainly isn't useless. Elections have consequences, and voters have a right to get the full scope of how all of those consequences transpired. As I said, you let the cards fall where they may. I didn't say that the cards need to fall where Lursa wants them to fall, which is why you're failing to understand my point.
Click to expand...

Hey...here's "consequences." Democrats lawfully and thru proper process openly tried to charge and bring to trial TACO on the false elector scheme and the stolen documents, for example. And were successful in doing so with illegal use of campaign funds.

Here's the consequences of those open, honest, lawfully intended (not out of vengeance or spite)....TACO was enraged, claimed victimization and invented the term "lawfare" and drove that outrage and vicimization all the way to the WH. And once there, continued his Revenge Tour and his own "constant" lawfare out of spite and retribution.

There you go. It reinforces my point. Even valid legal exposure and actions, with "open disclosure" of very real evidence of illegal behavior changed ZERO minds and only reinforced the same outrage and victimization in MAGA. No minds were changed...only inflamed.

So we're stuck with the angry, powerful moron in the WH. That's what legitimate legal action/disclosure caused. But you are happy to have any and all random "possible" "suspicious" obviously partisan crap made public in the same media and same level of validity? Thanks for wasting my tax dollars. You are supporting spite and distraction.
 
Lursa said:
You didnt present any purpose other than 'you wanted it.' I asked you for a purpose and my post 154 demonstrated that it served none. So it was up to you to dispute mine. All you did was reiterate YOUR FEELINGS about it. And since "you dont care what it costs"...that's baseless feelings (without a valid purpose), not reasoned debate.

I'm not making up words here, ya know? The bold it bullshit, based on exactly what I wrote in my other post, 154.
Click to expand...

I very clearly stated that it was for the good of the voting public to know exactly what their leaders are doing. Again, if you don't understand why this is a net good for society, even if it leads to election outcomes you don't like, then I can't help you.
 
Hello My Son said:
I very clearly stated that it was for the good of the voting public to know exactly what their leaders are doing. Again, if you don't understand why this is a net good for society, even if it leads to election outcomes you don't like, then I can't help you.
Click to expand...

You are repeating yourself again and still not directly refuting my post 154. I posted, twice (also post 196), why it's not net good for the outcomes you claim. I no longer expect you to...you dont have a counter argument. Feel free to see my response to 'your posted mindset' here, post 132 in a related thread. Or not 🤷
 
Lursa said:
Hey...here's "consequences." Democrats lawfully and thru proper process openly tried to charge and bring to trial TACO on the false elector scheme and the stolen documents, for example. And were successful in doing so with illegal use of campaign funds.

Here's the consequences of those open, honest, lawfully intended (not out of vengeance or spite)....TACO was enraged, claimed victimization and invented the term "lawfare" and drove that outrage and vicimization all the way to the WH. And once there, continued his Revenge Tour and his own "constant" lawfare out of spite and retribution.

There you go. It reinforces my point. Even valid legal exposure and actions, with "open disclosure" of very real evidence of illegal behavior changed ZERO minds and only reinforced the same outrage and victimization in MAGA. No minds were changed...only inflamed.

So we're stuck with the angry, powerful moron in the WH. That's what legitimate legal action/disclosure caused. But you are happy to have any and all random "possible" "suspicious" obviously partisan crap made public in the same media and same level of validity? Thanks for wasting my tax dollars. You are supporting spite and distraction.
Click to expand...

You're ranting because I have an opinion you don't like, and you're projecting a lot of your own biases into my position rather than making any effort to understand motivations.

I want transparency, period. I want our voters to be able to make informed decisions based on that transparency.

If the majority makes decisions based on transparent information that's available to us all, and those decisions don't align with my opinions or your own, so be it. I can accept that, whereas it appears you cannot.

That's my position. You're suggesting that you want outcomes to always align with what you want and seem to struggle with accepting it when they don't. Hence why you don't want transparency. You're okay with your preferred leaders being able to hide their actions behind a smokescreen, and I'm not okay with anyone being able to do that.

I want nobody, your side or your opponents, to be protected and insulated from justice, scrutiny, and consequences.

I'm not sure why you'd find my position so controversial when I'm saying that nobody should be able to hide behind the shield of power and should face voter scrutiny. After all, knowledge is power.
 
Hello My Son said:
You're ranting because I have an opinion you don't like, and you're projecting a lot of your own biases into my position rather than making any effort to understand motivations.

I want transparency, period. I want our voters to be able to make informed decisions based on that transparency.

If the majority makes decisions based on transparent information that's available to us all, and those decisions don't align with my opinions or your own, so be it. I can accept that, whereas it appears you cannot.

That's my position. You're suggesting that you want outcomes to always align with what you want and seem to struggle with accepting it when they don't. Hence why you don't want transparency. You're okay with your preferred leaders being able to hide their actions behind a smokescreen, and I'm not okay with anyone being able to do that.

I want nobody, your side or your opponents, to be protected and insulated from justice, scrutiny, and consequences.

I'm not sure why you'd find my position so controversial when I'm saying that nobody should be able to hide behind the shield of power and should face voter scrutiny. After all, knowledge is power.
Click to expand...

Dont accuse me of something because you cannot directly dispute my posts. All you do is reiterate your view, which I've countered. You repeating it doesnt then 'refute' mine :rolleyes: Why I would accept something you write, but isnt valid or supported? You have not done so. The red text was not a point I made, reflect a belief I hold, nor refute anything I wrote, so you are mistaken if you think so. Again, I cant even tell if you've actually read my 2 posts, 154 and 196. All I see is you repeating yourself and trying to do so 'more loudly.' The red text is either lies or grossly mistaken.

Edit: is it because of the examples I used? :rolleyes: Please, they were right there, low-hanging fruit, and right on the money. Also very current. Please try to make the distinction between the convenient examples and what I actually wrote about the validity and consequences of the information itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom