Sondland changes everything

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have zero facts of abuse. The power of false witness is all Trump has. You can’t project if there is nothing to project.
Trump is no victim. He’s a crook with 13 thousand lies
 
Last edited:
I never said anything about cheating. Gore counted the wrong counties.
Now SCOTUS made a political decision, but that came via Scalia and the stay.
Chad’s make for wonderful scoff, but that simply means you chose to avoid the law
 
Last edited:
What policy were they biased against? The quid pro quo policy?
The extortion for personal election benefit policy?
One of my favorite TRUMPISMS is this idea of," not with his program." Of course it is an argument that fails to consider the legality or ethics of the policy. As with the Navy Secretary who just got fired, it reminds we also have rules about not following illegal orders.
It is precisely the idea of not following illegal orders that seperated America from Monarchy and totalitarianism. The idea that oaths are sworn to the Constitution. Not men. Trump, like no other president, has successfully altered understanding of this fundemental principle IN the modern GOP. Modern Republicans, more and more, pledge alleigence to Trump, not the flag. It is the danger of him having another 4 years.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
What policy were they biased against? The quid pro quo policy?
Click to expand...
Well, then they are against the regular practice of American foreign aid over numerous presidents. There is regularly a quid pro quo to receive American foreign aid.
Maximus1 said:
The extortion for personal election benefit policy?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how they felt about Biden.
Maximus1 said:
One of my favorite TRUMPISMS is this idea of," not with his program." Of course it is an argument that fails to consider the legality or ethics of the policy.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why they opposed a Trump doing what Obama wouldn’t; giving arms and weapons to defend themselves against Russia.
Maximus1 said:
It is precisely the idea of not following illegal orders that seperated America from Monarchy and totalitarianism.
Click to expand...
Since none of them had any evidence, by their own admission, of any illegal activity, this is a moot point.
Maximus1 said:
Modern Republicans, more and more, pledge alleigence to Trump, not the flag. It is the danger of him having another 4 years.
Click to expand...
Please. Progressives have opposed the basic tenants of the constitution his the days of Woodrow Wilson; limited government, the primacy of individual rights.
There is no one in the Democratic field who is not a greater threat to the constitution than Trump. That said, Trump and the Republicans share the guilt in allowing the general government to usurp more and more power.
 
Your own post illustrates my point. You point out a matter of Constitutional interpretation. Constitutionally, SCOTUS interprets the document. So your issue exists firmly withing the document itself.
NOT A MAN! Which is my point. Your libertarian interpretation of the document is one point. Realizing " your vision" by raising a man to dictator defeats the document you claim as the basis for your values.
You say," there is regularly a quid pro practice." This is precisely wrong. There is not quid pro quo practice involving personal political gain of the president. Which represents the wrong identified. All the witnesses testified it unprecedented. You can disagree to the characterization as personal, but not to the distinction you make about previous quid pro quo.
Biden was not president. He was an agent. So no comparison.
You say ," they oppose giving weapons Obama didn’t." This is an untruth Trumpism seems to argue. The actual truth is the authorization was voted on bipartisan. You have no " they" . ( As if Democrats didn’t participate fully in supplying weapons)You include this point as a diversion. ( Your point I actually misleading I insinuating Democrats not participating in the current funding).
None of them had any "evidence "by their “own” admission you say? That is false. You assert no evidence when the witness clearly asserted opinion in oath based on evidence and their vast experience and constant involvement. A predicate that makes for ample basis for their opinion. All will be admitted into evidence at trial. Sondland will simply be questioned differently first establishing the basis of his opinion. In terms of persuasion, you will be hard pressed to find anything disqualifying of their testimony. Giving a million bucks to Trump and 20 personal phone calls hardly qualifies him as a never Trumper( whatever that is)
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
What political opinion are you talking about?
Click to expand...
There are minor ones, but the big one is abortion. Trump appointed two prolife justices. He reinstated the Mexico City policy, allowed states to defund Planned Parenthood and let the Little Sisters of the Poor off the Obama abortifacient mandate.

For those things, Democrats will never forgive him.
 
Any conservative would do the same. You don’t need Trump to get those things when his negatives make him unsuitable as a president.
 
A hyper-partisan lawyer. I didn’t criticize his education. His views for years relegated him out of Conservative mainstream. For sound reasons. The fact he has crept back in speaks to a decay in standards
 
Maximus1 said:
Any conservative would do the same. You don’t need Trump to get those things when his negatives make him unsuitable as a president.
Click to expand...
Trump wasn’t running against a conservative in the general, but against a staunchly pro-abortion candidate. In the primary, he ran against some who were possibly prolife but who couldn’t have beat Hillary Clinton.

And what, exactly are those “negatives” that make him unsuitable as president? Be specific, if you would. No vague generalities.
 
Maximus1 said:
A hyper-partisan lawyer. I didn’t criticize his education. His views for years relegated him out of Conservative mainstream. For sound reasons. The fact he has crept back in speaks to a decay in standards
Click to expand...
I find him unbearably tedious and pedantic. But I do not see where he is “outside the conservative mainstream”. Can you be more specific?
 
Calling human beings " infestation" is one of many examples. Just addressing this one, it identifies a larger fundemental departure from Catholic Doctrine regarding " the stranger". Trump’s policy includes a clearly non Catholic absence of empathy, and an intended cruelty. (Which our Pope commented on concerning the wall)No idea is more FUNDEMENTALLY routed in our tradition. Beginning with the Hebrews which God admonished to remember they were once strangers in Egypt. To Matthew 25:35-46, where the importance is so great that Jesus only identified JUDGEMENT in the Gospel includes the stranger. To the very practical recognition that baby Jesus fled as a refugee from certain death and was permitted to grow in Egypt.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
NOT A MAN! Which is my point. Your libertarian interpretation of the document is one point. Realizing " your vision" by raising a man to dictator defeats the document you claim as the basis for your values.
Click to expand...
Do you realize how contradictory this is? Dictators impose dictates on the citizens.
Such as:
Give up your guns.
We will eliminate your healthcare choices and require you to accept government dictated healthcare.
You’ve bee too successful in the market place, so government will confiscate your wealth.
We don’t like the results of an election, so “the coup has started.”
That’s dictatorship.

Trump has done zero that could be implied as dictatorial. He’s actually reduced government power.
 
Exactly! Which is why we as a Nation have been enduring this despicable ax job on Trump.Statis quoin Wa isn’t liking it one bit.Its really a sad commentary on the state of our Nation that those who want to control our every thought word and deed are so hell bent on taking him out.😞
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top