Trump and the Rule of Law - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15048302
Rancid wrote:It could be argued that Republicans are more partisan than Democrats as they are better at sticking together. However, that's neither here nor there I guess.



Is that a misquote? Please make an argument if that is true I'm fascinated.
#15048304
Istanbuller wrote:He won the election in 2016. It means that he is perfectly fit.


The election was decided by electoral votes, not the popular vote. Hence the American people didn't actually want him as president as he lost the popular vote.

Basically, winning an election doesn't mean the people selected you as president. This is a representative democracy after all.

Istanbuller wrote:It wouldn't have to be like this. It would be a bipartisan hearing if he was caught of doing of a real and defined wrongdoing.

Yes of course.

The thing is politicians have flexible morals. So what is real, defined, right, and wrong is subject to personal opinion apparently.
#15048305
Finfinder wrote:Ok but I guess I'm still not sure what your point


I'm not surprised. The problem is, you constantly argue against me as though I'm some sort of pro-democrat type. I guess that confuses you since I don't fit in the box you want me to be in.

Like I should be OK with the fact that going forward the Democrats have reduce the power of the executive branch

I never said this, but I'm curious to know how you think they have done this exactly? That is, reduce the power of the executive branch.
Last edited by Rancid on 13 Nov 2019 20:02, edited 4 times in total.
#15048306
Finfinder wrote:Is that a misquote? Please make an argument if that is true I'm fascinated.


History has made it very clear both sides are very partisan and petty. It's the nature of the politician.
#15048319
Rancid wrote:History has made it very clear both sides are very partisan and petty. It's the nature of the politician.


I don't think you can make that case if you look at the recent history of supreme court nominees. Look at it and tell me the Republicans are more partisan? As a mater of fact look at the votes of presidential nominees and show where the republicans are more partisan.

Rancid wrote:.'Im not surprised. The problem is, you constantly argue against me as though I'm some sort of pro-democrat type. I guess that confuses you since I don't fit in the box you want me to be in.


You are on a debate forum what is the point of making a debate neutral statement without offering your opinion? When you don't offer it people will assume and that is not on me that is on you.


For one thing we should immediately pass a bill to stop presidential harassment I think this is self explanatory. Secondly they are hacking away at executive privilege. The congress has ordered more subpoena than bills and even broken the attorney client privilege. The US court system has the final say in conflicts between the executive branch and congress period not 1 partisan committee chairman. The court is the checks and balance not a bunch of life time partisan bureaucrats and partisan congress.
Last edited by Finfinder on 13 Nov 2019 21:05, edited 3 times in total.
#15048321
Finfinder wrote:I don't think you can make that case if you look at the recent history of supreme court nominees. Look at it and tell me the Republicans are more partisan? As a mater of fact look at the votes of presidential nominees and show where the republicans are more partisan.


I said both parties are very partisan. I also said it could be argued republicans are more partisan. I did not say the republicans are more partisan. Personally, it doesn't matter who is more partisan to me, they both suck ass. Whoever is or isn't more partisan doesn't mean anything significant to me.

Maybe they should all be thrown in prison. I'm sure they are all guilty of something. :lol:
#15048324
Finfinder wrote:I guess thanks for pointing out congress can do whatever they want.

I didn't say that.

Finfinder wrote:Not sure where you stand on this ....Switzxerland?

I have my opinions. I don't think you've asked me for them. Thus far, you have just made up a caricature of what you don't like (democrats/leftist/whatever), attached that caricature onto me, and then attacked that. You think you are debating me, but you aren't. You are simply "debating" an idea of something you don't like. Basically, you are debating yourself.

I wonder how many baskets you could make with all the straw you've been making.

Finfinder wrote:You sound like fiscal conservative and social Democrat.

The problem is, you assume that if I say something that is in disagreement with you, or contrary to something you've said, it must automatically mean I'm a leftist/democrat/whatever. This is why you are confused, you haven't shown you are capable of having a (mostly) objective conversation.
#15048325
@Rancid I respond to what you post. You seem to want people to assume. Are you serious you actually think this forum is capable of an objective conversation. That is on you to make clear what your screen name stands for and what you stand for. This is not real people talking objectively its anonymous screen personalities debating for the internet onlookers to consume. It's entertqainment.

I wonder how much bandwidth you use and words you type to never take a position or say anything relevant. Are you worried about your POFO street cred. :lol: As if you actually know anybody for real on POFO. I do btw and we have hung out had beers great friend and he is completely opposite of me political. But I can't be objective LOL.
#15048326
Finfinder wrote:@Rancid I respond to what you post. You seem to want people to assume. Are you serious you actually think this forum is capable of an objective conversation. That is on you to make clear what your screen name stands for and what you stand for. This is not real people talking objectively its anonymous screen personalities debating for the internet onlookers to consume. It's entertqainment.

I wonder how much bandwidth you use and words you type to never take a position or say anything relevant. Are you worried about your POFO street cred. :lol: As if you actually know anybody for real on POFO. I do btw and we have hung out had beers great friend and he is completely opposite of me political. But I can't be objective LOL.


Sure, you're right, I shouldn't expect objective discussion. that said...

It's fine to respond to what I post. That's the not the problem. The problem is, you straw man like fucking crazy when you respond. It's hard to actually have a real discussion with you. You get out into the weeds very fast by inventing shit i didn't say, and then attacking that (definition of a strawman), so I can't even actually provide a real response to you. This is why you seem to be confused by me. You basically give me no chance to ACTUALLY say something in response to you. When I do, you run off with on some path that I never laid out instead of actually addressing what I said.

You've not noticed how often I have to write "I didn't say that"?
#15048327
Hunter Biden may have broken the law. His foreign work was inquired by President Trump in his call with the Ukrainian president. If Biden Jr. was doing something illegal in Ukraine, he should be investigated, too. If that is the case, there was nothing wrong with the Trump call. The CIA whistleblower is close to the Bidens and he may have something to hide as well. Hunter Biden sat on the board of the Ukrainian gas company called Burisma, which raised concerns that his status could create the perception of a conflict of interest. Hunter Biden worked as a lobbyist for the gas company as part of a campaign to burnish its image in the United States.

The son of former US Vice-President Joe Biden has defended his foreign business dealings amid attacks by the White House and increasing media scrutiny.

Hunter Biden - who has had business ties in Ukraine and China in recent years - told ABC news that he had done "nothing wrong".

But he admitted to "poor judgment", leaving him open to political attacks.

His foreign work - and Donald Trump's intervention - have sparked impeachment proceedings against the president.
Last edited by ThirdTerm on 13 Nov 2019 22:38, edited 2 times in total.
#15048329
ThirdTerm wrote:Hunter Biden may have broken the law. His foreign work was inquired by President Trump in his call with the Ukrainian president. If Biden Jr. was doing something illegal in Ukraine, he should be investigated, too. If that is the case, there was nothing wrong with the Trump call. The CIA whistleblower is close to the Bidens and he may have something to hide as well.


I don't think getting hired by a Ukranian company, despite the fact that you know dick about the job or the country, is illegal. I think the illegality lies wioth Joe Biden, in that he used his position as Vice President of the United States to help secure that job for his son. Hunter Biden has, in fact, alluded to this...
By late
#15048344
BigSteve wrote:
I don't think getting hired by a Ukranian company, despite the fact that you know dick about the job or the country, is illegal. I think the illegality lies wioth Joe Biden, in that he used his position as Vice President of the United States to help secure that job for his son. Hunter Biden has, in fact, alluded to this...



A lot of countries try to curry favor by hiring people. It's common.

What's needed is a strong 'revolving door' law. It's a 2 way street, if you're in the business you can't move into a regulatory position. In the more common case, you can't take a job from people you've been regulating. That should extend to families.

But used at this moment of time, Hunter is just a weak attempt at a get out of jail card.

While you don't have evidence that Joe pulled strings for Hunter (and you won't get it); we have plenty of support for the accusation that Trump betrayed the country for his own benefit, and endangered Ukraine in the process.
#15048424
late wrote:A lot of countries try to curry favor by hiring people. It's common.

What's needed is a strong 'revolving door' law. It's a 2 way street, if you're in the business you can't move into a regulatory position. In the more common case, you can't take a job from people you've been regulating. That should extend to families.

But used at this moment of time, Hunter is just a weak attempt at a get out of jail card.


The problem is that Joe Biden demanded that the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden's company be fired or aid would not be forthcoming...

While you don't have evidence that Joe pulled strings for Hunter (and you won't get it); we have plenty of support for the accusation that Trump betrayed the country for his own benefit, and endangered Ukraine in the process.


Trump's investigating Biden's nefarious activities as they pertain to the 2016 election, which Trump has already won. There's no personal benefit to Trump at this point...
#15048428
late wrote:While you don't have evidence that Joe pulled strings for Hunter (and you won't get it); we have plenty of support for the accusation that Trump betrayed the country for his own benefit, and endangered Ukraine in the process.

We have evidence that Hunter Biden and Devin Archer contacted the Deputy Secretary of State and Secretary of State respectively and had Biden's law firm and Burisma's law firm lobbying to remove corruption allegations against Burisma in order to secure US taxpayer funding through USAID. We also know that Poroshenko's chief prosecutor was looking into Burisma, and Biden sought to have him fired specifically--not any other prosecutors, just Shokin.

So your gaslighting is really not working.

What accusation was made that Trump betrayed the country for his own benefit? We have yet to hear one citation of the USC or CFR yet. Endangering the Ukraine isn't an impeachable offense. The president of the United States has no moral or legal obligation to defend Ukraine.

At any rate, your hearings were a total bust today. As usual, a complete waste of time and money.
By late
#15048439
blackjack21 wrote:
1) We have evidence that Hunter Biden and Devin Archer contacted the Deputy Secretary of State and Secretary of State respectively and had Biden's law firm and Burisma's law firm lobbying to remove corruption allegations against Burisma in order to secure US taxpayer funding through USAID. We also know that Poroshenko's chief prosecutor was looking into Burisma, and Biden sought to have him fired specifically--not any other prosecutors, just Shokin.



2) What accusation was made that Trump betrayed the country for his own benefit? We have yet to hear one citation of the USC or CFR yet.

3) Endangering the Ukraine isn't an impeachable offense.

4) The president of the United States has no moral or legal obligation to defend Ukraine.

5) At any rate, your hearings were a total bust today. As usual, a complete waste of time and money.



1) That doesn't support your argument. What you need is evidence about Joe, not Hunter.

2) Again, this is about the Constitution.

3) It is if Congress says it is.

4) But he does have an obligation to fulfill his oath of office, and that he has failed repeatedly to do.

5) Enjoy that fantasy.
#15048444
Rancid wrote:I've said none of that. I've only said, no law needs to broken for impeachment to happen.

But yes, there is partisanship. no shit.

Actually, the U.S. Constitution states the reason for impeachment and removal of office:
Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
By late
#15048448
Hindsite wrote:
Actually, the U.S. Constitution states the reason for impeachment and removal of office:
Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."



Find out what High Crime means. Then look up Miss Demeanor.

What constitutes impeachable conduct is what Congress says it impeachable. Learn your history.

While I like fiction, I can't say I like bad fiction repeated over and over...
#15048473
Hindsite wrote:Actually, the U.S. Constitution states the reason for impeachment and removal of office:
Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."


Look up the first impeachment in US history. The question of the day when that happened was "Does impeachment include things that are not technically crimes?" The answer was yes.

No crime was committed. Though, it did fail by a single vote.
#15048495
Rancid wrote:Sure, you're right, I shouldn't expect objective discussion. that said...

It's fine to respond to what I post. That's the not the problem. The problem is, you straw man like fucking crazy when you respond. It's hard to actually have a real discussion with you. You get out into the weeds very fast by inventing shit i didn't say, and then attacking that (definition of a strawman), so I can't even actually provide a real response to you. This is why you seem to be confused by me. You basically give me no chance to ACTUALLY say something in response to you. When I do, you run off with on some path that I never laid out instead of actually addressing what I said.

You've not noticed how often I have to write "I didn't say that"?



Really? What a joke maybe if you focused on the post instead of the poster you might get what you want.


Why do you keep repeating over and over a president doesn't need to commit a crime to be impeached?
How to become an EU citizen

Any citizenship which can be purchased isn't a ci[…]

What's obvious is that, in a failed attempt to […]

https://www.thewhitehouseinsider.com/[…]

https://www.thewhitehouseinsider.com/[…]