Jump to content
Peter

Trump is the President

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Perhaps you should wait and see how the appeal goes before you get too excited 

In any case, asking the judiciary to rule on bullshit subpoenas issued by blatantly partisan legislative committees is not obstruction of justice 

Agree asking the court to make a ruling is hardly obstruction.

what was the ruling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Agree asking the court to make a ruling is hardly obstruction.

what was the ruling?

It's under appeal so it's TBC really 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Last trimester is a tricky debate. I would not speak for the person carrying the child.

who speaks for the child though.

Yeah true

As the saying goes, does the mother's right to choose trump the kid's right to life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it’s disgusting how trump & his friends such as Elliott Broidy show faux Christian values, while secretly paying off mistresses to have abortions.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nath. said:

Yes it’s disgusting how trump & his friends such as Elliott Broidy show faux Christian values, while secretly paying off mistresses to have abortions.

Meanwhile when Nancy Pelosi's obvious hatred of Trump is called out she claims to be offended because of her Catholicism, despite supporting abortion to the point of birth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

Meanwhile when Nancy Pelosi's obvious hatred of Trump is called out she claims to be offended because of her Catholicism, despite supporting abortion to the point of birth...

You do realise that many people identify as members of a religion and do not agree with, or live 100% of that religion's teachings. You will call them out as hypocrites, they would probably call themselves pragmatic or progressive. It's a grey area with much nuance and individual experience guiding people's thoughts and actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

Agree asking the court to make a ruling is hardly obstruction.

what was the ruling?

He didn't ask for a ruling. He simply claimed it and told his staff and former staff that they were not to testify.

The reason there was a ruling made is that one of his former staff went to the Federal Court to ask them what to do, as he'd been subpoenaed but told by the white house that he wasn't to testify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

He didn't ask for a ruling. He simply claimed it and told his staff and former staff that they were not to testify.

The reason there was a ruling made is that one of his former staff went to the Federal Court to ask them what to do, as he'd been subpoenaed but told by the white house that he wasn't to testify.

Using facts and logic again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Parkside said:

You do realise that many people identify as members of a religion and do not agree with, or live 100% of that religion's teachings. You will call them out as hypocrites, they would probably call themselves pragmatic or progressive. It's a grey area with much nuance and individual experience guiding people's thoughts and actions.

Even among the most progressive of Catholics, I rather doubt that there would be too many who would ignore the fifth commandment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are wrong. The majority of Catholics in the US, UK and Australia disagree with the Church’s doctrine on abortion and are pro-choice. The older, more devout and more often you attend Mass, the more likely you are to oppose abortion entirely. 

the quiet majority identify as Catholic, don’t attend church regularly and don’t feel the Church should be interfering in this moral and ethical minefield when there are probably more important issues to address. Critics would probably say these people are Catholics of convenience, not proper Catholics and should be excommunicated.

I haven’t read into Pelosi’s religious affiliation and offence taken but generally when politicians start espousing their religious credentials I switch off as their policies are usually far from Christ-like (Abbott and Dutton, ScoMo for recent example). Religion and politics shouldn’t mix 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Parkside said:

You are wrong. The majority of Catholics in the US, UK and Australia disagree with the Church’s doctrine on abortion and are pro-choice. The older, more devout and more often you attend Mass, the more likely you are to oppose abortion entirely. 

the quiet majority identify as Catholic, don’t attend church regularly and don’t feel the Church should be interfering in this moral and ethical minefield when there are probably more important issues to address. Critics would probably say these people are Catholics of convenience, not proper Catholics and should be excommunicated.

I haven’t read into Pelosi’s religious affiliation and offence taken but generally when politicians start espousing their religious credentials I switch off as their policies are usually far from Christ-like (Abbott and Dutton, ScoMo for recent example). Religion and politics shouldn’t mix 

excommunicate them all.

have to love a trump defence from one of Statler and Waldorf  which hammers Pelosi for not being a good enough catholic in relation to abortion.

Trump is a presbyterian who has ignored a number of commandments (as if that is a measure of how to live life in the 21 st century):

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Parkside said:

I haven’t read into Pelosi’s religious affiliation and offence taken but generally when politicians start espousing their religious credentials I switch off as their policies are usually far from Christ-like (Abbott and Dutton, ScoMo for recent example). Religion and politics shouldn’t mix 

Which is the point I was making 

The difference is that Abbott, Dutton and ScoMo promote policies aimed at saving lives without espousing religious credentials

Pelosi is hiding behind religious credentials to deflect justified criticism whilst promoting policies that terminate lives

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/12/2019 at 11:23 AM, IronJimbo said:

Meanwhile when Nancy Pelosi's obvious hatred of Trump is called out she claims to be offended because of her Catholicism, despite supporting abortion to the point of birth...

You appear to know less about religion than you do about politics

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mike Del said:

You appear to know less about religion than you do about politics

If the Catholic Church is repealing commandments, that may well be the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Which is the point I was making 

The difference is that Abbott, Dutton and ScoMo promote policies aimed at saving lives without espousing religious credentials

Pelosi is hiding behind religious credentials to deflect justified criticism whilst promoting policies that terminate lives

Depending on your own definition of “life” I suppose.

by stopping boats lives have been saved but the human rights issues associated with mandatory detention and medevac continue to trouble a significant proportion of Australians (and others)

gray

Edited by Parkside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Even among the most progressive of Catholics, I rather doubt that there would be too many who would ignore the fifth commandment 

What? Honour your Father & Mother?

I take it you mean the 6th.

The fact that they are not supposed to work on a Sunday probably means every catholic politician has thrown the commandments away. And let's not even start talking about politicians & the 8th commandment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

What? Honour your Father & Mother?

I take it you mean the 6th.

I think you know as well as I do which one I was referring to 

And let's not even start talking about politicians & the 8th commandment

Politicians, dishonest forum members, et al...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

I think you know as well as I do which one I was referring to 

No, I had absolutely no idea. That's why I said 6th. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparantly 2 articles of impeachment to be released tomorrow....abuse of power & obstruction of congress. Looking forward to the case on Trumps financials being completed and thrown out by Supreme court, where there will be all sorts of financial crimes exposed and added.

And the DOJ inspector general report (requested by Trump's AG) found that none of what Trump has said is true and the FBI inbvestigation was authorised, complied with Dept & FBI policy, no agents or sources in Trump campaign, no ploitical bias influenced decisions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two articles of impeachment released as predicted by Nath.  Well done

No mention of bribery or any other crime though, unlike the impeachment processes for Johnson, Nixon or Clinton 

Meanwhile investigations into actual criminal conduct at the FBI continue despite the supposedly squeaky clean DOJ report 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Yep.....Trump doesnt like the findings of the report so lets try and get another report and then another, much like his losing in the courts and keep appealing. Look forward to Friday morning 

In the meantime, statement from the NY attorney general.....

"President Trump has paid $2 million in court-ordered damages for misusing funds in a tax-exempt charity he controlled, the New York Attorney General said Tuesday..."

So the corruption fighting President has paid 2 million bucks for corruptly ripping off charities, good to see.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Peter said:

Why would you bring facts into an argument with Ironjimbo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bored@work said:

Why would you bring facts into an argument with Ironjimbo?

Because that would be far better than the usual bullshit you guys bring into arguments with me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Because that would be far better than the usual bullshit you guys bring into arguments with me

Jim do you really believe we never present facts and you are on fact filled island of your own 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Jim do you really believe we never present facts and you are on fact filled island of your own 

No Barry

Lighten up 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

Because that would be far better than the usual bullshit you guys bring into arguments with me

Didn't even put bait on the hook and still got a bite. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The interesting part will be Friday & Monday when the 3 cases on trumps finances are initially looked at by the Supreme Court. One is the records from Deutsche bank and two from Mazars (his accountant).

SC may say that it is not their place to rule on this & say that the lower ruling stands & the records are to be handed over. Or they could issue a stay and then look into it.

lots of chatter that once these are released they will show lots of fraud and crimes. recall Michael Cohen going to jail for fraud on campaign funds where it was for individual 1.....who was identified as trump.

More articles of impeachment may then be added.

Either way, the self appointed most transparent president in history is fighting with all he has to conceal these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and legal experts are saying that this section in Article 2 (obstruction of congress) is a reference to allow the Mueller report to be brought into play. Which, despite what the trumpers say, has 10 instances of obstruction detailed which are clearly set out.

 

9EEA60AF-584B-4888-BFD6-50745092CC72.jpeg

Edited by Nath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nath. said:

....and legal experts are saying that this section in Article 2 (obstruction of congress) is a reference to allow the Mueller report to be brought into play. Which, despite what the trumpers say, has 10 instances of obstruction detailed which are clearly set out.

 

9EEA60AF-584B-4888-BFD6-50745092CC72.jpeg

other than setting their campaign platform, whats the point. The GOP will vote the other way in the upper house. Those republicans Cruz and rubio not standing by their words following the last campaign. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps people involved know much more than us plonkers on the other side of the world and I think that there is more to it. And when it all is fleshed out there will be enough corruption and fraud that they cannot associate with this mob boss criminal. Politicians are ultimately servants to their own self interests and if it gets ugly they will jump.

one main factor is that the GOP is awash with Russian money via the NRA and they are all tarred with that brush so none of them want that that out there so they have to fight it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nath. said:

Perhaps people involved know much more than us plonkers on the other side of the world and I think that there is more to it. And when it all is fleshed out there will be enough corruption and fraud that they cannot associate with this mob boss criminal. Politicians are ultimately servants to their own self interests and if it gets ugly they will jump.

one main factor is that the GOP is awash with Russian money via the NRA and they are all tarred with that brush so none of them want that that out there so they have to fight it.

 

not sure I understand. I can't see any other outcome than the trial finding him innocent and the dems losing again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nath. said:

Perhaps people involved know much more than us plonkers on the other side of the world

No doubt

It seems the Dems are far less bullish about proving bribery than you are, given that they decided against including it in their sham articles of impeachment 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

not sure I understand. I can't see any other outcome than the trial finding him innocent and the dems losing again

I would congratulate you for being more realistic than Nath, but that would be like giving you a participation trophy

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attacking a 16 yr old girl with a disability when you are supposed to be running the biggest economy with the biggest military in the world takes a special kind of miserable scumbag.

Al least she didn’t have to photoshop a fake Time magazine cover to make her feel good about herself and show off.

6461B38F-84DC-469F-A495-022B990F3C0A.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...