• 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!

Sestakgate

M

MXracer169

New member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
37
Reaction score
6
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What does everyone think about the Sestak situation... I know there are others who were offered jobs to drop out of their primary... Obama promised this wouldn't happen, but it looks like that was a lie. I believe that as disgusting as it is, stuff like this is politics as usual. Both sides have done this, but Obama promised he wouldnt.

Personally, I have an inkling that Clinton wouldn't have called Sestak to offer him a part time pro bono advisory job. Something shady is going on, and it probably will get out, leading to the last thing our country needs: another presidency destroyed by lies and disregard for the office. I sure hope that doesn't happen though, but this situation seems wrong.
 
A formal investigation and special prosecutor must be appointed to either exohnerate or prosecute wrong doing here. The amount of information provided so far by the WH attorney and the interviews from Sestak do not match up. Couple that with Press Secty. Gibbs stonewalling for months in press briefings and it makes the WH look guilty as hell at wrong doing.
 

It's past time for a special prosecuter to look into this.

No-one should be allowed to get away with tampering with elections.
 
I just think that if it was as simple as the explanation given, it wouln't have taken a unified front to come out with related statements months later.
 
MXracer169 said:
I just think that if it was as simple as the explanation given, it wouln't have taken a unified front to come out with related statements months later.
Click to expand...

Why has no one focused on the candidate himself. If the report from the White House is to be believed, then Sestak inflated the offer to make him look independent to the voters. He may have defrauded the public, which can't be a crime in this country or there would be no politians.
 
True, I think the reason people are doubtful of the WH is because they sent Clinton as the messenger, it seems like he would only get involved if this was a bigger deal.
 
I think they should require Arlen Specter to appear before Congress & grill him for what he knows of the situation....a threat to cancel his retirement benefits & health care due to "illegal activity" would probably have that little weasle spilling his guts....he is finished in politics anyway so "giving up" what he knows would be no real loss for him.


 
Problem is you alot of you are so eager to nail him that it doesn't matter what the outcome is. AND CAN SOMEONE PLEASE explain to me why you would wanna investigate something as trivial as this (No wait it make sense since everyone in here hates him so much) and not wanna investigate a president that took you to war on false pretenses that cost the lives of over 4000 American Soldiers.

I'd get your priorities straight.
 
Fridays WH statment before Memorial Day weekend put the kabash on the Sestak issue quite brilliantly, it seems. I don't have cable, but broadcast news has forgotten completely about it....as have most of the trough feeding sheep....much to the relief of the administration.

See how that works?
 
Last edited:
There's literally nothing here to accuse President Obama of. Many point to a Federal law that makes it illegal to tamper with elections, however, by their logic all appointments made by Presidents would be illegal. If the only criteria is the ambiguous word "influence," then all our Presidents have undoubtedly "influenced" an election. Honestly, what appointment doesn't influence an election? Didn't Obama's election influence the Senate election? Didn't tapping then AZ governor Janet influence that election? Clearly, the law is not intended to be directed at the President.
 
Luckily for Obama there is so much other crap crashing down around him, this Sestak issue/scandal may just die on the vine. And with the Democrats controlling both sides of Congress and Holder overseeing Justice, there really isn't anyone to push very hard for an investigation. (Maybe Hillary. Could only help her future aspirations..... )




.
 
Jetboogieman,
It appears to be a violation of the law & should be given the "light of day" so everyone can understand what happened, not just those behind closed doors and seeking to hide the truth of their actions....As to your statement about investigating President Bush, you would also have to investigate each member of Congress that voted for that war....he did not take us into that war alone.
While 4,000 American Soldiers died there, that is nothing to Viet Nam with 220,357 dead, which was started by a Democrat President in the first stage but also had two Republicans during it's course as well as 2 additional Democrats....So 3-2 in the Democrats favor for probably the most unpopular war.

I believe my priorities are straight, but I understand for a lot of folks it is hard to see beyond "Bush" and to access blame where it should fall today.


 
Even if Obama did do something illegal, do we really want Biden as President?
 
Chuz Life said:
Oh snap!

Give me some time to think about that.
Click to expand...

Oh comon now --- Joe would be a hoot! Not much of a President but he'd be hella entertaining.
 
Ockham said:
Oh comon now --- Joe would be a hoot! Not much of a President but he'd be hella entertaining.
Click to expand...

I can just imagine his advisers watching in terror every time he has to speak without a script.
 
Ockham said:
Oh comon now --- Joe would be a hoot! Not much of a President but he'd be hella entertaining.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah,... but is Joe's entertainment value any less costly to the nation over all than Bummer's is?
 

Honestly, it doesn't bother me at all. . . not in the slightest.

I think part of the reason why it doesn't bother me is that it happened a while back - and no harm came of it. I'd be a hypocrite, though, in a different sitaution if something bad did happen due to it. . .I'd be pissed.

But at least I admit that
 

I use the basic test of reversing the roles and seeing how I would react. If it had been Bush offering the job, what would I think? Well, I have a hard time believing I would have really cared much. If a crime has been committed, then something has to be done, but it is my understanding that it is unlikely that there was a clear violation of the law. It's not my place to judge legality though, that and I fully support any investigation into this, as long as it is nonpartisan.
 
Drunken Asparagus,
Depending who knew what when, OBAMA, Biden, Pelosi, etc may all be gone....if one broke the law, they all did.....
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Even if Obama did do something illegal, do we really want Biden as President?
Click to expand...
 
I agree, a nonpartisan investigation is called for.....part of the "problem" with politics is that we "accept something" just because it was done before by another party or person.....if it is a lie, dishonest, immoral, etc, it is so each time, not just the first or last.....Obama's pledge to have negotations on C-SPAN was good, except he did not actually do so.....perhaps EXPOSURE on C-SPAN to all negotiations except those related to National Security should become the law....the "Light of Day" is an excellant method of keeping things honest & above board.....


 
Line of Succession

Joseph Biden
Nancy Pelosi
Robert Byrd

Better defense to Obama's presidency to 2013 than the best Secret Service Agent or stonewalling effort could muster
 
Do we really have to add -gate to everything?
 
I just can't stand how this administration is so obviously hiding the truth. Just look at the videos of Gibbs not saying ANYTHING in his answers. He practically says, "I refer you to your question."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…