• 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!

The One Question No Democrat On These Boards Can Answer

Aid authorized by Congress that Trump withheld.

Because he has authorization and wanted to see if other country’s would step up ...like he’s forced some NATO countries to up contributions to NATO..


Trump has history of demanding other countries to contribute fair share...can’t be ignored even though Dems choose too.

ShiffShow is real loser...please continue
 
:lamo......:lamo.......:lamo

Like I said, you won't answer it, because I already gave you the answer, and you don't want to admit it.

Look at you. Wriggling like a worm on a fish hook. This is hysterical.

Tell us, why, oh why, won't you answer?
 
That's called "negotiating".

Maybe for authoritarian autocracies. Not for a US President. Trumpettes and their MAGA nonsense actually have no idea what makes America Great.

Guess what....its not the ability to buy a Ford F150 with a gun rack on credit.
 
The two most important votes in the history of the House is going to war and Impeaching a president that overrides the election and the voters.

Proper protocol is the following

1. Evidence is provided to the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote

2. If you get the votes, the evidence and vote is provided to Congress to investigate the claims, hold hearings, and depose witnesses.

3. Once the Investigation is completed and evidence collected, the House votes to Impeach and sends it to the Senate.

Pelosi didn't go to the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote. She made the decision herself before she even knew whats in the WB complaint or reading the call transcript and did it on national TV.
Most of us know why she didn't go through the House. She didn't have the evidence she needed and she didn't have the vote.

So if you think she did have the vote, then you should be able to answer the following question.

Why would Pelosi decide not go through the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote for one of the most important decisions you are asking Congress and the Senate to do which is remove an elected sitting president?

The answer you will get and are getting is that Pelosi can make the rules. But let's not focus on Pelosi and her partisan maneuvering to install a Democrat in the WH and get SCOTUS back to the leftist, fiat-issuing arm of the Democrat party. Let's focus on getting Republicans to sack up and defend a duly-elected President and stop Democrats from overturning a legit election of an American President, that the American people voted for, that our great Constitution installed.
 
Maybe for authoritarian autocracies. Not for a US President. Trumpettes and their MAGA nonsense actually have no idea what makes America Great.

Guess what....its not the ability to buy a Ford F150 with a gun rack on credit.

You sure as hell don't.
 
So Dems want corruption exposed in Ukraine only if it involves Ukrainians? Huh?

Like I said, you won't answer it, because I already gave you the answer, and you don't want to admit it.

Look at you. Wriggling like a worm on a fish hook. This is hysterical.

Tell us, why, oh why, won't you answer?

Already answered
 
1. More evidence is coming out at an alarming rate + the investigation hasn't had time to complete, so we don't know all the charges yet
2. Public opinion needs time to turn, putting more pressure on the Senate


Won't happen.

The evidence that is coming out is mostly fabricated or rehashing of old memes.

Example: A whistle blower turns up who is then shown to be nothing but hearsay. Then we learn there is now a brand never used whistle blower who was standing there when it happened. And a couple more waiting if needed.

Sound familiar? Because it is. A repeat of Kavanaugh. Who is now a SCOTUS judge. Trump is still President.

After 3 years of nothing people are tired of the game.
 
Won't happen.

The evidence that is coming out is mostly fabricated or rehashing of old memes.

Example: A whistle blower turns up who is then shown to be nothing but hearsay. Then we learn there is now a brand never used whistle blower who was standing there when it happened. And a couple more waiting if needed.

Sound familiar? Because it is. A repeat of Kavanaugh. Who is now a SCOTUS judge. Trump is still President.

After 3 years of nothing people are tired of the game.

hearsay that was corroborated by the AG, which is admissible since it was verified.

During the Kavanaugh period, I was taking a hiatus from politics to deal with family matters. So I am not very familiar with what exactly happened there.
 
I remember when John Gotti was on trial one time and Bruce Cutler argued that the detective had not followed procedure when gathering evidence against him.

It didn't work for those thugs.
 
Because he has authorization and wanted to see if other country’s would step up ...like he’s forced some NATO countries to up contributions to NATO..


Trump has history of demanding other countries to contribute fair share...can’t be ignored even though Dems choose too.

ShiffShow is real loser...please continue

BS.....EU has given more to Ukraine than we have. That was only the Second of Trump's multiple rationals for his Ukraine actions and Zalinsky call.

Get a fact for a change.
 
Already answered

Total and complete non-answer, which is typical for you lot. Let me guess, when he asked Xi to investigate Biden, was that about Corruption too?

LMAO.

You guys are truly out of touch.
 
BS.....EU has given more to Ukraine than we have. That was only the Second of Trump's multiple rationals for his Ukraine actions and Zalinsky call.

Get a fact for a change.

Got a link?
 
Won't happen.

The evidence that is coming out is mostly fabricated or rehashing of old memes.

Example: A whistle blower turns up who is then shown to be nothing but hearsay. Then we learn there is now a brand never used whistle blower who was standing there when it happened. And a couple more waiting if needed.

Sound familiar? Because it is. A repeat of Kavanaugh. Who is now a SCOTUS judge. Trump is still President.

After 3 years of nothing people are tired of the game.

Only now it's not "nothing." It's a sitting president lying about why he asked foreign powers to investigate a prior US Vice President who happens to be running against Trump in his re-election campaign.

I'm sorry but there is nothing you guys can say to defend this behavior.
 
Total and complete non-answer, which is typical for you lot. Let me guess, when he asked Xi to investigate Biden, was that about Corruption too?

LMAO.

You guys are truly out of touch.

$1.5 billion paid to Hunter investment company by Chinese Government....after flying to and from China with Joe on AF 2....gee crack smoking Hunter would be last place I would put $1.5 Billion....but I’m truly outta touch...:lamo
 
$1.5 billion paid to Hunter investment company by Chinese Government....after flying to and from China with Joe on AF 2....gee crack smoking Hunter would be last place I would put $1.5 Billion....but I’m truly outta touch...:lamo

Got an indictment? Lol
 
The two most important votes in the history of the House is going to war and Impeaching a president that overrides the election and the voters.

Proper protocol is the following

1. Evidence is provided to the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote

2. If you get the votes, the evidence and vote is provided to Congress to investigate the claims, hold hearings, and depose witnesses.

3. Once the Investigation is completed and evidence collected, the House votes to Impeach and sends it to the Senate.

Pelosi didn't go to the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote. She made the decision herself before she even knew whats in the WB complaint or reading the call transcript and did it on national TV.
Most of us know why she didn't go through the House. She didn't have the evidence she needed and she didn't have the vote.

So if you think she did have the vote, then you should be able to answer the following question.

Why would Pelosi decide not go through the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote for one of the most important decisions you are asking Congress and the Senate to do which is remove an elected sitting president?

I can answer... There is no constitutional requirement, statutory requirement or house rule that requires a vote for an impeachment inquiry. It is the speakers prerogative whether to take a vote and she has chosen not to do so. An impeachment inquiry is not a decision to remove an elected president. It's an investigation to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to vote on articles of impeachment.
 
The two most important votes in the history of the House is going to war and Impeaching a president that overrides the election and the voters.

Proper protocol is the following

1. Evidence is provided to the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote

2. If you get the votes, the evidence and vote is provided to Congress to investigate the claims, hold hearings, and depose witnesses.

3. Once the Investigation is completed and evidence collected, the House votes to Impeach and sends it to the Senate.

Pelosi didn't go to the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote. She made the decision herself before she even knew whats in the WB complaint or reading the call transcript and did it on national TV.
Most of us know why she didn't go through the House. She didn't have the evidence she needed and she didn't have the vote.

So if you think she did have the vote, then you should be able to answer the following question.

Why would Pelosi decide not go through the House for an Impeachment Inquiry vote for one of the most important decisions you are asking Congress and the Senate to do which is remove an elected sitting president?

lol...Trump's going down. Deal with it.
 
$1.5 billion paid to Hunter investment company by Chinese Government....after flying to and from China with Joe on AF 2....gee crack smoking Hunter would be last place I would put $1.5 Billion....but I’m truly outta touch...:lamo

I asked you a question, and I want an answer - non-answers are essentially an admission of defeat.

And yes, you're out of touch. You trumpists have no idea what sort of power you're unleashing in the case of the absurd, limp dicked unitary executive you desire. I know the typical conservative is driven primarily by fear, and that an authoritarian makes you feel safe and happy; but **** your feelings, right? Elections have consequences.
 
I can answer... There is no constitutional requirement, statutory requirement or house rule that requires a vote for an impeachment inquiry. It is the speakers prerogative whether to take a vote and she has chosen not to do so. An impeachment inquiry is not a decision to remove an elected president. It's an investigation to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to vote on articles of impeachment.

True, there is only precedent. It is also possible for the Senate to simply vote to dismiss any charges.
 
It's amazing to me that the Democrats are willing to go to the mat on a POLITICAL impeachment. Their legal case is tenuous at best but they insist that Trump must go and he must be impeached. We've got one freaking year before he can be voted out of office. Why not get him out that way and avoid setting a precedent that pretty much guarantees tearing down the political structure of the nation?

There's a reason why.

The Democrats don't want the Constitutional system we have. If they get this to work then they have essentially nullified the Constitution. It will be there on paper but it will be gone in practice and that's exactly what they want.

Democrats are fair-weather Constitutionalists. When it's working in their favor, they embrace it. When the Constitution throws road blocks in their way, they mount Sherman tanks and attempt to mow it down.
 
Great. So if she has the votes, the argument against holding the vote is what?

There isn’t an argument, but there is a strategy.

Enough representatives have openly declared for impeachment that she has plenty of votes.

That has been true for a week now.

But the right wing noise machine has amped up it’s “vote now” meme in an effort to make the Trumpster base believe that there is some doubt on this point. There isn’t. But the Trumpster media is presenting the myth, trying to sow confusion, and avoiding the facts whenever possible.

Pelosi is holding her votes because, as just about everyone knows, there is nowhere for this Trump/Ukraine thing to go but down.

Two weeks ago, the White House was trying to pretend that there was no phone call.

Now, they’re faced with evidence of a months long conspiracy, involving two cabinet secretaries, the Attorney General, and possibly the Vice President.

The longer she holds her votes, the worst things get for the GOP and the Trump White House, which is clearly, and openly guilty.


The Trumpster call for a vote now is a sign of weakness. They know the longer this goes on, and the more that comes out, the harder it will be for the GOP leadership to hold their votes.

And there is little doubt in my mind, that the political calculus of dumping Trump is very much on Mitch McConnel’s mind.
 
Non response

BS.....Not only are you boys not willing to research outside the forum....you don't even appear to know what is IN the forum. NOTHINGBURGERS from KNOW-NOTHINGS. Thats all Trumpettes are, either purposefully ignorant or just plain IGNORANT!
 
I asked you a question, and I want an answer - non-answers are essentially an admission of defeat.

And yes, you're out of touch. You trumpists have no idea what sort of power you're unleashing in the case of the absurd, limp dicked unitary executive you desire. I know the typical conservative is driven primarily by fear, and that an authoritarian makes you feel safe and happy; but **** your feelings, right? Elections have consequences.

Yes elections have consequences. Look forward to 2020 Trump vs Lieawatha
 
Back
Top Bottom