# Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...



## Taleweaver (Sep 25, 2019)

Okay...I would think there'd be a thread about this already, but since there isn't...

At first it looked like your average day in today's USA. Current scandal is a whistleblower claiming that Donald Trump tried to get the Ukranian president to start an investigation into Hunter Biden (son of Joe, aka...the democratic frontrunner).

Ukraine isn't exactly willing to co-operate (even though Trump allegedly mentioned this eight times), and they're currently denying that this phone call happened. Trump denied this as well, but as usual, his diplomatic skills are so low that he might as well not bother lying. Because, okay, he denies that claim, but at the same time admits that he has personally ordered his staff to freeze millions in aid to the country. And Rudy Giuliani (Trump's lawyer)...I don't know what that guy's strategy is, but I would suspect it to be something in the line of "I somehow have to act even more suspicious than my boss". I've seen a interview of him denying digging up dirt on H. Biden and then proudly claiming to have done it SECONDS LATER.

So...I was just about to close my daily dose of Trump antics with a mere "yup...glad I don't live in THAT country " when something piqued my interest. This time democrats aren't going to let it slide. They've started an impeachment procedure in this matter.

My first impression was a solid "huh???". I mean...sucks to be Mueller right now: there you are, having spent over 2 years of investigating, finding intentions, motives, accomplishes, witnesses and basically writing "IMPEACH THIS GUY" in neon letters over his 500-page rapport, but democrats (okay: Nancy Pelossi...plenty of democrats disagreeing with her) simply said "nope...we're not going to do that".
And now some anonymous source comes along with a run-of-the-mill scandal and democrats are impeaching? Heh...

But on second thought, it makes sense. I mean...in the other case, you could say Trump was too dumb to see what his aides did for him. You could also say that he was unaware of the legal consequences. And heck...it wasn't like he intended to be president, so why stop dealing with Russia?
At least things are different: this time he's president, he can't claim ignorance or blame his aides for whom he's responsible. So...the case is stronger than Russia gate.

...if it's true, of course. It's way too early to say much more. Investigation is still ongoing. What's pretty much a scoop: Trump offering to release the transcript of the phone call. So at least he's not obstructing justice this time. That's nice to hear.


Oh, and as it was last time: don't get your hopes up of Trump actually leaving the white house. No matter how the investigation turns out, it's all up to senate. And it'll take a two thirds majority for the impeachment to send him packing. The former two presidents quit before it came to a vote, but as it turned out Trump has a tight grip over republicans. So it's probably just as unlikely that republicans vote for anything but in their party's interest.

Some random sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/trump-un-biden-ukraine.html
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawy...ssed-ukraine-transcript-prior-release-1461316
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-nancy-pelosi-impeachment/index.html

EDIT: a few relevant (and hopefully somewhat objective) important sources:

The full transcript of the phone call between Zelenskyy and Trump
The original whistleblower complaint

EDIT 2: Mulvany flat out confessed witholding Ukraine aid in order to get an investigation going...

Chief of Staff admits Ukraine aid witheld, undercutting denial of Quid Pro Quo

EDIT 3: next testimony by William Taylor also points at this

Ambassador William Taylor ties Ukraine aid holdup directly to Trump


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 25, 2019)

sadly i'm for impeachment but let's be real republicans are majority in the senate and we know the majority of them (in the political world) are as corrupt as him i doubt if he commits genocide they'll impeach him


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> and now some anonymous source comes along with a run-of-the-mill scandal and democrats are impeaching? Heh....


This is probably just a case of being a far more simplified case of treason. Easier to show and inform the public, which is usually the biggest problem. People who have personally invested in this person will hide in complexity to ignore the things he's done. But this sort of thing is so clear-cut and provable, and obviously treason, it's that push they needed I guess.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 25, 2019)

only hope is to stall nancy didn't make a wise move and did this before election we would have a better chance after (if dems get both house/senate) i wonder if the can stall until election for a better shot


----------



## ghjfdtg (Sep 25, 2019)

This is some real news compared with the cherrypicked nonsense the other dude posted recently. Thank you.


----------



## Relys (Sep 25, 2019)

Another one of the reasons that is suspected why Democrats didn't call for impeachment sooner is because it would be much harder to do while the economy is up. Unfortunately, as @chrisrlink mentioned I highly doubt this will go through as republicans control the majority and it has becoming increasingly obvious that they have no backbone what-so-ever (party over country). If he is impeached we would get Pence until next election, which honestly wouldn't be a bad thing as I think he wouldn't have a chance of winning at all (as he doesn't have the personality cult that Trump has).

Here's to hoping we get someone like Bernie or Yang for our next POTUS and not some middle of the road, corporate democrat centrist like Biden.


----------



## ut2k4master (Sep 25, 2019)

the transcript already got released


----------



## Viri (Sep 25, 2019)

Nothing will happen.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Sep 25, 2019)

Can we impeach him for violating the second amendment instead?


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 25, 2019)

My guess is Trump will try and get immunity for the things him and his family could be criminally tried for, cash out, and throw everyone else under the bus who won't impact his money. He'll step down, say it was his idea and create some silly reason why.  Pence may not run for election and it will leave the field wide open, meaning there's a chance for another republican president. 

Hopefully by a Bernie/Warren ticket will still win though.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 25, 2019)

Read Trump's phone conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html


----------



## BeniBel (Sep 25, 2019)

People should really do some investigating, before blindly believing everything that is reported. It's shocking how many quotes from Trump has been pulled out of context by the news.

Point is that Trump was elected for 2 main reasons. First is that Hillary wasn't the best candidate, and second is that Trump is a man a lot of people can relate to. They don't see him as a politician. Democrats really should let this "Trump won thanks to Russia" thing go, there isn't a decend piece of evidence for that. All the Muller reports did show, was that Trump possible didn't cooperate with the investigation. On the other side, would you if people have been spreading lies for years about you?

It's the same now with this phonecall. I read the transcript just now. Yes he asked to investigate a possible cover up, how is that wrong? Nowhere does it show him pressuring anyone, or doing anything illegal. There currently is more evidence Bidden his son did anything wrong, than Trump doing something wrong.

The Democrats should really let their grudge go, and focus on fixing some of the real issues in the US.

Yes, Trump has an onorthodox style, but in the end, he gets things done. Plenty of new jobs, a great economy, progress with North Korea, gives his wage away to charity... So instead of just calling him names such as racist or insane, do some research and form a neutral opinion. Just remember that Trump said he wants to make America great again, he never said he wanted to help Europe or the rest of the world better.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 25, 2019)

I'm just glad something finally lit a fire under Pelosi's ass, there are few presidents in the history of the country who have been more worthy of impeachment.  While I do think the House Dems dropped the ball in seizing the moment on the Mueller report, this Ukrainian extortion scandal is far more straightforward and much easier for the general public to digest.  Not to mention Trump admitted to it, and Barr wasn't able to get out in front of it with a paraphrased "summary."

Do I think a majority of the Senate will vote to convict?  No, but that's largely irrelevant.  At least one of the two parties in this country needs to be willing to pursue justice.  And who knows, maybe they splinter off a few votes in the Senate because more damning stuff is uncovered during the impeachment inquiry.  It's gonna be juicy as hell if they release Trump's tax returns as part of the process.

Edit: AHAHAHAHA, apparently the White House accidentally e-mailed their talking points on this issue to House Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi.  Their incompetence truly knows no bounds.



CallmeBerto said:


> Read Trump's phone conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html


Do note that this transcript was released by the White House and was subject to at-will designations of "classified" information.  So even though it already looks bad for Trump, the full thing and the details of the whistleblower complaint could potentially be even worse yet.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 25, 2019)

............


Taleweaver said:


> when something peaked piqued my interest


I'm sorry, I tried resisting but it was _really _bugging me.


----------



## billapong (Sep 25, 2019)

The entire "Trump used aid as a bargaining chip" is speculation, but whatever. At the least the Democrats have finally started the process they've been saying they're going to start for some years now.

The thing is, if anyone realizes how impeachment works, that it's probably going to end up nowhere. Only two presidents in our history have been impeached and Clinton didn't even lose his office. Even if Trump loses his office, which is highly doubtful, Pence will take over. So in the end the current Republican administration will still be in power.

I'm not too worried about impeachment based on the sole speculation of a single snitch. The White House stated they'd release the conversation that took place. What is more than likely to happen is that, like the conspiracy theory about collusion, is that this likely failed impeachment attempt will strengthen Trump's position and make 2020 even more of a landslide.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 25, 2019)

billapong said:


> The White House stated they'd release the conversation that took place.


They already did, see CallmeBerto's post above.  Even based on the White House's own interpretation/edits, Trump is clearly guilty of the "quid," already a crime in itself.  No need to prove the "pro quo."


----------



## billapong (Sep 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They already did, see CallmeBerto's post above.  Even based on the White House's own interpretation/edits, Trump is clearly guilty of the "quid," already a crime in itself.  No need to prove the "pro quo."



Yes, I just read it. I don't see any sort of link between him trying to use aid as a way to blackmail or otherwise force Ukrainian Mr. Zelensky to investigate Biden. I see how some people could infer that's the case, but that's a stretch and those are the same type of people that require a TL;DR because of a poor attention span or the type of people that need a /s because they're lacking basic comprehension skills.

If Trump would have clearly said that he was going to blackmail or trade aid for Zelensky to look into what is probably illegal and unethical activity by Biden that would be one thing, but that's not what happened. Some people claim that's what it sounds like or that's what it looks like, but not to me. I did pretty well in my college reading courses, scored the best score you could on comprehension on more than one exam and don't need to pull at thin air because I have some blind hatred for someone. 

Trump's not my role model, but he's far from incompetent. This transcript has shown me more to him than just what he posts on Twitter. If I were the Biden's I'd be worried, but even if the House does actually impeach Trump then the Senate would have to act. With all this #metoo garbage you'd think that someone who abused a women in the most important building and office in the world would have been held more accountable for his actions, but Clinton was the President so he got away with it. 

In the end I think this will work out in the Republican's favor, but at least the Democrats are actually doing something for a change. However, like most Liberal policies or general attempts to address and/or fix a problem it's probably not going to work. That would require some basic building blocks and this impeachment reason is like building your house on sand close to the beach in a place that gets frequent floods and hurricanes.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 25, 2019)

Actually I think this is really about the DNC and Congressional Democrats using the impeachment process as a way of exposing Biden and 'kneecapping' him out of the race. Any effects of firing up the socialist fringe is just icing on the cake. But regardless, I thought this was funny:


----------



## billapong (Sep 25, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Actually I think this is really about the DNC and Congressional Democrats using the impeachment process as a way of exposing Biden and 'kneecapping' him out of the race. Any effects of firing up the socialist fringe is just icing on the cake. But regardless, I thought this was funny:



Hatred really does blind people. So much for peace love and tolerance.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 25, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yes, I just read it. I don't see any sort of link between him trying to use aid as a way to blackmail or otherwise force Ukrainian Mr. Zelensky to investigate Biden. I see how some people could infer that's the case, but that's a stretch


Like I said, simply asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent is illegal, regardless of whether he ALSO tried to withhold aid as an extortion tactic (which would be an additional crime).  Not that I give a fuck about what happens to Biden either, but there's no evidence that he or his son are guilty of anything illegal, otherwise Trump wouldn't have to ask a foreign power to dig up dirt on them in the first place.



Hanafuda said:


> Actually I think this is really about the DNC and Congressional Democrats using the impeachment process as a way of exposing Biden and 'kneecapping' him out of the race.


That doesn't make any sense, Biden is the preferred candidate of the neoliberal power structure.  If anything they might try to use this opportunity to promote him as the "high ground" candidate who was unfairly targeted by Trump's illegal attempts to gather kompromat from a foreign power.  He was already falling behind both Warren and Sanders in the polls before this entire scandal, so I don't think it'll work, but still.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Like I said, simply asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent is illegal ...



Cite the law.






> Not that I give a fuck about what happens to Biden either, but there's no evidence that he or his son are guilty of anything illegal, otherwise Trump wouldn't have to ask a foreign power to dig up dirt on them in the first place.



So I take it you have not yet watched the video where Biden admits (brags) that he refused $1.2billion in US aid to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating the company his son was invested in? That's maybe not enough to prove Biden committed a crime, but it is evidence and it's enough for probable cause to investigate. And since the alleged crime occurred in Ukraine, makes sense to invoke our mutual assistance treaty with Ukraine and ask them to investigate it.


----------



## billapong (Sep 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Like I said, simply asking a foreign power to investigate a political opponent is illegal, regardless of whether he ALSO tried to withhold aid as an extortion tactic (which would be an additional crime).  Not that I give a fuck about what happens to Biden either, but there's no evidence that he or his son are guilty of anything illegal, otherwise Trump wouldn't have to ask a foreign power to dig up dirt on them in the first place.



That's nice, but Biden isn't Trump's political opponent. The last time I checked the DNC hasn't chosen a candidate to run against Trump. Right now Biden is just some guy that might be Trump's political opponent. Just because you belong to another party or have different viewpoints doesn't make someone else your opponent. That would require you're actually involved in some sort of direct competition, you know, like a Presidential election.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 25, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Cite the law.


I'm not a lawyer or a judge, I wouldn't know where to begin looking for the exact law.  However, I assume Fox News' judicial analyst, along with other legal experts saying the same thing, know what they're talking about when they say Trump confessed to a crime.



			
				Fox News said:
			
		

> Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Shepard Smith on Tuesday that the president effectively confessed to a crime when he admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
> 
> Napolitano, a Fox News senior judicial analyst, had framed President Trump's earlier statement as an admission that he tried to "solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."
> 
> “So that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime,” Smith followed. Napolitano responded, "yes," and claimed it was the same crime former Special Counsel Robert Mueller investigated as part of the long-running Russia investigation.


Should be common sense that attempting to have a foreign government help your domestic election campaign is illegal.  Otherwise Americans would never have the opportunity pick their own president.



Hanafuda said:


> So I take it you have not yet watched the video where Biden admits (brags) that he refused $1.2billion in US aid to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor who was investigating the company his son was invested in?


I haven't seen this video, no.  Was this while Obama was still in office?  It's whataboutism either way, but I'm willing to humor you.



billapong said:


> That's nice, but Biden isn't Trump's political opponent.  The last time I checked the DNC hasn't chosen a candidate to run against Trump.


Oh c'mon, this is a silly (and pedantic) argument to attempt to make.  All Democrats are Trump's political opponents, even the ones not running for president.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh c'mon, this is a silly (and pedantic) argument to attempt to make.  All Democrats are Trump's political opponents, even the ones not running for president.



In a sense that's correct, but Biden is not directly competing with Trump for anything. Lebron James isn't Nicole Gibbs opponent. You're stretching things, which is completely expected. If my political party lost and was drowning I'd be grasping at anything I could get my hands on too. The problem is that the Democratic party is getting overrun with Liberals, which are by nature dishonest. Liberals will grasp at shit they completely make up out of thin air. 

Well, just like the boy who cried wolf, you can only play the Trump card so many times. In this instance, you have the same phony bunch of politicians that spent 2 years trying to convict Trump based on a conspiracy theory. So, even if there is a law restricting Trump from asking a foreign nation to look into his political opponents dealings he didn't violate it because Biden is not currently his opponent.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> If my political party lost and was drowning I'd be grasping at anything I could get my hands on too.


The irony being that the Republican party lost big time in the last election (2018).



billapong said:


> So, even if there is a law restricting Trump from asking a foreign nation to look into his political opponents dealings he didn't violate it because Biden is not currently his opponent.


That's not the way it works.  It's illegal for Trump's campaign to attempt to enlist the aid of a foreign government, regardless of whether or not it also damages one of his political opponents in the process.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The irony being that the Republican party lost big time in the last election (2018).
> 
> That's not the way it works.  It's illegal for Trump's campaign to attempt to enlist the aid of a foreign government, regardless of whether or not it also damages one of his political opponents in the process.



Those minor gains were inconsequential. I was referring to the last Presidential election.

Trump is not directly competing with Biden. Trump's campaign didn't have any involvement in the matter. It was Trump himself who asked the Ukrainian President to look into Biden. We have no idea what Trump would have done with that information, that's if anything was found. We have no idea what sort of impact, if any, the investigation would have on the democratic primaries.

What you have is a snitch with a known political bias feeding confidential information to the Democrats in Congress who in turn misinterpret it to use in a so far futile attempt to impeach the President. As far as I see it the Democrats are interfering in their own election. No one would have known about Biden's supposed illegal activity if Congress didn't push the issue. It could have had ZERO impact on anything and could have lead to nowhere. The democrats in Congress are the ones that meddled.

So, the Democratic tactic is to impeach Trump based on speculation that Trump's request might have interfered with their primaries. Well, good luck with that. I understand desperate times call for desperate measures, but keep building your foundation on sand and you'e going to keep getting the same result.


----------



## maddenmike95 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They already did, see CallmeBerto's post above.  Even based on the White House's own interpretation/edits, Trump is clearly guilty of the "quid," already a crime in itself.  No need to prove the "pro quo."



@Xzi He has done nothing wrong period. How is it a crime for trying to expose someone? Democrats are just overacting and nothing will happen once again. Democrats are basically saying impeachable offense's need not be an actual crime. Why they have the power to do this, I have no idea. There is no specific law broken here and if "said" law was broken it will be very hard to prove in court.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 26, 2019)

Again with this impeachment bullshit. I'm out, I don't care. I'm not even going to keep up with the news on this, fuck that.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> Those minor gains were inconsequential.


Considering Republicans lost a majority in the House, I'd say you're wrong.



billapong said:


> Trump is not directly competing with Biden. Trump's campaign didn't have any involvement in the matter. It was Trump himself who asked the Ukrainian President to look into Biden.


Jesus Christ dude, how disingenuous can you possibly get?  Trump isn't a part of Trump's 2020 campaign now?  If that's the case, who is replacing him on the ticket?



billapong said:


> So, the Democratic tactic is to impeach Trump based on speculation that Trump's request might have interfered with their primaries.


Incorrect.  I'm not going to keep clarifying this for you.  He attempted to enlist foreign aid for his 2020 campaign.  It doesn't matter that Ukraine refused, it doesn't matter what kind of aid he was requesting, just the fact he requested it at all was a blatantly criminal act.  One which he personally confessed to.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

maddenmike95 said:


> He has done nothing wrong period. How is it a crime for trying to expose someone? Democrats are just overacting and nothing will happen once again.



The way he went about might have been a crime if he then used the information to interfere with the democratic primaries. The entire thing is based on what some nark heard other people talking about, who had no first hand knowledge of the call. Before Congress made it and issue it had not and might have ever interfered with the democratic primaries. Biden, who may or may not have done something illegal by withholding $1b aid to Ukraine to help his son out out of a bind, would possibly could have never been effected by the investigation, that's if the Ukrainian's actually did start and investigation. A good read is on the BBC. They actually cover both sides and aspects that the Liberal media is conveniently not publishing. I suggest you read it.

It's pretty funny considering all you have are a bunch of "what if", "possibly" and a bunch of speculation based on hearsay. It's not like the Liberals in power are that smart. So I say let them have their impeachment vote and let it go to the Senate. It's probably not going to pass and even if it does it's not like removing Trump from office is going to change much. Actually, there's little to no possible way that the Senate is going to vote to remove Trump. Go look at how this process works on how many votes they'd need and then look at various stats on who's in the Senate and who holds the majority.

Trump and every President before him is mainly a mouthpiece for their party and the rest of the people in power. It's not like removing him is going to have much of an impact on how things are progressing. Pence will take over and you'll still have the other tens of thousands of people who are directly controlling Trump in power. I can see how it could make the Liberals "feel better", but their feelings are irrelevant. Things will just continue to improve like they have since the Republicans got back into power.

It's just that it's really unlikely Trump will be removed from power especially based on what the Democrats have now, which amounts to not much of anything, but they are good at causing a ruckus out of thin air. Smart people see right through the Liberal agenda and that's the majority of society. I mean, how many times can they cry wolf before the people get sick of it?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Considering Republicans lost a majority in the House, I'd say you're wrong.
> 
> Jesus Christ dude, how disingenuous can you possibly get?  Trump isn't a part of Trump's 2020 campaign now?  If that's the case, who is replacing him on the ticket?
> 
> Incorrect.  I'm not going to keep clarifying this for you.  He attempted to enlist foreign aid for his 2020 campaign.  It doesn't matter that Ukraine refused, it doesn't matter what kind of aid he was requesting, just the fact he requested it at all was a blatantly criminal act.



You're speculating that Trump was looking into Biden for his 2020 campaign. There's no proof he was. You mentioned Trump's campaign looked into it, as if his campaign manager and stuff were involved. He's not a 1 man campaign and since you can't prove he was looking into Biden for his campaign or that he was going to interfere with the Democratic primaries based on any findings you have no proof thus nothing to stand on. Speculation and wishful thinking has never and never will pass as tangible evidence. Possibly, he just wanted to see a criminal get the justice he deserves? See though, that's speculation on my behalf. You or I don't know Trump intentions either way. He might have been asking for the information for an infinite amount of reasons, but you have no proof it was to interfere with the current elections or the possible opponent he might face in 2020.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> You're speculating that Trump was looking into Biden for his 2020 campaign.


I'm not speculating about anything, both Trump and Giuliani have admitted to this.  The transcript released by the White House also confirms it.  Whether or not Trump used aid money as an extortion tactic is the only thing in question still, but that's largely secondary to the fact that we know he committed a crime.  If legal experts weren't 100% sure about that, Pelosi never would've faced enough pressure to begin impeachment proceedings.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I haven't seen this video, no.  Was this while Obama was still in office?  It's whataboutism either way, but I'm willing to humor you.




Ok, for background, here's an ABC report:


So, smells like shit, but nobody's seen an actual turd.

Then this. The intro panel contains a typo ... says 2006 but it was 2016. Shokin was in office as Ukraine's General Prosecutor from 02/2015 - 03/2016.




And some reading on :
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...ukrainian-nightmare-a-closed-probe-is-revived


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not speculating about anything, both Trump and Giuliani have admitted to this.  The transcript released by the White House also confirms it.  Whether or not Trump used aid money as an extortion tactic is the only thing in question still, but that's largely secondary to the fact that we know he committed a crime.  If legal experts weren't 100% sure about that, Pelosi never would've faced enough pressure to begin impeachment proceedings.



I've read the transcript. I have the original PDF. You clear lack of honesty regarding the transcript shows how futile your attempts to convince me are. You stating it says things that it doesn't say. You're making shit up.

Trump doesn't mention that he was seeking the information to influence any campaigns. He simply asked the Ukrainian President to look into the matter and mentioned he'd like to know what fueled Mueller as basis, but never explicitly states his reasoning. If I was a victim like Trump was to the entire Mueller situation I would want answers too, but he never states he was going to meddle or use the results of any investigation for election purposes. He's not Biden opponent. Biden is a potential opponent. There's no proof he was going to mess with the primaries or any other election. "He might have" doesn't cut it. I also don't see why you're focused on this particular part of the issue when the rest of the Democratic party is focused on if Trump tried to use the aid as leverage.

What I also find funny is that what the Democrats are speculating Trump did is exactly what they did, but in their case they admit to it and there's proof. In Trump's case, there's no proof. So I'm done addressing this particular part of the issue with you. You're wrong about there being any proof he was going to mess with elections. Period. End of discussion.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Ok, for background, here's an ABC report:
> 
> 
> So, smells like shit, but nobody's seen an actual turd.
> ...



I appreciate the information.  It definitely looks shady to your average observer, though per the article:



			
				TheHill said:
			
		

> Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim *the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016*, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. *Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.*


The difficulty lies in proving that Biden insisted the prosecutor be fired specifically to help his son, and not because forces both in the US and Ukraine thought he was weak on corruption cases.

Regardless, you're not gonna hear me complaining if the end result of all this is bad for both Biden and Trump.  I'm sick of corporate crony capitalists in both parties holding on to power with a vice-like grip.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I appreciate the information.  It definitely looks shady to your average observer, though per the article:
> 
> 
> The difficulty lies in proving that Biden insisted the prosecutor be fired specifically to help his son, and not because forces both in the US and Ukraine thought he was weak on corruption cases.
> ...




Yeah like I said before, in my opinion at least, the video of Biden's brag isn't enough to say a crime was definitely committed by the VP of the United States. But it's enough to say a crime was likely to have been committed, and that's because of the very obvious conflict of interest there for Biden to be playing hardball with a foreign nation, forcing the firing of their General Prosecutor (equivalent position to US Attorney General) under threat of withholding aid, while his son had very significant financial dealings in that country with a company that was under investigation. The conflict of interest shows either willful corruption, or gross incompetence. Biden is a lawyer and has been a major player in US government since being elected to the Senate in 1972. He knew better, or he's lost the capacity to know better. But you don't just listen to him boasting about strongarming a foreign government into giving him what he wants, shake your head, and say, "Oh that's just Joe. He didn't mean nothin' by it." It needs to be investigated. And _where_ are the witnesses who will know what Joe Biden said, what exactly he threatened, whether the investigation of the company his son was with had anything to do with it? They're in Ukraine.


----------



## maddenmike95 (Sep 26, 2019)

This......lol


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah like I said before, in my opinion at least, the video of Biden's brag isn't enough to say a crime was definitely committed by the VP of the United States. But it's enough to say a crime was likely to have been committed, and that's because of the very obvious conflict of interest there for Biden to be playing hardball with a foreign nation, forcing the firing of their General Prosecutor (equivalent position to US Attorney General) under threat of withholding aid, while his son had very significant financial dealings in that country with a company that was under investigation. The conflict of interest shows either willful corruption, or gross incompetence. Biden is a lawyer and has been a major player in US government since being elected to the Senate in 1972. He knew better, or he's lost the capacity to know better. But you don't just listen to him boasting about strongarming a foreign government into giving him what he wants, shake your head, and say, "Oh that's just Joe. He didn't mean nothin' by it." It needs to be investigated. And _where_ are the witnesses who will know what Joe Biden said, what exactly he threatened, whether the investigation of the company his son was with had anything to do with it? They're in Ukraine.



Well, regardless of "why" he did it, he still did it, which is a lot more than the "Trump might have" ...


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 26, 2019)

One think i thought was weird from reading the transcript of the call (and yes its still just as bad) was the whole "mafia shakedown" thing, he asked for a favor to investigate crowdstrike, and tossed a bit about biden at the end, its still just as bad, but I really hate how everything has to be over sensationalized, I really think this is just so democrats can say "see we tried to impeach him!". I am not defending trump in any way, just saying.


----------



## luisedgarf (Sep 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yes, I just read it. I don't see any sort of link between him trying to use aid as a way to blackmail or otherwise force Ukrainian Mr. Zelensky to investigate Biden. I see how some people could infer that's the case, but that's a stretch and those are the same type of people that require a TL;DR because of a poor attention span or the type of people that need a /s because they're lacking basic comprehension skills.



Normally, Americans are the ones who normally requires using a TL;DR, not the most of the world, who can understand it very well. That's the reason why I don't use the whole TL;DR thing, since its offensive for the intelligence of both thw writer and the readers.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

luisedgarf said:


> Normally, Americans are the ones who normally requires using a TL;DR, not the most of the world, who can understand it very well. That's the reason why I don't use the whole TL;DR thing, since its offensive for the intelligence of both thw writer and the readers.



Yeah, I was just taking a cheap shot at the low attention span trolls who can't be bothered to read 3 paragraphs let alone an entire instruction manual. I'm not sure what would happen if you sat them down in front of an actual book.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ericthegreat said:


> One think i thought was weird from reading the trtanscript of the call (and yes its still just as bad) was the whole "mafia shakedown" thing, he asked for a favor to investigate crowdstrike, and tossed a bit about biden at the end, its still just as bad, but I really hate how everything has to be over sensationalized, I really think this is just so democrats can say "see we tried to impeach him!". I am not defending trump in any way, just saying.



I don't see how it's even being considered a shake down. We have two presidents saying it's not that and there was no pressure, but then we're listening to someone that hates Trump who overheard something some other people were saying. I'm not sure about you, but I'll take the word of the two presidents over some bystander who doesn't know how to mind their own business.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 26, 2019)

maddenmike95 said:


> This......lol





"We need a cleaning in that White House ... and we need a woman to clean it!"

That's sexist.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> "We need a cleaning in that White House ... and we need a woman to clean it!"
> 
> That's sexist.



Yes, but totally acceptable some years back. I wonder in we should call the cancel counter people to deal with these Hillary supporters. I mean, it's okay to ruin someones life over something they said many years ago that wasn't considered "bad" at the time, right?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

I'm sensing a double-standard here - I'm pretty sure Biden withheld over a billion dollars in loan guarantees until Kyiv fired a prosecutor working on the Burisma case, Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors of Burisma Holdings at the time, that was a clear conflict of interests. Hunter joined the board while the company was already under investigation, that much is correct, but the Biden family could only financially benefit from Burisma no longer being under scrutiny. As far as contacting foreign powers in order to gain leverage against political opponents is concerned, I seem to remember the DNC funneling money into a shady private intelligence firm in order to obtain a dossier from a former MI6 operative, I believe we called that "opposition research" at the time. If the DNC is so sure of its footing, they should stop mincing words and draft the Articles of Impeachment already instead of engaging in yet another stunt that only has the word "impeachment" in it and has nothing to do with actual impeachment procedure. Not that it matters since the real deal wouldn't pass through the Senate anyways, not unless Trump was caught drowning kittens in a pond.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> One think i thought was weird from reading the trtanscript of the call (and yes its still just as bad) was the whole "mafia shakedown" thing, he asked for a favor to investigate crowdstrike, and tossed a bit about biden at the end, its still just as bad, but I really hate how everything has to be over sensationalized, I really think this is just so democrats can say "see we tried to impeach him!". I am not defending trump in any way, just saying.


I'll remind everyone again that this was a selectively edited transcript released by the White House.  That even they couldn't whitewash it to make Trump look entirely innocent speaks to the fact that the unreleased portions are likely a lot more damning.  Nearly all of the whistleblower complaint that sparked this entire thing is set to be made public soon, and should shed more light on everything.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'll remind everyone again that this was a selectively edited transcript released by the White House.  That even they couldn't whitewash it to make Trump look entirely innocent speaks to the fact that the unreleased portions are likely a lot more damning.  Nearly all of the whistleblower complaint that sparked this entire thing is set to be made public soon, and should shed more light on everything.


It's not a _"selectively edited transcript"_, it's not even a transcript - there's no recording of the call, the White House stopped recording conversations like this decades ago due to security concerns. It's a recollection of the conversation based on the notes made at the time by witnesses who were in the room while the conversation took place. Meanwhile, the whistleblower was apparently _not in the room_ and only heard about the exchange _from third-hand sources_.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not a _"selectively edited transcript"_, it's not even a transcript - there's no recording of the call, the White House stopped recording conversations like this decades ago due to security concerns. It's a recollection of the conversation based on the notes made at the time by witnesses who were in the room while the conversation took place. Meanwhile, the whistleblower was apparently _not in the room_ and only heard about the exchange _from third-hand sources_.



"Dude, I heard that some people said that your girl fiend said she's really doesn't like you."


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> *I'll remind everyone again that this was a selectively edited transcript released by the White House. * That even they couldn't whitewash it to make Trump look entirely innocent speaks to the fact that the unreleased portions are likely a lot more damning.  Nearly all of the whistleblower complaint that sparked this entire thing is set to be made public soon, and should shed more light on everything.




Find me a *non-partisan* source that says it was selectively edited, with their proof of same.

Here's the disclaimer on the cover page. 






The transcript released is a complete recording of the conversation, as recorded by written notes as the phone call took place. Staff, including NSC employees, do this and they're trained to do it well. But they don't record translator delays, belches, farts, clearing of throats, and they don't guarantee 100% verbatim. But it is not selectively edited down. There are no redactions.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> As far as contacting foreign powers in order to gain leverage against political opponents is concerned, I seem to remember the DNC funneling money into a shady private intelligence firm in order to obtain a dossier from a former MI6 operative, I believe we called that "opposition research" at the time.


The intelligence firm where Steele was working at the time, Fusion GPS, is based in America.  Both Republicans and Democrats have hired the firm for opposition research, which I'm sure you were already aware of.



Foxi4 said:


> It's not a "selectively edited transcript", it's not even a transcript - there's no recording of the call, the White House stopped recording conversations like this decades ago due to security concerns. It's a recollection of the conversation based on the notes made at the time by witnesses who were in the room while the conversation took place.


Indeed.  What was released as a "transcript" was far too articulate to have been Trump's actual words. 



Foxi4 said:


> Meanwhile, the whistleblower was apparently _not in the room_ and only heard about the exchange _from third-hand sources_.


Purely speculative.  From what I've read, the whistleblower is likely to be an intelligence official whose complaint has been called "credible and disturbing" by several Republicans as well as Democrats.  The complaint also likely references more than just the single phone conversation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The intelligence firm where Steele was working at the time, Fusion GPS, is based in America.  Both Republicans and Democrats have hired the firm for opposition research.
> 
> Indeed.  What was released as a "transcript" was far too articulate to have been Trump's actual words.
> 
> Purely speculative.  From what I've read, the whistleblower is likely to be an intelligence official whose complaint has been called "credible and disturbing" by several Republicans as well as Democrats.


If you're so well-read, you should also know why it was rejected. I'm well-aware that Fusion GPS is based in DC, the DNC was also well-aware of where the information was coming from. Nellie Ohr testified before congress that some of the information gathered in the oppo research operation came directly from Ukrainian parliment officials, as well as former presidential candidate Tymoshenko. Of course the fact that Clinton and Tymoshenko were buddy-buddies is a complete coincidence. Seems like it all comes back to Ukraine, huh?

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...le-the-ohrs-and-tsa-workers-never-should-have


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> If you're so well-read, you should also know why it was rejected. I'm well-aware that Fusion GPS is based in DC, the DNC was also well-aware of where the information was coming from. Nellie Ohr testified before congress that some of the information gathered in the oppo research operation came directly from Ukrainian parliment officials, as well as former presidential candidate Tymoshenko. Of course the fact that Clinton and Tymoshenko were buddy-buddies is a complete coincidence. Seems like it all comes back to Ukraine, huh?
> 
> https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...le-the-ohrs-and-tsa-workers-never-should-have


It's largely irrelevant now since Clinton never used any info in the Steele dossier to smear Trump, and despite Republican talking points, the Steele dossier had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation.  I do find it funny that the dossier has been proven mostly accurate bit by bit over time, and AFAIK nothing from it has been unequivocally proven false yet, but again, it's irrelevant to the legal quagmire that Trump finds himself in currently.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's largely irrelevant now since Clinton never used any info in the Steele dossier to smear Trump



Yet, there's no proof that Trump ever intended to use the information that he asked for against his potential opponent. Hell, there's no proof there was an investigation or Trump has been given any information since the request, but there's all sorts of proof that the Democrats did. Where's the fake outrage? 

In the end Biden has been smeared, but the Democrats did that themselves by investigating into something based on hearsay and then crying foul over it. They negatively impacted themselves as Trump may have never used any of the information obtained and that's if any information was obtained. 

I do wonder what the executive branch does and how they go about doing it. I mean, what purpose do they serve? Oh wait, it's to enforce laws. It makes you wonder if you go around prosecuting crimes if you first investigate them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's largely irrelevant now since Clinton never used any info in the Steele dossier to smear Trump, and despite Republican talking points, the Steele dossier had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation.  I do find it funny that the dossier has been proven mostly accurate bit by bit over time, and AFAIK nothing from it has been unequivocally proven false yet, but again, it's irrelevant to the legal quagmire that Trump finds himself in currently.


I don't know where you're getting your facts, but the dossier was the origin of the original FBI probe and it laid the groundwork for the Special Counsel's investigation - in contrast to what Mr.Mueller claimed it was not "beyond his purview". I also can't imagine how you would consider anything in the dossier to be "proven accurate" since it's uncorraborated and grossly inaccurate, not to say purposefully fictitious. That's not according to me, it's according to the FBI. You're welcome to believe in the Russian fairies though.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yet, there's no proof that Trump ever intended to use the information that he asked for against his potential opponent.  Hell, there's no proof there was an investigation or Trump has been given any information since the request, but there's all sorts of proof that the Democrats did.


It.  Doesn't.  Matter.  He requested campaign aid from a foreign entity, that request itself was a crime despite the fact that Ukraine refused.

Fusion GPS is not a foreign entity, they're an intelligence firm based out of Washington DC.  Apples to oranges.



billapong said:


> I do wonder what the executive branch does and how they go about doing it. I mean, what purpose do they serve? Oh wait, it's to enforce laws.


Painfully inaccurate.  I can't even.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Painfully inaccurate.  I can't even.



Yeah, they in no way carry out or execute the nations laws. I mean, the FBI doesn't fall under their branch and it would be really stupid of me to assume that people who enforce the laws would even remotely begin to investigate if the law has been broken.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It.  Doesn't.  Matter.  He requested campaign aid from a foreign entity, that request itself was a crime despite the fact that Ukraine refused.
> 
> Fusion GPS is not a foreign entity, they're an intelligence firm based out of Washington DC.  Apples to oranges.
> 
> Painfully inaccurate.  I can't even.


I understand that this is difficult to wrap your head around, but a national intelligence agency, the FBI, was duped into investigating a political opponent of Hilary Clinton on the basis of an uncorraborated document compiled by a former British spy at the behest of the DNC, with some tasty treats from Ukrainian politicians as toppings. The "problem" here is state intervention into an election, an intervention aimed explicitly at the direct political opponent of the party in power.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I understand that this is difficult to wrap your head around, but a national intelligence agency, the FBI, was duped into investigating a political opponent of Hilary Clinton on the basis of an uncorraborated document compiled by a former British spy at the behest of the DNC, with some tasty treats from Ukrainian politicians as toppings.


Or, just maybe, and hear me out: suddenly firing the director of the FBI and then inviting Russian oligarchs to the White House to laugh about it might've raised a few eyebrows within the agency.  Shocker, I know.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Or, just maybe, and hear me out: suddenly firing the director of the FBI and then inviting Russian oligarchs to the White House to laugh about it might've raised a few eyebrows within the organization.  Shocker, I know.


We already know that the investigation was politically motivated based on the exchanges between Strzok and Page. As for firing Comey, as the head of the Executive Trump had full authority over the branch. He could, and still can, fire anyone in it on a whim.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> We already know that the investigation was politically motivated based on the exchanges between Strzok and Page.


It was so politically motivated that they were fired immediately by lifelong Republican Robert Mueller.  



Foxi4 said:


> As for firing Comey, as the head of the Executive Trump had full authority over the branch. He could, and still can, fire anyone in it on a whim.


On a whim, yes.  To dissuade the FBI from investigating his ties to a foreign power, no.  There's a reason the Saturday night massacre didn't play well for Nixon, but I suppose that was a time when Republicans still put country before party.


----------



## billapong (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I understand that this is difficult to wrap your head around, but a national intelligence agency, the FBI, was duped into investigating a political opponent of Hilary Clinton on the basis of an uncorraborated document compiled by a former British spy at the behest of the DNC, with some tasty treats from Ukrainian politicians as toppings. The "problem" here is state intervention into an election, an intervention aimed explicitly at the direct political opponent of the party in power.



We're in deep shit. Trump's trying to get to the bottom of the 2 year long bogus crap we made up about him. What can we do? Let's try impeachment! That should distract our voter base. Heh, shiny objects distracts their user base so I'm neither surprised or impressed.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

We should probably stick with the topic at hand until it resolves itself.  There will be plenty of time to re-litigate the Mueller report once it's mentioned in the articles of impeachment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It was so politically motivated that they were fired immediately by lifelong Republican Robert Mueller.


Standard clean-up after a boo-boo.


> On a whim, yes.  To dissuade the FBI from investigating his ties to a foreign power, no.  There's a reason the Saturday night massacre didn't play well for Nixon, but I suppose that was a time when Republicans still put country over party.


In his testimony Special Counsel Mueller explicitly states that he never felt impeded in any way in his investigation, which may I add found _"insufficient evidence to support criminal charges (...) charge any Trump campaign official as an unregistered agent (...) charge with criminal campaign finance violation (...) or charge that any Trump campaign official conspired with representatives of the Russian government"_. You would think that he would, seeing that in your mind Trump was so eager to _"obstruct the investigation"_ when the _far_ more likely scenario is that he was just angry at Comey for continuing a farce that had no merit from the get-go. Trump is an impulsive man, he likes quick results, not meandering in the weeds when there's nothing there to find. The funny thing is that none of any of this would've ever happened if the investigation was resolved when it was supposed to - when Trump was elected and the dossier was thoroughly discredited by the FBI. It took Mueller two whole years to find what Republican voters knew Day 1 - that the campaign was approached by the Russians, not the other way around, and while they initially welcomed any help in electing their candidate, they ultimately rebuffed it, which is a sign of better judgement. The same cannot be said about the opposition which will happily jump on anything, including a live grenade, so long as some of the viscera-laden aftermath splashes onto the president. This is yet another grenade just like that, and I sincerely hope it will be another dud, considering the fact that Trump's suit appears to be made of teflon - nothing sticks to it.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Standard clean-up after a boo-boo.


It wasn't necessary to fire them, none of their texts had any connection to the investigation itself.  Mueller values impartiality and the appearance thereof to the point where he goes above and beyond to maintain it, however.  That's been clear throughout the entirety of his career.



Foxi4 said:


> In his testimony Special Counsel Mueller explicitly states that he never felt impeded in any way in his investigation, which may I add found, _"insufficient evidence to support criminal charges (...) charge any Trump campaign official as an unregistered agent (...) charge with criminal campaign finance violation (...) or charge that any Trump campaign official conspired with representatives of the Russian government"_.


There were several people involved with the Trump campaign, and close to Trump personally, that were put on trial and went to jail over similar charges.  Roger Stone is _still_ dealing with legal fallout.  Mueller also made it clear during his testimony that he was unable to exonerate Trump of any charges, and that Russians were still interfering with our political system and elections to this day.



Foxi4 said:


> Trump is an impulsive man, he likes quick results, not meandering in the weed's when there's nothing there to find.


In other words: he's a child who cannot sit still or pay attention to any one thing for more than ten minutes.  Let alone keep himself from lying for ten minutes at a time.  It's for that reason I was annoyed when Mueller didn't push for a live interview, but I suppose all attempts at that were futile once Barr was hired on as Trump's personal lawyer.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It wasn't necessary to fire them, none of their texts had any connection to the investigation itself.  Mueller values impartiality and the appearance thereof to the point where he goes above and beyond to maintain it, however.  That's been clear throughout the entirety of his career.


So you're saying that when they wrote that _"Trump isn't going to become president"_ because _"they won't let him"_ that was on the up-and-up? Okay.


> There were several people involved with the Trump campaign, and close to Trump personally, that were put on trial and went to jail over similar charges.  Mueller also made it clear during his testimony that he was unable to exonerate Trump of any charges, and that Russians were still interfering with our political system and elections to this day.


This is patently untrue, or at least misleading, I provided you with quotes directly from the report. Volume I is explicitly concerned with _"colluding with Russia"_, and the evidence was insufficient to establish any wrongdoing in this regard. None of the indictments or plea deals which were the result of the Special Counsel's investigation are connected with the alleged crimes listed, according to Mueller himself. It's also worth noting that Trump and Trump Campaign officials are _de facto_ innocent of any alleged crimes until proven guilty in a court of law - if there is no evidence, there can be no verdict on guilt and thus no exoneration. It's not Mueller's job to exonerate anyone, nor was it his job to judge anyone. He's not a prosecutor nor a judge, he's an investigator, his job was to gather evidence - he failed to do so, and he had ample time. If you feel like living in a world of presumption of guilt as opposed to presumption of innocence, you're welcome to do so - I don't. If you're interested in the findings, I invite you to read the report, particularly the conclusion of Volume I, since that's the volume that concerns the origin of this whole affair. I personally don't care about any _"gotcha"_ attempts as far as supposed obstruction is concerned - if there was no collusion, the case was fruit from the poisonous tree.


> In other words: he's a child who cannot sit still or pay attention to any one thing for more than ten minutes.  Let alone keep himself from lying for ten minutes at a time.  It's for that reason I was annoyed when Mueller didn't push for a live interview, but I suppose all attempts at that were futile once Barr was hired on as Trump's personal lawyer.


Hyperbole yet again. Comey's actions directly undermined the legitimacy of Trump's presidency and needed to be stopped, although the method used was admittedly not ideal. Barr is not "Trump's personal lawyer", he simply applies the law as it is written.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

Could someone provide context for this? I don't know if I'm being stupid or what, but I'm not sure what the treasonous part of this is.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I personally don't care about any _"gotcha"_ attempts as far as supposed obstruction is concerned - if there was no collusion, the case was fruit from the poisonous tree.


Volume 1 was inconclusive specifically because there was so much obstruction of justice going on and several subjects failed to cooperate/hand over requested evidence, so the two volumes are very much connected in that sense.



Foxi4 said:


> Barr is not "Trump's personal lawyer", he simply applies the law as it is written.


We'll have to agree to disagree there.  This is the guy who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, purposefully misled the public with his preemptive "summary" of the Mueller report, and now has been mentioned as the middle-man during the phone conversation in which Trump is requesting dirt on Biden.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Could someone provide context for this? I don't know if I'm being stupid or what, but I'm not sure what the treasonous part of this is.


It's problematic because Biden will likely be the Democratic front-runner and Trump's opponent in the 2020 election. If it's proven that Trump wanted to use his political power in order to eliminate a political opponent, it would be an abuse of his position as POTUS. This poses a dilemma though, as it limits the scope of the executive to "those who aren't currently running for President", which is a little silly. In short, the inquiry needs to establish if Trump leveraged his position in this way, which should be fairly simple considering the fact that we can just ask the Ukrainian president if that was the case.



Xzi said:


> Volume 1 was inconclusive specifically because there was so much obstruction of justice going on and several subjects failed to cooperate/hand over requested evidence, so the two volumes are very much connected in that sense.
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree there.  This is the guy who helped cover up the Iran-Contra scandal, purposefully misled the public with his preemptive "summary" of the Mueller report, and now has been mentioned as the middle-man during the phone conversation in which Trump is requesting dirt on Biden.


He never explicitly asks for any information about Biden. He makes a suggestion that perhaps the investigation was closed too hastily, drawing a connection to the Bidens and the firing of the prosecutor who was on the case. Even you can't deny that the man was fired at least in part due to Joe Biden's conduct, so if we're talking quid pro quo, you have a prime example of it there - loan guarantees in exchange for killing an investigation.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> He never explicitly asks for any information about Biden. He makes a suggestion that perhaps the investigation was closed too hastily, drawing a connection to the Bidens and the firing of the prosecutor who was on the case.


He explicitly asks them for "a favor," to investigate Biden and his son, with the help of Barr (who he supposedly didn't consult about this, or at least that's what Barr has said).



Foxi4 said:


> Even you can't deny that the man was fired at least in part due to Joe Biden's conduct, so if we're talking quid pro quo, you have a prime example of it there - loan guarantees in exchange for killing an investigation.


I can neither confirm nor deny that.  There had been pressure from the Obama administration and some Ukrainians for months to fire that particular prosecutor, and the position of vice president doesn't usually wield a lot of power of any kind.  There will probably be more scrutiny into the whole event now, both from within and outside of the Democratic party.  

The 'quid' has already been proven and confessed to in Trump's case, and that's a crime in itself.  Like I said before, if this ends up hurting Trump and Biden equally, I see it as a win-win.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's problematic because Biden will likely be the Democratic front-runner and Trump's opponent in the 2020 election. If it's proven that Trump wanted to use his political power in order to eliminate a political opponent, it would be an abuse of his position as POTUS. This poses a dilemma though, as it limits the scope of the executive to "those who aren't currently running for President", which is a little silly. In short, the inquiry needs to establish if Trump leveraged his position in this way, which should be fairly simple considering the fact that we can just ask the Ukrainian president if that was the case.



Why was he asking the Ukrainian president about this, of all people? Is he connected to Biden in some way?

Edit: Okay, so as far as I can tell, Biden was doing _something_ in Ukraine and Trump wants the president to look into it?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He explicitly asks them for "a favor," to investigate Biden and his son, with the help of Barr (who he supposedly didn't consult about this, or at least that's what Barr has said).
> 
> I can neither confirm nor deny that.  There had been pressure from the Obama administration and some Ukrainians for months to fire that particular prosecutor, and the position of vice president doesn't usually wield a lot of power of any kind.  There will probably be more scrutiny into the whole event now, both from within and outside of the Democratic party.
> 
> The 'quid' has already been proven and confessed to in Trump's case, and that's a crime in itself.  Like I said before, if this ends up hurting Trump and Biden equally, I see it as a win-win.


From the transcript it would appear that the Ukrainian president was intending to revisit the case either way. You'd also have to argue that the matter implicates Joe Biden, as opposed to his son who was actually on the Board of Directors. Hunter isn't running, he's a private citizen. Calling this a crime without fully investigating the matter is a hasty conclusion.


TerribleTy27 said:


> Why was he asking the Ukrainian president about this, of all people? Is he connected to Biden in some way?
> 
> Edit: Okay, so as far as I can tell, Biden was doing _something_ in Ukraine and Trump wants the president to look into it?


Biden withheld money from the Ukrainian government in the form of loan guarantees until they fired a prosecutor who was investigating a company Biden's son was on the board of.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Calling this a crime without fully investigating the matter is a hasty conclusion.


You'd have to take that up with Judge Napolitano or any number of other legal experts who have already called this a crime.  I'm basing my opinion on their expertise.  Simply by making the request he was "soliciting aid for his campaign from a foreign government."  The potential extortion is another layer of criminality on top of that.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You'd have to take that up with Judge Napolitano or any number of other legal experts who have already called this a crime.  I'm basing my opinion on their expertise.  Simply by making the request he was "soliciting aid for his campaign from a foreign government."  The potential extortion is another layer of crime on top of that.



That sounds dangerously close to the appeal to authority fallacy. I don't really understand the context behind this argument though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 26, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> That sounds dangerously close to the appeal to authority fallacy. I don't really understand the context behind this argument though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.


The logic on why this constitutes a crime is sound as far as I can tell, I'm not simply basing it on the fact that someone else said so.  Again though, I'm not a lawyer, so it makes sense to defer to an expert's interpretation of the law.  And again, if the legal community wasn't 100% sure about this, I seriously doubt there would've been enough pressure on Pelosi to cave on impeachment. 

From my point of view, the banning of an entire ethnic group from travel to the US, or the child concentration camps, or any number of other outlandish policies should've spurred impeachment a long time ago.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The logic on why this constitutes a crime is sound as far as I can tell, so I'm not simply basing it on the fact that someone else said so.  Again though, I'm not a lawyer, so it makes sense to defer to an expert's interpretation of the law.  And again, if the legal community wasn't 100% sure about this, I seriously doubt there would've been enough pressure on Pelosi to cave on impeachment.



Fair enough. But nonetheless, when you don't back up your claims with said logic, it sounds like appeal to authority, at least from this perspective.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 26, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> That sounds dangerously close to the appeal to authority fallacy. I don't really understand the context behind this argument though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.


well that be like saying you should not trust a lawyer for legal advice. Not really a fallacy if you can corroborate from various sources as well. Not gonna bother with the main context of this topic because this is pretty much the Mueller 2.0. his supporters will say he is a super hero who is beyond reproach regardless. Just bumped in because i found this part of the back and forth interesting.
I will see myself out again.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> we can just ask the Ukrainian president if that was the case.




That happened yesterday.




Xzi said:


> He explicitly asks them for "a favor," to investigate Biden and his son, with the help of Barr (who he supposedly didn't consult about this, or at least that's what Barr has said).



False. The "favor" Trump asked for was that Zelensky look into reports that the DNC is sheltering the server they claimed was hacked by the Russians, and to which they would not permit access by the FBI to confirm their claims, in Ukraine. It is because of the DNC's refusal to cooperate with the FBI that a report by "Crowdstrike" was relied upon as the proof their server was hacked, rather than the FBI actually investigating the claim.

The bit about Biden doesn't come for another several hundred words and another back/forth exchange between them. I won't assume any ill intent on your part for that misleading claim, though, since the Washington Post, MSNBC, Fox, and CNN as well as some Democrats in Congress are distributing that same lie today.










Xzi said:


> You'd have to take that up with Judge Napolitano




Please stop referring to this guy as a great expert on the law. He was a judge in New Jersey for a while, but most of his career has been as a media talking head. He's a 9/11 truther and will get on board with any conspiracy theory you throw at him. And he has no experience with Federal courts and prosecution. He's a box of hotair, and he started blowing it against President Trump in 2017 when he actually thought he was going to get nominated for the Supreme Court (LOL) but Kavanaugh was nominated instead.




TerribleTy27 said:


> Why was he asking the Ukrainian president about this, of all people?




The United States has a treaty with Ukraine for cooperation in investigating and prosecuting crimes. Has been in effect since 1999.

https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf


Now, as much as I am NOT a Glenn Beck fan, this is the best breakdown I've found of why the company Burisma and Biden's son have been the subject of investigation in Ukraine. Otherwise there's no way I'd post this. But if you watch how this breaks down, the timing of events and that a VERY large amount of American taxpayer money was misappropriated ($1.8billion) I think you'd understand why we want to get to the bottom of it. And why Joe Biden would want the Ukrainian General Prosecutor who was investigating it fired.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You'd have to take that up with Judge Napolitano or any number of other legal experts who have already called this a crime.  I'm basing my opinion on their expertise.  Simply by making the request he was "soliciting aid for his campaign from a foreign government."  The potential extortion is another layer of criminality on top of that.


I can happily take it up with you - in order to violate campaign law Trump would have to stand to gain either a monetary contribution or "a thing of value", this usually refers to valuable objects. While seeing Joe Biden scramble to cover up a scandal involving his son (again) would be a "thing of entertainment", it's highly questionable whether it has any monetary value.


----------



## Searinox (Sep 27, 2019)

Is anyone surprised he just can't stop skirting the edge of law?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 27, 2019)

I can't believe that the dems want to impeach our Great President Donald J Trump so much that they had to make up their own script.  How low will these Democrat's in the House go before they just accept they aren't going to win and give up?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> well that be like saying you should not trust a lawyer for legal advice. Not really a fallacy if you can corroborate from various sources as well. Not gonna bother with the main context of this topic because this is pretty much the Mueller 2.0. his supporters will say he is a super hero who is beyond reproach regardless. Just bumped in because i found this part of the back and forth interesting.
> I will see myself out again.



Well, no... Even when I had a lawyer, if he told me I should sue Disney or something, I wouldn't just say 'Yeah, sure bro'. I had an amicable relationship with the guy, as well. But despite that, I would be sure to ask for his reasoning and logic behind it even if he was some kind of master ninja lawyer who has defended over three million clients successfully or something.

Suffice to say, while I would generally trust a lawyer for legal advice, I wouldn't do so completely blind just because he has a pretty diploma.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 27, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Well, no... Even when I had a lawyer, if he told me I should sue Disney or something, I wouldn't just say 'Yeah, sure bro'. I had an amicable relationship with the guy, as well. But despite that, I would be sure to ask for his reasoning and logic behind it even if he was some kind of master ninja lawyer who has defended over three million clients successfully or something.
> 
> Suffice to say, while I would generally trust a lawyer for legal advice, I wouldn't do so completely blind just because he has a pretty diploma.


again, corroborate from various sources. dont cherry pick my statement. Read what i said... slowllyyyyy. There are more legal experts than Napolitano saying the same thing. Also if that counts as fallacy, I worry that you will not listen to your doctor if god forbid he gives you a diagnosis. Seek a second and third opinion if you want but you should take it seriously.
I would say if 10 lawyers from different firms say yes go ahead and sue, I would say youd be the fool to not listen to them


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> again, corroborate from various sources. dont cherry pick my statement. Read what i said... slowllyyyyy. There are more legal experts than Napolitano saying the same thing. Also if that counts as fallacy, I worry that you will not listen to your doctor if god forbid he gives you a diagnosis. Seek a second and third opinion if you want but you should take it seriously.
> I would say if 10 lawyers from different firms say yes go ahead and sue, I would say youd be the fool to not listen to them



Again, I don't care how many there are saying it. I don't care if every doctor on the face of the planet told me to stab myself in the chest to cure my cold. I would need to see a darn good argument and reason for doing so.

Xzi said in response to someone, that said someone should argue with Napolitano. Xzi claims that he researched Napolitano's arguments, and I believe him. But it's a bit silly to turn the argument towards Napolitano instead of arguing the actual logic behind Napolitano.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I can happily take it up with you - in order to violate campaign law Trump would have to stand to gain either a monetary contribution or "a thing of value", this usually refers to valuable objects. While seeing Joe Biden scramble to cover up a scandal involving his son (again) would be a "thing of entertainment", it's highly questionable whether it has any monetary value.


Aid to his campaign in any form is clearly a "thing of value," it doesn't need to be monetary value.  The whistleblower complaint was declassified nearly in its entirety today, and not only does it allege he used his position of power to leverage assistance to his campaign, but also that Trump attempted to move (or in fact did move) foreign phone call logs to a separate server in order to cover up this activity.

Additionally, it turns out that the former Ukrainian prosecutor in charge of investigating Burisma told Bloomberg News back in May that his office had found "no evidence of wrongdoing against Hunter Biden or his father, Joe Biden, who'd helped to oust Lutsenko's predecessor."



			
				NBCNews said:
			
		

> "From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” Yuriy Lutsenko told The Washington Post.
> 
> Lutsenko, who served as Ukraine's prosecutor general from May 2016 until last month, closed the investigation into the gas company Burisma and its oligarch owner in 2017, The New York Times has reported. Earlier this year, Lutsenko met with President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and discussed Burisma, Lutsenko's spokeswoman told Bloomberg. Then in March, according to the Times, Lutsenko reopened an investigation into the company, though his spokeswoman has disputed that.
> 
> ...


It's too bad because I was hoping there might be a little more to these accusations, but it doesn't surprise me to find out that they're entirely baseless, either.  Looks like Trump bit hard on some 4chan bait.

In another more popcorn-worthy story today, Trump threw his vice president under the bus by encouraging the media to ask questions about Pence's calls to Ukraine.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 27, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Again, I don't care how many there are saying it. I don't care if every doctor on the face of the planet told me to stab myself in the chest to cure my cold. I would need to see a darn good argument and reason for doing so.


Thats intellectually dishonest. Nobody is advising self harm. They are saying that things may have been done in bad faith and it should be looked in to it. That is all an "inquiry" (which is where we are at right now) is. Not more, not less.

It seems at this point you are arguing just not to lose an argument for the sake of just not losing it. Not good man.


----------



## seany1990 (Sep 27, 2019)

Why do conservatives gaslight themselves? How much evidence do you need before you begin to question your worldview?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Thats intellectually dishonest. Nobody is advising self harm. They are saying that things were done in bad faith and it should be looked in to it.
> 
> It seems at this point you are arguing just not to lose an argument for the sake of just not losing it. Not good man.



You've claimed that if ten lawyers told me to sue, I should probably do so. All I was doing was making it clear that they would need a good reason. Ignore the example then. If ten doctors told me I should take a particular medication, I would still want to know what the reasoning behind it is.

In a similar way, Xzi explicitly said that Foxi4 should take up his argument with Napolitano and the other judges who advocate this position. I think it would've been much better if Xzi had simply explained Napolitano and co.'s position and why he himself believes that they are correct.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 27, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> You've claimed that if ten lawyers told me to sue, I should probably do so. All I was doing was making it clear that they would need a good reason. Ignore the example then. If ten doctors told me I should take a particular medication, I would still want to know what the reasoning behind it is.
> 
> In a similar way, Xzi explicitly said that Foxi4 should take up his argument with Napolitano and the other judges who advocate this position. I think it would've been much better if Xzi had simply explained Napolitano and co.'s position and why he himself believes that they are correct.


Please tell me in which world would 10 experts in their field that have no reason other than to give their expert opinion to give advice in bad faith.

That flies in the face of reason. If the reason does not sound ok to YOU, then more then likely it would be your own biases as opposed as the expert advice from different sources.

as an analogy: doctor says take medication because you have fever and cold symptoms. Lawyers/judges saying: This may meet the criteria for proceedings, The Inquiry makes sense (as ALL it means, is it should be looked into)


Furthermore, this is an INQUIRY. NOTHING has been done yet. This is by definition "Lets look into it" nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 27, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Yes, Trump has an onorthodox style, but in the end, he gets things done. Plenty of new jobs, a great economy, progress with North Korea, gives his wage away to charity...





D34DL1N3R said:


>




The red circle marks the election.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Please tell me in which world would 10 experts in their field that have no reason other than to give their expert opinion to give advice in bad faith.
> 
> That flies in the face of reason. If the reason does not sound ok to YOU, then more then likely it would be your own biases as opposed as the expert advice from different sources.
> 
> ...



So if ten 'experts in their field' such as a doctor told you to take a certain kind of medication, you would do so blindly, without question?

If that's the case, I would suggest we stop this now. We would clearly have totally irreconcilable perspectives, and it would be a waste of time to argue more.

Also, I truly didn't know the background behind Napolitano and co. I was merely commenting on Xzi basing his opinion of Napolitano when he hadn't explained his viewpoint further.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 27, 2019)

@Hanafuda
Now the question is, Do you have stocks?
Quite frankly, all i have seen is 80 dollars more in my paycheck. I happen to be as average as a person as it gets.
Not worth the 1 trillion hole in the debt, however I still do not see how this is on topic.
(I will see myself out of this again to avoid derailment) feel free to summon me if anybody wants to.



TerribleTy27 said:


> So if ten 'experts in their field' such as a doctor told you to take a certain kind of medication, you would do so blindly, without question?


If i was prescribed cold medicine for a cold, i would.
Same case here, They are not even telling anybody impeachment. I will repeat for the 4th time. Their advice is an inquiry.
The argument is dangerously close to what anti-vaxers make. "screw medical professionals in general, they have not convinced me"


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> i was prescribed cold medicine for a cold, i would.
> Same case here, They are not even telling anybody impeachment. I will repeat for the 4th time. Their advice is an inquiry.
> The argument is dangerously close to what anti-vaxers make. "screw medical professionals in general, they have not convinced me"


That's different, that's just intuitive logic. I've had cold medicine before, so clearly the doc is right when he says that cold medicine will fix my cold.

And again, I don't know the background behind Napolitano. I was merely pointing out that Xzi should've better explained why he agrees with Napolitano and do.

And anti-vaxers? Seriously? They're detached from reality. There have been hundreds of studies which- shock of all shock- show that there is virtually no correlation between autism and vaccination.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 27, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The red circle marks the election.


The stock market is not the economy, and the average citizen has no investment in the stock market.  It's also worth noting that the market shot up after impeachment proceedings were announced.

Granted, unemployment has been consistently low under Trump (and under Obama), but wages have been very stagnant.  Trump has also done a fair amount of harm to the economy with his trade war, as well as failed to live up to his promises that he made to specific groups of workers in the Midwest (farmers, coal miners, auto workers).  These things taken into account, his overall economic track record is at best a mixed bag.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 27, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> That's different, that's just intuitive logic. I've had cold medicine before, so clearly the doc is right when he says that cold medicine will fix my cold.



The last post i will make as a reply to this as I dont want it to be considered bickering (I just want my point to be clear and not taken as contentious.

If a group of experts told you, you should look into it, To me, that would be intuitive logic.
Not a single legal expert worth 2 cents has said "IMPEACH" while foaming at the mouth.
They have said that it does meet the criteria for an inquiry. Which without the legal jargon, means "YES, this situation should be looked into"
All I am saying. I dont want you to take it personal just merely de-constructing why I believe your argument was odd to me.

Still cheers for remaining civil. I appreciate it.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> The last post i will make as a reply to this as I dont want it to be considered bickering (I just want my point to be clear and not taken as contentious.
> 
> If a group of experts told you, you should look into it, To me, that would be intuitive logic.
> Not a single legal expert worth 2 cents has said "IMPEACH" while foaming at the mouth.
> ...



I think you've been misunderstanding me this whole time. I was never critiquing Napolitano in particular. I agree that if a team of legal experts tells you to look into something and they've explained why they came to that line of reasoning, it's best to do so.

But I disagree with the general idea that if a team of experts told me to do something, I should do so without examining their motivations and reasoning. Maybe I'm just a paranoid idiot, who knows?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 27, 2019)

So I really tend to lurk instead of... injecting in these conversations. Really because most people who care enough to discuss usually have already made up their mind about what facts they will entertain and/or dismiss, so the premise of an actual discussion is usually a farce/sham. The fact why this impeachment inquiry is dangerous to the Trump Administration is because the President has lived an entitled life where money was enough to escape a vast majority of consequences that those without inherited fortunes would quickly fall victim to. It's just not hard to believe if anyone is familiar with his upbringing all the way up to his election for the presidency. When looking with that context it's not hard to see why he is often entangled in a stream of legal blunders since in the past he was able to act with impunity. See his charity foundation for an appropriate example of this.

I predict that his current stance is to involve/implicate enough people critical to his survival to ensure they have enough skin in the game to keep in line with the current narrative, hence why Pence is mentioned. Trump wouldn't even state that he would endorse Pence in 2024, I presume this is an ego issue attributing to his desire to be the best and can't allow anyone an opportunity to potentially surpass him. God only knows what his thoughts are once he saw Pence's campaign team asking about Pence's favorability as a Presidential candidate in polling that was conducted within the past few months.

Okay, all that is to lead up to this: If he is facing impeachment and he knows someone who would be his successor has a higher favorability among republicans in battleground states. It is to be expected that he will ensure Pence's political survival is tied to his. Time will tell if this amounts to anything significant. It would be near impossible to root out Pence as that would actually make Pelosi president. Fun fact to those who aren't US citizens. But seriously that's not happening, Pence is not a moron, he is an overly cautious career politician, I mean he doesn't even go out to eat alone w/ female colleagues to protect his integrity. 

As for other comments relating to the OP topic at hand (Ukraine call), the appropriate way to investigate a former VP who also is a potential political rival in an upcoming public election is via a bi-partisan congressional committee. Not using a private lawyer and an attorney general to mediate with a foreign government. There's not much else to say. If people are willing to ignore law in favor of a political party that's their prerogative, just be honest about it with yourself and others.

§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510). Is the law in question.

I don't think democrats will actually take a vote in the house because it's a great fundraising/political weapon. They have the sitting president from the opposition party under scrutiny and will eventually erode a portion of independents to lean left as long as they keep clear and simple messaging. Meanwhile, if I'm wrong and the house does hold a vote to impeach... I'm not sure if the senate would hold a vote to convict. I mean damn, that really is something most senate republicans, that are career politicians mind you, would like to avoid. If public support sways to begin supporting the investigation it is likely to be a campaign issue vulnerable republican senators are going to have to manage. 

Also mentioned in the Ukraine call transcript - Great to see CrowdStrike get so much... attention. They are a real pain in the ass to fend off in penetration tests via red team engagements.  Considering they just went public this summer, those who were following that company prior made a good investment. Time will tell if they continue to innovate or will become mediocre like black hills. I hear they are purchasing startup companies to invest in other sectors beyond IT Security consulting which is a good sign.

TLDR: Well this was fun. Enjoy the rant.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 27, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So I really tend to lurk instead of... injecting in these conversations. Really because most people who care enough to discuss usually have already made up their mind about what facts they will entertain and/or dismiss, so the premise of an actual discussion is usually a farce/sham. The fact why this impeachment inquiry is dangerous to the Trump Administration is because the President has lived an entitled life where money was enough to escape a vast majority of consequences that those without inherited fortunes would quickly fall victim to. It's just not hard to believe if anyone is familiar with his upbringing all the way up to his election for the presidency. When looking with that context it's not hard to see why he is often entangled in a stream of legal blunders since in the past he was able to act with impunity. See his charity foundation for an appropriate example of this.
> 
> I predict that his current stance is to involve/implicate enough people critical to his survival to ensure they have enough skin in the game to keep in line with the current narrative, hence why Pence is mentioned. Trump wouldn't even state that he would endorse Pence in 2024, I presume this is an ego issue attributing to his desire to be the best and can't allow anyone an opportunity to potentially surpass him. God only knows what his thoughts are once he saw Pence's campaign team asking about Pence's favorability as a Presidential candidate in polling that was conducted within the past few months.
> 
> ...



I'll be honest here, there were some parts I agreed with and some I found interesting, but I'm only commenting because I wanted to mention I love your username.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 27, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> I'll be honest here, there were some parts I agreed with and some I found interesting, but I'm only commenting because I wanted to mention I love your username.


Thanks, It's my favorite to use ever since I had to forgo traditional social media for professional reasons. Nothing in that should really be taken too seriously other than to watch/consider CrowdStrike if you dabble w/ investing in IT stocks as the more name recognition they garner = more investment, higher stock price. After the election, if they don't take any significant contracts or produce any notable products/services with the startups they recently purchased, then I'll probably sell and move on to something else. Who knows, they've surprised me more than once in recent events so I'm optimistic.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 27, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Okay, all that is to lead up to this: If he is facing impeachment and he knows someone who would be his successor has a higher favorability among republicans in battleground states. It is to be expected that he will ensure Pence's political survival is tied to his. Time will tell if this amounts to anything significant. It would be near impossible to root out Pence as that would actually make Pelosi president. Fun fact to those who aren't US citizens. But seriously that's not happening, Pence is not a moron, he is an overly cautious career politician, I mean he doesn't even go out to eat alone w/ female colleagues to protect his integrity.


If Trump is removed from office then Pence doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things, he'd be a lame duck for what little time he has left before being voted out.  Though I agree he's a far more shrewd strategist than Trump, he can't rally the type of voter turnout that Trump did with a Mitt Romney-style personality.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I don't think democrats will actually take a vote in the house because it's a great fundraising/political weapon. They have the sitting president from the opposition party under scrutiny and will eventually erode a portion of independents to lean left as long as they keep clear and simple messaging. Meanwhile, if I'm wrong and the house does hold a vote to impeach... I'm not sure if the senate would hold a vote to convict. I mean damn, that really is something most senate republicans, that are career politicians mind you, would like to avoid. If public support sways to begin supporting the investigation it is likely to be a campaign issue vulnerable republican senators are going to have to manage.


It could go either way as far as taking the vote to the Senate is concerned.  Democrats may want to get those purple state Republican senators on the record as defending Trump's behavior in order to harm their re-election chances, but regardless I don't think that will come until much closer to November 2020.

Anyway, that was a cogent and thorough post, and I don't say that only because I agree with most of it.  Thanks for your input.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I can't believe that the dems want to impeach our Great President Donald J Trump so much that they had to make up their own script.  How low will these Democrat's in the House go before they just accept they aren't going to win and give up?



Are you really that ignorant? Made up their own script? Yeah, nice try. That one was already debunked. Did you even watch the hearing? Or nah. Cuz you guys have a very big tendency to know exactly what's going on without ever reading any reports or things of that nature.



Hanafuda said:


> The red circle marks the election.



And? Your pretty little graph is 100% useless and pointless, as has already been pointed out.


----------



## Taleweaver (Sep 27, 2019)

Hmm...I really shouldn't make threads when I've got barely time to read, let alone respond, to everyone. 

I've added the transcript and the original whistleblower's complaint to the OP. I'll see if I can reply to some posts, but won't go into off-topic talk. But first I've got to read up on things (news evolves fast nowadays).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Aid to his campaign in any form is clearly a "thing of value," it doesn't need to be monetary value.  The whistleblower complaint was declassified nearly in its entirety today, and not only does it allege he used his position of power to leverage assistance to his campaign, but also that Trump attempted to move (or in fact did move) foreign phone call logs to a separate server in order to cover up this activity.
> 
> Additionally, it turns out that the former Ukrainian prosecutor in charge of investigating Burisma told Bloomberg News back in May that his office had found "no evidence of wrongdoing against Hunter Biden or his father, Joe Biden, who'd helped to oust Lutsenko's predecessor."
> 
> ...


The whistleblower complaint is a big flop, if you cared to read it. Not only does the whistleblower specifically state that he was not a witness to the conversation, he also states that he did not have access to the transcript of the conversation that was published earlier. In other words, the whistleblower knew less about what has transpired at the time of writing the complaint than *you and I do right now*, after reading the transcript. The complaint consists of speculation based on what he was told from second-hand sources. Not only that, we've now established that there was no pressure from the White House - the Ukrainian government was completely unaware of the reason why aid was put on hold until August when President Zelensky met with Bolton.

https://time.com/5686788/ukraine-no-connection-aid-biden/

There was no explicit request made in regards to Biden and no threat coming from the Trump administration, and that's not according to me, it's according to Zenensky and his cabinet. It was a general conversation about corruption in Ukraine. The only real request that was made at the beginning of the call was in regards to a more in-depth investigation of the 2016 election hacking scandal. The allegations of any form of cover up fall flat on their face considering the fact that both the transcript and the complaint were published when requested - Trump and his cabinet had no obligation whatsoever to publish the phone call notes compiled into a transcript. It's another big Nothing Burger and the Democratic Party is proudly wearing egg on their faces again.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's another big Nothing Burger and the Democratic Party is proudly wearing egg on their faces again.


Entirely wishful thinking on your part.  The complaint was thoroughly researched and wholly accurate, though that's not surprising for a CIA official.  Several Republican governors have come out in support of an impeachment inquiry, and according to Jeff Flake, at least 35 Republican senators would vote for impeachment if the vote was taken in private.  Little by little, cracks in the dam are starting to show.

There's also a former advisor to Zelenskiy who states that it was understood a Biden investigation was a pre-condition to the phone call taking place at all.  Which is at least as reliable as your anonymous source in the Time article you posted.

Oh, and there's a developing story involving a second whistleblower complaint, in regards to Trump trying to keep his tax returns secret.  It won't take long for things to start spiraling out of control for the White House now that an impeachment inquiry gives the House additional powers by which to gather evidence.  Assuming it's not out of their control now, that is.  Fox News is already having on-air screaming matches and mental breakdowns.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Entirely wishful thinking on your part.  Several Republican governors have come out in support of an impeachment inquiry, and according to Jeff Flake, at least 35 Republican senators would vote for impeachment if the vote was taken in private.  Little by little, cracks in the dam are starting to show.
> 
> There's also a former advisor to Zelenskiy who states that it was understood a Biden investigation was a pre-condition to the phone call taking place at all.  Which is at least as reliable as your anonymous source in the Time article you posted.
> 
> Oh, and there's also a developing story involving a second whistleblower complaint, in regards to Trump trying to keep his tax returns secret.  It won't take long for things to start spiraling out of control for the White House now that an impeachment inquiry gives the House additional powers by which to gather evidence.


We'll have to wait and see. Personally I welcome any and all inquiries and other assorted time wasting as it gives my candidate additional screen time, for free. Many commentators on the left side of the aisle are certain that pushing the matter of impeachment further will only bolster Trump in the 2020 election, I happen to share that opinion. As for your claim that some Republicans have changed their tune as far as impeachment is concerned, I haven't heard one state so in public, but I have heard some Democrats state that now's not the time for these kinds of games. I won't lose any sleep either way - when faced with a choice between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party I will choose Mario Party 100% of the time. Trump has my unwavering support specifically because he's just so damn funny, I want him to be President forever.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Many commentators on the left side of the aisle are certain that pushing the matter of impeachment further will only bolster Trump in the 2020 election, I happen to share that opinion.


Support for impeachment has gone up 7 points since it was announced, and it was already much higher than early support for impeaching Nixon or Clinton.  So wherever you heard this opinion, it seems to have been wild speculation at best, neoliberal nonsense utterly detached from reality at worst.



Foxi4 said:


> when faced with a choice between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party I will choose Mario Party 100% of the time. Trump has my unwavering support specifically because he's just so damn funny, I want him to be President forever.


I've always loved some good stand-up and comedy movies, but I've literally never once heard Trump make a decent attempt at a joke.  Your sense of humor must be on an entirely different spectrum, because all I see is anger and/or stupidity on a level that even GWB couldn't match.  Regardless, treating the presidency like a reality TV show is a surefire way to expedite the United States to the garbage bin of history.  There are countless better options for entertainment available on TV and the internet.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Support for impeachment has gone up 7 points since it was announced, and it was already much higher than early support for impeaching Nixon or Clinton.  So wherever you heard this opinion, it seems to have been wild speculation at best, neoliberal nonsense utterly detached from reality at worst.
> 
> I've always loved some good stand-up and comedy movies, but I've literally never once heard Trump make a decent attempt at a joke.  Your sense of humor must be on an entirely different spectrum, because all I see is anger and/or stupidity on a level that even GWB couldn't match.  Regardless, treating the presidency like a reality TV show is a surefire way to expedite the United States to the garbage bin of history.


Americans in general are split on whether the impeachment proceedings should take place - only 4% Republicans and (predictably) 73% of Democrats support the idea.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...dont-want-trump-impeached-removed/2438970001/

I consider what's going on right now to be another permutation of posturing. As for the Reality TV claim, for once the general population is paying attention to the news, that's a good thing.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Americans in general are split on whether the impeachment proceedings should take place - only 4% Republicans and (predictably) 73% of Democrats support the idea.


Amounting to roughly 43% support overall.  IIRC support for impeaching Nixon at the beginning of the process was at less than 10%, and by the end of the process was over 70%.  The shit has not even begun to hit the fan where Trump's impeachment proceedings are concerned.



Foxi4 said:


> As for the Reality TV claim, for once the general population is paying attention to the news, that's a good thing.


Of course a train wreck presidency is going to be good for ratings, but for a lot of the US, the realization still hasn't yet kicked in that we're all aboard that train.  America's reputation may never recover, and we may never reclaim our position as a leader on the world stage.  As a result, countries like China and India, currently in the middle of committing their own acts of genocide for those unaware, will seize more power in the US' absence.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Amounting to roughly 43% support overall.  IIRC support for impeaching Nixon at the beginning of the process was at less than 10%, and by the end of the process was over 70%.  The shit has not even begun to hit the fan where Trump's impeachment proceedings are concerned.
> 
> Of course a train wreck presidency is going to be good for ratings, but for a lot of the US, the realization still hasn't yet kicked in that we're all aboard that train.  America's reputation may never recover, and we may never reclaim our position as a leader on the world stage.  As a result, countries like China and India, currently in the middle of committing their own acts of genocide for those unaware, will seize more power in the US' absence.


If anything, America is currently regaining its foothold as a world leader after years of pushover politics and promises of "flexibility" made to strategic enemies to foster some support from superpowers with interests diametrically opposed to those of the western world (during an election year I might add - I'm looking at you, Barack). Trump put the country on the road to normalcy, what we're seeing right now in the Democratic party is symptoms of withdrawal, hence the staggering *70% difference* in opinion polls. All a matter of which side of the fence you sit on, of course - I'll be entertained by either outcome of this show.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 27, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Are you really that ignorant? Made up their own script? Yeah, nice try. That one was already debunked. Did you even watch the hearing? Or nah. Cuz you guys have a very big tendency to know exactly what's going on without ever reading any reports or things of that nature.


Are you really that brainwashed to not even watch the Congressional hearings yourself?  Adam Schiff sat in front of the house and on live TV, and then read off his interpretation of the transcript as if that's what really happened to purposely lie to those that blindly believe anything the Democrats say.  He later said it was a parody, but that was just a copout as the entire Democrat ran House is a joke.
I find it very ironic that you accuse me of thinking I know all the answers without being informed on the truth when liberals, including you, only get your info from CNn, MSNBC, and other liberal news sources that tend to leave out important pieces of information on matters such as this.


----------



## billapong (Sep 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I find it very ironic that you accuse me of thinking I know all the answers without being informed on the truth when liberals, including you, only get your info from CNn, MSNBC, and other liberal news sources that tend to leave out important pieces of information on matters such as this.



Yeah, all they did was cherry pick information, leave out a bunch of stuff and link things together that were taken out of context. Meaning, they made shit up out of thin air.

It's the same thing they did with the "go back to the countries you came from" and leaving out "then come back and tell us how it's done" Tweet fiasco. They deliberately left out 1/3 of the information to make what Trump said look bad. That's a dishonest tactic that I see right through. They're lying pieces of shit that are full of shit.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 27, 2019)

billapong said:


> It's the same thing they did with the "go back to the countries you came from" and leaving out "then come back and tell us how it's done" Tweet fiasco. They deliberately left out 1/3 of the information to make what Trump said look bad. That's a dishonest tactic that I see right through. They're lying pieces of shit that are full of shit.


Oh, don't forget the classics like:

"All mexicans are rapist, murderers, and bringing drugs over the border" when he said that Mexico was sending their bad people "with some good". He never implied "all" mexicans were bad.

The time he said white supremacists and neo-nazis were "fine people" when he only stated that there were good people on both sides while condemning white supremacy, neo-nazis, and racists after the Charlottesville fiasco (which only was a big issue due to Antifa attacking innocent protestors).

The time he said Robert E Lee was "a good person" when he really said that he was a "good General". 

The time he colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election when it was really the Clintons and other democrats that did.

The time he was accused of pressuring the president of Ukraine when he just had a normal chat with him when it was really Joe "30330" Biden that pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor using our tax dollars.


The Democrats are the worst thing to happen to this country since we chased the British out.  They are all pathetic liars only looking for power over the powerless and easily brainwashed (of which there are quite a lot here).


----------



## billapong (Sep 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The Democrats are the worst thing to happen to this country since we chased the British out.  They are all pathetic liars only looking for power over the powerless and easily brainwashed (of which there are quite a lot here).



Maybe they believe their own bullshit? I mean, maybe they are all so stoned that they honestly can't comprehend reality? I dunno, it just seems really hard to find a logical explanation of why Liberals are so full of shit. Maybe these mistakes in misquoting and relaying false information is the best their little poor brains are capable of. Maybe they are being honest, but they're just fucking stupid?


----------



## morvoran (Sep 27, 2019)

billapong said:


> Maybe they believe their own bullshit? I mean, maybe they are all so stoned that they honestly can't comprehend reality? I dunno, it just seems really hard to find a logical explanation of why Liberals are so full of shit. Maybe these mistakes in misquoting and relaying false information is the best their little poor brains are capable of. Maybe they are being honest, but they're just fucking stupid?



Oh, trust me, they really believe this nonsensical crap.  Not just on this site, but on other sites that I'm involved with as well, all liberals are the same. They blindly follow their leaders to the edge of the cliff and jump off when told to without bothering to check if it's safe.  They are easily brainwashed by propaganda and have blind trust in their "superiors" just in the hopes of getting "free stuff" like healthcare, welfare checks, etc.
Just look up the book titled "Animal Farm".  That is the guidebook for all Democrat leaders where they learn to lead their "sheep to the slaughter" with propaganda.

This is a big difference between the liberals and conservatives - Liberals need leaders where conservatives have the desire to lead themselves.  I never truly understood the meme of NPC's, but now, it amazes me how much like NPC's liberals are in reality.  They take talking points they hear from the likes of Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, Trevor Noah, etc and just repeat them endlessly such as "Trump's a racist", "orange man bad", "impeach Trump", etc.

It would be incredibly hilarious how ridiculous they are if it wasn't also so frightening how they are causing this country to fall into darkness.

Just take into consideration this Ukraine call transcript with how democrats/liberals are saying that it is proof that Trump must be impeached when it was a harmless phone chat with no persuasion, bribery, etc, but the democrats are insisting it has a hidden, nefarious, underlying message.  They say Trump is "dog whistling" his voters when it is really the Dems who are dog whistling theirs with nonsense such as this.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Are you really that brainwashed to not even watch the Congressional hearings yourself?  Adam Schiff sat in front of the house and on live TV, and then read off his interpretation of the transcript as if that's what really happened to purposely lie to those that blindly believe anything the Democrats say.  He later said it was a parody, but that was just a copout as the entire Democrat ran House is a joke.
> I find it very ironic that you accuse me of thinking I know all the answers without being informed on the truth when liberals, including you, only get your info from CNn, MSNBC, and other liberal news sources that tend to leave out important pieces of information on matters such as this.



Schiff did use a paraphrased hyperbole or in his words 'parody' in his opening statement: 4:00-5:15 in the PBS version of the hearing's opening statement on YouTube for reference. 

"Well it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown, shorten of it's rambling character in not so many words, the essence of what the president communicates - We've been very good to your country, very good, no other country has done as much as we have. But you know what I don't see much reciprocity here. I here what you want, I have a favor I want from you. And I'm only going to say this seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lot's of it. On this and on that (SIC), I'm not going to put you in touch with just any people, I am going to put you in touch with The United States, My Attorney General - Bill Barr. He's got the whole weight of the American Law Enforcement behind him. And I'm going to put you in touch with Rudy, you are going to love him, trust me. You know what I'm asking so I am only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way don't call me again. I'll call you when you've done I ask. This is in some in character of what the President was trying to communicate with the President of Ukraine. It would be funny, if it wasn't such a graphic betrayal of the President's oath of office."

He prefaced this with an abundantly clear characterization of the call not a quote. A statement that is 9min long and only had 1min15sec of 'parody'. The rest of the opening statement is entirely proper and appropriate. Something nonetheless that was cringe-worthy to watch, given the context of the gravity of the situation and how pure quotes from the transcript with context that he provided legitimately in his opening statement are more than enough for the public to grasp. But it wasn't totally inaccurate either as characterizations go. I could point out specific quotes of the transcript that would allude to each characterized portion if needed, I don't think that's necessary but I'm willing nonetheless. If your only defense is just a partisan defense of Trump, that Adam Schiff wasn't totally honest with pure facts with the american public, then you may want to rethink this... position. If it is to show an inappropriate summarized characterization in the context of the setting then I'll concede and agree. 

Should he stick to facts and leave the theater for opinion news shows and comedy stand-up? Yes. Does that excuse the broken law by the President of the United States? No. The house is right to open an inquiry, they have a constitutional duty to uphold and given that is a political trial and not a criminal trial. It is only a court of opinion. The framing that will be set will be a simple one. 'No one is above the law.' If the senate disagrees then they will vote to turn down the conviction. There's not really more to say. I'm not sure if rules allow outside links by new users but I list in the earlier post the law that was violated. 

§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).

Just keep in mind that career politicians outnumber 'justice democrats' or 'trump republicans' - I don't expect them to do anything except what the donors desire. Anyone who expects otherwise, well just look at the military re-appropriation of funds for Trump's border wall. It got shutdown in the Republican Senate. Trump doesn't own the party as much as people perpetrate. It was just easier to join the populist movement of Trump and still get what they want, less governmental regulation and lower corporate taxes. As long as they don't really have to pay for the border wall or any other costly projects (medicare-for-all, student loan forgiveness, etc.) win-win in their eyes.

Ukraine call really isn't a party issue. Either soliciting a foreign entity to assist in a manner that could benefit a domestic election is illegal or not. If the country holds Trump accountable for it they better be prepared to hold everyone accountable even within their preferred party going forward. I don't want anyone to break our laws, if they find them unfair - change them through legislative process or deal with it. It's just that simple.  

If people want to scream for a party to help fulfill identity issues that's fine, but historical precedents that get set eventually go both ways. An analogy I often refer to - For every person that screams 'I want my kids to have prayer in schools'. Okay, but are you going to let other religions such as Islam and Hinduism also lead in prayer in public institutions? If so, then go fight for it. 

Might seem unrelated basically 
- to all republicans that choose to side to acquit, you will let democrats do this in future elections and have ground to stand on despite if it is against the law.
- to all democrats that choose to impeach, you will need to hold everyone, even your own party accountable to this law, no matter the political cost in future elections.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 27, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I could point out specific quotes of the transcript that would allude to each characterized portion if needed


 OH, I would love to read how you were told to interpret how any quotes in the call transcript were nefarious in meaning.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Does that excuse the broken law by the President of the United States? No.


 What laws did he break?



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> § 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).


 If this is the law you're talking about, I would like to know where in the transcript this law was broken.  I can show you a video of Biden bragging about using our tax dollars to influence a foreign country.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Ukraine call really isn't a party issue. Either soliciting a foreign entity to assist in a manner that could benefit a domestic election is illegal or not.


Good thing Trump didn't solicit any foreign country to influence an election then.  He has too much integrity for that.  Too bad that the Clintons and Obama don't have as much integrity as Trump.  Maybe, we wouldn't be going through this mess right now and actually working together to Make America Great Again without all these unnecessary interruptions.


----------



## billapong (Sep 27, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Ukraine call really isn't a party issue. Either soliciting a foreign entity to assist in a manner that could benefit a domestic election is illegal or not. If the country holds Trump accountable for it they better be prepared to hold everyone accountable even within their preferred party going forward. I don't want anyone to break our laws, if they find them unfair - change them through legislative process or deal with it. It's just that simple.



That's assuming that Trump was going to use any information obtained against Biden in a direct competition. Biden might or might not be his political opponent (or has he won the Democratic primaries?). Maybe Trump was just trying to get to the bottom of what started the Mueller situation? Well, that's speculation on my behalf, but it's also speculative of the Democrats to assume otherwise.

I could say that I believe someone might in the future kill someone else based on misquoted and deliberately misrepresented information, but that doesn't make the person I'm saying is going to commit a murder an actual murderer. It just makes me a presumptive asshole.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> OH, I would love to read how you were told to interpret how any quotes in the call transcript were nefarious in meaning.




If you mean to discredit my statement by stating I cannot conclude on my own accord that solicitation of aid in investigating a political rival by reading the released transcript, then we can't have a discussion as there is no trust to continue in good faith. That's your prerogative, but English language is something I have a credible grasp on. Enough to understand the context and the literal implications presented. 





morvoran said:


> If this is the law you're talking about, I would like to know where in the transcript this law was broken. I can show you a video of Biden bragging about using our tax dollars to influence a foreign country.




§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).


---------

Foreign national means—

i.A foreign principal, as defined in 22 U.S.C. 611(b); or

ii.An individual who is not a citizen of the United States and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20); however,

iii.Foreign national shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States, or who is a national of the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22).

---------

Is President Zelenskyy, The President of Ukraine a 'Foreign National'? *Yes, he is.*


Below is a quote from the transcript:


"The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor

who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair.

A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your

Very good prosecutor down and you had some Very bad people

involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the

mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to

call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General.

Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very

capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The

former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad

news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad

news so I just want to let you know that The other thing,

There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the

prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so

whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if

you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me."


This is clear with or without context of US and Ukraine's power-imbalanced relationship shown throughout the transcript. There isn't a need for quid pro quo so please don't bother. Just requesting a foreign national to gather information on a political rival in an upcoming election violates the clause listed below. The only legal argument at stake is does this request to gather information on a political rival constitute as an 'other thing of value'. Given that it can help influence an election in favor of the president if something damning is in fact produced then yes. The request is made in context of Trump watching Biden beating him in polls on all media outlets, including Fox News. I don't care to discuss validity of polls so spare us from that detraction as well. The purpose is to show he had motive to expect this information to benefit himself and requested a 'Foreign National' to investigate this. *It doesn't matter if he ever intended to use it. It still has a prospective tangible value of aid in the upcoming election and was requested by a 'Foreign National'.*


----

Knowingly means that a person must:

i. Have actual knowledge that the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national;

----

The Act and Commission regulations include a broad prohibition on foreign national activity in connection with elections in the United States. 52 U.S.C. § 30121 and generally, 11 CFR 110.20. In general, foreign nationals are prohibited from the following activities:


Making any contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or making any expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement in connection with any federal, state or local election in the United States;
Making any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district, or local political party (including donations to a party non-federal account or office building account);
Making any disbursement for an electioneering communication;
Making any donation to a presidential inaugural committee.
Soliciting, accepting, or receiving contributions and donations from foreign nationals

The Act prohibits knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving contributions or donations from foreign nationals. In this context, "knowingly" means that a person:


*Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national;*

Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are likely to be from a foreign national; or

Is aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to inquire whether the source of the funds solicited, accepted or received is a foreign national.

----


I've already outlined the appropriate platform of how to investigate a former VP who is also a political rival in an upcoming election. Please refer to my former post.


Just to reiterate it again for clarity: If the president wishes to investigate VP Biden he has Bi-partisan congressional hearings that can do so on the country's behalf. Asking this to be mediated between a foreign government and your personal lawyer with the US Attorney General is not appropriate. It is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.


Also as frustrating as this may come to some, I won't equivocate the behavior of one to justify another. Please refrain from 'whataboutism' if there isn't a specific point beyond deflection. Should Biden be investigated in a bipartisan congressional committee. In my opinion, sure, if I was him I would welcome/demand it if he knew it would clear his name and he was innocent. If it did not clear him, then great, we get one less corrupt candidate out of our elections. I'm an equal opportunity follow the law person. As we all should be. I strive to present this explanation with upmost clarity.


I regret I can't provide easy to follow links, but quick google search will provide information I referenced from the US FEC.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



billapong said:


> That's assuming that Trump was going to use any information obtained against Biden in a direct competition. Biden might or might not be his political opponent (or has he won the Democratic primaries?). Maybe Trump was just trying to get to the bottom of what started the Mueller situation? Well, that's speculation on my behalf, but it's also speculative of the Democrats to assume otherwise.
> 
> I could say that I believe someone might in the future kill someone else based on misquoted and deliberately misrepresented information, but that doesn't make the person I'm saying is going to commit a murder an actual murderer. It just makes me a presumptive asshole.



Please see my prior post. But I will concede there is a specific reason I haven't mentioned the 'can you do me a favor' line and then mentions CrowdStrike and a potential Ukrainian Server. I'm only presenting something that is pretty black and white. Not to run wild with speculation. I appreciate your point as it is credible. Just not with Trump's request regarding Biden.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 27, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If you mean to discredit my statement by stating I cannot conclude on my own accord that solicitation of aid in investigating a political rival by reading the released transcript, then we can't have a discussion as there is no trust to continue in good faith. That's your prerogative, but English language is something I have a credible grasp on. Enough to understand the context and the literal implications presented.
> 
> § 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
> 
> ...


Read the regulation you've correctly quoted and find the hole in your reasoning. House Democrats already have upon receiving the transcript and the complaint, which is why they backed off from the criminality argument and moved on to the _"there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo to impeach Trump/negative effect on national security/not presidential conduct"_ narrative. I've explained it before in the thread. You've also cut out a sizeable bit of context from the conversation - they're talking about the 2016 hacks and corruption in Ukraine in general here, Biden is mentioned in passing as an example.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Read the regulation you've correctly quoted and find the hole in your reasoning. House Democrats already have upon receiving the transcript and the complaint, which is why they backed off from the criminality argument to the "there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo to impeach Trump/negative effect on national security/not presidential conduct narrative. I've explained it before in the thread. You've also cut out a sizeable bit of context from the conversation - they're talking about the 2016 hacks and corruption in Ukraine in general here, Biden is mentioned in passing as an example.



I felt it improper to paste the entire transcript when the point in question revolved around that portion. I encourage people to read it in it's entirety for themselves. Then read up on Ukraine/US relations and reread it for additional context. I cannot stress however that even in isolation it is an apparent request for assistance from a foreign national on a political rival in an upcoming election. 

Yes there doesn't need to be there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo to impeach Trump/negative effect. However, the criminality of this is not absolved. The statue I provided does not need a Quid Pro Quo to be violated. Only a request. This request was explicitly given in the transcript. I'll take some time to determine how to better highlight this as it was really straightforward to me but I also read this stuff more often than most.

*Has actual knowledge that the funds solicited, accepted, or received are from a foreign national; (for full context please see the statue pasted in prior post I made)*

Ok. The key word is Solicited. He never accepted or received aid from the Ukrainian President/Government to my knowledge so we aren't discussing this. I think that is where the hangup is - We are reading that phrase and you are concentrating on the latter conditionals. Note this is an OR statement. Any conditions will apply. If it sounds like I am being condescending by over-explaining, please ignore, as I'm just trying to add clarity to avoid further confusion.

Again, I apologize that I cannot link to it, due to forum guidelines for newcomers, but do encourage anyone participating to take the time to read it in its entirety. I should be able to provide links on any subsequent posts going forward.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Are you really that brainwashed to not even watch the Congressional hearings yourself?  Adam Schiff sat in front of the house and on live TV, and then read off his interpretation of the transcript as if that's what really happened to purposely lie to those that blindly believe anything the Democrats say.  He later said it was a parody, but that was just a copout as the entire Democrat ran House is a joke.
> I find it very ironic that you accuse me of thinking I know all the answers without being informed on the truth when liberals, including you, only get your info from CNn, MSNBC, and other liberal news sources that tend to leave out important pieces of information on matters such as this.



Hahaha!!! I watched it myself, and if you think the interpretation was misleading, I have to wonder who the brainwashed one is. Purposely lie, and even if he did, I'm not so sure that I haven't seen a more hypocritical statement in my life. As if Trump and his entire administration have told no lies. If you're going to point fingers - you may wish to use something your retard goblin of a "president" hasn't done himself.

Ahhhhhhhh. The same old same old "You only watch blah blah blah blah for your news sources!!!" C'mon. Really? You're boring me already. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Seems you do not know the proper usage of "ironic". Try again.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's also a former advisor to Zelenskiy who states that it was understood a Biden investigation was a pre-condition to the phone call taking place at all.  Which is at least as reliable as your anonymous source in the Time article you posted.




Nope.






https://freebeacon.com/politics/abcs-bombshell-ukraine-story-falls-apart/


.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Intelligence community's pfficial form for submitting whistleblower complaints, which has always required first-hand knowledge and that hearsay would be rejected, was changed just in time for this complaint.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...rement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1177580473566093312


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 27, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not that it's a huge surprise, we knew ABC was full of it since yesterday, but they refused to retract the story. It should've been rejected from the get-go based on what the actual cabinet in question is saying - they had grounds to believe the freeze was related to a completely different matter.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 28, 2019)




----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 28, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


>


I have a slightly more on-the-nose video metaphor to describe the current situation.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> If anything, America is currently regaining its foothold as a world leader after years of pushover politics and promises of "flexibility" made to strategic enemies to foster some support from superpowers with interests diametrically opposed to those of the western world (during an election year I might add - I'm looking at you, Barack).


Rofl, multiple countries are committing genocide, the Amazon rainforest is burning, and Trump's only concern is sending more troops to Saudi Arabia to protect their oil.  How is that not "supporting superpowers with interests diametrically opposed to those of the Western world?"  War with Iran seems almost inevitable at this point, and would prove unequivocally that the US military is Israel's/Saudi Arabia's bitch.  I'm sure Russia wouldn't be too broken up about it, either.

The US has no moral authority left on the world stage whatsoever.  Even if Trump wanted to chastise another country for genocide, it would only be laughed off given that the US is currently maintaining concentration camps for children.  Of course, he wouldn't care to chastise them anyway because Trump is in support of neither democracy nor human rights.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Please see my prior post. But I will concede there is a specific reason I haven't mentioned the 'can you do me a favor' line and then mentions CrowdStrike and a potential Ukrainian Server. I'm only presenting something that is pretty black and white. Not to run wild with speculation. I appreciate your point as it is credible. Just not with Trump's request regarding Biden.



I read your previous post, but that doesn't change the fact that Biden is currently not Trump's political opponent or that we know what the information requested would have been used for, if it was used at all.

If Biden was currently involved in direct competition with Trump for something then he would be Trump's opponent. If per say, Biden is picked to run against Trump for President after the Democratic primaries then yes, he would be Trump's opponent, but even if that was the case Trump never stated his motivations for asking about Biden's past or even hinted let alone directly stated he's going to use any information against Biden in an election.

Just because Biden might win the Democratic primary doesn't cut it. Hey, I have an idea, I want to buy your Switch and since I might send you the money for it why don't you mail it to me first, but please understand that I might not : )


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> that Biden is currently not Trump's political opponent


I've already explained this to you, there should be no room for misinterpretation by now.  *ALL Democrats are political opponents of Trump, not even just those running for president.*  If it helps to clarify for you, we can refer to Biden and other Democrats as Trump's 'political opposition' rather than his 'political opponents,' but these are essentially synonyms.  If the argument you're making requires feigned ignorance as a cornerstone, then it's no argument at all.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I've already explained this to you, there should be no room for misinterpretation by now.  *ALL Democrats are political opponents of Trump, not even just those running for president.*  If it helps to clarify for you, we can refer to Biden and other Democrats as Trump's 'political opposition' rather than his 'political opponents,' but these are essentially synonyms.  If the argument you're making requires feigned ignorance as a cornerstone, then it's no argument at all.



So, every single Democrat is in direct competition with Trump for President? Exactly, what are they in competition over? What's the name of the competition, the prize? What's the rules? Having opposing views than someone else doesn't make them your opponent. You'd have to be directly involved in competition for something. Isn't generalizing something you Liberals look down on?

"Who are the 49'ers playing to today?"

- "The bucks"

"So their opponents are the Dolphins"?

(You can see how retarded your stretch of a justification sounds from someone who was taught independent thinking skills pre-dating critical thinking skills. I really think they should bring back that basic 4th grade education. Sorry you missed out!)


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Rofl, multiple countries are committing genocide, the Amazon rainforest is burning, and Trump's only concern is sending more troops to Saudi Arabia to protect their oil.  How is that not "supporting superpowers with interests diametrically opposed to those of the Western world?"  War with Iran seems almost inevitable at this point, and would prove unequivocally that the US military is Israel's/Saudi Arabia's bitch.  I'm sure Russia wouldn't be too broken up about it, either.
> 
> The US has no moral authority left on the world stage whatsoever.  Even if Trump wanted to chastise another country for genocide, it would only be laughed off given that the US is currently maintaining concentration camps for children.  Of course, he wouldn't care to chastise them anyway because Trump is in support of neither democracy nor human rights.


Touting a potential war with Iran as immoral is a ridiculous premise - Iran is ruled by an extremist regime, they're most well-known for their particular brand of state-sponsored terrorism. I wouldn't shed a tear if there was a confrontation between Iran and the United States, however I find it unlikely - compared to his predecessor Trump comes across as a peacenik. I have no doubt that under different leadership the U.S. would already be involved in yet another needless large-scale conflict, meanwhile under Trump relations with North Korea have improved dramatically and Iran is doing "just Iran things" by posturing as usual. I understand that carpet bombing weddings used to be an American pass time, but it's nice to see the U.S. take a short break from committing genocide and letting the smaller players have their turn - you're not the world's police men, and you don't have to be.



Xzi said:


> I've already explained this to you, there should be no room for misinterpretation by now.  *ALL Democrats are political opponents of Trump, not even just those running for president.*  If it helps to clarify for you, we can refer to Biden and other Democrats as Trump's 'political opposition' rather than his 'political opponents,' but these are essentially synonyms.  If the argument you're making requires feigned ignorance as a cornerstone, then it's no argument at all.


TIL Democrats can't be investigated because a Republican is President. Nice one.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> So, every single Democrat is in direct competition with Trump for President? Exactly, what are they in competition over? What's the name of the competition, the prize? What's the rules? Having opposing views than someone else doesn't make you them your opponent. You'd have to be directly involved in competition for something. Isn't generalizing something your Liberals look down on?


This is the saddest attempt at gaslighting I've ever seen.  All you need to understand is that Trump asked a foreign power for a favor to benefit his campaign.  The fact that it might harm the campaign of another potential presidential candidate is incidental at best, completely irrelevant to the law we're discussing at worst.  If he had asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on AOC or another Democratic member of the House, it would be illegal all the same.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is the saddest attempt at gaslighting I've ever seen.  All you need to understand is that Trump asked a foreign power for a favor to benefit his campaign.  The fact that it might harm the campaign of another potential presidential candidate is incidental at best, completely irrelevant to the law we're discussing at worst.  If he had asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on AOC or another Democratic member of the House, it would be illegal all the same.



Not only is Biden not in direct competition with Trump, but Trump never stated why he wanted the information or what he was going to do with it. It's pure speculation that he was going to use against Biden in an election that might or might not take place. I also see you've learned about gaslighting and use it as loosely as the word racist. I really hope someone that has been gaslighted in real life finds you and teaches you a lesson.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> TIL Democrats can't be investigated because a Republican is President. Nice one.


You're smarter than this.  Trump is free to ask the DOJ or any other branch of the American government to investigate anybody he pleases.  That doesn't mean they'll comply, but it would be entirely lawful to do so.  If he's turning to a foreign government for that assistance, it's because he knows he's doing something shady and doesn't want it on the record.  Also the reason he wanted the phone logs moved to a more secretive server.



billapong said:


> Not only is Biden not in direct competition with Trump





Xzi said:


> If the argument you're making requires feigned ignorance as a cornerstone, then it's no argument at all.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're smarter than this.  Trump is free to ask the DOJ or any other branch of the American government to investigate anybody he pleases.  That doesn't mean they'll comply, but it would be entirely lawful to do so.  If he's turning to a foreign government for that assistance, it's because he knows he's doing something shady and doesn't want it on the record.  Also the reason he wanted the phone logs moved to a more secretive server.



Or he could be investigating the cause of the Mueller issue himself. I wonder if I should rewrite the Adam Sandler "Mop the floor" song to "Let's speculate all day long, while I sing this song". You're pretty boring to debate with when you base everything on "what if's" or "we interpreted this way by cherry picking and leaving out these parts or these facts". It's no wonder the Liberal congress never gets anything done or done right. I also see you're all about whataboutism (when you can't seem to use those other petty tactics to come up with a valid reason for your obsession with Trump).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're smarter than this.  Trump is free to ask the DOJ or any other branch of the American government to investigate anybody he pleases.  That doesn't mean they'll comply, but it would be entirely lawful to do so.  If he's turning to a foreign government for that assistance, it's because he knows he's doing something shady and doesn't want it on the record.  Also the reason he wanted the phone logs moved to a more secretive server.


No, you're smarter than this. If he was doing something shady that he wanted off the record, he wouldn't do it in a room with a dozen witnesses taking official notes, also known as *a record*, he would probably start a private server at home and then smash it with a hammer, if the need arised.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> No, you're smarter than this. If he was doing something shady that he wanted off the record, he wouldn't do it in a room with a dozen witnesses taking official notes, he would probably start a private server at home and then smash it with a hammer, if the need arised.


He was stupid enough to believe that everyone in the room had pledged "absolute loyalty" to him.  He's since implied that the people who were in the room who talked to the whistleblower should be executed for "treason."  Stupid is as stupid does, and that will ultimately be Trump's downfall.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> No, you're smarter than this. If he was doing something shady that he wanted off the record, he wouldn't do it in a room with a dozen witnesses taking official notes, also known as *a record*, he would probably start a private server at home and then smash it with a hammer, if the need arised.



You are projecting what you would do. He's lived a pretty untouchable life. He was born into wealth. I'm not sure if you've ever been around the inherited wealthy before. Actually held dinner conversations at length. They expect the world to bend to their will as that is what they've experienced throughout their life. Trump especially. Obviously not everyone born into wealth is corrupt, but it does often breed a level of entitlement. However, that's just my perspective and it carries some bias of personal history. So feel free to object.

Back to the constant defense over something I can't imagine we really are discussing...

Trump is seeking re-election. Biden is an aspiring political rival. There is discussion whether Biden is a political rival within the upcoming election? Really?!? You don't think if dirt was released prior to the DNC primary election that it wouldn't effect the Presidential Election? This paper thin defense just shows how black and white it is and how far one has to reach to try to explain away this fragrant break of the law as innocent. Intent doesn't actually matter. The fact is he requested an investigation involving a political rival with a foreign national. -- If he was doing it to give Biden a heads up saying 'Hey Biden, they actually have dirt on you, be careful!' doesn't matter! It interferes and influences an american election. Law is pretty clear about this. 

What if he became VP from one of the other candidates? Does it not count then? Seriously... I can't even believe I'm having to debate this of all things??? I'm up for discussing things that are more speculative once we all get around to facing the reality. This law was broken. Is it worth impeaching? Who knows? That's debatable, and an interesting conversation I'm open to entertain. But Trump's conduct in this specific instance is not.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're smarter than this.  Trump is free to ask the DOJ or any other branch of the American government to investigate anybody he pleases.  That doesn't mean they'll comply, but it would be entirely lawful to do so.  *If he's turning to a foreign government for that assistance, it's because he knows he's doing something shady *and doesn't want it on the record.  Also the reason he wanted the phone logs moved to a more secretive server.




Or maybe it's because we have a mutual legal assistance treaty for criminal law enforcement with Ukraine, where each country can ask the other for help with investigation into suspicious circumstances in the others' country that impacts a citizen or other interest of the requesting country.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...I really shouldn't make threads when I've got barely time to read, let alone respond, to everyone.


Nothing wrong with a little kindle 



Xzi said:


> As a result, countries like China and India, currently in the middle of committing their own acts of genocide for those unaware,


Interesting, I haven't heard of this. At risk of derailing the thread (lol), could you link sources? Or pm, whichever works.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 28, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Or maybe it's because we have a mutual legal assistance treaty for criminal law enforcement with Ukraine, where each country can ask the other for help with investigation into suspicious circumstances in the others' country that impacts a citizen or other interest of the requesting country.



This is a talking point I've seen circulating now. The treaty is valid, but the US method of initiating an investigating into a previous administration is not conducted with a private lawyer mediating directly with a foreign national/government. The proper way is to start an investigation on actions of a former US administration is through a congressional bipartisan committee. Please refer to my earlier posts where congressional checks/balances are described.

Something I can't understand if this has nothing to do with influencing the election... Why wait until now? Why not do this legit with a bipartisan committee when republicans held the majority of both the house and the senate? Even then his lawyers know the Legislative branch is the proper channel for executive oversight. They could have pushed back so hard against the Russian meddling by launching their own investigations. Change the narrative that they were the ones fighting to uproot corruption. There is a serious deficit in policy and strategy. It's a missed opportunity really. 

Off-topic:
All we have is the one call where the only corruption discussed by trump is related to a DNC hack w/ CrowdStrike and Biden's pressure on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor. Both which matter to Trump. I could have entertained some argument of legitimate pursuit of US National Interest if both cases weren't matters that impacted Trump in some fashion and he wasn't directly involving a personal lawyer as if he was a legitimate government official within the State Department. 

Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing these things as not important or not worth investigating. Do it the right way. 
----

So I went and read the treaty referenced. This is the Ukraine/US Treaty that was put in effect during the Clinton Administration. 
https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

I actually concede that Attorney General can and shall conduct an inquiry with Ukraine over the DNC CrowdStrike matter. Great I actually learned something today. Thanks. This explains why Barr was mentioned. I read the rest and below are three articles that seemed to be pretty important pertaining to the transcript. I encourage others to read the entirety of the Treaty as it provides some interesting information. The most notable I listed below. Just for those who aren't sure requested state-US -requesting state / Ukraine -requested state (if the treaty was called upon)

-------
Article 1 sets forth a non-exclusive list of the major types of assistance to be provided under the Treaty, *including taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records and other items of evidence; locating or identifying persons or items; serving documents;* transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and, *rendering any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State*. *The scope of the Treaty includes not only criminal offenses, but also proceedings related to criminal matters, which may be civil or administrative in nature.* Article 1(3) states that assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct involved would constitute an offense under the laws of the Requested State. Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request.

Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. *For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General.* The article provides that the Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the Treaty. 

Article 3 sets forth the circumstances under which a Requested State’s Central Authority may deny assistance under the Treaty. A request may be denied if it relates to a military offense that would not be an offense under ordinary criminal law. *A further ground for denial is that the request relates to a political offense* (a term expected to be defined on the basis of that term’s usage in extradition treaties). In addition, a request may be denied if its execution would prejudice the security or similar essential interests of the Requested State, or if it is not made in conformity with the Treaty. Before denying assistance under Article 3, the Central Authority of the Requested State is required to consult with its counterpart in the Requesting State to consider whether assistance can be given subject to such conditions as the Central Authority of the Requested State deems necessary. If the Requesting State accepts assistance subject to these conditions, it is required to comply with the conditions. If the Central Authority of the Requested State denies assistance, it is required to inform the Central Authority of the Requesting State of the reasons for the denial.

Article 13 requires the Requested State to use its best efforts to ascertain the location or identity of persons or *items specified in a request.*
-----

There is alot to unpack here. I'm done for the night but an interesting read. Biggest takeaway is Barr is legit to be involved Rudy... ehh... no further comment.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Interesting, I haven't heard of this. At risk of derailing the thread (lol), could you link sources? Or pm, whichever works.


http://theconversation.com/despite-...be-called-what-it-is-cultural-genocide-120654

https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/2019/08/15/Genocide-Alert-for-Kashmir-India

Being targeted are the Uyghurs (Muslims) in China and Hindu population in Kashmir, India.  Unsurprisingly, both China and India want to avoid as much media attention being drawn to these events as possible, and they've been mostly successful in those efforts.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 28, 2019)

I don't have the time these days to get sucked into a long-winded debate that goes nowhere, but I just want to say that watching conservatives attempt to defend the indefensible has been quite enjoyable.


----------



## PrincessLillie (Sep 28, 2019)

It's finally happening. We're in the endgame now.
Remember, there have only ever been two presidents impeached in U.S. history. Soon to be three.
#DonaldTrumpIsOverParty


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> http://theconversation.com/despite-...be-called-what-it-is-cultural-genocide-120654
> 
> https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/2019/08/15/Genocide-Alert-for-Kashmir-India
> 
> Being targeted are the Uyghurs (Muslims) in China and Hindu population in Kashmir, India.  Unsurprisingly, both China and India want to avoid as much media attention being drawn to these events as possible, and they've been mostly successful in those efforts.


Damn. Humanity truly is despicable.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> It's no wonder the Liberal congress never gets anything done or done right.



Lmfao. That is the biggest crock of BS I've seen today & is something directly from Trumps Twitter. Anything you say from this point on has absolutely zero value. Have you even LOOKED to see what the Liberals have done? I'll assume no. Because just like everything else (and I've said this before), you Trump loyalists seem to know everything without having read it. I hope you eventually run with your tail between your legs like that other user did, becasue they couldn't tolerate being "bullied" by a supposedly Liberal majority site.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> http://theconversation.com/despite-...be-called-what-it-is-cultural-genocide-120654
> 
> https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/2019/08/15/Genocide-Alert-for-Kashmir-India
> 
> Being targeted are the Uyghurs (Muslims) in China and Hindu population in Kashmir, India. Unsurprisingly, both China and India want to avoid as much media attention being drawn to these events as possible, and they've been mostly successful in those efforts.



Wow. 50000 dead and 8000 disappearances. It's genuinely disturbing that I've never once heard of this. How the hell has the mainstream media not said anything? How have they been covering this up?


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2019)

TerribleTy27 said:


> Wow. 50000 dead and 8000 disappearances. It's genuinely disturbing that I've never once heard of this. How the hell has the mainstream media not said anything? How have they been covering this up?



With BBC Documentaries. *sarcasm*



notimp said:


> BBC Documentary (current) on the rise of China, the state sponsored 'disappearances' of booksellers in Hongkong and the Uyghur concentration camps. They have enough footage to make a good case.
> 
> China: A New World Order - Season 1 Episode 1
> China: A New World Order - Season 1 Episode 2
> ...



Beats me, why normal people havent trashed facebook news algos long ago..  (I read mainstream media, and I've known about this, for maybe four, five years?) In the Uyghur case, developments in Kashmir are newer, but also not surprising at all (the conflict there is ongoing for what five decades now?).


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2019)

notimp said:


> With BBC Documentaries.



Thanks for the links. I'll be sure to check them out.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Lmfao. That is the biggest crock of BS I've seen today & is something directly from Trumps Twitter. Anything you say from this point on has absolutely zero value. Have you even LOOKED to see what the Liberals have done? I'll assume no. Because just like everything else (and I've said this before), you Trump loyalists seem to know everything without having read it. I hope you eventually run with your tail between your legs like that other user did, becasue they couldn't tolerate being "bullied" by a supposedly Liberal majority site.



Isn't it a Liberal sin to generalize? Well, Congress has done a lot; a lot of blocking whatever the Republicans try to pass. They've also done a lot of witch hunting and spent years trying to undermine Trump. When those two things are their main priority you have to wonder why I might not be aware of anything good they've actually got done. Humor me though, what actual legislation have they've passed that has served any purpose other than to fight the Republicans or discredit Trump?

Oh, and for the record I don't use Twitter. The President commenting on that shitty platform isn't enough to get me to visit the site. You couldn't pay me to use modern main stream social media sites.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> Isn't it a Liberal sin to generalize? Well, Congress has done a lot; a lot of blocking whatever the Republicans try to pass. They've also done a lot of witch hunting and spent years trying to undermine Trump. When those two things are their main priority you have to wonder why I might not be aware of anything good they've actually got done. Humor me though, what actual legislation have they've passed that has served any purpose other than to fight the Republicans or discredit Trump?



1) Ask yourself about what's a sin and what's not. The GOP are supposed to be the experts on Christianity.

2) Blocking? Did you completely forget about the GOP's pledge to block all Dem legislation to make Obama a 1 term President? Hypocrite much?

3) Witch hunt, according ONLY to the right.

4) Spending years trying to undermine Trump. You had your time when Obama was in office. Funny how it's not so great when the shoes on the other foot. Is it? Again, hypocrite much?

5) "why I might not be aware of anything good they've actually got done" Sounds familiar. Ever heard this?

"No, we accepted the statements in the report as a factual record. We did not go underneath it to see whether or not they were accurate." -William Barr

Or how about this one?

Corey Lewandowski: The Mueller report was very clear. There was no collusion. There was no obstruction.
Alisyn Camerota: That's not what the Mueller report said, Corey.
Corey: It absolutely says that...
Alisyn: ... Did you read the Mueller report?
Corey: No, I never did

6) So you want me to hold your hand and lead the way for you, becasue as always, the right is clueless when it comes do doing their own fact checking. Fox or Trump just spews something out and it's automatically fact to you lot. Figure it out yourself, there's plenty of extremely easy to obtain information on this subject out there for you. But you admitted yourself that you didn't even look and are not knowledgeable on the topic. Yet, you just KNOW that the Liberals have done absolutely nothing. Refer back to #5. Smh.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> 1) Ask yourself about what's a sin and what's not. The GOP are supposed to be the experts on Christianity.
> 
> 2) Blocking? Did you completely forget about the GOP's pledge to block all Dem legislation to make Obama a 1 term President? Hypocrite much?
> 
> ...



Yawn, it was Mueller's job to investigate the accusations of collusion, which he found to be wrong. It's sort of like how Hillary lost the election and voters still claim that Trump isn't their President. Not being able to deal with something is understandable, but denying reality isn't. The issue is over, holding onto it is your choice, but I've moved on.

Yeah, the Republicans did a lot of their own blocking, but they aren't they don't hold a majority of Congress now and I was referring to current session of Congress.

You're right about various sins as the Liberals don't have moral values, but they treat generalizing as some sort of reprehensible offense, well, at least when it's someone else doing it to them.

It was a Witch hunt, because of the way it turned out. If Trump was actually guilty of collusion I wouldn't be denying it. I'd laugh and move on, but he wasn't found to be guilty of it so I didn't laugh and did move on.

I'm also not a Republican, but I did vote for Trump and I'm going to vote for him again. If it's Liberal vs X I'm always going to vote for X.

I mainly depend on the media (all sides, I visit 20 some news/entertainment outlets/sites daily) to report about what Congress has done. I don't watch their live sessions. I was serious when I asked you what they've actually passed regarding things that weren't used to block Republican legislation or to attack the President.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 28, 2019)

Republican?
More like Republicant


----------



## Glyptofane (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Rofl, multiple countries are committing genocide, the Amazon rainforest is burning, and Trump's only concern is sending more troops to Saudi Arabia to protect their oil.  How is that not "supporting superpowers with interests diametrically opposed to those of the Western world?"  War with Iran seems almost inevitable at this point, and would prove unequivocally that the US military is Israel's/Saudi Arabia's bitch.  I'm sure Russia wouldn't be too broken up about it, either.


I'm definitely with you on these points. It's sickening to watch quite frankly and war with Iran has zero benefit to the US.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> http://theconversation.com/despite-...be-called-what-it-is-cultural-genocide-120654
> 
> https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/2019/08/15/Genocide-Alert-for-Kashmir-India
> 
> Being targeted are the Uyghurs (Muslims) in China and Hindu population in Kashmir, India.  Unsurprisingly, both China and India want to avoid as much media attention being drawn to these events as possible, and they've been mostly successful in those efforts.


Ah yes, China's biggest PR ally Donald Trump is totally running cover for them. Perhaps if the media weren't too busy reporting Breaking News whenever he tweets they'd have time to report real news.


Xzi said:


> He was stupid enough to believe that everyone in the room had pledged "absolute loyalty" to him.  He's since implied that the people who were in the room who talked to the whistleblower should be executed for "treason."  Stupid is as stupid does, and that will ultimately be Trump's downfall.


A corporation operates on slightly different principles than the U.S. government, "absolute loyalty" is something he's probably more used to, and it's the optimal scenario for those kinds of talks. As for any accusations of "stupidity", that's your subjective opinion. Given the industry he's in and his life-long success _(Inb4 people who know very little about business start shouting "bankruptcy king" and other assorted nonsense)_ chances are his intelligence is above average, he's simply an eccentric, which doesn't resonate with you.


RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You are projecting what you would do. He's lived a pretty untouchable life. He was born into wealth. I'm not sure if you've ever been around the inherited wealthy before. Actually held dinner conversations at length. They expect the world to bend to their will as that is what they've experienced throughout their life. Trump especially. Obviously not everyone born into wealth is corrupt, but it does often breed a level of entitlement. However, that's just my perspective and it carries some bias of personal history. So feel free to object.
> 
> Back to the constant defense over something I can't imagine we really are discussing...
> 
> ...


I do object, on a number of grounds. There are reasons why this conversation took place in July as opposed to any other time, if you consider the circumstances. It was a congratulatory call to a newly-elected President - that's already superior timing than Obama's "flexibility" pledge before he was even re-elected. It's also unclear whether this *was* an attempt to gather dirt on Biden as opposed to a more general attempt to discuss matters of corruption with the new Ukrainian leader and build a bridge of co-operation to fight it. As for me "projecting" what "rich people be like", read your own argument - you expect Trump to act a certain way because "you've held dinners before". That's the definition of a subjective opinion, *you're* projecting, based on your own experience. Wealth has nothing to do with this, logic and reason do. If Trump didn't want to leave a literal paper trail, he wouldn't have.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Ah yes, China's biggest PR ally Donald Trump is totally running cover for them. Perhaps if the media weren't too busy reporting Breaking News whenever he tweets they'd have time to report real news.


I didn't say he was running cover for them, I said he simply doesn't care enough to mention it.  As the president he's definitely been briefed about it or at least been made aware of it.  The only concern Trump has in relation to China is making sure that we can continue exploiting their cheap labor to the fullest possible extent.  He doesn't care about human rights abuses in Hong Kong, and he definitely doesn't care about genocide targeted at Muslims of any kind.



Foxi4 said:


> A corporation operates on slightly different principles than the U.S. government, "absolute loyalty" is something he's probably more used to, and it's the optimal scenario for those kinds of talks. As for any accusations of "stupidity", that's your subjective opinion. Given the industry he's in and his life-long success _(Inb4 people who know very little about business start shouting "bankruptcy king" and other assorted nonsense)_ chances are his intelligence is above average, he's simply an eccentric, which doesn't resonate with you.


His background is precisely the reason he ended up such an inept fool.  He was born into wealth, and that wealth was enough to make any and every mistake he made throughout his life disappear.  I can only hope that Americans are starting to wake up to the fact that a nation of laws can only remain as such when those laws apply to _everybody_.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I didn't say he was running cover for them, I said he simply doesn't care enough to mention it.  As the president he's definitely been briefed about it or at least been made aware of it.
> 
> His background is precisely the reason he ended up such an inept fool.  He was born into wealth, and that wealth was enough to make any and every mistake he made throughout his life disappear.  I can only hope that Americans are starting to wake up to the fact that a nation of laws can only remain as such when those laws apply to _everybody_.


So we _are_ going to lock her up after all, huh? 

On a more serious note, we'll see where this goes. I don't want to stray too far from the main subjects into the weeds of geopolitical issues across the globe or Trump's character flaws. I'll pop back in to see how the thread is doing once there are some meaningful updates, it's been nice taking to you again. Next time I'll bring my book of Trump aphorisms, seeing that you said he "isn't funny" - they're hilarious. Yes, I have a book of Trump aphorisms, don't question it, it was a gift. I think the gift giver was trying to make a joke, but it backfired tremendously when the book turned out to be a genuinely fun read.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 28, 2019)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...pes-us-doesnt-release-trump-putin/3784764002/

relevant.

It looks like this is going to be a bumpy ride hold on to your tails ppl.

in before folks say he is a genius doing the Art of the deal.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 28, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...pes-us-doesnt-release-trump-putin/3784764002/
> 
> relevant.
> 
> ...


Indeed.  It's somewhat unsurprising that the server which is storing Trump's "sensitive" foreign phone call logs reportedly has calls from both Putin and the Saudi royals on it.

Also today: Trump's envoy for Ukraine resigned, and Trump turned to the NRA to ask for help in defending against impeachment.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Indeed.  It's somewhat unsurprising that the server which is storing Trump's "sensitive" foreign phone call logs reportedly has calls from both Putin and the Saudi royals on it.
> 
> Also today: Trump's envoy for Ukraine resigned, and Trump turned to the NRA to ask for help in defending against impeachment.


Dont worry, His biggest fans are either going to pretend They didnt scream about Hillary's emails, or resort to whataboutism.
Like i said, his fans think that he is right no matter what he does.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Sep 28, 2019)

Now I am sick of him and I am now ignored Trump. No more listen to him on television. He is a monster and a heartless and hyprocisy. He is very disgusting. He doesn't existed anymore. No more watched about him and read about him. He is the same as all presidents in two same commons: hyprocisy and corrupted! Political sucks!!!


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Indeed.  It's somewhat unsurprising that the server which is storing Trump's "sensitive" foreign phone call logs reportedly has calls from both Putin and the Saudi royals on it.
> 
> Also today: Trump's envoy for Ukraine resigned, and Trump turned to the NRA to ask for help in defending against impeachment.



Wait. Wait.

The NRA.

He did mention something about taking away all guns and ignoring the second amendment, or something to that effect a year ago, right? I'm not insane, right?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I do object, on a number of grounds. There are reasons why this conversation took place in July as opposed to any other time, if you consider the circumstances. It was a congratulatory call to a newly-elected President - that's already superior timing than Obama's "flexibility" pledge before he was even re-elected. It's also unclear whether this *was* an attempt to gather dirt on Biden as opposed to a more general attempt to discuss matters of corruption with the new Ukrainian leader and build a bridge of co-operation to fight it. As for me "projecting" what "rich people be like", read your own argument - you expect Trump to act a certain way because "you've held dinners before". That's the definition of a subjective opinion, *you're* projecting, based on your own experience. Wealth has nothing to do with this, logic and reason do. If Trump didn't want to leave a literal paper trail, he wouldn't have.



That's fine, I called out your projection but gave mine. I'm aware of that and invited you to dismiss it in turn. The point is perspective colors the lens you see "how you think something happened". Our minds naturally will attempt to fill any void in information to streamline into a narrative that we process. I'm merely trying to point out one perspective on a matter which little to no information doesn't point to truth or reality. It's only speculation.

Here's where we shouldn't disagree. Trump still broke the law given that transcript is accurate. Did the previous administration do so as well? Who knows? Is it something of suspect? Potentially, but without trump requesting a bipartisan investigative committee within either the senate or the house then it will continue to lack the needed facts to proceed. Something that republicans could have launched for years, they still could do so in the senate even to this day. 

I will say I expect Trump to also act a certain way because of his life before presidency. We have some history available to us, and wasn't that concerned with hiding the mess. Remind me again about the Trump charity foundation? We can find other examples of questionable conduct but I'm keeping this as simple as possible.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 28, 2019)

azoreseuropa said:


> Now I am sick of him and I am now ignored Trump. No more listen to him on television. He is a monster and a heartless and hyprocisy. He is very disgusting. He doesn't existed anymore. No more watched about him and read about him. He is the same as all presidents in two same commons: hyprocisy and corrupted! Political sucks!!!


You said it, brother.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yawn, it was Mueller's job to investigate the accusations of collusion, which he found to be wrong. It's sort of like how Hillary lost the election and voters still claim that Trump isn't their President. Not being able to deal with something is understandable, but denying reality isn't. The issue is over, holding onto it is your choice, but I've moved on.
> 
> Yeah, the Republicans did a lot of their own blocking, but they aren't they don't hold a majority of Congress now and I was referring to current session of Congress.
> 
> ...



Any why is it so bad that an investigation found no collusion? If there were claims of collusion when Obama were president, or if Hillary had won, the same people crying witch hunt would be all over investigations and support them 100% and you know it. Can you stop with the hypocrisy? Another bit of info, I did not vote for Hillary. I also did not vote for Trump. So the Hillary comments can stop also. I don't like her, but you just assumed. About the report. You say there was no collusion, which to me is a GOOD thing. I'm GLAD there was none directly found. But there were MANY instances of obstruction and you know FULL well he would be up shit creek if he were not sitting President.

Don't hold a majority of congress now & you were referring only to the current congress? Funny how you can pick and choose exactly when things fit your agenda and when they don't. One second it's Obama this Hillary that!!!! And the next its... oh.. I was talking only about the here and now. Which is it ? Can't have both. And you trying to suddenly cut out the past is another fine example of your extreme hypocrisy issues.

Libs don't have moral values. LMFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFAO!!!! Hypocrite. Hypocrite. HYPOCRITE!!! Are you REALLY saying that Trump and his admin are incredibly filled with morale and value? Jesus efffffing.... I just... WHAT!?!?!?! LOL!

So how many people were indicted again in the investigations? Can you look up that number for yourself? Not quite the Witch Hunt you thought it was, now was it? No collusion, yet plenty of people indicted and many counts of obstruction found. Why do you all keep acting like just becasue there was no collusion, that he is 100% innocent of everything else? You keep screaming NO COLLUSION while turning a completely blind eye to everything else.

So you're not a Republican, yet you will vote Republican every single time over a Dem. You're completely full of crap. You know full well your a Republican. And that "I will ALWAYS vote xover Lib" garbage is a complete waste of a vote. What you've just proved to everyone is that you are FULL ON party over country. You've just admitted that no matter how horrendous or terrible of a person "X", you would still vote for them over a Liberal. Just pathetic.

Another thing you've just admitted to is the equivalent of saying you've never read the Mueller report. "Oh... I know all about the hearings. Did I ever watch them? Nope. But I did read some stuff on some web pages about it after the fact that may or may not be accurate. But I can't be 100% positive because I never saw it for myself." Seriously? This is just a joke at this point. And not a funny one. It's disgusting. And it's fine if you were serious about the question you asked, but the fact remains that I'm not going to point you to a bunch of sites with that information. If have 20 or so sites a day you visit for news... I'm sure you can figure it out. Maybe. After your posts I have some pretty strong doubts.

I'm finished talking to you about it all though. There's no point. Enjoy your weekend.


----------



## 1stmoon (Sep 28, 2019)

The president is clearly mentally ill to some capacity and a full-on pathological liar. Trump arguing that a hurricane was on the pathway to hit Alabama when it clearly wasn't should tell you everything you need to know about him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> That's fine, I called out your projection but gave mine. I'm aware of that and invited you to dismiss it in turn. The point is perspective colors the lens you see "how you think something happened". Our minds naturally will attempt to fill any void in information to streamline into a narrative that we process. I'm merely trying to point out one perspective on a matter which little to no information doesn't point to truth or reality. It's only speculation.
> 
> Here's where we shouldn't disagree. Trump still broke the law given that transcript is accurate. Did the previous administration do so as well? Who knows? Is it something of suspect? Potentially, but without trump requesting a bipartisan investigative committee within either the senate or the house then it will continue to lack the needed facts to proceed. Something that republicans could have launched for years, they still could do so in the senate even to this day.
> 
> I will say I expect Trump to also act a certain way because of his life before presidency. We have some history available to us, and wasn't that concerned with hiding the mess. Remind me again about the Trump charity foundation? We can find other examples of questionable conduct but I'm keeping this as simple as possible.


I certainly do disagree - you haven't established that he's broken the law in any way if you take the statute as it is written and refrain from using a crystal ball to guess his intentions or motivation. It is not by any means clear that anything illegal took place, that's a conclusory statement.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 28, 2019)

1stmoon said:


> The president is clearly mentally ill to some capacity and a full-on pathological liar. Trump arguing that a hurricane was on the pathway to hit Alabama when it clearly wasn't should tell you everything you need to know about him.



There's also covfefe, the moon is part of mars, tossing out paper towels to hurricane survivors, his latest extremely bizarre ramble involving "Liddle'" and the use of a "hyphen" that is actually an apostrophe, calling his own daughter hot and saying he'd date her, you need ID to buy a box of cereal, young people pay $12 a year for medical insurance, asbestos would have prevented the World Trade Center from burning, environmental friendly lightbulbs and the noise from wind turbines both cause cancer, etc. etc. A person could go on for a decent enough amount of time stating all of the completely idiotic things he's said and done. The guy is pure dotard.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 28, 2019)

sks316 said:


> It's finally happening. We're in the endgame now.
> Remember, there have only ever been two presidents impeached in U.S. history. Soon to be three.
> #DonaldTrumpIsOverParty


Not quite, technically nobody has been impeached to the point where they have been removed from his seat and Trump probably won't be either.

There's only been three actual impeachments that reached past the House: Clintons and Johnsons, both of which were acquited of their charges.

Johnson was acquited due to the fact that those judging decided that it is not the right of the American executive branch to impeach the president if the branch disagrees with policy the president set (Johnson removed the secretary of war and attempted to replace him with Lorenzo Thomas, violating the Tenure of Office Act that was passed the year before.), although it should be noted that the branch did eventually get its way on the specific situation in question.

Bill Clinton was acquited of his impeachment but was later nailed on a contempt of court charge for lying during the impeachment procedures (which resulted in a plea deal involving a fine and a 5 year suspension of his law license when he left office) and settled individual charges, both of which pretty much torpedoed his political carreer.

Nixon had the articles filed and adopted by the House, but resigned before any actual trial could take place.
--

Specifically, *in order to impeach and be removed from office*, the following things must occur:

Congress must file articles of impeachment. During this phase, the Congress gets the right to investigate the public official and determine the specific grounds and causes of impeachment (think of it like gathering evidence.)

The Senate must formally adopt the articles of impeachment. *At this point a president is considered impeached, but not removed from office.*

Then the impeachment procedure can start, which works just like a trial. The Senate acts as the judge, whilst the House and Congress both can choose to summon witnesses and cross-examine them.
If the Senate deems the public official guilty, they are removed from office.
Note the usage of official here, this is because impeachment proceduers can be filed against _any_ public official, ranging from Supreme Court members to state governors to secretaries. (Although since those aren't neccesarily federal, the house and congress don't get involved for non-federal impeachments, but the local equivalents of the lower and upper house for each state).  

Not just the president, although the procedure is identical there.
--

Now why Donald Trump won't be impeached: The Senate is currently led by "Moscow Mitch" McConnell, who gets that beautiful little nickname for refusing to adopt an anti-corruption bill made by Congress that would allocate money to increase security during US elections as well as blocking a seperate bill that would demand politicians, staffers and families of politicians to contact federal authorities if a foreign official attempts to initiate contact with them.

Those two bills were made by Congress as a result from the Russia investigation, hence the name "Moscow Mitch" (personal opinion: its funny as hell and I'm keeping that nickname in mind from now on.)

Anyway, Moscow Mitch will never adopt the bill in question.

Does this mean this entire thing is pointless? *No.* The right to investigate the public official (in this case the sitting president) by Congress is _important_. At it's simplest, it means we finally get to see Trumps tax returns. At it's more complex, this gives the Congress the ability to put all of Trumps behavior under a spotlight and investigate the _many many_ public gaffes and see if there's anything else wrong there (and this will probably lead to more impeachments, resignations and arrests and will probably also torpedo his re-election chances and _probably_ land him into troubles once this stinking turd leaves office if only a percentage of all the public gaffes he's made over the past year carry their underlying suggestion). So *yes*, this is _highly_ important.

On a moral level (and this is a personal one), it's also just the right thing to do.
--

Closing note: Thanks for the thread here guys! It was fun poking around on Wikipedia for this stuff, speaking as a non-american, I now have a much better idea of how the procedure works and why it has failed so many times in the past.


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Any why is it so bad that an investigation found no collusion? If there were claims of collusion when Obama were president, or if Hillary had won, the same people crying witch hunt would be all over investigations and support them 100% and you know it. Can you stop with the hypocrisy? Another bit of info, I did not vote for Hillary. I also did not vote for Trump. So the Hillary comments can stop also. I don't like her, but you just assumed. About the report. You say there was no collusion, which to me is a GOOD thing. I'm GLAD there was none directly found. But there were MANY instances of obstruction and you know FULL well he would be up shit creek if he were not sitting President.



The Republicans still haven't let the Hillary email issue go after the investigation so you're right, but I'm not talking about the Republicans. Just because a certain group of people would do the same thing doesn't justify the group I'm talking about doing it.



> Don't hold a majority of congress now & you were referring only to the current congress? Funny how you can pick and choose exactly when things fit your agenda and when they don't. One second it's Obama this Hillary that!!!! And the next its... oh.. I was talking only about the here and now. Which is it ? Can't have both. And you trying to suddenly cut out the past is another fine example of your extreme hypocrisy issues.



I never changed anything to fit my agenda. I clarified that I was referring to the current Congress in session. What I was referring to never changed.



> Libs don't have moral values. LMFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFAO!!!! Hypocrite. Hypocrite. HYPOCRITE!!! Are you REALLY saying that Trump and his admin are incredibly filled with morale and value? Jesus efffffing.... I just... WHAT!?!?!?! LOL!



When you have a fluctuating value system that changes on a whim you have no moral values. Liberals embrace dishonestly and the various sins that exist. They don't have moral values and most of them won't even hesitate to deny this fact. They gloat about it.



> So how many people were indicted again in the investigations? Can you look up that number for yourself? Not quite the Witch Hunt you thought it was, now was it? No collusion, yet plenty of people indicted and many counts of obstruction found. Why do you all keep acting like just becasue there was no collusion, that he is 100% innocent of everything else? You keep screaming NO COLLUSION while turning a completely blind eye to everything else.



The media and Congress cried "collusion", but none was found. If they would have been crying "obstruction" then that would be a different story, but they were wrong. Dead wrong. Two years of crying wolf. I took pleasure in seeing CNN reporters lose their shit and I take great pleasure in knowing that the Liberals were wrong and lost that particular battle.



> So you're not a Republican, yet you will vote Republican every single time over a Dem. You're completely full of crap. You know full well your a Republican. And that "I will ALWAYS vote xover Lib" garbage is a complete waste of a vote. What you've just proved to everyone is that you are FULL ON party over country. You've just admitted that no matter how horrendous or terrible of a person "X", you would still vote for them over a Liberal. Just pathetic.



I won't vote for a Liberal, that doesn't mean I always vote Republican. Liberals are a cancer and the if a candidate is a Liberal then that sin in itself is greater than anything his or her opponent could have possibly committed.



> Another thing you've just admitted to is the equivalent of saying you've never read the Mueller report. "Oh... I know all about the hearings. Did I ever watch them? Nope. But I did read some stuff on some web pages about it after the fact that may or may not be accurate. But I can't be 100% positive because I never saw it for myself." Seriously? This is just a joke at this point. And not a funny one. It's disgusting. And it's fine if you were serious about the question you asked, but the fact remains that I'm not going to point you to a bunch of sites with that information. If have 20 or so sites a day you visit for news... I'm sure you can figure it out. Maybe. After your posts I have some pretty strong doubts.



I read peoples interpretation of the Mueller report. From both sides. I skimmed over key sections of it, but I have no interest to read it myself. I'm not a lawyer neither are you so you're apparently interpretation of the findings are going to be just as flawed as mine. In this matter I'll take the word of the agency that did the investigation and the various entities who read, interpreted and decided not to pursue charges over some pissy Liberals that didn't get their way.



> I'm finished talking to you about it all though. There's no point. Enjoy your weekend.



Good, because if you're not going to provide me with a list of actual stuff the current Congress has passed that hasn't been directly relating to blocking Republican legislature or to attack the President you're basically useless.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I certainly do disagree - you haven't established that he's broken the law in any way if you take the statute as it is written and refrain from using a crystal ball to guess his intentions or motivation. It is not by any means clear that anything illegal took place, that's a conclusory statement.



Please see my earlier posts where I break down the statue that was violated. If you aren't willing to read and discuss what I've already written and explained in great detail then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

For reference - post 116 and post 118 on page 6 of this thread. Although if you wish to also uphold your paper thin defense of whether or not Biden constitutes as a political rival or operate in the erroneous assumption that intent is a requirement for the law that is provided, then please refer to post 134 on page 7.

It is clearly laid out. However, If you quote areas you are struggling with I can assist further.

Edit- Changed post 13 to post 134 on page 7. left off a number and gave the page # on the thread to find that post.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Sep 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> Good, because if you're not going to provide me with a list of actual stuff the current Congress has passed that hasn't been directly relating to blocking Republican legislature or to attack the President you're basically useless.



Dude... Bills that are non-partisan get passed all the time. Even under Trump. Its the truly heinous shit that gets called out and that causes the dismay of everybody that gets the breaks put on. I mean literally Bills get assessed nearly every day in congress with the exception of when they are on break.
If you think the only stuff that gets "blocked" or "passed" based on what you see in the news, you need to brush up on your knowledge.

just a small sample of what is being worked on:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/


----------



## billapong (Sep 28, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Dude... Bills that are non-partisan get passed all the time. Even under Trump. Its the truly heinous shit that gets called out and that causes the dismay of everybody that gets the breaks put on. I mean literally Bills get assessed nearly every day in congress with the exception of when they are on break.
> If you think the only stuff that gets "blocked" or "passed" based on what you see in the news, you need to brush up on your knowledge.
> 
> just a small sample of what is being worked on:
> ...



Thanks for the actual constructive reply. I realize that stuff that isn't based on politics gets passed, but the media doesn't report on those things. That's why I asked. It wasn't to prove a point. I want to know, because the media doesn't provide that information. It wouldn't generate revenue. 

I mean, Trump legalized Hemp and the fact that he did basically wasn't reported on because people hate him. It took having to read about CBD and dig a little deeper to find out that it was Trump's administration that got rid of the previous laws restricting the plant (and I'm all for getting rid of laws - fuck making more).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 29, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Please see my earlier posts where I break down the statue that was violated. If you aren't willing to read and discuss what I've already written and explained in great detail then there is no point in continuing this conversation.
> 
> For reference - post 116 and post 118 on page 6 of this thread. Although if you wish to also uphold your paper thin defense of whether or not Biden constitutes as a political rival or operate in the erroneous assumption that intent is a requirement for the law that is provided, then please refer to post 134 on page 7.
> 
> ...


Please read mine where I've explained why you're incorrect. You're more than welcome to throw around statutes all day long, but your statement is a legal conclusion and you don't actually have the evidence to back it up - it's a theory based on what we know so far. There is a very good reason why the House Democrats are retreating from this line of attack right quick and in a hurry, _read_ the statute you've posted. There are several holes in your reasoning - you're presenting your theory as fact without establishing some key points:

We have not established that Trump was _intending_ to solicit help from a foreign national. You think you have, but you haven't - it's unclear from the conversation or from the complaint. This motivation is important and would have to be proven in order to even apply, so far it's a guess on your part. According to Zelensky's own cabinet no help was solicited and even if it was, they had no intention to provide it.
You haven't established that an investigation into the Bidens could be considered a "thing of value" as it is interpreted under the statute - it is not a monetary contribution or object of monetary value as it is commonly understood. In other words, you would have to prove how the Bidens would be negatively affected by Trump's actions and how that translates into value that enriches Trump personally or for his campaign broadly. At the very least you need to illustrate how it would impact Joe Biden in the election - it's unclear that it would. I would like to underline that Joe Biden is not involved with the company in question, Hunter is. Hunter Biden is a private citizen, he's not running. Joe Biden is only implicated in the matter peripherally, his involvement would only be damaging to him in an election if investigated in the U.S.
Eschewing the actual wording of the statute to give you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that Trump was soliciting help, you haven't established what that request was in reference to. A cordial conversation between two leaders about cooperation in combating corruption is not unusual, even if it does peripherally involve mentioning different politicians. You cannot de facto assume that mentioning any politician from the opposition means treason, that would give the opposition effective immunity from any and all investigation by the Executive. In order for your theory to work, you would need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bidens were mentioned to smear them during the election and *not* because of a genuine effort to investigate the matter. If this was merely "the Executive doing Executive things" and the issue of Biden's involvement in the case was only mentioned as an example of a more broad issue of corruption in Ukraine, you don't have a case - you would have to prove otherwise. There is a difference between soliciting help _for oneself_ and requesting help in an official proceeding, particularly when the two countries have an agreement to cooperate in criminal investigations already.
There are many more problems with this line of attack, but that's besides the point. Don't clutch your pearls when I disagree with your assessments, particularly when I've explained why they're inaccurate. They're nice theories, but they lack further analysis of the events. You would have to establish three basic facts - that Trump intended to solicit help and this was telegraphed to Zekensky, who interpreted the phone call as such, then you would have to establish that what was solicited was "a thing of value" to the Trump Campaign and that it was in fact solicited in regards to the election and not in the normal line of duty. You're stating your conclusions as fact when in reality they're inferences based on your interpretation of the two documents - what you're alleging is not stated explicitly in the text. I don't expect you to be able to either, we don't have access to all the evidence, I simply want you to be aware that what you consider to be true is only a guess in regards to what has transpired, and the worst-case scenario at that.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Please read mine where I've explained why you're incorrect. You're more than welcome to throw around statutes all day long, but your statement is a legal conclusion and you don't actually have the evidence to back it up - it's a theory based on what we know so far. There is a very good reason why the House Democrats are retreating from this line of attack right quick and in a hurry, _read_ the statute you've posted.



Spend the time to elaborate as I have. You can quote any part of my previous posts as needed. You aren't giving any suitable response for me to appropriately address further. I refuted every counter point you've raised. You've consistently moved the goal post which I've met at every turn. How familiar are you with the FEC law I've quoted? If you have questions about certain sections or how I've applied them then let's discuss it.

US citizen (Trump) knowingly solicits aid from a Foreign national to obtain potentially politically damaging information regarding a political rival in a US election
Quick Summary - (If I've missed a counter point that was raised please let me know.)
1. No Quid Pro Quo - Doesn't apply and not necessary / The solicitation of assistance was all that was required. This is outlined very clearly in the transcript already in a previous post.
2. Biden not a political rival because he's still in primary - No he is an aspiring political rival, he still counts because if the primary was impacted it in turn impacts the potential candidate in the general election. He could also become a VP even if he lost and would be a political rival on the ballot. (very improbable but that doesn't matter)
3. Ukraine President is a Foreign National and represents a foreign government
4. Use of crystal ball to guess intent or motivation of the defendant - Defendant's intent or motivation doesn't need to be addressed for this particular law. It can help solidify a certain degree of severity in the sentencing but all that is required is that the released transcript shows that a US citizen (Trump) knowingly solicits aid from a Foreign national to obtain potentially politically damaging information regarding a political rival (Biden) in a US election  (yes upcoming elections count, Biden publicly announced he is running for president and Trump publicly announced he is running for reelection).

If I was hired to assist in his defense, I know where to attempt to refute this charge. It's none of the points you or anyone in this thread raised thus far. It doesn't mean that the law wasn't broken but there is a potential technicality that could be argued in the right light to avoid legal consequence (it is a pretty risky gamble though, due to the type of assistance that was requested). By tomorrow evening if no one has raised it I'll point it out and explain further. Just to be clear it does not absolve trump and I don't concede that he didn't break the law. I would only concede that he could avoid a legal consequence if he was tried in a court that leaned in his favor and this particular defense was used.

This isn't about politics for me, I'm quite impartial to party politics. As a citizen, I want people (and elected officials) to follow the law. I know people are invested in one party or another but let's escape that and just focus on the case at hand. 

Finally, You talk about my statement being a legal conclusion and invalid because of insufficient evidence? I propose that you don't throw around jargon if you aren't comfortable enough to expound upon it further. What evidence are you requiring? Speak hypothetically if needed. If all you seek to state is that I simply don't have the authority to determine the legality of a situation then you've moved the discussion to a bounds where no other discussion could continue to avoid a concession. If so, that's not fun.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 29, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Spend the time to elaborate as I have. You can quote any part of my previous posts as needed. You aren't giving any suitable response for me to appropriately address further. I refuted every counter point you've raised. You've consistently moved the goal post which I've met at every turn. How familiar are you with the FEC law I've quoted? If you have questions about certain sections or how I've applied them then let's discuss it.
> 
> US citizen (Trump) knowingly solicits aid from a Foreign national to obtain potentially politically damaging information regarding a political rival in a US election
> Quick Summary - (If I've missed a counter point that was raised please let me know.)
> ...


I'm perfectly happy with expounding upon my statements, the problem here is that posts of that nature have more to do with the evidentiary standard in the United States as opposed to the phone call that took place, as well as the exact terminology used and how flexible we're willing to be in defining the terms. Simply saying that you've fulfilled the three conditions I laid out doesn't make it so - while it is true that the Ukrainian President is (obviously) a foreign national (I've never disputed that), you haven't at all established that Trump _used his position_ in order to _solicit aid in the election_ in the form of a _campaign contribution_ that is manifested by _financial aid or thing of value_ - you merely concluded that that was the case, which is not the same thing. You've been a fairly good sport about this so far, I never accused you of bias and I don't intend to. In fact, you seem fairly reasonable, the exchange has been enjoyable so far. I also think you're confusing me with a couple other user's who posted in the thread before me, you're referring to some arguments that I personally haven't made without adequately addressing the ones I've made. Since you're being such a good sport though, I'll accommodate your request when I have spare time for something a little more elaborate, although I've already given you a couple of leads to follow up on. For instance, on the matter of "intention", you're misinterpreting what I've said as a question of _intent to commit a crime_ - that's not the case (not that intent wasn't used in order to exonerate a public official of legal consequences in the past in cases where none was required). What I specifically meant by that was establishing if Trump was specifically asking for help in order to attain personal or political gain _or_ if personal or political gain would've been an unrelated consequence of the action, and there is a distinction between the two. It's not a matter of being nitpicky, it's a matter of establishing the facts of the case.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm perfectly happy with expounding upon my statements, the problem here is that posts of that nature have more to do with the evidentiary standard in the United States as opposed to the phone call that took place, as well as the exact terminology used and how flexible we're willing to be in defining them. Simply saying that you've fulfilled the three conditions I laid out doesn't make it so - while it is true that the Ukrainian President is (obviously) a foreign national (I've never disputed that), you haven't at all established that Trump _used his position_ in order to _solicit aid in the election_ in the form of a _campaign contribution_ that is manifested by _financial aid or thing of value_ - you merely concluded that that was the case, which is not the same thing. You've been a fairly good sport about this so far, I never accused you of bias and I don't intend to. In fact, you seem fairly reasonable, the exchange has been enjoyable so far.



§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20

g.Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.

b.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals in connection with elections. A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or *other thing of value*, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election.

----
Now for some definitions to assist and ensure we both stay on the same page. I'm referencing https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/300.2 for these listed below:

(e)Donation. For purposes of part 300, donation means a payment, gift, subscription, loan, advance, deposit, or *anything of value* given to a person, but does not include contributions.

(m)To solicit. For the purposes of part 300, to solicit means to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value. *A solicitation is an oral or written communication that, construed as reasonably understood in the context in which it is made, contains a clear message asking, requesting, or recommending that another person* make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or *otherwise provide anything of value*. A solicitation may be made directly or indirectly. The context includes the conduct of persons involved in the communication. A solicitation does not include mere statements of political support or mere guidance as to the applicability of a particular law or regulation.
----

Used his position - His position doesn't matter. A US citizen is the only identity he has to satisfy

Solicit aid in the election - He requested a thing of value - an investigation that involved a political rival which would potentially provide opposition research (political dirt)

Well you got it! *Thing of value*. This is the phrase I would argue against in a court. Everything else is pretty damning. Thing of value couldn't be precisely quantified which is why the DOJ cleared upon a preliminary investigation as to whether or not this statute was broken upon investigating the contents of this call. It's a toss-up whether or not a judge would entertain a perceived value of opposition research on a political rival in an upcoming election. I haven't delved in past court cases to determine the current legal precedence in place. I'm not sure if I will as this is likely never going to an actual trial but will only remain part of an impeachment inquiry where it is a political trial instead of a criminal trial. It's an interesting question nonetheless.

What is the value of Opposition research (political dirt)? Well it varies. It does cost something as Ukraine would have to launch an investigation and pay staff/consultants to work on said investigation that was requested. I guess that alone is a value. It is nebulous and subjective once you go beyond into the value of information requested.

With that I conclude. I'm ecstatic, I have reservations about the DOJ's opinion as I think they have conflicts of interest that pushed them to using a technicality to cover this up and dismiss the issue that was brought forth.

---
Something I read this morning I thought I'd share:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/27/20885557/criminal-laws-trump-barr-giuliani-ukraine

The Justice Department reportedly has already decided that this statute does not apply to Trump’s actions. According to BuzzFeed’s Zoe Tillman, DOJ’s “Criminal Division explored whether the July call merited opening a criminal investigation into potential campaign finance violations by the president.” But the DOJ ultimately concluded that “the information discussed on the call didn’t amount to a ‘thing of value’ that could be quantified, which is what the campaign finance laws require.”
Special counsel Robert Mueller, however, disagreed with this interpretation of the statute after a similar issue arose in his investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 campaign.

“Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research,” he noted. Moreover, “a foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate” than if they gave the candidate money. The idea that opposition research isn’t a thing of tremendous value to political candidates ignores very basic realities about how political campaigns operate.
---

Well we reached the end of this discussion. I'm curious to see how it plays out. Public opinion will likely rise or fall in support based on the momentum of the inquiry. I've enjoyed this outlet. Thanks for your time. Hope you have a good night.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 29, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> § 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
> https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20
> 
> g.Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
> ...


I don't want to be a party pooper, but I've explicitly questioned whether or not a "thing of value" was requested or offered, I think I did it three times.  In fact, I called it a "thing of entertainment" earlier to be a little cheeky, but you may have missed it. If that's the case, I apologise for being confrontational earlier.

EDIT: Here you go.


Foxi4 said:


> I can happily take it up with you - in order to violate campaign law Trump would have to stand to gain either a monetary contribution or "a thing of value", this usually refers to valuable objects. While seeing Joe Biden scramble to cover up a scandal involving his son (again) would be a "thing of entertainment", it's highly questionable whether it has any monetary value.





Foxi4 said:


> You haven't established that an investigation into the Bidens could be considered a "thing of value" as it is interpreted under the statute - it is not a monetary contribution or object of monetary value as it is commonly understood.





Foxi4 said:


> (...) you would have to establish that what was solicited was "a thing of value" to the Trump Campaign and that it was in fact solicited in regards to the election and not in the normal line of duty.


Now, admittedly you may have missed a couple of those points as I've added them gradually since I'm at work right now and not in a position to write an essay for you.  There's also a very good reason why I insisted on the strictly monetary value as an alternative to quid pro quo, and it has to do with evidentiary standard - I can indulge you in that regard as well if it will provide you some further entertainment. I figured that it doesn't really pertain specifically to this thread and rather to the overall concept of "value" - I didn't think it necessary to stray that far off topic, I can tell that you're clever enough to pick up on details like that.

EDIT 2: Come to think of it, I may as well post the explanation of my reasoning since you're both inquisitive and polite, plus we're already discussing this anyway. The answer to your uncertainty was alluded to in my responses and is echoed by the DOJ's response, and it pertains to the ability to quantify value. In order to declare something as a "thing of value" one needs to exhibit evidence of said value that enable you to quantify it - that's the standard. The campaign finance law explicitly refers to finance, as the name implies. It pertains to contributions and objects that can be valued monetarily which aid a campaign in its election efforts. Since we do not have a monetary value stated, or that value is hard to quantify, we have to fall back to other methods of quantifying assets, which is where quid pro quo and leveraging power comes into play - let me explain. Assuming that the word "favor" wasn't used as a figure of speech, the allegedly solicited information would have to necessarily be reciprocated in order for the value to be quantifiable. The president would have to state that the reinstatement of financial aid was conditional on receiving information damaging to Biden's campaign *or* he would have to use his position in order to issue a threat, either scenario would quantify the value of the information as "worth giving aid to Ukraine" or "worth threatening Ukraine for". Since quid pro quo was not established and both parties involved state that power was not leveraged against Ukraine, so much so that the Ukrainian government was unaware of the reasoning behind freezing financial aid and did not feel threatened in any way, it's a hard sell. In the absence of the two only monetary value would classify as quantifiable, and we do not have that kind of estimate. I hope that you will find this explanation more illuminating in regards to my position, although I am by no means an expert on the subject. What I can say is that as far as criminality is concerned, it's not a referendum on whether the move was "scummy" or not, it's a referendum on whether it was legal. I called your statement conclusory because you defined the information that was allegedly requested as a "thing of value", which is a conclusion that we do lack the evidence to support - it wasn't a dig at you. Everything I've said to you was "meant to be there". Naturally impeachment proceedings do not hinge on the legality of the president's actions, but that's not what we were discussing here.


----------



## smile72 (Sep 29, 2019)

I'm just so over Trump. He's so obviously corrupt. Will he be impeached? Probably. Will the Senate vote to convict him? Not likely. I doubt Moscow Mitch will even try to try him.I just don't get what people see in Trump. I really don't.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Sep 29, 2019)

Something I read this morning.

I must have missed this in the constant news streams that come out. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/id-...ten-foreigners-offered-dirt/story?id=63669304

Now I'm curious. This interview occurred a month prior to the Ukraine call. Is this just a coincidence? Would it be damning in a court of opinion that had to determine whether or not he was not seeking Oppo research?

---

I'm discussing what he potential intent could be. I've heard different sides thus far but still like to see if others agree with Trump's point of view stated in this interview.

----

The other thing I haven't seen anyone discuss on the news - https://www.fec.gov/updates/fec-remains-open-business-despite-lack-quorum/

I wonder how this impacts current events. Would the FEC disagree with DOJ and actually push to assert that there is 'a thing of value' in the Ukraine call if it had the capacity to do so? Mueller didn't seek to prosecute Trump Jr. on that FEC law because of the ambiguity during the Trump tower meeting. But I wonder if there is a court case we could refer to. I haven't found one yet, but I also haven't spent much time looking.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 29, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm discussing what he potential intent could be. I've heard different sides thus far but still like to see if others agree with Trump's point of view stated in this interview.


It probably wouldn't help his case I think. I don't think it'd be damning though.


----------



## MasterJ360 (Sep 29, 2019)

Funny thing is the moment he became President we were already talking about impeachment. They waited this long to make the public media aware of it?
Im still trying to figure out how he still in office this long after offending/insulting women and the Hispanic race. The guy is just a celebrity in the world of politics that doesn't choose his words carefully.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 29, 2019)

MasterJ360 said:


> Funny thing is the moment he became President we were already talking about impeachment. They waited this long to make the public media aware of it?
> Im still trying to figure out how he still in office this long after offending/insulting women and the Hispanic race. The guy is just a celebrity in the world of politics that doesn't choose his words carefully.


The problem is that the Republicans have been like this for a while, Trump just stopped pretending he isn't (and the rest of the Republican party followed suit after they determined that they could just stop pretending and _still_ hold most of their base). The Democrats don't want to risk doing it because if done in the wrong situation, it could bolster Trumps base.

My guess is that this was an issue that the general public would understand easy enough to not risk it backfiring on the Democrats so they could follow through on it without it backfiring (the collusion investigation was doctored in the end almost entirely by the Republicans in it's repsonse, hence the lack of a followthrough for the Democrats since that would just solidify Trumps base in that the evil dems are out to get them!!1! (never mind the fact that Robert Mueller is a registered republican)).

It seems that they were right since the FOX propaganda machine is kind-of really failing at spinning this in a way that doesn't backfire at them instantly.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 3, 2019)

Mike Pompeo was on the call too.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2019)

Support for impeachment is now as high as 55% in some polls, with those who disapprove of impeachment at 45%.  Support for impeachment _and_ removal from office is split evenly at 47% versus 47% who disapprove of the notion.

Meanwhile, Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, and Barr have all been implicated in the Ukraine scandal in one fashion or another.  Barr has also reportedly been "touring the world" in search of a foreign ally to help discredit the Mueller report, though he's seemingly found little to no success.  The Trump administration's desperation to find a viable distraction is palpable.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Support for impeachment is now as high as 55% in some polls, with those who disapprove of impeachment at 45%.  Support for impeachment _and_ removal from office is split evenly at 47% versus 47% who disapprove of the notion.
> 
> Meanwhile, Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, and Barr have all been implicated in the Ukraine scandal in one fashion or another.  Barr has also reportedly been "touring the world" in search of a foreign ally *to help discredit the Mueller report*, though he's seemingly found little to no success.  The Trump administration's desperation to find a viable distraction is palpable.




There's no need to discredit the Mueller report, it was a nothingburger in the end. No collusion, and a pussy-out on 'obstruction.' The investigation now is regarding the actions that led to the appointment of the special counsel in the first place, i.e. the generation of the so-called "dossier," the FISA warrants obtained with fabricated evidence, the DNC's reaching out to Ukraine for dirt on Trump, Manafort, et al.

And the 'viable distraction' came out in the NYT yesterday, though it could hardly be said to be Trump's doing. You know that paper isn't ever going to carry water for Trump. But they did expose that Schiff's staff had prior contact and got the info from the whistleblower before the complaint ever got filed. That's huge. Because 1) that means the whistleblower didn't follow the procedures that the WPA requires in order to be protected under that law. To be a bona-fide whistleblower, the complaint needs to go to ICIG first and only. The whistleblower instead went first to the CIA, which said you got nothing here, then he/she went to partisan (Democrat) interests in Congress, i.e. Schiff. So the whistleblower isn't even a whistleblower. Just a LEAKER. 2) Schiff's claim yesterday that his office merely directed the whistleblower to hire counsel and how to file the complaint properly is bullshit, because they took the info _and used it_. Schiff was tweeting teasers for this in late August. Due to his prior knowledge and contact with the whistleblower, he should have recused himself. Instead he's chairing the Committee LOL. Schiff lied about his contact with the whistleblower, and it looks like Pelosi did too. Whether it was him personally or his staff, Schiff claimed on TV that "We" never had contact, but this is now proven false in the NYT. And Pelosi let slip on 60 Minutes that she had prior knowledge of the complaint and the transcript before either were released. How do these Democrats have these materials up front??? The House Intelligence Committee rules require disclosure of any such info to all members. Schiff didn't share his advance contact with the whistleblower or the accusation info with anyone on the Committee, and flat out denied it until forced to admit. The whole thing stinks.


----------



## DarthDub (Oct 3, 2019)

What a load of horseshit.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 3, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> There's no need to discredit the Mueller report, it was a nothingburger in the end. No collusion, and a pussy-out on 'obstruction.' The investigation now is regarding the actions that led to the appointment of the special counsel in the first place, i.e. the generation of the so-called "dossier," the FISA warrants obtained with fabricated evidence, the DNC's reaching out to Ukraine for dirt on Trump, Manafort, et al.
> 
> And the 'viable distraction' came out in the NYT yesterday, though it could hardly be said to be Trump's doing. You know that paper isn't ever going to carry water for Trump. But they did expose that Schiff's staff had prior contact and got the info from the whistleblower before the complaint ever got filed. That's huge. Because 1) that means the whistleblower didn't follow the procedures that the WPA requires in order to be protected under that law. To be a bona-fide whistleblower, the complaint needs to go to ICIG first and only. The whistleblower instead went first to the CIA, which said you got nothing here, then he/she went to partisan (Democrat) interests in Congress, i.e. Schiff. So the whistleblower isn't even a whistleblower. Just a LEAKER. 2) Schiff's claim yesterday that his office merely directed the whistleblower to hire counsel and how to file the complaint properly is bullshit, because they took the info _and used it_. Schiff was tweeting teasers for this in late August. Due to his prior knowledge and contact with the whistleblower, he should have recused himself. Instead he's chairing the Committee LOL. Schiff lied about his contact with the whistleblower, and it looks like Pelosi did too. Whether it was him personally or his staff, Schiff claimed on TV that "We" never had contact, but this is now proven false in the NYT. And Pelosi let slip on 60 Minutes that she had prior knowledge of the complaint and the transcript before either were released. How do these Democrats have these materials up front??? The House Intelligence Committee rules require disclosure of any such info to all members. Schiff didn't share his advance contact with the whistleblower or the accusation info with anyone on the Committee, and flat out denied it until forced to admit. The whole thing stinks.



To my understanding of the timeline:
1. The whistleblower went to CIA internal legal staff to get clarification and raise concerns on what was being discussed with him. He/she only sought to submit a formal whistleblower complaint after hearing that after CIA's legal staff had direct communication w/ DOJ that there was discussion of the transcript being moved to server.

2. Upon collecting information on how to properly submit whistleblower complaint from a member from schiff's staff (not schiff directly) and the advice was given to get a lawyer in addition to the other steps discussed a formal complaint was then filed.

2b. Are you seriously suggesting Schiff to recuse himself when Barr isn't? Do you think Barr should also recuse? I'm trying to see how partisan you are when it comes to perceived conflicts of interest before continuing this discussion.

I don't know I if I was about to blow a whistle that could potentially ruin my livelihood and career in intelligence services I would want to make damn sure that someone would actually follow up and investigate what I would be reporting. I'm trying to empathize to get in a frame of thinking of what this individual would be thinking at the time. It's very clear they were meticulous in their compliant. 

Whether they had assistance and to what degree is reported in the link below:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...ence-committee-staff-before-filing-complaint/

Also here is an informative read on Whistleblower law and interpretation in context with this current event:
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...histleblower-law-says-about-sharing-complain/

"But national security lawyer Kel McClanahan wrote in a blog post that the whistleblower "would be on strong constitutional and statutory footing" if he or she brought the complaint directly to Schiff, but noted that doing so still risks consequences, such as the loss of a security clearance."

So at worst, still legal and valid complaint, doesn't change scope or path of impeachment inquiry, but it's possible republicans can retaliate against the whistle-blower by removing security clearance effectively neutering their position in intelligence services? Big win??

In the end, the source of the complaint doesn't matter once it was validated from the transcript that Trump himself released. Is there an actual defense for Trump's actions in the transcript that isn't a what-about Biden/Democrats? I've read Fox news articles ever since this release and have watched multiple interviews of the President's defenders. 

The best defense I've seen so far is just saying the President is trying to root out corruption. But there's no evidence I've seen to support him 'investigating corruption' outside of his own areas of interest in reelection. His involvement of personal lawyers in state department matters doesn't help either.

TLDR: Ok after reading the blog post I have a lot more to say. I'm going to say the most troubling part for the whistle-blower receiving any potential retaliation is because he approached a staffer instead of Schiff directly, due to security clearances of "need-to-know". This torpedoes your whole argument. Neither instance invalidates the complaint that was submitted, just whether or not he/she may be subject to a loss of security clearance once this blows over. This also is at the discretion of the DNI to my knowledge. And I doubt he's going to penalize the whistle-blower in efforts to encourage whistle-blowing. I'm basing this on his congressional testimony from last week.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66211/...d-from-congressional-intelligence-committees/

"That being said, there are constitutional arguments to be made for a whistleblower’s right to petition Congress directly outside of the ICWPA process; in fact, the ICWPA originally included a requirement – which did not make it into the final law – that the president must inform Intelligence Community whistleblowers of that fact, and 5 U.S.C. § 7211 specifically states that “[t]he right of employees, individually or collectively, to petition Congress or a member of Congress, or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or member thereof, may not be interfered with or denied.” "


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2019)

Seems Trump has run out of ideas on how to defend against the allegations being thrown his way, so he's circled back around to doubling down by publicly calling for China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.  Apparently he thinks it's impossible to commit a crime in plain sight.  I also find it amusing that, in the midst of a trade war, he thinks China would grant a request from him.  I don't think this tweet was quite enough on its own to put him back in their good graces.


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Seems Trump has run out of ideas on how to defend against the allegations being thrown his way, so he's circled back around to doubling down by publicly calling for China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.  Apparently he thinks it's impossible to commit a crime in plain sight.  I also find it amusing that, in the midst of a trade war, he thinks China would grant a request from him.  I don't think this tweet was quite enough on its own to put him back in their good graces.



This is a good strategy on his part, Democrats are basing impeachment only on how the electorate will receive it and not on if it is the right thing to do. He's already committed an endless number of impeachable offences and it's only now they are showing some backbone. If he can convince the 30-50% (30% being the 20IQ voter base he cant lose no matter what) that what he is doing is normal then it wouldn't surprise anybody if Nancy lost her nerve.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 3, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> This is a good strategy on his part, Democrats are basing impeachment only on how the electorate will receive it and not on if it is the right thing to do.


It's more along the lines of impeaching based on the fact that this is such an easy corruption story for the public to digest, which is precisely why support for impeachment has gone up over ten points since the inquiry was announced.



seany1990 said:


> If he can convince the 30-50% (30% being the 20IQ voter base he cant lose no matter what) that what he is doing is normal then it wouldn't surprise anybody if Nancy lost her nerve.


If Pelosi backs out now, that truly would be political suicide for the Democrats come 2020.  No, I think this just gives them even more fuel for the fire.  If Trump had gotten out in front of the whistleblower story by making this type of public request, things might have been different.  It's too late now, this just further reinforces the need for impeachment.

Edit: To further that point, Pelosi sent a letter to House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy reiterating the importance of the ongoing impeachment inquiry shortly after Trump's on-air stunt.



			
				Office of Nancy Pelosi said:
			
		

> As you know, our Founders were specifically intent on ensuring that foreign entities did not undermine the integrity of our elections. *I received your letter this morning shortly after the world witnessed President Trump on national television asking yet another foreign power to interfere in the upcoming 2020 elections. We hope you and other Republicans share our commitment to following the facts, upholding the Constitution, protecting our national security, and defending the integrity of our elections at such a serious moment in our nation’s history.*


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 4, 2019)

How can anyone still support this person? Like imagine if Obama did any of this.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I don't think this tweet was quite enough on its own to put him back in their good graces.


Holy shit hahaha thank you for posting that, I haven't laughed this hard in a while.


----------



## billapong (Oct 4, 2019)

So, did Biden win the democratic primaries yet?

If he's not running against Trump in an election then he's not his opponent in anything. 

Just because he's a Democrat doesn't mean that a Republican can't investigate him and if that were so then the Democrats should not have been able to investigate Trump about possible collusion or be able to investigate him about Biden.

So, do we now all agree that Democrats can't investigate Republicans because Republicans are their political opponents?


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2019)

billapong said:


> So, do we now all agree that Democrats can't investigate Republicans because Republicans are their political opponents?


That was never under any contention, and nor has any Democrat been accused of approaching a foreign government to ask for dirt on Trump/Republican senators.


----------



## billapong (Oct 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Support for impeachment is now as high as 55% in some polls, with those who disapprove of impeachment at 45%.  Support for impeachment _and_ removal from office is split evenly at 47% versus 47% who disapprove of the notion.
> 
> Meanwhile, Giuliani, Pence, Pompeo, and Barr have all been implicated in the Ukraine scandal in one fashion or another.  Barr has also reportedly been "touring the world" in search of a foreign ally to help discredit the Mueller report, though he's seemingly found little to no success.  The Trump administration's desperation to find a viable distraction is palpable.



Polls ... Like they mean anything. You can't predict the future and I could care less what a group of Trump haters think about Trump. I don't need a poll for those results. Liberals voting about themselves, it's like watching the Emmy's were a bunch of elitist kiss each others asses. No thanks!


----------



## morvoran (Oct 4, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> How can anyone still support this person? Like imagine if Obama did any of this.


Yeah, who could imagine Obama showing weakness and bowing to multiple foreign leaders such as a Saudi King, Japanese emperor, or the queen of England?  He would never..... Oh wait....

*A Not-So-Brief List of All the Things President Obama Has Bowed To*

Yeah, Obama was such a strong leader who showed the world how strong America is. Pfff, give me a break.


----------



## billapong (Oct 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That was never under any contention, and nor has any Democrat been accused of approaching a foreign government to ask for dirt on Trump/Republican senators.



So, it's okay then for Democrats, who are all Trump's political opponents, because they are Democrats, to investigate Trump, but it's not okay for Trump to investigate any Democrats, because they are all his political opponents, because he's a Republican? Just making sure I'm starting hypocrisy by writing a H.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 4, 2019)

billapong said:


> Polls ... Like they mean anything. You can't predict the future and I could care less what a group of Trump haters think about Trump. I don't need a poll for those results. Liberals voting about themselves, it's like watching the Emmy's were a bunch of elitist kiss each others asses. No thanks!


Yeah, I've tried to explain to @Xzi that polls are never correct, but he just doesn't get it(like most liberals).  Liberals use every little bit of info they can to prove their points even if the data is incomplete or just wrong.  Maybe you can get through, but I know I never could.  He'll still use polls to back up nonsense points.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2019)

billapong said:


> So, it's okay then for Democrats, who are all Trump's political opponents, because they are Democrats, to investigate Trump, but it's not okay for Trump to investigate any Democrats, because they are all his political opponents, because he's a Republican? Just making sure I'm starting hypocrisy by writing a H.


You're missing the part about "approaching a foreign government."  There are perfectly legal and non-partisan domestic avenues by which to investigate corruption among American politicians in either party.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 4, 2019)

billapong said:


> So, did Biden win the democratic primaries yet?
> 
> If he's not running against Trump in an election then he's not his opponent in anything.
> 
> ...



This has already been discussed. Please refer to my previous post that I quote below for your convenience. If you want to debate from there we can but I'm at a loss how this needs further explanation.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Back to the constant defense over something I can't imagine we really are discussing...
> 
> Trump is seeking re-election. Biden is an aspiring political rival. There is discussion whether Biden is a political rival within the upcoming election? Really?!? You don't think if dirt was released prior to the DNC primary election that it wouldn't effect the Presidential Election? This paper thin defense just shows how black and white it is and how far one has to reach to try to explain away this fragrant break of the law as innocent. Intent doesn't actually matter. The fact is he requested an investigation involving a political rival with a foreign national. -- If he was doing it to give Biden a heads up saying 'Hey Biden, they actually have dirt on you, be careful!' doesn't matter! It interferes and influences an american election. Law is pretty clear about this.
> 
> What if he became VP from one of the other candidates? Does it not count then? Seriously... I can't even believe I'm having to debate this of all things??? I'm up for discussing things that are more speculative once we all get around to facing the reality.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That was never under any contention, and nor has any Democrat been accused of approaching a foreign government to ask for dirt on Trump/Republican senators.



Yeah, about that........

Now the dossier — financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele — is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries.

I guess there wasn't a poll showing how many Democrats are corrupt and bribe/coerce foreign governments for dirt.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, about that........
> 
> Now the dossier — financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele — is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries.
> 
> I guess there wasn't a poll showing how many Democrats are corrupt and bribe/coerce foreign governments for dirt.


You're about a year late if you think any of this still matters.  The Mueller investigation, which was started by a Republican deputy AG and conducted by a Republican special counsel, concluded with universal consensus that Russia helped to interfere with the 2016 election on Trump's behalf.  That's probably why the Trump administration has been so desperate in recent months in their (failed) search to find any foreign ally who might help to discredit that consensus.  You're grasping at straws just as they are for anything to distract from the Ukraine scandal, but regardless it remains front and center in the public consciousness.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Yeah, about that........
> 
> Now the dossier — financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele — is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries.
> 
> I guess there wasn't a poll showing how many Democrats are corrupt and bribe/coerce foreign governments for dirt.



This is about Trump not Clinton. Or are we in agreement that Trump was seeking assistance from a foreign national involving an aspiring political rival in an upcoming election?

If you concede to that point then we can discuss how this may relate to other requests other politicians may have made and speculate what precedent this may set... But, I can't let this impede our current topic of discussion.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 4, 2019)

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top...curity-sasistance-political/story?id=66039011

I'm told Fox news broke this story... I'm trying to find it now.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fm...em-led-house-committee-in-closed-door-session

Possible quid pro quo? Anyone else read this yet?


----------



## smf (Oct 4, 2019)

Wasn't it the verifiable fact that they tried to hide it, the most damning part?

Nothing says guilt more than someone who behaves like they are guilty.


----------



## billapong (Oct 4, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> This has already been discussed. Please refer to my previous post that I quote below for your convenience. If you want to debate from there we can but I'm at a loss how this needs further explanation.



You can discuss it ten ways to Sunday, it doesn't change the fact that Biden isn't running against Trump right now for anything. If he is the winner of the Democratic primaries then he will be Trump's opponent in the 2020 Presidential Elections. As of his now he's not Trump's opponent so the allegations that Trump was going to use any evidence he uncovered against a political opponent wouldn't apply in this situation.

Hell, the call never implies that Trump was going to use any information found against Biden in an election. So even if Biden was Trump's opponent it wouldn't apply. Furthermore, both Trump and the Ukrainian President are saying there was no pressure and that there was no aid being held due to Biden. I'll take the word over two Presidents than someone that overheard some people talking about the situation. So you have the 3rd party interpretation of the 2nd party who has their own interpretation about the events when the actual people involved have their own views and those two people are the only two that matter.

So it's a crock of shit. Plus, Biden wasn't even Trump's main target. His administration has been investigating the corrupt people who accused him of collusion. The motivation behind the call was that investigation. Throwing one of their own to the wolves is pretty common for Liberals to do so it makes sense that they would use Biden and taint their own election and interfere themselves to try to shift the public's attention away from the fact that Trump's legal team is getting close to nailing the sons of bitches to the wall that tried to tie him to any collusion.

Right now Biden is just someone that did something.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> Yeah, I've tried to explain to @Xzi that polls are never correct, but he just doesn't get it(like most liberals).  Liberals use every little bit of info they can to prove their points even if the data is incomplete or just wrong.  Maybe you can get through, but I know I never could.  He'll still use polls to back up nonsense points.



Seems Xzi is never wrong and if you bring up direct evidence to the contrary he ignores it and mentions something complete unrelated to what you said. We all know Liberals are dishonest. They don't deny it. Hey, as long as they're really nice to you and don't hurt your feelings it's totally okay to kill babies or take your money and give it to criminals while your own fellow citizens starve to death, are being raped, drugged and murdered.

I mean, they're so nice. Why would anyone actually do anything against such kind and gentle beings. Meh, you can't trust liars, especially when they don't even try to hide the fact that they're dishonest. Anyway,  it's in It seems to be in Xzi's nature to never admit he's wrong. It's all good to be intolerant and hate on Trump, but the sames rules don't apply to us.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> Wasn't it the verifiable fact that they tried to hide it, the most damning part?
> 
> Nothing says guilt more than someone who behaves like they are guilty.



What hiding? Do you mean keeping transcripts of conversations between the world leaders on a secure server? Okay, well, if that's the case what's your email password? What's your password on this forum? Clearly, we don't need any sort of security in our lives. What's your bank account PIN code? Keeping information protected, especially from people in your own office that would spy on you is sorta fucking common sense. He should be keeping stuff that's need to know between the people that only need to know. At least he didn't run Bleachbit on the private server before he physically destroyed it (hmmm, I wonder who did that). He handed over the transcript and the transcript shows jack shit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> This is about Trump not Clinton. Or are we in agreement that Trump was seeking assistance from a foreign national involving an aspiring political rival in an upcoming election?.



No, we're not in agreement. However, it would be appropriate to point out that precedent has been set by not prosecuting people in your own party who have committed similar or worse crimes, when Trump didn't even commit any. If he did, according to your own house rules, then it wouldn't be appropriate to proceed.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Seems Trump has run out of ideas on how to defend against the allegations being thrown his way, so he's circled back around to doubling down by publicly calling for China and Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.  Apparently he thinks it's impossible to commit a crime in plain sight.  I also find it amusing that, in the midst of a trade war, he thinks China would grant a request from him.  I don't think this tweet was quite enough on its own to put him back in their good graces.



Biden isn't Trumps political opponent so he's not committing any crimes. I think I should turn that into a bedtime song so tonight when your mommy tugs you in tight it might resonate.

"Trade War" aka Liberals let's hate on Trump spin on simple trade renegotiation.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 4, 2019)

billapong said:


> Hell, the call never implies that Trump was going to use any information found against Biden in an election. So even if Biden was Trump's opponent it wouldn't apply.



I guess this is a good time to segway to something I just posted for us to discuss this point of contention:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fm...em-led-house-committee-in-closed-door-session

"The texts with Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland and Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Bill Taylor indicate that the nature of a potential arrangement between the U.S. and Ukraine was a matter of dispute.

"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," Taylor said in a text exchange."

So why would Taylor (Who works in Ukraine) find this disturbing enough to discuss w/ a colleague?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top...curity-sasistance-political/story?id=66039011

""Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelenskiy promised during his campaign," Sondland says."
"Sondland then suggests to the group take the conversations off line, typing, “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”"

Why the strict PR response in return that then asked to not discuss in text? I feel as though there was much internal deliberation about the messaging that was given to the Ukrainian government.

Trump could go through proper channels to launch an investigation on Biden yet he chose a Private lawyer to mediate discussion with a foreign government instead. This is a really odd way to root out corruption right?



billapong said:


> So it's a crock of shit. Plus, Biden wasn't even Trump's main target. His administration has been investigating the corrupt people who accused him of collusion. The motivation behind the call was that investigation. Throwing one of their own to the wolves is pretty common for Liberals to do so it makes sense that they would use Biden and taint their own election and interfere themselves to try to shift the public's attention away from the fact that Trump's legal team is getting close to nailing the sons of bitches to the wall that tried to tie him to any collusion.



How can you claim to know what Trump's main motivation is? Did you know that the lawyer (Rudy) has been asking about Biden for months? Have you been watching his interviews? If Biden "was just someone who did something" why does Trump himself keep discussing that this (Biden's conduct) is the major piece of news instead of talking about what you are proposing? Maybe it's what you care about but Trump seems to feel differently in priorities if messaging is any measurement.

Final note - since you continue to disgrace yourself by perpetrating a paper-thin defense: A foreign national was solicited to investigate a person who threw their hat in the presidential race of 2020 by the president seeking re-election. (Did you know that you don't even have to run under the democratic ticket - he could ignore the primary results and still run as an independent.) The point is he made a public statement that he is campaigning for presidential election of 2020. Still wish to debate that he isn't a political rival? Any dirt that would be released would impact the primary and would potentially impact who is on the democrat ticket for the general so it counts. (I outlined this already but repetition is the key to learning)

Once we move past this I'll gladly assist in addressing the rest of your confusion.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2019)

billapong said:


> Meh, you can't trust liars, especially when they don't even try to hide the fact that they're dishonest.


Careful now, you're teetering on the very edge of becoming self-aware.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're about a year late if you think any of this still matters.


 Uh, 3 months is not equal to a year.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> This is about Trump not Clinton.


 Uh, maybe read what I posted again if you can see through your own smug breath.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Possible quid pro quo? Anyone else read this yet?


  It's almost like you don't read what you type or stories you post.



smf said:


> Wasn't it the verifiable fact that they tried to hide it, the most damning part?
> 
> Nothing says guilt more than someone who behaves like they are guilty.


  You mean the "mob boss" talk that Adam Schiff added to his own made up transcript?



billapong said:


> Seems Xzi is never wrong and if you bring up direct evidence to the contrary he ignores it and mentions something complete unrelated to what you said.


 Oh, I'm used to it by now.  Just keep proving him wrong, and eventually, he'll get mad, say something about you not changing his mind, and he'll disappear for a couple of days to a week.  I really don't take him seriously since everything he says is easily disputed, and he takes sides with that monkeydude whatever who thinks Obama is a republican due to some so-called "party switch" or whatever it's called after the civil war.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> since you continue to disgrace yourself by perpetrating a paper-thin defense





RationalityIsLost101 said:


> "Sondland then suggests to the group take the conversations off line, typing, “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”"
> 
> Why the strict PR response in return that then asked to not discuss in text? I feel as though there was much internal deliberation about the messaging that was given to the Ukrainian government.


  What were you saying about a "paper-thin defense"?  I guess paper-thin offenses are fine?  hmmmmm.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Just keep proving him wrong


FYI arguing in bad faith and using garbage tabloid sites for sources is not the same thing as proving me wrong.  I've had productive discussions with other conservatives on this site, but there's no point in engaging with people like you and billapong who outright reject reality.  Aside from pathetic attempts to score points for your "team," it's obvious you couldn't care less about any of the problems which affect average Americans.  You're neocon scum who would just as soon pimp out your own mothers for a nickel as long as it makes massa Trump happy.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> What were you saying about a "paper-thin defense"? I guess paper-thin offenses are fine? hmmmmm.



Paper-thin offense: Speculating why trump picked staff is having internal deliberations about the messaging to a foreign government. This is in direct relation to proving even US embassy official was convinced aid was being withheld to pressure Ukraine to assist Trump's political election. Why would he think that? Was it because that was what the Ukrainian Government believed? (These are prompting questions where either you speculate back or provide evidence to acknowledge/refute this assertion-this is how you provide meaningful discussion)

The other is questions about whether or not Biden constitutes a political rival in an attempt to deflect from pursuing further conversation about Trump's actions.

The difference: I use a source to bring information to discuss speculation, the other tries to distort the present reality with an argument over an opinionated definition that isn't being discussed anywhere else. Find one other journalist/pundit or legal scholar that has made that case effectively. I prefer a centrist leaning outlet but I'm not too picky as I shouldn't raise the bar too high. There's a reason you both are discussing something in a vacuum, and it's not because the world just hasn't caught up to your 'brilliant defense'.



morvoran said:


> It's almost like you don't read what you type or stories you post.


Given that I provided arguments for my next post directly from both of those sources, good luck with that assertion. Given how much outside information I bring to each discussion in comparison to... I'm sorry what is it that you provide again? Drivel? Weak talking points from right-wing media with zero independent analysis? Oh that's right. No go ahead, carry on.



morvoran said:


> Uh, maybe read what I posted again if you can see through your own smug breath.



I had something I was going to say but after reading what I just wrote prior to tackling this quote I'll just concede to being smug. We all have our faults I guess.

Ah yes, the Clinton what-about! That's great! Wasn't she planning to run in the 2020 race again according to your 'legit source'? Here's why she won't be discussed:



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> This is about Trump not Clinton. Or are we in agreement that Trump was seeking assistance from a foreign national involving an aspiring political rival in an upcoming election?
> 
> If you concede to that point then we can discuss how this may relate to other requests other politicians may have made and speculate what precedent this may set... But, I can't let this impede our current topic of discussion.



I'm going to elaborate my decision a bit further. The reason I am treating other Politicians involvement (potential solicitations) with foreign nationals involving US elections is because we haven't concluded our debate on whether or not Trump solicited a foreign national to investigate an aspiring political rival in an upcoming election.

See the issue is we can't move on until the debate finishes. If we do then it's a branch point in the discussion that goes "here is where Clinton is similar with Trump" or "Here is what is different between Clinton and Trump".

Until then I'll continue to provide supporting evidence that he has: I've quoted FEC statutes, The call transcript, fox and abc news articles which contain texts from the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Bill Taylor. Let's see some defense that involves more work than spouting nonsense over whether or not Biden is a political rival. Anything else?

I even went as far in previous posts to argue the other side. Do I seriously have to give you a hand just to have a real discussion that isn't talking points? I mean I know people need their handicaps but I feel as though you should find that insulting at this point. I'm starting to feel guilt that I'm not giving you a fair shot. Tell you what, I'll give you 24 hrs to breakdown an adequate defense. If you still have trouble I'll help raise a few points to get you started.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> FYI arguing in bad faith and using garbage tabloid sites for sources is not the same thing as proving me wrong.


  Let me guess, arguing in bad faith means proving you wrong everytime without letting you win on anything?  I tried letting you think you won during that whole global warming hoax thread, but you just went with personal attacks afterwards.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm going to elaborate my decision a bit further.


 Wow, ok, now you're quoting yourself to have a debate with yourself?  You might want to try some reading glasses. Are you going to have a comeback for yourself in 24hours, too?

The rest of that stuff you typed was just mess not worth responding to.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Wow, ok, now you're quoting yourself to have a debate with yourself? You might want to try some reading glasses.



I quoted myself so that you would be able to reference what I've already stated that you just didn't address properly. I choose to elaborate on what was already stated as I felt you were struggling. The fact this is your only reply... well that speaks volumes of the degree of severity.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 4, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I quoted myself so that you would be able to reference what I've already stated that you just didn't address properly. I choose to elaborate on what was already stated as I felt you were struggling. The fact this is your only reply... well that speaks volumes of the degree of severity.


No, I replied to the rest when I said it was just mess.  It's like you just banged your forehead on your keyboard and hit post reply.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> No, I replied to the rest when I said it was just mess.  It's like you just banged your forehead on your keyboard and hit post reply.



That's all? no other defense available? I'll take this as another concession then. Don't worry, I'll be true to my promise. I'll provide a defense in tomorrow evening in the event you still come up short. I suggest you do some reading in the meantime as you don't seem very knowledgeable in the current affair and far too eager to assert an opinion. Have a good night.


----------



## smf (Oct 4, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You mean the "mob boss" talk that Adam Schiff added to his own made up transcript?



No, I mean that there was an attempt to hide it by highly classifying it.

Donald Trump thinks that taking the fifth amendment means you are definitely guilty, highly classifying something just to hide it is the same.

If this had happened to Obama then Trump would have said it was a clear sign he was guilty.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 4, 2019)

So here's an element that hasn't been brought up in this thread yet, suprisingly.

Rudy Giuliani seems to want to prove to the world that Trump is totally innocent and that he didn't do shit, whilst at the same time contradicting himself by pulling up evidence that he _did_ do shit.

--
The first gaffe I saw: https://theweek.com/speedreads/8674...t-cable-news-after-trumps-impeachment-setback

Seems to be a summary: https://theweek.com/articles/867634/24-hours-rudy-zone

*note; i didn't vet these sources, they're just the first articles i found that talked about it. The actual origin for me finding these comes from Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah and Seth Meyers who obviously milked these bits for comedy.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 4, 2019)

I just saw on yahoo some of trump's inner circle are fleeing to Italy I wonder what the extradition laws are there if this house of cards collapses


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 5, 2019)

Yesterday I created a thread devoted to discussing Clinton - Steele legality in attempt to provide earnest discussion without derailing this thread by inviting in red herrings or tu quoque fallacies in attempt to distract or absolve Trump's actions.

The other day, I also asked those who argue in Trump's favor to provide an ample defense beyond the ones provided (IE Biden isn't a political rival). Given a lack of response I will take the silence as a concession. I also gave my word to assist in entailing what an appropriate defense for Trump would entail. I briefly discussed this in passing when I first entered this discussion:



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> The best defense I've seen so far is just saying the President is trying to root out corruption. But there's no evidence I've seen to support him 'investigating corruption' outside of his own areas of interest in reelection. His involvement of personal lawyers in state department matters doesn't help either.



A possible defense: Trump is trying to clear his name with 2016 election interference whilst exposing corruption and conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER: This still has significant holes and it also took over a week for the Trump administration to being to align to this defense by using trial and error.

In reference to the Transcript, there were two people that were called to assist in mediating the requests made to the President of Ukraine. The US Attorney General Barr and a personal attorney Rudy Giuliani.

When it comes to Barr's involvement - This is legit due to the US Ukraine Treaty established under President Bill Clinton:



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. *For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General. For Ukraine, the Central Authority shall be the Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Prosecutor General.* The article provides that the Central Authorities shall communicate directly with one another for the purposes of the Treaty.



Rudy's involvement is much harder to explain. But if we continue with the Presumption that Trump doesn't trust his intelligence services to properly root out corruption it would follow that Rudy is his 'point-man' in his 'election interference investigation'.

I think this is sufficient enough. I'm not going to continue down a rabbit hole on behalf of those who wouldn't it themselves. If someone who wants to defend Trump expands further and details each part of current events under this line of defense then I'll continue discussion.

Just one of the biggest holes is why start now instead of during 2017-2018 when republicans held both the house and the senate.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 6, 2019)

Trump is now calling for Mitt Romney's impeachment for some reason, and also attempting to pin the blame for his Ukraine call on his Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

For those keeping track, this is his eighth different excuse about the phone conversation.  Two more and I think we get a free sub sandwich.

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/TheRealUbboUbbo/status/1180598436090929153


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 7, 2019)

Meanwhile, a second whistleblower has stepped forward with a formal complaint. Presumably with first hand knowledge of the phone call rather than second hand information.

Not really sure what that means, though. Sure, it was revealed that Pompeo was in on that call as well. But still...doesn't this mean that Pompeo or Zelenskiy (or even Trump himself ) is the second whistleblower? 


EDIT: more interesting news (though probably already mentioned): Kurt Volker, a former US diplomat in Ukrain, has made an interesting testification. If true, it shows that the diplomats were very aware of how dangerous it would be to keep from meddling in the election. The texts:



> "Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?" Bill Taylor, a senior US diplomat in Ukraine, texted US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland on September 1.
> "Call me," Sondland responded.
> Taylor later texted it was "crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign," which Sondland then responded was "incorrect about President Trump's intentions."



Basically: Volker (and, it would seem, Taylor) tried to stop any potential new scandal from happening by asserting that the war on corruption should be handled delicately as to not be seen as meddling in the election. Trump, however, went with a different narrative that Ukraine was some sort of enemy of the US ("It was clear to me that despite the positive news and recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President, President Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was clearly receiving other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing him to retain this negative view.")

So Trump outright wanting to have an investigation on Hunter Biden goes directly against the advice of his own (now former) diplomat. So even if we take the Mueller investigation out of the picture, Trump has no way to claim that he didn't know this request was illegal. Yet he requested it nonetheless. Therefore, he is guilty.


Yeah...I know guys like @Hanafuda and @billapong like to argue on this point. It's an open discussion forum, after all. But as for me: I'm starting to see why this case is more damaging than his last one. If this case is true - and I'm aware this hinges on two anonymous witnesses and a former diplomat (versus the president) at this point - then it's abuse of presidential power.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 7, 2019)

Every day my mind is blown that this traitorous fuck is still in office. Then it's blown again that a significant portion of our country supports him. Kinda puts in perspective how such atrocities like the holocaust could have even happened. Where is our sad world headed?


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 7, 2019)

i have so many thoughts and theory's in my head that is too damn dangerous for here (for my legal safety)


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 8, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Yeah...I know guys like @Hanafuda and ... like to argue on this point.




Sorry I'm not even following it anymore. If/when the House actually votes on an impeachment inquiry, perhaps I'll tune in again.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 8, 2019)

@Hanafuda that's fair. It's pretty technical, after all. :-)

@everyone else : Trump is further digging himself in a trench. Sonderland was asked to testify, but he's forbidden by the government. Not really surprising, although democrats warned that this would be seen as obstruction of justice. Because that's exactly what it is (and yes, I would have said the same if Bill Clinton tried that shit twenty years ago). Hindering an investigation is suspicious... Hindering an impeachment procedure is worse.

It can also be me, but it seems like Trump is on a pretty bad streak in other departments as well. His move to one widely remove all troops from Syria doesn't bode well with Republicans and a federal judge ordered him to release his tax returns. Even his favorite fiction show (fox News) is dropping his support. But at least his popularity hasn't changed since... Oh, wait. The percentage of people wanting him impeached still rises. My bad...


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 8, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> But at least his popularity hasn't changed since... Oh, wait. The percentage of people wanting him impeached still rises. My bad..


That's the thing that confuses me. How does the percentage that wants him impeached rise without his approval lowering?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 8, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> That's the thing that confuses me. How does the percentage that wants him impeached rise without his approval lowering?


Unless you fudge the numbers so they don't lower while the impeachment levels rise... dumb conclusion, but hey control of information.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 8, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> That's the thing that confuses me. How does the percentage that wants him impeached rise without his approval lowering?


Less indecisive people?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 8, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Less indecisive people?


Ah yeah fair enough I suppose.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Unless you fudge the numbers so they don't lower while the impeachment levels rise... dumb conclusion, but hey control of information.


So basically Trump has got yuuge approval ratings /s


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 8, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Ah yeah fair enough I suppose.
> 
> 
> So basically Trump has got yuuge approval ratings /s


Pretty much, hey paints a story that trump is "doing well" when in all reality any rational person would laugh their ass off.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 10, 2019)

Apparently even Fox's polls have the majority believing that he should be impeached and removed from office. (51%)


----------



## Xzi (Oct 10, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Apparently even Fox's polls have the majority believing that he should be impeachment and removed from office. (51%)


Compared to only 40% who say he shouldn't be, and 4% who say he should be impeached but not removed.  Definitely a shocker when delivered by a Fox News poll, and this isn't even accounting yet for the reaction toward Trump abandoning our Kurdish allies to the slaughter in Turkey/Syria.  That seems to be a point of contention for government Republicans far more than the Ukrainian extortion scandal is.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 11, 2019)

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman caught trying to flee the country.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 11, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman caught trying to flee the country.


Only the act of innocent people. Witch Hunt!


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2019)

Ukraine talking points sent to democrats again. Link


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 12, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Ukraine talking points sent to democrats again. Link


Hmm
""""accidentally""""
?


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 12, 2019)

From the article:
_
we are concerned that Schiff is putting her a precarious position by having her testify in secret without State Department lawyers be present_

This is literally the opposite as Trump gave as a reason earlier : he said that anything Yovanovich said would be immediately leaked to the internet. So to the government, her testification is both to public and too secluded?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 12, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Ukraine talking points sent to democrats again. Link


My guess is that someone in the Trump administration doesn't want to publicly denounce Trump but agrees with the impeachment proceedings going through properly.

One mistake happens, two mistakes is a pattern.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 13, 2019)

Is this real life?  Link


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 13, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Is this real life?  Link


Ahaha wtf. Whatever simulation we're in, it's a comedy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 13, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Apparently even Fox's polls have the majority believing that he should be impeached and removed from office. (51%)




Looks like the Fox poll was bogus. The sample included 48% Democrats. Actual representation of Democrats in the population is 31%. The adjusted version is 44.9 for and 44.4 against, which gets you into margin of error, might as well say even split. Just like the last few elections. Which means everyone's sticking to party/leanings regardless of the sludge printed about either side. The ball has not been moved after all.

https://nypost.com/2019/10/12/fox-n...rch-misrepresented-impeachment-poll-analysis/

Now the question is, was the pollster incompetent in over-representing Democrats in the sample, or knowingly pushing fake news?


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 13, 2019)

idk why anyone is listening to any poll after 2016 even if they say what you agree with


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 13, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> idk why anyone is listening to any poll after 2016 even if they say what you agree with


Was 2016 the year they retired polls? No more polls ever again. Go home girls, you're out of jobs.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 13, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Now the question is, was the pollster incompetent in over-representing Democrats in the sample, or knowingly pushing fake news?


Interesting questions. Here are some more :

Since fox published these polls, won't that make them the ones pushing fake news and /or being incompetent?
Since these polls are skewed, won't that make other polls (who put impeachment at around 58% favorable) more likely?

EDIT: but okay... Playing devil's advocate aside, I gotta agree with you that if the polls are too biased to one side, they're not valid enough to be representative. I mean... It would be unfair to deny you that opinion since I ignored fox polls for years  for being too conservative based .


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 13, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Now the question is, was the pollster incompetent in over-representing Democrats in the sample, or knowingly pushing fake news?


I mean, if you look at their response, they say that they got 48% in responses from Democrats. There's no mention about how many independents or Republicans.

Usually as long as the sample size is big enough, you can still draw conclusions.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also where did that article get it's representation statistics from?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 13, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I ignored fox polls for years  for being too conservative based .



Me too @Taleweaver. I’m somewhat conservative politically, but I’m not blind. I’ve never been a foxnews fan, for the same reason I don’t swallow cnn’s or  msnbc’s “truth” either.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Also where did that article get it's representation statistics from?



Gallup.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2019)

So to make it even more interesting, the "Braun" in Braun Research, the firm that conducted the poll for Fox, is Amanda Danielle Braun, who was regional organizing director in Reading, PA, for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. She is also the training director and deputy organizing director for the "For Our Future" super PAC which supports progressive issues and candidates.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 14, 2019)

Still not following the News on this so still have no Idea whats going on.



Taleweaver said:


> Interesting questions. Here are some more :
> 
> Since fox published these polls, won't that make them the ones pushing fake news and /or being incompetent?


Fox News - both

People take these news sites too seriously. Oh no our way of life is over. Look at the evils they are doing oh my god. Facts Science Science Facts. Look at this poll. Its science bitches. Polls say this Polls say that blah blah blah. That's not real science, that is real science, do you know how to History bro. Always something skewed someone messing with something, taking numbers in a way that'll fit their agenda with these news station. Always the always.


Looks Like my I met a Liberal Thread got removed for being inflammatory, lol. It was suppose to make fun of Conservatives Caricature of Liberals. Its all the caricatures combined in one post to show the ridiculousness of it. I even praised Fox News in it, lol. "Fox News was right, all my suspicions of Liberals was true" "Liberals don't poop in toilets like normal people, just look at California" "I am a simply conservative man cleaning Liberal Poo and drinking liberal tears" A nod to a certain user here. All I did was copy and paste certain users and threads here, it would sound like it came straight from them.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 14, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Looks Like my I met a Liberal Thread got removed for being inflammatory, lol. It was suppose to make fun of Conservatives Caricature of Liberals. Its all the caricatures combined in one post to show the ridiculousness of it. I even praised Fox News in it, lol. "Fox News was right, all my suspicions of Liberals was true" "Liberals don't poop in toilets like normal people, just look at California" "I am a simply conservative man cleaning Liberal Poo and drinking liberal tears" A nod to a certain user here. All I did was copy and paste certain users and threads here, it would sound like it came straight from them.


Sounds like it belonged more on the EoF lmao.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 14, 2019)

@Hanafuda : hmm... It's certainly interesting, but I'm not sure. I tried googling a bit, and only found blog posts  like this one telling this story. Did fox even bother to react to what some see as a controversy. I mean, Christ...51% is actually pretty low, given that Trump now openly boasts about his crimes. Wanna bet that within a week he'll try to convince the world this whole thing is Giuliani's idea? 



SG854 said:


> People take these news sites too seriously.


Did you read the part where both @Hanafuda and me stated we took (fox) polls with a grain of salt? If you want to mock someone, you might want to exaggerate what they say, not invent things and attribute that to someone else.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 14, 2019)

i'm just waiting for either 2020 (if he loses) or 2024 (he cant get a 3rd term anyways unless the republicans are so damn corrupt they admend our constitution lifting the 2 year limit) and then him getting carted off to fed pen that fat fuck need to be in prison this is why i sorta disagree on impeachment cause the dems just showed their hand they should've waited til after 2020 elections because they won't have any ammo to persecute trump when he's out


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 15, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> i'm just waiting for either 2020 (if he loses) or 2024 (he cant get a 3rd term anyways unless the republicans are so damn corrupt they admend our constitution lifting the 2 year limit) and then him getting carted off to fed pen that fat fuck need to be in prison this is why i sorta disagree on impeachment cause the dems just showed their hand they should've waited til after 2020 elections because they won't have any ammo to persecute trump when he's out



The ceiling for convincing Trump supporters that the sky is orange is actually quite low but if you opened up an impeachment inquiry after the election, you actually can make a convincing argument (that more than just his sub 50 iq base can possibly believe) that there is a witch hunt against him.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 15, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> but if you opened up an impeachment inquiry after the election


iirc there were two inquiries shortly after the election but they had no backing so weren't followed through on.


----------



## billapong (Oct 15, 2019)

So how's the impeachment vote going? What's that? No vote yet? Well, yeah, it's the 2019 Congress, so actually doing something would be required and we all know how good they are at doing anything. I guess if the Democrats hadn't of based their attempt on what someone heard someone else talking about that was related to something the second party overheard ... ROFL.

Edit: I guess Pelosi has decided not to take up the vote (news as of 10/15/2019 around 6pm MST). Surprisingly, she discovered she shouldn't build her house on sand.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 15, 2019)

you and morivan are probably

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

the low percent that support trump anymore oh btw are you gonna join civil war 2 billapong whoeveors stupid enough to rebel deserve death better it be by an armed gi then the needle i'm personally waiting for you trump supporters to get the darwin award for being stupid to rebel

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

as i said kid gloves are off now so your going to REALLY KNOW what i think


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> you and morivan are probably
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I'd gladly join a civil war, but there wouldn't be much of a chance for the minority Liberal cities against the rest of the States, especially considering Liberals are against owning firearms. If it comes down to it I'll take up arms and defend the USA and its Constitution. I'm not scared to die, are you? (Not that I want an answer, your trolling attempts have landed you on ignore).


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 16, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> as i said kid gloves are off now so your going to REALLY KNOW what i think


Yeah... And thus far its not exactly helping. Granted, those guys aren't debating fair (which is the reason I'm ignoring them, BTW), but you're not exactly behaving better. 

This is a legal struggle. Leave the 'fighting' to the lawyers and politicians (and to a degree to the media). Either side can protest, but making threats against the other isn't going to solve anything (hint : no matter the outcome, there still will be both democrats and Republicans in the USA). 
... I'm fairly sure it's against forum rules as well, so if for no other reason than that, you might want to keep it civil.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 16, 2019)

billapong said:


> Edit: I guess Pelosi has decided not to take up the vote (news as of 10/15/2019 around 6pm MST). Surprisingly, she discovered she shouldn't build her house on sand.


No vote is required by the constitution to begin (or continue) an official impeachment investigation/inquiry.  Pelosi and the other Dems aren't stupid enough to get caught up in Trump's little games.  Momentum is in their favor, and it's essentially a foregone conclusion that Trump will continue to find new ways to fuck things up every day that he remains president.

I do wish that Democrats would push harder to highlight Trump's recent foreign policy failures as a primary reason why impeachment is a necessity, but I'm sure it'll be among the hundreds of articles drafted once the House is ready to move on a comprehensive vote.


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

Xzi said:


> No vote is required by the constitution to begin (or continue) an official impeachment investigation/inquiry.  Pelosi and the other Dems aren't stupid enough to get caught up in Trump's little games.  Momentum is in their favor, and it's essentially a foregone conclusion that Trump will continue to find new ways to fuck things up every day that he remains president.
> 
> I do wish that Democrats would push harder to highlight Trump's recent foreign policy failures as a primary reason why impeachment is a necessity, but I'm sure it'll be among the hundreds of articles drafted once the House is ready to move on a comprehensive vote.



No, but to actually impeach there's a vote required. Seeings as Pelosi isn't going to call for a vote I think the impeachment effort has ended.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 16, 2019)

billapong said:


> No, but to actually impeach there's a vote required. Seeings as Pelosi isn't going to call for a vote I think the impeachment effort has ended.


There's no question at this point that the House is going to impeach.  Only one or two Democratic congress members are against the idea.  Equally, there's no question that that the Senate will not vote to convict, as the turtle man is just as much in Russia's pocket as Trump (if not more so).  Thus the reason there's no hurry to hand it over to the Senate, they might as well make the case as airtight as possible first to put a stain on the voting record of those purple state Republicans who refuse to grow a spine.


----------



## gamefan5 (Oct 16, 2019)

Wait wait wait...
So the impeachment process has actually started? I thought it was merely words from tbe media being thrown around as usual.

(I don't live in the USA, so I do not know the details.)


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 16, 2019)

billapong said:


> No, but to actually impeach there's a vote required. Seeings as Pelosi isn't going to call for a vote I think the impeachment effort has ended.



I believe it's painfully obvious that a vote is being held until there is enough information for more republicans in the house to defect so that the house can present impeachment as bipartisan and isn't a movement split on party lines. The pressure to vote weeks ago that is still ongoing is because of republicans that want to cast their vote before additional information comes out of the Trump administration so that they can feign ignorance to if it came to light if anyone ever tried to hold them accountable for their vote in the 2020 or 2022 elections. Same goes for the desire to pressure the senators to best ensure chance of conviction.

This is a political decision. If public support continues to grow more republicans will look and respond accordingly. If it drops then they will continue supporting the administration. Anyone who seeks to use this situation in isolation to determine whether or not they agree/disagree with the validity of the impeachment inquiry is intellectually dishonest.

There has been enough information released to warrant a continuation of inquiry as there are many unanswered questions in regards to alleged abuse of power and potential extortion of a foreign ally.

My personal prediction: Trump will be impeached. There will be 20-40 house republicans that will support (I firmly believe the number will not exceed 70 under any circumstance). I also expect Trump to not be convicted by a close margin of 1-3 senators who will present the same manner of reasoning as Edmund G. Ross. Publicly being the refusal to tarnish our nation by suffering a presidential conviction and removal. Privately being the promise of favors from those who wish to retain the status quo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson for those who aren't familiar with our nation's first impeachment.

EDIT: Grammatical Errors


----------



## Xzi (Oct 16, 2019)

gamefan5 said:


> Wait wait wait...
> So the impeachment process has actually started? I thought it was merely words from tbe media being thrown around as usual.
> 
> (I don't live in the USA, so I do not know the details.)


Yes, technically all it was waiting on was Pelosi's go-ahead since she carries with her all the necessary votes.  She gave that in response to the Ukraine whistleblower, around the time this thread was started.  The House will hold a vote by the end of the year which is near guaranteed to pass, then it gets sent to the Senate where McConnell will delay the trial itself for who knows how long.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 16, 2019)

considering election is next month I'm sure pelosi is waiting for janurary 11th to come in hope people will wake the hell up and vote blue to impeach this motherfucker


----------



## RandomUser (Oct 16, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> as i said kid gloves are off now so your going to REALLY KNOW what i think


Freddy takes his gloves off? Would it be more effective to leave them on? I mean it has knives protruding out of the fingers of said glove. You could do more damage with them on .
Okay I'll see myself out now for being off topic.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 16, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> considering election is next month I'm sure pelosi is waiting for janurary 11th to come in hope people will wake the hell up and vote blue to impeach this motherfucker


Huh?  There might be some local elections next month, in my state it's literally just a few ballot issues.  Federal government proceedings will not be affected by that.

In other news, a fourth Giuliani associate has been arrested in connection to the campaign finance case mounting against him.  News moves fast these days, I didn't even realize there had been a third.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 16, 2019)

billapong said:


> No, but to actually impeach there's a vote required. Seeings as Pelosi isn't going to call for a vote I think the impeachment effort has ended.


This isn't actually required. It's been historically done because it indicates bipartisanship for the goal of an impeachment, but the constitution and law doesn't ever state it's needed. It's a formality that's been skipped this time.

The reason for this is twofold. First, the bipartisan way has been tried. The result? The Mueller investigation. It's often overlooked that Mueller is a registered Republican (you'd almost forget given how heavily he got smeared by the Republicans). The outcome: A response so doctored by the Republican party that a large portion of the general public thinks it is a lie.

Second, the Senate would never agree to start procedures, not enough Republicans have lost support in the orange shrimp yet (that is, if Moscow Mitch even agrees to hold a vote on it, instead of just holding it up by doing nothing.)


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

gamefan5 said:


> Wait wait wait...
> So the impeachment process has actually started? I thought it was merely words from tbe media being thrown around as usual.
> 
> (I don't live in the USA, so I do not know the details.)



No not yet. The Democrats got all riled up in the last two weeks and claimed they were going to vote for impeachment in Congress, but then yesterday the main lady who would take up the vote decided not to pursue the vote anymore. So without a vote in Congress there is no impeachment going on (even if the Congress did vote to impeach then the Senate would have to also vote and that is really unlikely to happen). Before the Senate can vote though, the house has to and they just cancelled their plans to do so. So it's still "throwing words around" (like you stated).

It's like beating a video game. You can talk about doing it as much as you want, but until you've actually completed the game you haven't actually done jack shit. I'm actually looking forward to the Democrats growing some balls and backing up their words with action so I can see them lose again when it moves into the Senate's arena. They are such poor losers that watching them swallow in their own feces is very self satisfying.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ev1l0rd said:


> This isn't actually required. It's been historically done because it indicates bipartisanship for the goal of an impeachment, but the constitution and law doesn't ever state it's needed. It's a formality that's been skipped this time.
> 
> The reason for this is twofold. First, the bipartisan way has been tried. The result? The Mueller investigation. It's often overlooked that Mueller is a registered Republican (you'd almost forget given how heavily he got smeared by the Republicans). The outcome: A response so doctored by the Republican party that a large portion of the general public is a lie.
> 
> Second, the Senate would never agree to start procedures, not enough Republicans have lost support in the orange shrimp yet (that is, if Moscow Mitch even agrees to hold a vote on it, instead of just holding it up by doing nothing.)



Unlike the majority of Congress that realized their collusion hoax didn't work and are now trying to avoid the issue or have decided it's settled I see you're still holding onto it. I suppose you're the type that still refuses to admit Trump is the actual President too? Well, I got news. There was no collusion and you fucking lost the election if you voted for that ugly crooked bitch who ran against Trump.


----------



## GilgameshArcher (Oct 16, 2019)

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614487/meet-americas-newest-military-giant-amazon/


----------



## billapong (Oct 16, 2019)

GilgameshArcher said:


> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614487/meet-americas-newest-military-giant-amazon/



It's no different then Google. The Government sinks their hooks into anything that would give them power and control over other people. It really boils down to trying to be God. The fucked up thing is that stupid people welcome this shit with open arms. "Yeah, we wan't Socialism! We want you to fucking control us! We want to have no freedom! We want to be raped and murdered! We are yours! Take us almighty Liberals. We need you and can't think for ourselves!"


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 17, 2019)

billapong said:


> Unlike the majority of Congress that realized their collusion hoax didn't work and are now trying to avoid the issue or have decided it's settled I see you're still holding onto it. I suppose you're the type that still refuses to admit Trump is the actual President too? Well, I got news. There was no collusion and you fucking lost the election if you voted for that ugly crooked bitch who ran against Trump.


Oh boy.

Nice misrepresenting btw. "We're not holding a vote *yet*" is what Pelosi said. Not that she's saying there won't be a vote (which again, it's irrelevant, you can investigate without there being a vote for it, since the Congress already has a right to subpoena).

So no, the investigations are hardly canceled by the Democrats, they're continuing as harsh as they have been.

Also I'm not American (but I guess it's hard to see that flag below my name isn't it?), I'm just interested in US politics for a variety of reasons[1].

[1]: US politics tend to be trendsetters for the western world, like it or not. Basically if your country elects a president who can't properly disavow neonazis, it means parties that curtail to neonazis are gonna do better than they otherwise would. This essentially means that every European person has some sort of stake in American politics, even if they can't directly influence it by voting, and as a result means that staying up to date with the situation and stopping cranks, even if they're foreign, from peddling their shit is kinda like really important, since if one doesn't, one could end up with the distilled version of your more on-the-nose bigots.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 18, 2019)

... And the discussion is over : both Mulvany and Sonderland have admitted Trump ordered the money to be withheld until Ukrain held an investigation into Biden


----------



## Xzi (Oct 18, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> ... And the discussion is over : both Mulvany and Sonderland have admitted Trump ordered the money to be withheld until Ukrain held an investigation into Biden



I couldn't believe he just blurted this shit out.  Several journalists gave him a chance for an out with their questions and he doubled and tripled down.  I thought maybe this was a strategy he had discussed with Trump beforehand, an attempt to normalize this behavior, but nope, only a few hours later he tried to retract these statements.  Makes it clear the degree to which the environment inside the White House must be a chaotic dumpster fire at all hours.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Makes it clear the degree to which the environment inside the White House must be a chaotic dumpster fire at all hours.


Yeah...speaking of which: Rick Perry is resigning. I wonder why? 

Trump makes this even more hilarious, btw: "But it was time, three years is a long time, and he'll be leaving towards the end of the year.". So if Trump decides not to pursue a second term...it's not because of his criminal past caught up with him, but because eight years was just too long.


----------



## billapong (Oct 18, 2019)

It's nice to wake up and see that the Trump hating threads are still going on at full force, but the anti-Liberal ones are all being closed. Just take a gander at the last 20 or so forum threads and compare how many posts that were anti-Liberal have been closed compared to how many posts that are anti-Trump that are still open. Good to know where the priorities of this forum lies.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 18, 2019)

It will all come down to if he really withheld money from Ukraine specifically to investigate Biden, and if they can prove it, if not, I don't think they will be able to impeach him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> I can't believe that the dems want to impeach our Great President Donald J Trump so much that they had to make up their own script.  How low will these Democrat's in the House go before they just accept they aren't going to win and give up?


Ouch man, kinda hurts to call him a great president, you feel that the children in the detainment centers should be there?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 18, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Ouch man, kinda hurts to call him a great president, you feel that the children in the detainment centers should be there?


Whose fault is that? Donald Trump didn't illegally smuggle them across the border, their parents did. They have to be held somewhere while their parents, who knowingly broke the law of the land, are being prosecuted. Under no circumstances should they be treated as a _"get out of jail free card"_, the moment you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. It's their parents, or other guardians, who put them through the hell of illegally crossing the border, across dangerous terrain and at the mercy of the cartels, Trump had nothing to do with that. On our end all we can do is ensure that their stay is as humane and comfortable as possible, but that costs money, and certain political parties outright refuse to adequately fund border security, so you should probably complain to them if you want to see real change.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Oct 18, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Whose fault is that? Donald Trump didn't illegally smuggle them across the border, their parents did. They have to be held somewhere while their parents, who knowingly broke the law of the land, are being prosecuted. Under no circumstances should they be treated as a _"get out of jail free card"_, the moment you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. It's their parents, or other guardians, who put them through the hell of illegally crossing the border, across dangerous terrain and at the mercy of the cartels, Trump had nothing to do with that. On our end all we can do is ensure that their stay is as humane and comfortable as possible, but that costs money, and certain political parties outright refuse to adequately fund border security, so you should probably complain to them if you want to see real change.


I think we should just have a better set up with the Mexican government to perform background checks on the people coming in, as for the kids, they need something closer to normal lives.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 18, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> I think we should just have a better set up with the Mexican government to perform background checks on the people coming in, as for the kids, they need something closer to normal lives.


How do you intend to perform a background check on people with no documents who hop a fence in the middle of the night? You're also under the false impression that the Mexican government would be keen to cooperate in this endeavour when in reality it can only gain from people's migration into the U.S. It's a complicated issue that you can only solve by throwing money at it - shouting _"Orang Man Bad"_ isn't going to fix it.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 18, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Ouch man, kinda hurts to call him a great president, you feel that the children in the detainment centers should be there?





Foxi4 said:


> Whose fault is that? Donald Trump didn't illegally smuggle them across the border, their parents did. They have to be held somewhere while their parents, who knowingly broke the law of the land, are being prosecuted. Under no circumstances should they be treated as a _"get out of jail free card"_, the moment you give people an inch, they'll take a mile. It's their parents, or other guardians, who put them through the hell of illegally crossing the border, across dangerous terrain and at the mercy of the cartels, Trump had nothing to do with that. On our end all we can do is ensure that their stay is as humane and comfortable as possible, but that costs money, and certain political parties outright refuse to adequately fund border security, so you should probably complain to them if you want to see real change.


. Not only what @Foxi4 said, but also around 30%of the "families" coming across the border are not even related meaning the children are victims of human trafficking.  So @Ericthegreat, are you okay with child trafficking?  Is it okay to you for us to just release children with the people not related to them into our country so they can be used repeatedly to be used as "free passes" for criminals?  Hmm, I wonder.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Taleweaver said:


> Yeah...speaking of which: Rick Perry is resigning. I wonder why?


 there's three reasons why Rick is leaving.  1. He wasn't good at the job. 2. He realized that his skills may be better used in the private sector.  3. .... Um, ....I forgot what the third reason was..... Ooops.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 18, 2019)

morvoran said:


> there's three reasons why Rick is leaving. 1. He wasn't good at the job. 2. He realized that his skills may be better used in the private sector. 3. .... Um, ....I forgot what the third reason was..... Ooops.



1. I agree he wasn't good at his job. 2. Private sector is more profitable with less oversight, I guess his 'skills' can be used there. 3. The one you forgot is that his boss tried to implicate him in the mess that Ukraine scandal created and he is currently facing a subpoena from congress.

I know that last one kinda was hard to remember so I thought I'd chime in to help out! 

"Not a lot of people know this but, I didn't even want to make the call. The only reason I made the call was because Rick asked me to. Something about an LNG [liquefied natural gas] plant,"

OFFTOPIC:
How about that Mick Mulvaney briefing from yesterday! Emoluments Clause mean much? I've been thinking about opening another thread on it altogether as man I'd love to see a conservative viewpoint that traditionally is very concerned with it. Maybe tonight I can get something put together. If anyone rents out condos or timeshares here then they will understand some points I'll have to bring up even when Mick kept repeating at-cost / no profit. Love that the four places on the shortlist of 12 they narrowed down to were Hawaii, Utah, Utah again, and Trump's Florida property. I won't overrun this thread with any more discussion about it though.

I must need to take a trip out to Utah, who knew there were so many wonderful places that out of the entire nation they have two of the top four!


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 20, 2019)

billapong said:


> It's nice to wake up and see that the Trump hating threads are still going on at full force.



It's honestly disgusting how many people say mean things about Trump. I can't leave my house knowing that the person next to me in the store or on the street doesn't worship Trump like I do. I tuned in to MSNBC the other day and can you believe they implied that Trump was a hypocrite on corruption? I was so angry I went to /r/the_donald with the rest of us angry internet virgins and made a Hillary meme XD

Them libs got so owned LMAO. I bet when they are out with their girlfriends, they will think of my funny Hillary meme and get so mad


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 20, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> It's honestly disgusting how many people say mean things about Trump. I can't leave my house knowing that the person next to me in the store or on the street doesn't worship Trump like I do. I tuned in to MSNBC the other day and can you believe they implied that Trump was a hypocrite on corruption? I was so angry I went to /r/the_donald with the rest of us angry internet virgins and made a Hillary meme XD
> 
> Them libs got so owned LMAO. I bet when they are out with their girlfriends, they will think of my funny Hillary meme and get so mad


They totally got mad triggered. Let's also get our expensive Chinese-made red hats and wear them to the local coffee shop like tools, that'll show 'em!


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> They totally got mad triggered. Let's also get our expensive Chinese-made red hats and wear them to the local coffee shop like tools, that'll show 'em!


Original MAGA hats are made in America, in Los Angeles, California, by Cali-Fame. 80% of their employees are Latino, by the way.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Original MAGA hats are made in America, in California, Los Angeles, by Cali-Fame. 80% of their employees are Latino, by the way.
> 
> View attachment 183499


Oof...for a lot of Trump supporters I'd think that giving money to Latinos in LA would be as much of a sin as giving money to a Mexican company.  Not that most care about the "authenticity" of their MAGA merch anyway, especially if they can find a cheaper alternative.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oof...for a lot of Trump supporters I'd think that giving money to Latinos in LA would be as much of a sin as giving money to a Mexican company.  Not that most care about the "authenticity" of their MAGA merch anyway, especially if they can find a cheaper alternative.


No evidence or basis in fact - I'll add that to the growing pile of Fake News. People can spend their money however they please - Trump is spending it supporting a small company that employs minority workers and makes excellent merch, far superior to the Chinese knock-offs which you can spot from a mile away.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oof...for a lot of Trump supporters I'd think that giving money to Latinos in LA would be as much of a sin as giving money to a Mexican company.  Not that most care about the "authenticity" of their MAGA merch anyway, especially if they can find a cheaper alternative.


You're retarded


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> No evidence or basis in fact


It's absolutely a fact that you can readily find MAGA merch which has 'made in China' or 'made in Mexico' tags attached, and it's absolutely a fact that Wal-Mart saw little to no decline in business despite the implementation of tariffs on Chinese goods.  Conservatives being cheapskates to an extreme degree is more of an anecdotal observation, though it's not exactly a stretch considering how their views on taxation have caused infrastructure and public facilities in states that consistently vote Republican to fall into utter disrepair.



SG854 said:


> You're retarded


I guess I must've hit a nerve.  It's not as if there was no basis for my statement however, morvoran must have created at least three or four separate threads by now about his disdain for San Fransisco/Los Angeles on this same subforum.  I certainly didn't see you or other conservatives here pushing back against that line of thought, either.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> No evidence or basis in fact - I'll add that to the growing pile of Fake News. People can spend their money however they please - Trump is spending it supporting a small company that employs minority workers and makes excellent merch, far superior to the Chinese knock-offs which you can spot from a mile away.
> 
> View attachment 183500


your statement is factual. However....
that picture is interesting because I am wondering what are you implying with it. if you are trying to imply with that pic that Latinos are in it for him, about 28% voted for him last time. About 29% voted republican during the midterms (and granted the Latino turn out was lower at this time) I doubt it will go up.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's absolutely a fact that you can readily find MAGA merch which has 'made in China' or 'made in Mexico' tags attached, and it's absolutely a fact that Wal-Mart saw little to no decline in business despite the implementation of tariffs on Chinese goods.  Conservatives being cheapskates to an extreme degree is more of an anecdotal observation, though it's not exactly a stretch considering how their views on taxation have caused infrastructure and public facilities in states that consistently vote Republican to fall into utter disrepair.
> 
> 
> I guess I must've hit a nerve.  It's not as if there was no basis for my statement however, morvoran must have created at least three or four separate threads by now about his disdain for San Fransisco/Los Angeles on this same subforum.  I certainly didn't see you or other conservatives here pushing back against that line of thought, either.


What nerve? Lol

Pushing back against what, what are you talking about? I did push back, I called him a crazy nut case.
morovan threads about LA are retarded just like your post.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> What nerve? Lol
> 
> Pushing back against what, what are you talking about? I did push back, I called him a crazy nut case.
> morovan threads about LA are retarded just like your post.


If that's the case, I appreciate your attempts at objectivity.  At the same time, however, if your flag is accurate, I wouldn't expect you to have your finger on the pulse of American conservative sentiment.  Morvoran's opinions are not far removed from the mainstream unfortunately.  California as a whole is absolutely despised by right-wingers for a myriad of reasons.  Granted, most of those reasons are nonsensical, but good luck convincing them of that.

I don't know which part of my post so offended you that you felt the need to call me "retarded," but ad hominem attacks do nothing to dispute my point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It's absolutely a fact that you can readily find MAGA merch which has 'made in China' or 'made in Mexico' tags attached, and it's absolutely a fact that Wal-Mart saw little to no decline in business despite the implementation of tariffs on Chinese goods.  Conservatives being cheapskates to an extreme degree is more of an anecdotal observation, though it's not exactly a stretch considering how their views on taxation have caused infrastructure and public facilities in states that consistently vote Republican to fall into utter disrepair.
> 
> I guess I must've hit a nerve.  It's not as if there was no basis for my statement however, morvoran must have created at least three or four separate threads by now about his disdain for San Fransisco/Los Angeles on this same subforum. I certainly didn't see you or other conservatives here pushing back against that line of thought, either.


You can find just about any merch with a Made in China label attached to it, the country has always been involved in exporting counterfeit goods, I don't see the problem. All that fuss because I pointed out a factual inaccuracy in a poor attempt at a joke - sound like you're mildly upset, "triggered", if you will.


WD_GASTER2 said:


> your statement is factual. However....
> that picture is interesting because I am wondering what are you implying with it. if you are trying to imply with that pic that Latinos are in it for him, about 28% voted for him last time. About 29% voted republican during the midterms (and granted the Latino turn out was lower at this time) I doubt it will go up.


I'm not implying anything at all, I'm simply pointing out that Trump does have Latino supporters and other conservatives are well-aware of them since they're very visible at rallies. The same can be said about black Trump supporters, LGBT Trump supporters and supporters from other marginalised groups commonly associated with the Democrats. The suggestion was made that if Trump supporters knew their hats were made by Latinos, they would have a problem with that - they don't, saying otherwise is just projecting.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The suggestion was made that if Trump supporters knew their hats were made by Latinos, they would have a problem with that - they don't, saying otherwise is just projecting.


To be fair a poll would need to be done of his voting base to see how many are aware of this fact. However, unlike other folks i dont generalize large groups of people. Data is king though. numbers would be interesting even if for educational purposes.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> All that fuss because I pointed out a factual inaccuracy in a poor attempt at a joke - sound like you're mildly upset, "triggered", if you will.


Rather you countered my anecdotal observations with some of your own, neither of us can provide exact figures on how much 'made in the USA' MAGA merch has been sold versus how much of it made elsewhere has been sold.

I'd also contend that "mildly upset" and "triggered" are two very different things, but regardless, I have no reason to get worked up over such a matter-of-fact conversation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Rather you countered my anecdotal observations with some of your own, neither of us can provide exact figures on how much 'made in the USA' MAGA merch has been sold versus how much of it made elsewhere has been sold.
> 
> I'd also contend that "mildly upset" and "triggered" are two very different things, but regardless, I have no reason to get worked up over such a matter-of-fact conversation.


The company that makes them made over $270,000 in just one quarter of 2015, just from the hats alone, it's a fairly good fact-based indication that they sell well. It's also worth noting that a lot of supporters own multiple hats - some originals to support the campaign and some counterfeit ones to wear. This trend came to be due to the ridiculous problem of hat-stealing and hat-destroying they're faced with - some hats are for keeps, others are disposable. The free market provides either way.


WD_GASTER2 said:


> To be fair a poll would need to be done of his voting base to see how many are aware of this fact. However, unlike other folks i dont generalize large groups of people. Data is king though. numbers would be interesting even if for educational purposes.


I don't think it's a particularly interesting subject, you will find bigotry in any large subset of people, that's not indicative of the campaign's goals or the candidate's platform.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't think it's a particularly interesting subject, you will find bigotry in any large subset of people, that's not indicative of the campaign's goals or the candidate's platform.


perhaps, however I was merely pointing out what would be needed to prove (or disprove) your assertion.
anything other than that is Anecdotal at best.
After all, Data is king


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> perhaps, however I was merely pointing out what would be needed to prove (or disprove) your assertion.
> anything other than that is Anecdotal at best. After all, Data is king


To the contrary, I don't have to prove anything at all - I can make an educated assumption based on known facts. Known fact number one is that Trump supporters go to rallies, fact number two is that they have eyeballs. If you're going to tell me that they can't _see_ that they're surrounded by people of varied racial backgrounds and creeds, you're going to have a tough time convincing me, or anybody else. Even assuming that they don't ever show up to a rally or event, they at least _watch_ the rallies, or read about them, or hear about them on the news or from third-hand sources - they do not live in an isolated lab environment. The idea that you have to prove facts that are demonstrably true and easily observable is fallacious. I don't have to prove that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west - it is a fact provable by casual observation. If you want to prove that to be false, the burden of proof lays upon you to support your theory.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> To the contrary, I don't have to prove anything at all - I can make an educated assumption based on known facts. Known fact number one is that Trump supporters go to rallies, fact number two is that they have eyeballs. If you're going to tell me that they can't _see_ that they're surrounded by people of varied racial backgrounds and creeds, you're going to have a tough time convincing me, or anybody else. Even assuming that they don't, they at least _watch_ the rallies, or read about them, or hear about them on the news or third-hand sources. The idea that you have to prove facts that are demonstrably true and easily observable is fallacious. I don't have to prove that the sun rises in the sun rises in the east and sets in the west - it is a fact provable by casual observation. If you want to prove that to be false, the burden of proof lays upon you to support your theory.


an educated guess is a hypothesis. hardly a fact. In sciene data is used to see if the hypothesis holds up. I really dont care to convince you either. I have never seen you soften your position on any topic of discussion in the politics section. That tells me that perhaps its just merely easier to take a look at your method of taking in information and dissecting it from there. Like i said present data, otherwise you are just wielding around an opinion in a rather ineffective manner.

Also, you made the assertion. burden of proof falls on you. 

by the way you are changing the goal post. we were talking about if his base is aware that minorities/Latinos make the hats. You are trying to say that because you see diversity in his rallies they surely must not have a problem. That is faulty logic from where i see it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> an educated guess is a hypothesis. hardly a fact. In sciene data is used to see if the hypothesis holds up. I really dont care to convince you either. I have never seen you soften your position on any topic of discussion in the politics section. That tells me that perhaps its just merely easier to take a look at your method of taking in information and dissecting it from there. Like i said present data, otherwise you are just wielding around an opinion in a rather ineffective manner.


Once again, you are requesting data in order to prove a demonstrably true statement - Trump supporters are well-aware of the fact that the President has Hispanic supporters because they can _see_ them. Claiming otherwise is _absurd_ and a textbook logical fallacy - you are dismissing what can be plainly observed in favour of self-reported surveys. Since your contention is, as I've mentioned, absurd, I cannot find data on _"what percentage of Trump supporters are self-proclaimed racists"_, but on the bright side, I also couldn't find data on how many beat their wives, so there's that too.

What I did find was an interesting survey by Pew Research _(eww)_ which suggests that the majority of Trump supporters would like to see the current illegal immigrant population to stay in the country, provided they meet certain legal standards - the portion of the base that supports immediate expulsion is small. This means that rumours of MAGA Death Squads going door to door to _"take the Mexicans back where they came from"_ are, as expected, grossly exaggerated. Here's your data, I hope it partially satisfies your curiosity, as it is a related issue.




*EDIT: *Some new information based on your edited post


WD_GASTER2 said:


> Also, you made the assertion. burden of proof falls on you.


I didn't make an assertion, I made an observation. I said that Latino supporters are visible at rallies and provided a photo to demonstrate that fact, and it is a fact - they are undeniably visible. The level of awareness within the base as expressed by a percentage doesn't concern me or interest me - I can only assume that this percentage is high since most people are not legally blind.


> by the way you are changing the goal post. we were talking about if his base is aware that minorities/Latinos make the hats. You are trying to say that because you see diversity in his rallies they surely must not have a problem. That is faulty logic from where i see it.


We're mixing up two different issues here, are we talking about the rally picture or are we talking about the hats? I very much doubt that they would have a problem with it considering the fact that they use products Made in China every single day, just like everybody else, and don't seem to have a problem with that either. However, if you meant the latter and not the former then that's my bad.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again, you are requesting data in order to prove a demonstrably true statement - Trump supporters are well-aware of the fact that the President has Hispanic supporters because they can _see_ them, claiming otherwise is _absurd_ and a textbook logical fallacy - you are dismissing what can be plainly observed in favour of a self-reported survey.
> View attachment 183513



ME: having a 28% voter base of Latinos does not necesarily = that the vast majority of his base is educated or even ok on the matter that his hats are made by minorities, although to be fair DATA would be nice

"well they should be ok be cause there is easily observable evidence atleast as from what i have seen that there is diversity in his rallies"

ok... what does your former statement have to do with the latter?



Foxi4 said:


> Since your contention is, as I've mentioned, absurd, I cannot find no data on _"what percentage of Trump supporters are self-proclaimed racists"_,


why are you assuming that i am calling them racists. Lazy and dismissive towards me, no? 



Foxi4 said:


> What I did find was an interesting survey by Pew Research _(eww)_ which suggests that the majority of Trump supporters would like to see the current illegal immigrant population stay in the country,


Thats interesting and for the sake of education i will read it. Thanks!



Foxi4 said:


> This means that rumours of MAGA Death Squads going door to door to _"take the Mexicans back where they came from"_ are, as expected, grossly exaggerated. Here's your data, I hope it partially satisfies your curiosity, as it is a related issue.



Damn dude what kind of tinfoil hat information source do you got for that one? it sounds really paranoid. I dont think anybody has even brought that up on this thread.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> ME: having a 28% voter base does not necesarily = that the vast majority of his base is educated or even ok on the matter that his hats are made by minorities, although to be fair DATA would be nice
> 
> "well they should be ok be cause there is easily observable evidence atleast as from what i have seen that there is diversity in his rallies"
> 
> ...


There is a general consensus among the opposition that Trump supporters want to build a big wall and throw everyone who's non-white over it, which is of course a caricature. I'm not saying that you necessarily subscribe to this belief, I'm merely stating that it exists and is prevalent. I was responding in reference to the rally photo, I wasn't sure if we were still talking about the hats at all, or just the general acceptance of Latino people among the base, which was the actual broader stroke of the conversation brought up by @Xzi earlier. Frankly, I don't really care if they know how the sausage is made, I find it unimportant in the grand scheme of things, the theme of the discussion was race. I hope that clears up the confusion, on both ends.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 21, 2019)

just to make it clear. I dont think all of the people that voted for him are racists. Thats lazy. I do think a real good chunk of them voted for him out of economic angst. However like you have conceded I am sure he has a subset of loons (one would like to hope its a small one) that would probably self identify as racists (however, like i said, i dont call anybody as such unless they tell me they are or they oust themselves as one).  Does he have subset (one can hope, small) that wants a wall for the cartoonish fantasy you just described... probably. However i do not think they are the majority.
Although my point at first was he does have a Latino support base. Its 28% that is not a huge number. On an unrelated note He also has lost support in the rustbelt. Will that affect the upcoming elections? who knows but it will interesting to see. Also please avoid painting me in broad strokes(directed at anybody who wants to engage in conversation). I dont think i have ever done a generalization about you and I really avoid making them about people.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> just to make it clear. I dont think all of the people that voted for him are racists. Thats lazy. I do think a real good chunk of them voted for him out of economic angst. However like you have conceded I am sure he has a subset of loons (one would like to hope its a small one) that would probably self identify as racists (however, like i said, i dont call anybody as such unless they tell me they are or the oust themselves as one).  Does he have subset (one can hope, small) that wants a wall for the cartoonish fantasy you just described... probably. However i do not think they are the majority.
> Although my point at first was he does have Latino support base its 28% that is not a huge number. On an unrelated note He also has lost support in the rustbelt. Will that affect the upcoming elections? who knows but it will interesting to see. Also please avoid painting me in broad strokes. I dont think i have ever done a generalization about you.


I seem to have lost you at some point during our exchange, so I'll explain the train of thought just so that we're clear.

Trump supporters buy hats from a small and mostly Latino company
Contention is made that they would not be supportive _if they knew_ the hats were made _by Latinos_
The obvious counter is that the Trump base _has a Latino segment_, as well as other minority segments, which _demonstrates the acceptance of Latinos_ as part of the fold
Second contention, the one you made, is that not all supporters are aware of _"this fact"_, by which I assumed you meant _"the fact that he has Latino supporters"_ , now I know that's not what you meant
The counter is the same - since race does not seem to be a factor as far as acceptance is concerned, this _automatically supercedes_ the awareness question as they would be accepting _either way_
Confusion ensues
That's how it went down from where I'm sitting - now that you've explained your point a little better I can understand it. _Tl;dr_, if the base is accepting of Latinos _as part of their group_, it is fair to assume that they would also be accepting of _products made by Latinos_ as they've already demonstrated acceptance - logical progression. It wasn't really an attempt at _"painting you with broad strokes"_ - I couldn't do that if I tried, I don't know you well enough. I simply misunderstood what you were referencing, it wasn't clear to me, apologies if it came across the wrong way.

I generally distrust surveys that are small-scale and far too early to be indicative of anything - recent history shows that polls of all sorts can be off by substantial margins without the right controls. Trump is a controversial figure and many people refuse to show their support for him, even anonymously. The true extent of support will be measured at the ballot box, and as long as the economy continues to be going steady, I don't forsee any major issues. Trump's worst enemy is Trump, he can make or break his campaign in a few tweets. That said, his biggest ally is also Trump, as his Twitter escapades have no doubt played a significant role in getting him elected in the first place.

As for the 28-29% figure, that wasn't really the focus of my argument - my point was that Hispanics are, and always have been, a subset of the base, I think we've explored why I pointed that out. It would be silly to ascribe some sort of malice towards Latinos to a group that partially consists of Latinos unless we also assume that the group is de facto self-loathing.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Oct 21, 2019)

Thank you for clarifying and well thought out post.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Thank you for clarifying and well thought out post.


I think it's more obvious why I was confused about your insistence on hard data now - it's always nice to have, but I thoyght what I was presenting was self-evident.  Thank you for being a good sport about it, I'm glad we cleared things up.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I generally distrust surveys that are small-scale and far too early to be indicative of anything - recent history shows that polls of all sorts can be off by substantial margins without the right controls. Trump is a controversial figure and many people refuse to show their support for him, even anonymously.


I'm sure there's still _some_ uncertainty left in the polls, but for 2016 I have to imagine a lot of that was generated solely from the fact that the other candidate was Hillary Clinton.  The general mood on both sides was that these were the worst possible two candidates to have to choose from, and both were terrible in their own right.  More recently, polls for the 2018 midterm election proved themselves accurate for the most part.



Foxi4 said:


> The true extent of support will be measured at the ballot box, and as long as the economy continues to be going steady, I don't forsee any major issues.


Republican support would remain largely steady even if the economy crashed and Trump nuked Canada.  It's independents that he has to worry about abandoning him in droves, and even though the economy is already showing several signs of a downturn, that's far from the only issue which concerns that voting bloc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm sure there's still _some_ uncertainty left in the polls, but for 2016 I have to imagine a lot of that was generated solely from the fact that the other candidate was Hillary Clinton.  The general mood on both sides was that these were the worst possible two candidates to have to choose from, and both were terrible in their own right.
> 
> Republican support would remain largely steady even if the economy crashed and Trump nuked Canada.  It's independents that he has to worry about abandoning him in droves, and even though the economy is already showing several signs of a downturn, that's far from the only issue which concerns that voting bloc.


In that case I can sleep quite soundly given the fact that his current opponents are "Creepy/Sleepy" Joe, Bernie "One Foot in the Grave" Sanders, Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren and an assortment of other sub-10% nominees who have no business running, like Pete "Butt"-igieg, "BETA" O'Rourke, Corey "Not In The House" Booker, Andrew "Eat Bugs and Live in a Can" Yang or Tulsi "Gabba-Gabba". I know exactly how this is going to end - Sanders will lose support because nobody wants a president who can't survive one term, let alone two, Warren will adopt his crazy rhetoric which will get her _"primaried"_ and the voters will end up with having Joe represent them, a man with no convictions, a penchant for touching women inappropriately and a weird speech impediment. I don't think riding the coattails of Obama will be enough, but we'll see. To be fair, I do want to see a Clinton run, or Warren getting the nomination, simply because it would be very funny, and as you know, fun is my primary motivator.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> In that case I can sleep quite soundly given the fact that his current opponents are Creepy/Sleepy Joe, Bernie One-foot in the Grave Sanders, Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren and an assortment of other sub-10% nominees who have no business running, like Pete Butt-igieg, BETA O'Rourke, Corey Not In The House Booker, Andrew "Eat Bugs and Live in a Can" Yang or Tulsi Gabba-Gabba. I know exactly how this is going to end - Sanders will lose support because nobody wants a president who can't survive two terms, Warren will adopt his crazy rhetoric which will get her _"primaried"_ and the voters will end up with having Joe represent them, a man with no convictions, a penchant for touching women inappropriately and a weird speech impediment. I don't think riding the coattails of Obama will be enough, but we'll see. To be fair, I do want to see a Clinton run, or Warren getting the nomination, simply because it would be very funny, and as you know, fun is my primary motivator.


The irony being that Donnie Dementia all but copy-pasted Bernie Sanders' platform in 2016 and delivered on none of it.  I'm 99% sure that if he runs as a faux populist against the real thing he'll lose, Sanders has an across-the-aisle appeal that Trump can't match.  For that matter, he's too scared to even go after Bernie on twitter, knowing that he'll be torn a new one if he does.

Warren I have slightly less confidence in.  She bridges the gap between progressives and centrist Dems fairly well, but her appeal to right-wing workers is likely far more limited for a number of reasons.  Still, a pet rock could beat Trump in debates, and she's not a neoliberal that Fox News has had 40 years to run a smear campaign against like Hillary, so as long as she holds some events in Midwest states I'd put her chances of winning the head-to-head at around 75%.

Biden is the Hillary of this election cycle, possibly even worse in some ways, so it's good to see the one guaranteed loser dropping in the polls already.  Second place is still too high for him, but he's guaranteed to have more major gaffes and poor debate performances, so I don't think it'll be long before he's out of the top three.

Remember: Clinton is the _worst possible _candidate the DNC could've picked in 2016, she ran the _worst possible_ absentee campaign, and she still won the popular vote by about 3 million.  Underestimate any potential 2020 nominee at your own peril.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The irony being that Donnie Dementia all but copy-pasted Bernie Sanders' platform in 2016 and delivered on none of it.  I'm 99% sure that if he runs as a faux populist against the real thing he'll lose, Sanders has an across-the-aisle appeal that Trump can't match.  For that matter, he's too scared to even go after Bernie on twitter, knowing that he'll be torn a new one if he does.
> 
> Warren I have slightly less confidence in.  She bridges the gap between progressives and centrist Dems fairly well, but her appeal to right-wing workers is likely far more limited for a number of reasons.  Still, a pet rock could beat Trump in debates, and she's not a neoliberal that Fox News has had 40 years to run a smear campaign against like Hillary, so as long as she holds some events in Midwest states I'd put her chances of winning the head-to-head at around 75%.
> 
> ...


I'm not interested in consolation prizes, only the Grand Prix. Clinton can take that "achievement", I don't really mind or care. As far as Sanders is concerned, I can't believe you actually treat him as a serious candidate, even at this early stage of the game. The reason why Trump has left him alone for now is the simple fact that Bernie is unelectable and will inevitably drop out of the race in short order. He also does *not* have universal support, particularly not in the DNC which he betrayed in favour of going independent on a number of occasions. He seems to have "signed a non-aggression pact" with some of the more_ *cough cough*_ "red" candidates as well, which is a weird way to run a campaign, but I suppose it's a somewhat effective strategy if the intent is to diminish Biden's poll numbers. Good luck, you're going to need it if this is your prediction on how the Democratic nominations are going to play out.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> As far as Sanders is concerned, I can't believe you actually treat him as a serious candidate, even at this early stage of the game. The reason why Trump has left him alone for now is the simple fact that Bernie is unelectable and will inevitably drop out of the race in short order.


Even dating back to 2016, Bernie is the one candidate on either side of the aisle that Trump would not attack for fear of losing some of his own working class support.  His 2020 campaign isn't going anywhere any time soon either, he just held a New York rally which eclipsed every other candidate's in terms of attendance.  Not to mention he's been beating out most of the other candidates in fundraising even without corporate donors.



Foxi4 said:


> He also does *not* have universal support, particularly not in the DNC which he betrayed in favour of an Independent run. He seems to have "signed a non-aggression pact" with some of the more_ *cough cough*_ "red" candidates as well, which is a weird way to run a campaign, but I suppose it's a somewhat effective strategy if the intent is to diminish Biden's poll numbers.


I didn't say he has universal support, but he does have a shot to emerge as the strongest candidate in the long run.  I don't think he feels the need to attack any other candidate directly because he's been setting the Democratic agenda since 2016, and most of them have been slowly coming around to recognizing the legitimacy and the appeal of his platform.



Foxi4 said:


> Good luck, you're going to need it if this is your prediction on how the Democratic nominations are going to play out.


Luck's not really a factor, I'd be happiest to see Sanders win, and I'm fine with Warren winning.  IIRC Biden has already been in three presidential primaries before this one and lost all of them, I fully expect that trend to continue.  The only other two candidates I can't stand are Buttigieg and Klobuchar, but they're both the longest of long shots.  Beyond that, I don't care who replaces Biden in the top three, at best they're competing for a VP spot anyway.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 21, 2019)

To get back on topic a bit: I just read that Francis Rooney, a republican congressman, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/19/francis-rooney-congressman-retirement-trump-impeachment]is open to the idea of an impeachment inquiry[/url] (meaning: he might vote to impeach, depending on the findings). He also announced his retirement.

As a non-republican, the latter isn't exactly unexpected. Trump doesn't just bully around on twitter a bit, but keeps a grudge against anyone not loyal to him. And that certainly has an impact on the republican party. I can only think of three EDIT: wait...make that four... republicans daring to criticize the president:
1) John McCain. Reason: he was dying
2) Mitt Romney. Reason: he's too popular
3) Francis Rooney. Reason: he's retiring
4) James Mattis. Reason: he got fired (this is from just last week)

Of course some partisanship is to be expected in any political party (what the h*** are you doing in a party if you disagree with everything?), but as a non-democrat I can say what I feel without being labeled as belonging to any party(1):

The republican party now consists of a bunch of cowards. Trump isn't leading the republican party...he has BECOME the party. Everyone else is just there to uphold Trump's will. Reason nor ideology doesn't fit anymore; it's all about what one guy wants.

Oh, okay...I'm sure someone like @Xzi will point out that this has been going on long before Donald became their most popular presidential candidate, and that might be true, but still...I want to point at this situation because it's an argument I dare say proves it. Face it, guys: the republicans will do anything to stop the impeachment because it puts THEM in a worse spot. That they're putting the country in a worse spot is at best an inconvenience.




(1): I've said it before some times: to a European, the US democrats by themselves would be considered a right party (or 'centered' at best, depending on what topics we're talking about).


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 22, 2019)

oh how i love the smell of  political chaos in the evening so refreshing to see the wh staff falling like flies  off a farting elephants arse


----------



## Xzi (Oct 22, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> The republican party now consists of a bunch of cowards. Trump isn't leading the republican party...he has BECOME the party. Everyone else is just there to uphold Trump's will. Reason nor ideology doesn't fit anymore; it's all about what one guy wants.
> 
> Oh, okay...I'm sure someone like @Xzi will point out that this has been going on long before Donald became their most popular presidential candidate, and that might be true, but still...I want to point at this situation because it's an argument I dare say proves it.


Towing the party line was one thing, but the sycophantic cult of personality is relatively new.  GWB was not immune to criticisms from within his own party, especially toward the end of his second term.  Part of that was due to his handling of the economy, I'm sure, but I get the feeling that even if the economy crashed in a similar fashion under Trump, the Republican party would not abandon him.  He's got too many supporters whose entire identities are entangled with his success or failure, the result of decades of wealth worship propagated by Fox News and talk radio.  It's really quite pathetic.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 23, 2019)

Seasoned diplomat William Taylor confirmed to Congress today what Mick Mulvaney had already stated publicly: there was quid pro quo in Trump's withholding of military aid to Ukraine.  This is probably the most damning testimony given yet, and it connects the dots quite succinctly.  All that's left for the House now is the gathering of some minute details before they vote to impeach.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 23, 2019)

@Xzi: Damn...ninja'd. I was going to post the same news. 

Added the source to the OP.


I also saw an interesting video with Scaramucci. In and off itself, it's not that relevant (I like the guy because he's a straight up character from Mario Puzo's The Godfather  ). Unlike in the Mueller dossier, he basically says Trump is finished now. But the interesting thing is that he predicts a Nixon repetition in the upcoming time.

What went down with Nixon was fairly simple: the Watergate reporting similarly got people distancing themselves from their president. So in the end, the republicans took Nixon apart and told him that a similar vote as now was coming up, and that if he didn't resign before that vote, they'd vote against him. So Nixon resigned before that happened (so republicans could still save face somewhat).

I'm not sure if that'll happen again. Oh, I'm sure that Mitch McConnell won't actually block the voting (he somewhat admitted or agreed to this), but I'm wondering just how spineless and shortsighted nowadays politicians really are. The "Trump personality cult" is different: Nixon was basically at the mercy of what news reports wrote on him. Trump just hosts his own twitter channel, and you can be sure that he'll drag any republican that votes against him through the mud for putting loyalty to the US constitution above loyalty to the president.
It's also unclear if Trump will resign when that deal is offered to him as well. He doesn't have the political insight to understand that this would be the best way out of this (with the perspective that his personal brand is the only thing that matters to him, it's not even a wrong calculation). And in addition...no longer being protected by being the active president, he might as well face prosecution by Mueller's team.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 23, 2019)

I still say nancy did this too soon  if she was smart she'd hold off til after election for 2 reasons 1) it could be a wasted effort as maybe trump won't get re elected (longshot) and two if more democrats enter the senate in janurary much larger chance for impeachment success then we have pence not knowing if he had knowing of this or even aided trump another reason cause if true we could remove both scumbags from office before he has a chance to  pardon truimp


----------



## billapong (Oct 23, 2019)

So, a week or so has passed? How's that impeachment going?


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 23, 2019)

it take weeks or months to sift through the evidence that can work in our favor as i said it could last beyond jan 11th and by all the known evidence that we know of now not looking too good for trump


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> So, a week or so has passed? How's that impeachment going?


Depending on your perspective it is going well if you want Trump impeached due to the given opening statements provided. I'd suggest you read Bill Taylor's opening statement if you have time. However, if you are against Trump being impeached, well it's pretty unlikely he will prevent impeachment.

As far as conviction goes. As of now, I think we are looking at 1/5 or 1/4 chance republicans will throw him out. If the senate trial doesn't favor Trump in messaging then he will be facing odds that will be 50-50, you only need 20 republican senators. Presidents come and go. Senators will fight for lifelong seats above all else. Don't fool yourself in thinking they care one iota about the 'trump base'.


----------



## billapong (Oct 24, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Depending on your perspective it is going well if you want Trump impeached due to the given opening statements provided. I'd suggest you read Bill Taylor's opening statement if you have time. However, if you are against Trump being impeached, well it's pretty unlikely he will prevent impeachment.
> 
> As far as conviction goes. As of now, I think we are looking at 1/5 or 1/4 chance republicans will throw him out. If the senate trial doesn't favor Trump in messaging then he will be facing odds that will be 50-50, you only need 20 republican senators. Presidents come and go. Senators will fight for lifelong seats above all else. Don't fool yourself in thinking they care one iota about the 'trump base'.



So Trump will be unlikely to prevent the vote in the house, but the house still hasn't voted and even if they do chances are that he won't get removed from office. So nothing has really changed since last week. Just checking


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> So Trump will be unlikely to prevent the vote in the house, but the house still hasn't voted and even if they do chances are that he won't get removed from office. So nothing has really changed since last week. Just checking





RationalityIsLost101 said:


> My personal prediction: Trump will be impeached. There will be 20-40 house republicans that will support (I firmly believe the number will not exceed 70 under any circumstance). I also expect Trump to not be convicted by a close margin of 1-3 senators who will present the same manner of reasoning as Edmund G. Ross. Publicly being the refusal to tarnish our nation by suffering a presidential conviction and removal. Privately being the promise of favors from those who wish to retain the status quo.



If you asked me a week ago before Mulvaney's press conference and the recent testimonies I would have said there is a 10% chance he could avoid impeachment from the house. There is no chance that he will be able to avoid impeachment in the house now. I also would be putting conviction at 20% or less. I'm comfortable in saying his chances in surviving this is dwindling. If republicans in the house vote to impeach by more than 70 then I will be willing to say the odds would be immediately flipped where he would only retain 20-25% to avoid conviction. 

Just to be clear: If he avoids conviction by a close margin (1-3 senators, which is becoming almost assured at this point - as long as house has at least 20-40 republicans voting against) republicans will be slaughtered in the 2020 race and will lose both house and senate. imagine an apolitical independent having to vote for a person that the majority of the congress requested removal from office. Best thing Trump can have at this point is Biden being his opposing candidate to have any remote chance of reelection (approx 30-40% chance). As far as any congressional republican not in a deep-red state - Goodluck... if you voted against trump you lose your base, if you voted with Trump you lose independents.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

Why.

Currently 40 republicans stormed a private hearing with a Ukraine official, that was held under a secrecy clause, refused to leave and started tweeting that they would produce transparancy against SECRET meeting. Because the public is so idiot level, that they cant differentiate between an interview being prevented, and 'bringing transparency'.

You are being held as morons by the republican party again.


Also this brings us to why states and businesses use secrecy clauses at all. There are usually two motives. First is to have people talk without a sense of repercussion, second is because of national security reasons (compromising details, reputation damage).

30 polititians from the republic side know that. So when they start interrupting due process, by crying 'transparany' they are lying straight to your face. Because thats not the motive.

Fun.

edit: src: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...877c06-f5a5-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 24, 2019)

Oh boy.. more drama about Trumps. I don't bother to listen to him anymore.. Even all presidents, mayors, senators, governments, and etc. They are all horrible and corrupted. Not trusted them at all! SMH!


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> Why.
> 
> Currently 40 republicans stormed a private hearing with a Ukraine official, that was held under a secrecy clause, refused to leave and started tweeting that they would produce transparancy against SECRET meeting. Because the public is so idiot level, that they cant differentiate between an interview being prevented, and 'bringing transparency'.
> 
> ...


So you're telling me these buffoons caused a major security breach, are protesting about Republicans not being involved _whilst there already are Republicans in the room_ and somehow think that behavior is acceptable?

Fucking hell, these guys are worse than donkeys.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

Public image. They don't want the news to escalate on what was done (there probably would be leaks afterwards). But on twitter they rectify it with 'transparency'.

Which is all kinds of funny. 

30 politicians at once is not an 'incidence'.  Thats premeditated.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> Currently 40 republicans stormed a private hearing with a Ukraine official, that was held under a secrecy clause, refused to leave and started tweeting that they would produce transparancy against SECRET meeting. Because the public is so idiot level, that they cant differentiate between an interview being prevented, and 'bringing transparency'.
> 
> You are being held as morons by the republican party again.


Even worse, 12 of those Republicans already had permission to attend the impeachment proceedings.  It was nothing but a publicity stunt to demonstrate their "loyalty," or in other words, a competition to see who could shove their head the furthest up Trump's ass.


----------



## billapong (Oct 24, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If you asked me a week ago before Mulvaney's press conference and the recent testimonies I would have said there is a 10% chance he could avoid impeachment from the house. There is no chance that he will be able to avoid impeachment in the house now. I also would be putting conviction at 20% or less. I'm comfortable in saying his chances in surviving this is dwindling. If republicans in the house vote to impeach by more than 70 then I will be willing to say the odds would be immediately flipped where he would only retain 20-25% to avoid conviction.
> 
> Just to be clear: If he avoids conviction by a close margin (1-3 senators, which is becoming almost assured at this point - as long as house has at least 20-40 republicans voting against) republicans will be slaughtered in the 2020 race and will lose both house and senate. imagine an apolitical independent having to vote for a person that the majority of the congress requested removal from office. Best thing Trump can have at this point is Biden being his opposing candidate to have any remote chance of reelection (approx 30-40% chance). As far as any congressional republican not in a deep-red state - Goodluck... if you voted against trump you lose your base, if you voted with Trump you lose independents.



Your theory on what would happen during the 2020 election if Trump is impeached in the House, but not in the Senate is only a theory. There's another one floating around - that it will strengthen his position and guarantee reelection. After all, the house is full of Democrats, which means if their attempt to remove Trump from office doesn't work it will only go to strengthen Trump's position, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter that the house voted to impeach him, what matters if he's still in office or not (even if they do vote to impeach it'll probably fall flat in the Senate, so he won't be removed from office). The fact that the house could vote to impeach and the likelihood of the Senate not voting to is fact, speculating on how it'll impact the 2020 is just speculation.

I'm still waiting for the house to actually successfully vote to impeach so it can go to the senate. I've decided who I'm voting for in the 2020 election already and it doesn't include any candidate on the left. If for some reason Trump's not on the ballot none of these Liberal slime balls are getting my vote. As of right now we're still in the same situation before Nancy said there was going to be a vote, which is a bunch of people wasting their time talking about shit and not doing a damn thing about it (while wasting tax payers money when they could be addressing more important issues).

Fighting Trump for 4 years because he won the election and constantly threatening to impeach him (which, some congress members said they would do since the first day he was in office, before he could have even committed a crime) is just poor sportsmanship. Democrats are sore losers and they suck at everything they try to do, because they aren't doing it for the good of the country or mankind in general. They're just a bunch of sore losers who already made up their mind to not cooperate since day 1, so I don't give them that much credit for not being able to get over the fact they lost.

As for discussing this issue with a bunch of Liberals, I have no desire to do that. I was just checking to see if Congress had set a date or actually lived up to their word. I'll check back in another week to see if they've found the "balls" item in the Trader Joe's "Men" section yet.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Even worse, 12 of those Republicans already had permission to attend the impeachment proceedings. It was nothing but a publicity stunt to demonstrate their "loyalty," or in other words, a competition to see who could shove their head the furthest up Trump's ass.


Thats probably wrong. 

This is a good example, that it isnt about 'faces' (Trump) all the time.

In my (completely made up ) assessment this was done to stop the repeat narrative of 'it got even worse' shortly after the first hearing. (Were the story coming out of it was 'its even worse than we thought') So to break the narrative (publicity) pattern. To prevent 'doubling down'.

40 people, politicians no less, dont do the same thing at once to show loyalty to a person - when they are competing against each other for that normally. I think that this was a calculated party action. 

But I have nothing to proove it.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 24, 2019)

billapong said:


> Your theory on what would happen during the 2020 election if Trump is impeached in the House, but not in the Senate is only a theory. There's another one floating around - that it will strengthen his position and guarantee reelection. After all, the house is full of Democrats, which means if their attempt to remove Trump from office doesn't work it will only go to strengthen Trump's position, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter that the house voted to impeach him, what matters if he's still in office or not (even if they do vote to impeach it'll probably fall flat in the Senate, so he won't be removed from office). The fact that the house could vote to impeach and the likelihood of the Senate not voting to is fact, speculating on how it'll impact the 2020 is just speculation.


Trump won the election by taking advantage of several key elements: 1. He had the easiest democratic candidate in history to run against, Clinton couldn't have been more unpopular for voters. 2. He appealed to NEET voters who just wanted something different, and Bernie had dropped out. 3. The electoral college system is gambling with loaded dice.

In the case of 1, the two major Democratic runners (Warren and Biden) are both considered good candidates in terms of policy and Clinton dropped out iirc 3 days after her announcement she would run again so she's a non-issue. (Biden got his chances bitten off thanks to this entire debacle and is certain to be more of an issue going forward.)

For 2, it's become clear to a large number of NEETs that Trump was just an empty mouthed billionaire who says anything as long as it gets him votes and in terms of policy is just pressing down on the crappy status quo since it benefits Trump directly and Bernie is still running who isn't empty mouthed and has a long history of backing up his ideals with lawmaker behavior. Really, the only supporters Trump has left amongst the not-politician populace are the ones who will vote for anyone as long as it tows their line (KKKers and neonazis), the rich who benefit from his policies the most or those who don't have much of a set ideology beyond "we hate liberals".

Number 3 will always be around and is the reason why the Republican party still manages to win, even though by all accounts they should have dropped a decade ago if you'd run with the popular vote instead.

If Trump fails to be impeached, it doesn't bolster Trump. It pretty much can't. His support is dropping from citizens, and more and more Republicans are tired of tolerating his insane bilging and the subsequent carreer damage it's causing for them.

He could still win the election since the US electoral system is rigged as hell, but honestly, I don't see that happening myself.


billapong said:


> I'm still waiting for the house to actually successfully vote to impeach so it can go to the senate





billapong said:


> I'll check back in another week to see if they've found the "balls" item in the Trader Joe's "Men" section yet.


I'll reiterate what I've said _many_ times in this very thread: *You don't need to vote to start impeachment procedures.* It was done in the past to show bipartisan support. It's a *formality*, that's being skipped this time since it's clear one side would rather eat their own shoe than support the procedures.

As far as the actual impeachment _timing_ goes, we're currently looking at the investigation phase. If we compare this to Clintons impeachment (the only other one in recent memory that got past investigation), that took 3 whole months from the starting of the investigation to adopting articles of impeachment.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> 40 people, politicians no less, dont do the same thing at once to show loyalty to a person - when they are competing against each other for that normally. I think that this was a calculated party action.


It _was_ a coordinated party action, but I think you're underestimating the degree to which the party long ago completely surrendered itself to the whims of one man.  This stunt came only one day after Trump demanded that Republicans defend him more vigorously, and several sources suggest that he knew about it ahead of time and had given his approval.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

I think that a party will never do that. 

Sometimes they need a 'charismatic person' to win in an election. And winning elections for them is everything. So what they are probably doing is sticking by their polling, that might still show, that people in the midwest are sticking with Trump once the PR nightmares have weathered.

As a rough cut - the party is always more 'intelligent', the party is always more 'important', but its hard to find a 'charismatic person' that people unite behind. So thats precious.

If you watch the Snowden video I posted today - he talkes about how the intelligence community tackles 'a new president'. Their own party is not so different.. 

So basically. There is a reason why more intelligent people are huddling behind Trump, and that is, that he can get the numbers. But it isnt that he makes all the decisions. Far from it..  (So he will not move the party so much, as the party will move themselves to whatever image is fit for the time.)

As a political figure, Trump is mostly unimportant (He does a few 'adventurous' things, that mostly don't matter - but he listens to his advisors in terms of national, fiscal, and international policy). As a public figure, he isnt.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

There are cases where this is different. Take Putin for example, who rose out of state institutions. 'Winning' a power struggle between fractions within it.  Those guys then are really important (politically).


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> So basically. There is a reason why more intelligent people are huddling behind Trump, and that is, that he can get the numbers. But it isnt that he makes all the decisions. Far from it..


Who else is there to make decisions?  Neither GOP House representatives nor GOP Senators have proposed any original ideas or legislation of their own since Trump was elected.  Anything that has come from Democrats and gains bipartisan support gets vetoed at the president's desk.  And certainly nobody within Trump's administration gives him any push-back for fear of losing their "acting" positions.  If there was anybody at all with a spine left in the administration, the rapid abandonment of our allies in Syria never would have happened.  It's a hard pill to swallow, but Trump truly is the one guy taking the Republican party in any direction he wants it to go.  He's the man with his finger on the button.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

Yes, thats an internal problem of US politics. Might not have so much to do with Trump.  (He doesnt help in unifying though, thats for certain..  )

If no new laws get voted through - existing institutions, and technocrats rule the show.

(Snowden also gives a run down on that, if you are interested.  )

This isnt so bad either - btw, because it means, that no precidency is as dumb as a single person. 

When you hear about 'how defunct' the current administration is, that mostly has to do with Trumps leadership style - I suppose (like a businessman/mafia don..  ) but thats just the white house staff. All other state institutions are fine, and on different career ladders..  Parliament shouldnt even care much about 'what the White House does', on most things. Certainly not on getting bills through.

Also afair (could be wrong), most of the needed daily regulations today get passed by presidential decrees, and if you have a political newbie like Trump in the seat, and give him his signing pen...  (Everything still remains in a working state.)


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Who else is there to make decisions? Neither GOP House representatives nor GOP Senators have proposed any original ideas or legislation of their own since Trump was elected.


I think what notimp is saying is that Trump is just a parrot for existing GOP lesiglation (just see the way Trump also parrots FOX News), except unlike most bog-standard GOP legislation, Trumps behavior as a person means the normal filter that overlies GOP legislation is gone. What seems as "original legislation" from Trump is just doubled down GOP legislation I'm pretty sure (barring stupid ideas like the wall, I'm pretty sure that's purely Trump.)


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> When you hear about 'how defunct' the current administration is, that mostly has to do with Trumps leadership style - I suppose (like a businessman/mafia don..  ) but thats just the white house staff. All other state institutions are fine..


On the state level, maybe, but the rate of erosion for federal institutions has still been rather alarming.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> On the state level, maybe, but the rate of erosion for federal institutions has still been rather alarming.


I cant talk about that, I'm not familiar with much of it, as it stands, in the US.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> I cant talk about that, I'm not familiar with much of it, as it stands, in the US.


You can research government treatment of USDA scientists, EPA regulatory rollbacks, and the massive reduction of land designated for national parks (to then be used for oil production) as just a few examples.  The judicial system at large has also been under assault with so many appointees chosen for their "loyalty" rather than their qualifications.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> judicial system at large has also been under assault


Indeed, and those in the highest judicial positions are experts at assault too.


----------



## notimp (Oct 24, 2019)

Chance find.

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert - Season 5 Episode 29 - Ronan Farrow, Andrea Savage (from yesterday (?))

Ronan Farrow speaks about compromate on Trump which might exist in some power circles (National Enquirer) ('shredder party'), sells his current book with it.

Havent read around this yet. I think I've heard about the list once before. If memory serves, its mostly about one woman that got payed off, or not. (Jill Harth).

This is nothing new, or explosive, this is more a journalist selling his book on TV, but it gives also a little more insight into power politics.  (The thought process of it mostly.)


----------



## SG854 (Oct 24, 2019)

notimp said:


> Why.
> 
> Currently 40 republicans stormed a private hearing with a Ukraine official, that was held under a secrecy clause, refused to leave and started tweeting that they would produce transparancy against SECRET meeting. Because the public is so idiot level, that they cant differentiate between an interview being prevented, and 'bringing transparency'.
> 
> ...





Ev1l0rd said:


> So you're telling me these buffoons caused a major security breach, are protesting about Republicans not being involved _whilst there already are Republicans in the room_ and somehow think that behavior is acceptable?
> 
> Fucking hell, these guys are worse than donkeys.


Are You Fuckin Kidding me. Are they really Fuckin complaining about National Security Reasons. Weren't these assholes complaining about Julian Assange not releasing documentation because he used the same argument of not putting national security in danger and releasing sensitive information that can do reputation damage. And these assholes started complaining that he's hiding something. And yet when it gets turned on them they start bitching and complaining about keeping secrecy clauses. Oh no now they are the fuckin victims. God Fucking Dammit. 

This is why I'm not following this case, its more of the same bullshit retarded bickering we got before. I swear to God if the people that went after Julian Assange go after this, I swear to Fuckin God. And the Republicans are just as retarded because they stormed in when they were the ones complaining about keeping secrecy with Assange. Oh no they are only keeping secrecy because they want to hide information argument. God, both parties are so fucking stupid.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 25, 2019)

hell the president cant be charged but i'm sure those republican congressmen can with impeding an investigation  that would level out the playing field too


----------



## Xzi (Oct 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This is why I'm not following this case, its more of the same bullshit retarded bickering we got before. I swear to God if the people that went after Julian Assange go after this, I swear to Fuckin God.


What the fuck are you talking about?  The US government (pentagon) is after Assange because of the Chelsea Manning leaks.  In case you've been living under a rock for the last three years, the US government is not currently controlled by Democrats, so they won't be the ones deciding his fate.  Not that Assange is in any way relevant to impeachment, but has it even been decided that he'll be extradited yet?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 25, 2019)

billapong said:


> Your theory on what would happen during the 2020 election if Trump is impeached in the House, but not in the Senate is only a theory. There's another one floating around - that it will strengthen his position and guarantee reelection. After all, the house is full of Democrats, which means if their attempt to remove Trump from office doesn't work it will only go to strengthen Trump's position, because at the end of the day it doesn't matter that the house voted to impeach him, what matters if he's still in office or not (even if they do vote to impeach it'll probably fall flat in the Senate, so he won't be removed from office). The fact that the house could vote to impeach and the likelihood of the Senate not voting to is fact, speculating on how it'll impact the 2020 is just speculation.



Of course this is speculation. That goes without saying. I'm drifting a bit off-topic here but it's for a purpose so bear with me. I'd point to Clinton's Benghazi hearing and email scandal (btw not one conviction? That's embarrassing.) as whether or not it 'strengthens' the accused. Sure, there were people in the democratic primaries who would stick by her because they didn't find the other option a viable candidate at the time, despite national head to head polling, but I digress. My point is that independent polling tanked on favor-ability/approval ratings as the duration and volume of accusations increased for Clinton. People tend to favor reasons to say NO over reasons to say YES. It's just human nature to weigh negatives over positives when making a decision. They call it a negative bias. It's one reason why startup companies will quickly re-brand rather than attempt to restore image if they are faced with public scrutiny. I view politicians as brands and if recent elections are any evidence so do most Americans.

Almost everyone has made up their mind decisively on Trump which is why his numbers don't fluctuate aggressively but that doesn't mean there aren't people who sway. If Trump doesn't control messaging and consolidate unanimous congressional backing by republicans then he's in for a rough time. His recent foreign policy blunders are not helping. I privately have wondered if he merely abstained from the Syrian debacle if he would have even had public republican defectors to begin with. Ok I'm done rambling.


----------



## billapong (Oct 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Of course this is speculation. That goes without saying. I'm drifting a bit off-topic here but it's for a purpose so bear with me. I'd point to Clinton's Benghazi hearing and email scandal (btw not one conviction? That's embarrassing.) as whether or not it 'strengthens' the accused. Sure, there were people in the democratic primaries who would stick by her because they didn't find the other option a viable candidate at the time, despite national head to head polling, but I digress. My point is that independent polling tanked on favor-ability/approval ratings as the duration and volume of accusations increased for Clinton. People tend to favor reasons to say NO over reasons to say YES. It's just human nature to weigh negatives over positives when making a decision. They call it a negative bias. It's one reason why startup companies will quickly re-brand rather than attempt to restore image if they are faced with public scrutiny. I view politicians as brands and if recent elections are any evidence so do most Americans.
> 
> Almost everyone has made up their mind decisively on Trump which is why his numbers don't fluctuate aggressively but that doesn't mean there aren't people who sway. If Trump doesn't control messaging and consolidate unanimous congressional backing by republicans then he's in for a rough time. His recent foreign policy blunders are not helping. I privately have wondered if he merely abstained from the Syrian debacle if he would have even had public republican defectors to begin with. Ok I'm done rambling.



Foreign policy blunders? You mean that there's Liberals who don't like his decisions in Syria? Well, I'm sorry to break the news, but every single time a President does something overseas that's related to troops or war there's whiny people who claim all sorts of "injustices" and I guess in your case "blunders". It's also apparent that the Liberals are going to attack Trump no matter what he does; he could simply eat eggs, toast and have a glass of milk in the morning and some Liberal would be outraged. So combine the people that always whine about "war" and the people that always whine about "Trump" and all you have are a bunch of whining babies. It doesn't mean that Trump has actually blundered. That'll take years if not centuries to see how his actions overseas played out. 

As I've already stated, its just Liberals being outraged, which is all they really know how to do (whine about shit and not do a damn thing to fix it themselves, yet think people like me should fix their make believe problems or generally change what I do because they are outraged). Well, guess what, I don't care how outraged you get. I'm not changing a damn thing for anyone, especially a Liberal. So go scream into the air until you turn blue and suffocate. See if I care.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 25, 2019)

I can't wait for Durham's fisa abuse probe results to be released that will show the Democrats, Obama, Quid Pro Joe Biden, and the Clintons are all guilty of collusion with Russia and Ukraine to find dirt on Trump.  Hopefully, since this is now turning into a criminal investigation, we will finally see the real crooks thrown in prison.
As soon as the probe releases, this whole impeachment fiasco will be shown to be a "nothing burger" and will be put to an end since the Dems will be too busy defending themselves in court.  If this latest push for impeachment had any merit, the house Dems wouldn't be conducting it in secret behind closed doors while only releasing tidbits of information that fit their narrative to destroy Trump's image. If I was still a Democrat, I would be ashamed to call myself one and immediately change my affiliation.
This impeachment has been nothing but a waste of time, taxpayer's money, and a great President's first term.  Due to the Dems lack of integrity and stealing Trump's time in office, I think we should allow him a chance at a third term.

Edit: I forgot to add this... I hope you liberals have been saving up your tears because Daddy's getting thirsty and my cup is almost empty.  I can't wait to savor those sweet tears.


----------



## billapong (Oct 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I can't wait for Durham's fisa abuse probe results to be released that will show the Democrats, Obama, Quid Pro Joe Biden, and the Clintons are all guilty of collusion with Russia and Ukraine to find dirt on Trump.  Hopefully, since this is now turning into a criminal investigation, we will finally see the real crooks thrown in prison.
> As soon as the probe releases, this whole impeachment fiasco will be shown to be a "nothing burger" and will be put to an end since the Dems will be too busy defending themselves in court.  If this latest push for impeachment had any merit, the house Dems wouldn't be conducting it in secret behind closed doors while only releasing tidbits of information that fit their narrative to destroy Trump's image. If I was still a Democrat, I would be ashamed to call myself one and immediately change my affiliation.
> This impeachment has been nothing but a waste of time, taxpayer's money, and a great President's first term.  Due to the Dems lack of integrity and stealing Trump's time in office, I think we should allow him a chance at a third term.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add this... I hope you liberals have been saving up your tears because Daddy's getting thirsty and my cup is almost empty.  I can't wait to savor those sweet tears.



This impeachment effort would be one thing if the Democrats haven't been planning on it since before Trump took the oath of office. It's not like it's a secret. The reason why would matter if this was like a President simply doing something very illegal, immoral and wrong, but the Democrats have planned this from day one! They were just looking for an excuse. That's abusing the impeachment process. That's not how it was intended to be used. The Democrats think they're clever, because a lot of American people who don't pay attention to what they are up to will fall for this cheap trick (and that's not a reference to Pete Buttigieg).

Due to the fact this entire impeachment situation has been planned since day #1 I can't in good faith support it. It would be one thing if the President was being impeached for good reason, but it's simply what the Democrats had in mind the entire time. They've just been looking for an excuse. So I won't be supporting it and due to their cheap tactics I won't be voting for any of them for President in 2020. They've basically sealed their fate.

Oh well, it's like Elijah Cummings said "Trump won't see another term in office in my lifetime" (hopefully Baltimore elects someone that isn't as corrupt as he was and isn't a Liberal and maybe the City will clean it self up). Imagine the entire USA being run like these Liberal hell holes. Don't vote blue!


----------



## notimp (Oct 25, 2019)

For the two extremists and the bystanders. The impeachment will likely never go through. If it drags itself closer to the election date, dems will only go forward if they more or less know, that they would win. (Otherwise pre election PR would be horrible.) And thats not likely at all. Because they cant likely get a 2/3 majority in the senate. All things considered.

Currently we are just at the investigation part of the impeachment procedure.

Also at this point you two are straight up lying to people in the audience. "When the next part of the investigation will show, that Trump is innocent..."

Whats this? Fortune telling?

Could you please stop the propaganda, and wait like everyone else?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 25, 2019)

billapong said:


> Foreign policy blunders? You mean that there's Liberals who don't like his decisions in Syria? Well, I'm sorry to break the news, but every single time a President does something overseas that's related to troops or war there's whiny people who claim all sorts of "injustices" and I guess in your case "blunders". It's also apparent that the Liberals are going to attack Trump no matter what he does; he could simply eat eggs, toast and have a glass of milk in the morning and some Liberal would be outraged. So combine the people that always whine about "war" and the people that always whine about "Trump" and all you have are a bunch of whining babies. It doesn't mean that Trump has actually blundered. That'll take years if not centuries to see how his actions overseas played out.
> 
> As I've already stated, its just Liberals being outraged, which is all they really know how to do (whine about shit and not do a damn thing to fix it themselves, yet think people like me should fix their make believe problems or generally change what I do because they are outraged). Well, guess what, I don't care how outraged you get. I'm not changing a damn thing for anyone, especially a Liberal. So go scream into the air until you turn blue and suffocate. See if I care.



Now that's just pathetic. It appears I struck a nerve. So you aren't comfortable discussing one of Trump's policy decisions? Bilateral condemnation on a foreign policy decision is noteworthy despite whether or not you want to deal with that reality. You speak with such immaturity, the repercussions of his actions (both foreign and domestic) are able to be observed - one does not require years or centuries to note the cause/effect. Furthermore, he could have avoided the entire situation using diplomatic methods. We could and should have mediated a safe-zone between both Turkey and Kurds prior to withdrawing our troops. We also could have sent UN peacekeepers to pressure Turkey to observe the Safe-zone. Military strategists on both sides unilaterally stated this but you just equated this policy decision to wearing a tan suit. 

I've seen Carl Sandburg quoted around recently with the impeachment proceedings and this seems appropriate: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”

I guess we are at the table banging part? Rise above your political insecurity and educate yourself on this policy decision. Decide for yourself if this was a good decision that you support. Don't just bury your head in the sand because you may not like the outcome.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 25, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I can't wait for Durham's fisa abuse probe results to be released that will show the Democrats, Obama, Quid Pro Joe Biden, and the Clintons are all guilty of collusion with Russia and Ukraine to find dirt on Trump.  Hopefully, since this is now turning into a criminal investigation, we will finally see the real crooks thrown in prison.
> As soon as the probe releases, this whole impeachment fiasco will be shown to be a "nothing burger" and will be put to an end since the Dems will be too busy defending themselves in court.  If this latest push for impeachment had any merit, the house Dems wouldn't be conducting it in secret behind closed doors while only releasing tidbits of information that fit their narrative to destroy Trump's image. If I was still a Democrat, I would be ashamed to call myself one and immediately change my affiliation.
> This impeachment has been nothing but a waste of time, taxpayer's money, and a great President's first term.  Due to the Dems lack of integrity and stealing Trump's time in office, I think we should allow him a chance at a third term.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add this... I hope you liberals have been saving up your tears because Daddy's getting thirsty and my cup is almost empty.  I can't wait to savor those sweet tears.



So did Italy substantiate the claims of Barr? Seems like that would be critical for absolving the Trump campaign and Russia on election interference.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 25, 2019)

If Trump* is the most perfect of perfects and you aren't going to listen to anyone, why are you even here?

*(or the whole Republican party, hard to tell with you guys sometimes.)


----------



## billapong (Oct 25, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Now that's just pathetic. It appears I struck a nerve. So you aren't comfortable discussing one of Trump's policy decisions? Bilateral condemnation on a foreign policy decision is noteworthy despite whether or not you want to deal with that reality. You speak with such immaturity, the repercussions of his actions (both foreign and domestic) are able to be observed - one does not require years or centuries to note the cause/effect. Furthermore, he could have avoided the entire situation using diplomatic methods. We could and should have mediated a safe-zone between both Turkey and Kurds prior to withdrawing our troops. We also could have sent UN peacekeepers to pressure Turkey to observe the Safe-zone. Military strategists on both sides unilaterally stated this but you just equated this policy decision to wearing a tan suit.
> 
> I've seen Carl Sandburg quoted around recently with the impeachment proceedings and this seems appropriate: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell”
> 
> I guess we are at the table banging part? Rise above your political insecurity and educate yourself on this policy decision. Decide for yourself if this was a good decision that you support. Don't just bury your head in the sand because you may not like the outcome.



Nah, these repercussions are just shit whiny Liberals don't like. There are long term goals and until those happen a few minor losses here and there don't suffice to jack shit. You've also not hit any nerves I'm always like this. You may perceive it to be agitated, but if I were agitated mountains would move.

What outcome won't I like? The very low likelihood that Trump could possibly be removed from office? I've already stated that would be fine, Pence would take over. No big loss on the Conservative side of things. I still won't be voting for any of the Liberal scum come 2020. Who knows, maybe Pence will turn out to piss off (and therefore properly manage/deal with) the Liberals more than Trump ever could manage to do.

Unlike people who follow Trump's every move I could personally care less about the guy. He's our President and until otherwise I'll treat him as such. Like every person they have things I dislike or things I like. I really like how he doesn't mince words or hold back when it comes to fucking with the Liberals. The more outrage there is the better my life is going to be (as people blinded by outrage are really easy to control). The thing is other when I'm viewing these forums or browsing political web sties Trump isn't on my mind. I don't love to hate him or hinge on his every word. I don't see him in my sleep and blame him for everything that goes wrong in my life. Sorry, but unlike the rest of you I don't suffer from any derangement syndromes.

You do live up to your forum nick name though. You've lost rationality in favor of Liberalism (as most of the Liberals had none to begin with and sure as hell don't currently have any). You can try to push yourself off as rational all you like or try to mask your hatred with appearing to be calm, but I don't desire to lie to get my views across. I leave the lying up to the Liberals.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 25, 2019)

billapong said:


> Nah, these repercussions are just shit whiny Liberals don't like. There are long term goals and until those happen a few minor losses here and there don't suffice to jack shit. You've also not hit any nerves I'm always like this. You may perceive it to be agitated, but if I were agitated mountains would move.



So you admit to 'minor losses'. Could you take an honest view as to whether or not those losses could have been mitigated through proper diplomacy? 



billapong said:


> What outcome won't I like? The very low likelihood that Trump could possibly be removed from office? I've already stated that would be fine, Pence would take over. No big loss on the Conservative side of things. I still won't be voting for any of the Liberal scum come 2020. Who knows, maybe Pence will turn out to piss off (and therefore properly manage/deal with) the Liberals more than Trump ever could manage to do.



The outcome I was referring to was actually whether or not you agreed with Trump's impulsive and abrupt Syrian withdrawal instead of what was stated above as a logical alternative. Pence is a pretty staple conservative. Assuming he isn't impeached as well he will carry policies that are pretty consistent with what the base desires.



billapong said:


> Unlike people who follow Trump's every move I could personally care less about the guy. He's our President and until otherwise I'll treat him as such. Like every person they have things I dislike or things I like. I really like how he doesn't mince words or hold back when it comes to fucking with the Liberals. The more outrage there is the better my life is going to be (as people blinded by outrage are really easy to control). The thing is other when I'm viewing these forums or browsing political web sties Trump isn't on my mind. I don't love to hate him or hinge on his every word. I don't see him in my sleep and blame him for everything that goes wrong in my life. Sorry, but unlike the rest of you I don't suffer from any derangement syndromes.
> 
> You do live up to your forum nick name though. You've lost rationality in favor of Liberalism (as most of the Liberals had none to begin with and sure as hell don't currently have any). You can try to push yourself off as rational all you like or try to mask your hatred with appearing to be calm, but I don't desire to lie to get my views across. I leave the lying up to the Liberals.



As much as I adore your ad hominems, you are projecting your anger over to me. I'm really apathetic to this whole situation as I've stated before: American politics is entertainment for me, has been for many years. I stay informed on politics for the same reason others know the individual stats of their favorite sports teams. You can keep treating this as a 'war on liberals' but you'll eventually burn out once the pendulum swings on political affiliation, as it has since our country started. I'm in a much older lane in life then most but trust me, the idea that 'other's outrage' is going to somehow improve your quality of life deserves reexamining. Your own choices, goals, and achievements impact your quality of life. The same can be said on either side so don't just take this as a direct rebuke.


----------



## billapong (Oct 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So you admit to 'minor losses'. Could you take an honest view as to whether or not those losses could have been mitigated through proper diplomacy?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The point about the entire impeachment proceeding is that the process is being abused. It's meant for removing a President from office if they commit a serious crime or offense, but the Liberals have stated since before Trump took the oath of office they would impeach him, with no reason other than the fact he won the Presidency.  Since then they've been simply taking up time and resources trying to undermine Trump and seek out the impeachment. That's horseshit. Clinton was given a fair shot by the GOP, but it wasn't until he actually abused a women in the Oval Office that he was impeached. It wasn't one party trying to burn the other at the stake for simply winning an election. That's why I don't support the Liberals impeachment attempt. If it wasn't Ukraine it would be something else as the reason clearly doesn't matter to them - they simply would have picked any reason (hence the abuse of the process).

Oh, my one of my goals in life and something I've been good at and have been achieving is disrupting the Liberals attempts to subvert the Constitution and turn the USA into a socialist shit hole. So when I hear the fascist pieces of shit are "outraged" I know what I'm doing is at least in part working. The patriots who fought against our oppressors and created this country would have my side in this issue. I'm 100% sure if any of them were alive today they would not support the Liberals and would also die fighting to defend the nation against some of the worst people to ever exist on this planet.

I've got the truth, history and God on my side. I'll win no matter what happens.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> I've got the truth, history and God on my side. I'll win no matter what happens.


You're delusional to an extreme degree.  I'm not Christian, but nor do I need to be to recognize that Trump is the quintessential embodiment of all seven deadly sins.  If it turns out that a physical hell exists, anybody who has morally/ethically chained themselves to that bloated golden calf has earned themselves a one-way express ticket.

As far as "history" goes, any self-described white nationalist has definitely been on the wrong side of that every step of the way.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> The point about the entire impeachment proceeding is that the process is being abused. It's meant for removing a President from office if they commit a serious crime or offense, but the Liberals have stated since before Trump took the oath of office they would impeach him, with no reason other than the fact he won the Presidency.  Since then they've been simply taking up time and resources trying to undermine Trump and seek out the impeachment. That's horseshit. Clinton was given a fair shot by the GOP, but it wasn't until he actually abused a women in the Oval Office that he was impeached. It wasn't one party trying to burn the other at the stake for simply winning an election. That's why I don't support the Liberals impeachment attempt. If it wasn't Ukraine it would be something else as the reason clearly doesn't matter to them - they simply would have picked any reason (hence the abuse of the process).
> 
> Oh, my one of my goals in life and something I've been good at and have been achieving is disrupting the Liberals attempts to subvert the Constitution and turn the USA into a socialist shit hole. So when I hear the fascist pieces of shit are "outraged" I know what I'm doing is at least in part working. The patriots who fought against our oppressors and created this country would have my side in this issue. I'm 100% sure if any of them were alive today they would not support the Liberals and would also die fighting to defend the nation against some of the worst people to ever exist on this planet.
> 
> I've got the truth, history and God on my side. I'll win no matter what happens.



Devil's advocate, let's say the roles were reversed, seriously just entertain the suggestion, would you want an open investigation to ensure Hillary Clinton didn't collude with a foreign country to sway the election? What about if one of our intelligence services had circumstantial evidence that alluded the Clinton campaign may have worked w/ a foreign government to target her opponent?

Another argument: Imagine the FBI and a Mob boss. There is evidence that alludes to wrong doing, but being able to prove it without a shadow of a doubt is difficult. Would you fault the FBI for finally jailing a mob boss on tax evasion? After all they were gunning for him the entire time. It just so happened he finally did something that was clear cut enough to prove in a court that he needed to be sentenced. I imagine this is the democrat perspective for this impeachment inquiry.

I realize at this point little productive discussion will be reached. You aren't here to discuss or reason, I mean with a line like --"The patriots who fought against our oppressors and created this country would have my side in this issue. I'm 100% sure if any of them were alive today they would not support the Liberals and would also die fighting to defend the nation against some of the worst people to ever exist on this planet." -- It's entertaining that you believe liberals are some of the worst people to ever exist on this planet. I've met many Americans in my lifetime, both liberal and conservative. I've also held views on either side throughout my life. I still view my fellow Americans as that, Americans (while they may have different political perspectives) and I believe the founding fathers would start with accepting that a great nation is built by those with differing views, who discuss to find optimal solutions. Not just agree with one side or you're 'human scum'. Go read some of the work of Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin. Read about the discussions and heated debates that were had at the forming of our nation. 

Finally, I think you are deluded to think that posting on a modding forum would achieve anything of consequence if those are your true ambitions, but I'll leave you to it. I'm not sure how influential your methods are. I'd suggest, if you really want to be a political activist, working w/ a campaign organization would be far more effective than the type of discourse you present here.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 26, 2019)

nah billapong already admitted to he would commit treason (remember my question on civil war 2?) he's far more dangerous than a political advocate he's an unhinged ticking timebomb


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> Foreign policy blunders? You mean that there's Liberals who don't like his decisions in Syria? Well, I'm sorry to break the news, but every single time a President does something overseas that's related to troops or war there's whiny people who claim all sorts of "injustices" and I guess in your case "blunders". It's also apparent that the Liberals are going to attack Trump no matter what he does; he could simply eat eggs, toast and have a glass of milk in the morning and some Liberal would be outraged. So combine the people that always whine about "war" and the people that always whine about "Trump" and all you have are a bunch of whining babies. It doesn't mean that Trump has actually blundered. That'll take years if not centuries to see how his actions overseas played out.
> 
> As I've already stated, its just Liberals being outraged, which is all they really know how to do (whine about shit and not do a damn thing to fix it themselves, yet think people like me should fix their make believe problems or generally change what I do because they are outraged). Well, guess what, I don't care how outraged you get. I'm not changing a damn thing for anyone, especially a Liberal. So go scream into the air until you turn blue and suffocate. See if I care.


Oh my lord. SO BACK STABBING THE KURDS, THE PEOPLE WHO HAS WILLINGLY RISKED THEIR LIVES FOR US WHILE NOT GETTING BENEFITS OF A US CITIZEN, IS WHINING? What's next? I get help from someone and then spit in their eye and leave them for dead? Because that's what we are doing. Are you that incapable to have foresight?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I can't wait for Durham's fisa abuse probe results to be released that will show the Democrats, Obama, Quid Pro Joe Biden, and the Clintons are all guilty of collusion with Russia and Ukraine to find dirt on Trump.  Hopefully, since this is now turning into a criminal investigation, we will finally see the real crooks thrown in prison.
> As soon as the probe releases, this whole impeachment fiasco will be shown to be a "nothing burger" and will be put to an end since the Dems will be too busy defending themselves in court.  If this latest push for impeachment had any merit, the house Dems wouldn't be conducting it in secret behind closed doors while only releasing tidbits of information that fit their narrative to destroy Trump's image. If I was still a Democrat, I would be ashamed to call myself one and immediately change my affiliation.
> This impeachment has been nothing but a waste of time, taxpayer's money, and a great President's first term.  Due to the Dems lack of integrity and stealing Trump's time in office, I think we should allow him a chance at a third term.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to add this... I hope you liberals have been saving up your tears because Daddy's getting thirsty and my cup is almost empty.  I can't wait to savor those sweet tears.


Well you should be drowning in those tears. Everything that is not in your ideology seems to be "liberal." even basic respect to people whom helped us in the past is apparently too "liberal" for your understanding as a apathetic individual who is a tool to a political party brainwashed to the point that foresight is not something you have.  Every source you and billpong listed is right wing biased (at least) and alt right at most. You two are a lost cause, I wish you well to find your way back to humanity, or at least finding a little bit of rational, because if many people keep telling that you are wrong, and you haven't even considered their stances, trying to understand them, you are lost at sea and it's on you to find your way back. This will likely be my last post regarding anything to you and billpong. You've already got a lot of attention. And now I'm going to let you suffer without it. Your stances are not even worth considering as they lack so much fundamental logic and basics. I've tried to explain that to you before, but at this point, it's clear that your a stripped screw bent sideways in wood.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 26, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Well you should be drowning in those tears. Everything that is not in your ideology seems to be "liberal." even basic respect to people whom helped us in the past is apparently too "liberal" for your understanding as a apathetic individual who is a tool to a political party brainwashed to the point that foresight is not something you have.  Every source you and billpong listed is right wing biased (at least) and alt right at most. You two are a lost cause, I wish you well to find your way back to humanity, or at least finding a little bit of rational, because if many people keep telling that you are wrong, and you haven't even considered their stances, trying to understand them, you are lost at sea and it's on you to find your way back. This will likely be my last post regarding anything to you and billpong. You've already got a lot of attention. And now I'm going to let you suffer without it. Your stances are not even worth considering as they lack so much fundamental logic and basics. I've tried to explain that to you before, but at this point, it's clear that your a stripped screw bent sideways in wood.


He's an idiot with a bias, and hates anyone who's not "republican". Whenever he hears anything he doesn't like, especially fact, he holds his hands to his hears and shouts, "la la la". He's like Monovan, or whatever his name is. A typical biased Trump supporter who has NO idea about how politics even work. Can we ban this idiot already?


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Even worse, 12 of those Republicans already had permission to attend the impeachment proceedings.  It was nothing but a publicity stunt to demonstrate their "loyalty," or in other words, a competition to see who could shove their head the furthest up Trump's ass.


I've been thinking on this incident, and why it worries me. It would've been a huge sign of weakness if they just challenged rules Republicans help set up in the first place (which I learned from fox News of all places), but when it's not even 'a secret meeting' as they claim, it's something worse.

this article  not just summarize the last week but put the finger on my fears.

The Republicans have no defense and they know it. If they had reliable witnesses, a solid narrative, a decent excuse,... ANYTHING... they'd shout it at least from the rooftops on their news channels. No matter how lousy discrediting Cohen was, it was a strategy. This time there are just too many sources coming up to even start doing that, so it's the process itself that gets attacked. Along with any Republicans who dare to doubt that Trump should be above all laws.

So my worries isn't so much whether the procedure will be followed (we all know Republicans will fight every legal and illegal step among the way) but to what degree they'll go on with this. 
Meaning : is this the making of a second civil war?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Seasoned diplomat William Taylor confirmed to Congress today what Mick Mulvaney had already stated publicly: there was quid pro quo in Trump's withholding of military aid to Ukraine.  This is probably the most damning testimony given yet, and it connects the dots quite succinctly.  All that's left for the House now is the gathering of some minute details before they vote to impeach.


A bit late to the party, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this is a purposeful misread. What Mulvaney actually said was that the withdrawal of funds was done specifically to elicit a response, in this case co-operation in the 2016 election hacking investigation, which is still on-going. This is indeed a quid pro quo, and one that is standard affair in diplomacy. It is *no different* than what Biden did by withdrawing aid and no different from what four Democratic senators did by sending a threatening letter to the Ukrainian government in regards to co-operation with the Mueller probe. The quid pro quo *you're looking for* is a demand for help in Trump's own election campaign, *not* standard diplomatic exchange, so a bit of a misfire there. You can run with it though, the rest of the Democratic party is, since they've always intended to mislead the public into thinking that something unusual has happened when that is not the case.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 26, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> He's an idiot with a bias, and hates anyone who's not "republican". Whenever he hears anything he doesn't like, especially fact, he holds his hands to his hears and shouts, "la la la". He's like Monovan, or whatever his name is. A typical biased Trump supporter who has NO idea about how politics even work. Can we ban this idiot already?


Sadly banning people by intelligence isn't something that can happen. And to be honest I rather not have him be banned. It will only dive them deeper to their own political ideologies. If they were banned, it would be making them sit in a echo room with people are like minded to them. Furthering the bending of their stripped screw.
If I had to use the same analogy for myself, because let's not kid myself, I'm not righteous in my thoughts. I'm more of a good listener to people's thoughts and feelings, and then questioning those thoughts. And then questioning their logic, then my logic, and then questioning the logic of my conclusion. I am a screw put in wood, slightly bent, but pliable, I can be unscrewed and re screwed. I can reconsider things, question them. And that's a talent I wish to retain. I rather be uncertain of myself, than be certain.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 26, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Sadly banning people by intelligence isn't something that can happen. And to be honest I rather not have him be banned. It will only dive them deeper to their own political ideologies. If they were banned, it would be making them sit in a echo room with people are like minded to them. Furthering the bending of their stripped screw.
> If I had to use the same analogy for myself, because let's not kid myself, I'm not righteous in my thoughts. I'm more of a good listener to people's thoughts and feelings, and then questioning those thoughts. And then questioning their logic, then my logic, and then questioning the logic of my conclusion. I am a screw put in wood, slightly bent, but pliable, I can be unscrewed and re screwed. I can reconsider things, question them. And that's a talent I wish to retain. I rather be uncertain of myself, than be certain.


And I understand that. I just want him banned because it's causing toxicity in this forum, with his cult-like behaviour and ideals, and honestly? It REALLY pisses me off. He brings up these threads only to "stick it to the libs", then decides to close his ears to anyone else's opinions, even if they've provided evidence... he's LITERALLY a troll and I'm convinced he's really intellectually stupid...


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> And I understand that. I just want him banned because it's causing toxicity in this forum, with his cult-like behaviour and ideals, and honestly? It REALLY pisses me off. He brings up these threads only to "stick it to the libs", then decides to close his ears to anyone else's opinions, even if they've provided evidence... he's LITERALLY a troll and I'm convinced he's really intellectually stupid...


To be fair, you _choose_ to participate. Responding to threads you know will outrage you is a little bit like playing with a jack in a box - you know what's going to happen when you crank it and you're still surprised, startled and outraged when it does. I'm not taking any sides here, I merely wanted to point out that questioning someone's intelligence is a bad look when your own choices seem questionable. You do have the option to ignore him, you choose to be outraged by him.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> To be fair, you _choose_ to participate. Responding to threads you know will outrage you is a little bit like playing with a jack in a box - you know what's going to happen when you crank it and you're still surprised, startled and outraged when it does. I'm not taking any sides here, I merely wanted to point out that questioning someone's intelligence is a bad look when your own choices seem questionable. You do have the option to ignore him, you choose to be outraged by him.


I can agree with that. I think it starts with, "Ugh not this bullshit again", and then I _do_ get curious, so I read the comments. Then I get pissed off. And I handle. It. Horribly. I am well aware that I can work on how I respond, but it just infuriates me so much. You're 100% right. I do have the option to ignore, and I probably should. I don't know why I don't. Thanks!


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

Josshy0125 said:


> I can agree with that. I think it starts with, "Ugh not this bullshit again", and then I _do_ get curious, so I read the comments. Then I get pissed off. And I handle. It. Horribly. I am well aware that I can work on how I respond, but it just infuriates me so much. You're 100% right. I do have the option to ignore, and I probably should. I don't know why I don't. Thanks!


I didn't really mean it as a slight against you, just general advice. Conversations on the forums can get pretty heated, particularly in the Politics section. People of different political persuasions rarely find a common tongue, but that's not a good reason to get upset - relax, it's just the Internet, we should all try to have a good time together.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 26, 2019)

No, no, you're fine! You made some really logical and correct points, and I appreciate that Thank you!


Foxi4 said:


> I didn't really mean it as a slight against you, just general advice. Conversations on the forums can get pretty heated, particularly in the Politics section. People of different political persuasions rarely find a common tongue, but that's not a good reason to get upset - relax, it's just the Internet, we should all try to have a good time together.


----------



## billapong (Oct 26, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Devil's advocate, let's say the roles were reversed, seriously just entertain the suggestion, would you want an open investigation to ensure Hillary Clinton didn't collude with a foreign country to sway the election? What about if one of our intelligence services had circumstantial evidence that alluded the Clinton campaign may have worked w/ a foreign government to target her opponent?
> 
> Another argument: Imagine the FBI and a Mob boss. There is evidence that alludes to wrong doing, but being able to prove it without a shadow of a doubt is difficult. Would you fault the FBI for finally jailing a mob boss on tax evasion? After all they were gunning for him the entire time. It just so happened he finally did something that was clear cut enough to prove in a court that he needed to be sentenced. I imagine this is the democrat perspective for this impeachment inquiry.
> 
> ...



I'm not against investigating Trump, but when the investigations turn out no collusion or whatever then I'm against the side that set the rules that no longer want to follow the set rules and accept the results.

I'm against this impeachment investigation because it was planned from before Trump took office. It's not about him doing anything wrong; it's about removing him from office at any cost. If the investigation does indeed turn up evidence and he is impeached because of the evidence and fair and just hearings then that's fine, but right now at the current point in time this it's all been rigged against him, which is why if I pulls through he's going to gain more support from his base and people that realize what the Democrats actually planned and tried to do from the start.

Like I keep repeating is if he is removed from office not much is going to actually change. The delusional Trump haters/followers who see him in his sleep will still suffer from their affliction for years to come and the Conservatives will still be in power. 

Also, I don't expect my posts on this forum to effect anything really, but what I also do in my spare time dwarfs anything I could ever post here. Bankrupting and effectively closing down Liberal organizations is much more fulfilling.


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> I'm against this impeachment investigation because it was planned from before Trump took office.



Got a source other than Fox News and your ass for this claim?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

What @billapong is trying to say is that it comes across as a bit gauche when you investigate someone for colluding with a foreign power to affect the result of an election, fail to find evidence to support that, so you investigate that same person for supposedly interfering with that investigation, and once you fail to conclusively prove criminality again you find another thing to investigate. There has to be a point at which you just admit you were wrong in the first place, otherwise you lose face. You can't string investigations ad infinitum _"until you get one past the goalie"_ and simultaneously claim that it's not a witch hunt. On the flip side, Trump does keep giving you guys ammunition, partially because of his general demeanour, partially due to his tendency to use hyperbole and exaggerating even the most mundane of things, and partially because his immediate circle is more leaky then a rooftop hit by a cluster bomb.


----------



## billapong (Oct 26, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> Got a source other than Fox News and your ass for this claim?



Off hand no, because it's been a common discussion/topic in the Liberal media before he even took his oath. I'm sure though I've read plenty of it on Fox News, which even if you don't like the source doesn't mean the source material isn't valid. The reason I'm talking about it like it's common knowledge is because it's been floating around in the media before he took office, especially in how badly people responded to losing the election and the entire "How do we get rid of him" stuff that followed. Anyway, to see you simply dismiss anything I could find on Fox News as fake means you're not even worth the 10 or so minutes it would take to dig up the quotes I would need to prove my point to one of the "if there's no link it's not true" small minded hoards that can simply be fooled by a fake wikipedia entry.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> What @billapong is trying to say is that it comes across as a bit gauche when you investigate someone for colluding with a foreign power to affect the result of an election, fail to find evidence to support that, so you investigate that same person for supposedly interfering with that investigation, and once you fail to conclusively prove criminality again you find another thing to investigate. There has to be a point at which you just admit you were wrong in the first place, otherwise you lose face. You can't string investigations ad infinitum _"until you get one past the goalie"_ and simultaneously claim that it's not a witch hunt. On the flip side, Trump does keep giving you guys ammunition, partially because of his general demeanour, partially due to his tendency to use hyperbole and exaggerating even the most mundane of things, and partially because his immediate circle is more leaky then a rooftop hit by a cluster bomb.



He's also toying with the Liberals on purpose. The entire "dumb" act and his tactics he's using to cause outrage are planned and played out exactly like he wants them to be played out. When you underestimate or write off your opponent as stupid you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. Trump is a player and he's simply playing the Liberals at their own game and IMO is much better at bullshitting then the Liberals will ever be. It's very entertaining to watch play out. On the flip side he's not the best politician, but that's what the voters wanted - they didn't want an insider and they wanted someone to jump in and get rid of the current shit heads in office (draining the swamp). He's continuously shaking shit up and that's exactly what people want.

As for Liberal Outrage .... well, babies are going to cry on a daily basis. There's not much you can do about that (other than use their blind hatred and rage to your advantage, while distracting them with trivial things like ones inability to identify their own gender). I don't feel sorry for people affected so badly by Trump because they let a simple single man impact their lives negatively all by themselves. It's not like Trump is God. Simply don't read Liberal media for a week if you want to avoid hearing about him, because unlike common opinion on the Internet *chuckles* he's not responsible for the weather. Put down the Dumb Phone and go outside.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> Got a source other than Fox News and your ass for this claim?


I do. Is Wikipedia satisfactory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump

Besides Fox, New York Times broached the subject by calling his business dealings abroad _"unconstitutional"_ in an article, which is of course nonsense. Politico literally ran a headline _"Could Trump be Impeached Shortly After He Takes Office"_ before he was even the Republican nominee, asking legal scholars about the feasibility of such an endeavour - does that qualify?

https://www.politico.eu/article/cou...election-2016-american-president-impeachment/

Impeachment was formally addressed in his first year of Presidency and has been on everyone's lips ever since. I'll add a screenshot since Wikipedia articles are subject to change over time.


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> What @billapong is trying to say is that it comes across as a bit gauche when you investigate someone for colluding with a foreign power to affect the result of an election, fail to find evidence to support that, so you investigate that same person for supposedly interfering with that investigation, and once you fail to conclusively prove criminality again you find another thing to investigate. There has to be a point at which you just admit you were wrong in the first place, otherwise you lose face. You can't string investigations ad infinitum _"until you get one past the goalie"_ and simultaneously claim that it's not a witch hunt. On the flip side, Trump does keep giving you guys ammunition, partially because of his general demeanour, partially due to his tendency to use hyperbole and exaggerating even the most mundane of things, and partially because his immediate circle is more leaky then a rooftop hit by a cluster bomb.



There was more than enough grounds to open an investigation into Trump after he was obviously favoured by the Kremlin, he made live requests on television for their support and the Trump tower meeting between Jr, Kushner, Manafort and the Russian Mafia. Mueller did a disservice by not making Trump go for a deposition or looking into his financials.
He is even more dead-to-rights in the impeachment inquiry as theres insurmountable evidence against him this time. If the USA wasn't the most corrupt western country, he would be out already.



billapong said:


> Anyway, to see you simply dismiss anything I could find on Fox News as fake means you're not even worth the 10 or so minutes


I understand it's difficult for somebody like you with a sub 20 IQ, but to the majority of the world it's incredibly obvious what agenda Fox News has so anything they state is immediately discredited.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> There was more than enough grounds to open an investigation into Trump after he was obviously favoured by the Kremlin, he made live requests on television for their support and the Trump tower meeting between Jr, Kushner, Manafort and the Russian Mafia. Mueller did a disservice by not making Trump go for a deposition or looking into his financials.
> He is even more dead-to-rights in the impeachment inquiry as theres insurmountable evidence against him this time. If the USA wasn't the most corrupt western country, he would be out already.


I understand that you think you're smarter and more well-versed in the legal system than a former F.B.I. director and an army of lawyers, but Occam's Razor dictates that the most likely scenario is probably true - the investigation concluded that the campaign was approached by Russian officials and while initially they were happy to see this outpouring of support, they ultimately rebuffed it and did not participate. So says the Mueller Report, which was compiled over the course of years of investigating the matter. You're welcome to have a differing opinion, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, just be mindful of the fact that such opinions are fairly easily dismissed as hearsay.


----------



## billapong (Oct 26, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> There was more than enough grounds to open an investigation into Trump after he was obviously favoured by the Kremlin, he made live requests on television for their support and the Trump tower meeting between Jr, Kushner, Manafort and the Russian Mafia. Mueller did a disservice by not making Trump go for a deposition or looking into his financials.
> He is even more dead-to-rights in the impeachment inquiry as theres insurmountable evidence against him this time. If the USA wasn't the most corrupt western country, he would be out already.
> 
> 
> I understand it's difficult for somebody like you with a sub 20 IQ, but to the majority of the world it's incredibly obvious what agenda Fox News has so anything they state is immediately discredited.



I never said there wasn't evidence to look into the collusion stuff, but once the findings came out that he's not guilty the issue should have been dropped. There also might be something to this Ukraine stuff, because if you follow a driver around for 300 miles you're more then likely going to see that driver commit a traffic violation. The thing I have a problem with is that since the Democrats have been planning on impeaching him from the get to it could have been ANY reason. They just sat back and tried to find something they could use as ammo instead of actually trying to work things out, accept their loss at the election, accept they were wrong about collusion and be a good sport and admit they were wrong and move on. I don't like sore losers or people who hold onto their hatred and can't let go.

There's nothing wrong with Fox. It's a Pro-Conservative and once you understand that reading it can be very beneficial. It's not like CNN that doesn't follow proper journalistic standards. There's nothing wrong with picking a side, especially when you're up front about it. What is wrong is when you try to say you're neutral, don't follow proper standards and then go about your business in a shady manner. I enjoy NBC a lot, they are also Liberal leaning, but they have mostly well thought out and written material. If you're interested in learning what proper journalism consists of maybe you should visit the BBC's website and read about their "standards" (big link at the bottom), which should prove to be insightful about how to go about things in a valid manner (their info covers the basics you'd learn in college about proper journalism).

To simply black list Fox News because of their political leaning is doing yourself a disservice. I mean, even though I laugh at the lack of quality contained in CNN articles, I still read the site, because I want to know what the opposition is thinking and is up to, but if you want to be closed minded that's your loss. I'm just trying to help.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> I never said there wasn't evidence to look into the collusion stuff, but once the findings came out that he's not guilty the issue should have been dropped. There also might be something to this Ukraine stuff, because if you follow a driver around for 300 miles you're more then likely going to see that driver commit a traffic violation. The thing I have a problem with is that since the Democrats have been planning on impeaching him from the get to it could have been ANY reason. They just sat back and tried to find something they could use as ammo instead of actually trying to work things out, accept their loss at the election, accept they were wrong about collusion and be a good sport and admit they were wrong and move on. I don't like sore losers or people who hold onto their hatred and can't let go.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with Fox. It's a Pro-Conservative and once you understand that reading it can be very beneficial. It's not like CNN that doesn't follow proper journalistic standards. There's nothing wrong with picking a side, especially when you're up front about it. What is wrong is when you try to say you're neutral, don't follow proper standards and then go about your business in a shady manner. I enjoy NBC a lot, they are also Liberal leaning, but they have mostly well though out and written material. If you're interested in learning what proper journalism consists of maybe you should visit the BBC's website and read about their "standards" (big link at the bottom), which should prove to be insightful about how to go about things in a valid manner.
> 
> To simply black list Fox News because of their political leaning is doing yourself a disservice. I mean, even though I laugh at the lack of quality contained in CNN articles, I still read the site, because I want to know what the opposition is thinking and is up to, but if you want to be closed minded that's your loss. I'm just trying to help.


There's a lot wrong with Fox, in the same way there's a lot wrong with the rest of the media establishment which, at present, is more concerned with generating ad revenue than with delivering news to the people. It's foolish to support one salesman of snake oil and condemn other snake oil salesmen when they're all selling snake oil, especially when you're doing so solely because they support your agenda. They're all "news entertainment" at this point, at least in my estimation.


----------



## billapong (Oct 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> There's a lot wrong with Fox, in the same way there's a lot wrong with the rest of the media establishment which, at present, is more concerned with generating ad revenue than with delivering news to the people. It's foolish to support one salesman of snake oil and condemn other snake oil salesmen when they're all selling snake oil, especially when you're doing so solely because they support your agenda. They're all "news entertainment" at this point, at least in my estimation.



Sure, there's a lot wrong with Fox, but they do have neutral content, follow proper journalistic standards and do feature opposing viewpoints. I can remember when Fox News started and it was laughed at as an entertainment channel (this is when CNN was bipartisan), but now CNN is pure tabloid trash and Fox is more honorable. It's commonly known they are pro-conservative and I have no problem with that. This could be applied to NBC in reverse, they are pro-Liberal, but very comparable (though, NBC doesn't go far-Left in most cases). You simply should realize they are a conservative leaning site when reading the material. I mean, the entire model for every single News site is basically the same thing, which is why I skip most of the "talk" shows and go straight to the news (plus, it's not all politics). I don't support Fox more than I support any other news website that follows basic standards as I visit a lot of news sites, it's just CNN is owned by a Liberal democrat that hates Trump and their bias shows really badly. If they were to follow basic standards then I would hold them in higher regards then the shit you see about "Who said this about this person today" in those bright yellow publications in the checkout isle of your local grocery store.

My main point is that they do follow standards and that not reading them is doing yourself a disservice, because then you're only getting one point of view (in this case only the Liberal point of view). You should really seek out all of the information before making decisions, just not one set of data that's been presented. I like to have all of the data before making a decision. So by not understanding the opposing sides views you're setting yourself up for failure. It's basic pretty basic stuff. You should understand the value in having as much information as possible to make a more informed decision. I mean, I was taught these basic independent/critical thinking skills back starting in the 3rd grade, but I hear now they don't teach independent thinking anymore and you have to wait until college to learn a limited version of critical thinking (and pay $30,000 for it). ROFL....


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> Sure, there's a lot wrong with Fox, but they do have neutral content, follow proper journalistic standards and do feature opposing viewpoints. I can remember when Fox News started and it was laughed at as an entertainment channel (this is when CNN was bipartisan), but now CNN is pure tabloid trash and Fox is more honorable. It's commonly known they are pro-conservative and I have no problem with that. This could be applied to NBC in reverse, they are pro-Liberal, but very comparable (though, NBC doesn't go far-Left in most cases). You simply should realize they are a conservative leaning site when reading the material. I mean, the entire model for every single News site is basically the same thing, which is why I skip most of the "talk" shows and go straight to the news (plus, it's not all politics). I don't support Fox more than I support any other news website that follows basic standards as I visit a lot of news sites, it's just CNN is owned by a Liberal democrat that hates Trump and their bias shows really badly. If they were to follow basic standards then I would hold them in higher regards then the shit you see about "Who said this about this person today" in those bright yellow publications in the checkout isle of your local grocery store.


As long as you're aware of the fact that you're a product to them, that's fine - just don't let them muddy your own view of reality just because they agree with you. Do the opposite - look at what people who *don't* agree with you to challenge yourself, that's the only way to grow.


----------



## billapong (Oct 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> As long as you're aware of the fact that you're a product to them, that's fine - just don't let them muddy your own view of reality just because they agree with you. Do the opposite - look at what people who *don't* agree with you to challenge yourself, that's the only way to grow.



Which is why most of the sites on my bookmark folder under "News" are Left leaning (plus, half of the 20 some links aren't even syndication's/organizations in the USA). I don't like to limit myself if I want the truth. I got sick of that in school with the Liberal teachers only giving me one side of the issue (and then telling me what to think about the issue (opposed to presenting me with unbiased facts and letting me decide)). Luckily, the Liberals were just starting to invade the school system so most of my education wasn't biased (like it is today).


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2019)

billapong said:


> Which is why most of the sites on my bookmark folder under "News" are Left leaning (plus, half of the 20 some links aren't even syndication's/organizations in the USA). I don't like to limit myself if I want the truth. I got sick of that in school with the Liberal teachers only giving me one side of the issue.


That can't be hard considering the fact that most news sites period are left-leaning.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I do. Is Wikipedia satisfactory?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump
> 
> ...


Whats even the point for impeachment? His term is almost up, 2020 is coming. There's no point. Unless they fear Trump will win reelection so they have to get rid of him now to prevent him winning again. So basically all their confidence that their political party will win is no where to be found. All that confidence that Democrats will win, Trump has no chance, they don't even believe it themselves when they say it. So they have to get rid of him now. I don't believe them when they say a Democrat will still win and this impeachment is only about the principle, its about punishing bad acts. I think there is more to it then that. I think they actually think Trump is going to win 2020 and they are just bluffing.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Whats even the point for impeachment? His term is almost up, 2020 is coming. There's no point. Unless they fear Trump will win reelection so they have to get rid of him now to prevent him winning again. So basically all their confidence that their political party will win is no where to be found. All that confidence that Democrats will win, Trump has no chance, they don't even believe it themselves when they say it. So they have to get rid of him now. I don't believe them when they say a Democrat will still win and this impeachment is only about the principle, its about punishing bad acts. I think there is more to it then that. I think they actually think Trump is going to win 2020 and they are just bluffing.



i agree on some point it's like a COD gunfight you need to conserve your ammo for the long haul not go guns blazing hoping to hit the target with an inaccurate gun then again who said a 2nd impeachment for another reason (I'm sure ALOT of ammo drops will occur within the next 4 years if he gets re elected that being said if donald wants to remain in office even after re election he needs to be methodical and plan to prevent himself from doing stupid shit otherwise if democrats gain majority in both parts the outcome will be very different


----------



## Xzi (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> A bit late to the party, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this is a purposeful misread. What Mulvaney actually said was that the withdrawal of funds was done specifically to elicit a response, in this case co-operation in the 2016 election hacking investigation, which is still on-going.


Which makes two separate politically-motivated attempts to extort a foreign government for campaign assistance instead of one.  Mulvaney's statements did a lot more harm than good, which is a big part of the reason he made a half-assed attempt to withdraw those statements just hours later.  I'm sure it won't be long until he's canned, but the damage has already been done.



Foxi4 said:


> The quid pro quo *you're looking for* is a demand for help in Trump's own election campaign


Precisely what Bill Taylor confirmed, along with Gordon Sondland to a lesser extent.


----------



## notimp (Oct 27, 2019)

Point is bad PR. But also constitution. Because its not nothing if you want to undermine your political candidate on the opposite side by withholding US military assistance.

So its legitimate. But its not likely to succeed, but and its also used to damage the image of the person in question.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Whats even the point for impeachment? His term is almost up, 2020 is coming. There's no point.


The "point" is upholding the constitution and maintaining rule of law in this country so as not to descend into corrupt banana republic status.  If Nixon had Bill Barr and Fox News on his side, I doubt he would've been under any pressure to leave office.  That's not the way history played out, however, so presidents are still subject to legal repercussions; even for a lot less than the things Trump has done.


----------



## brickmii82 (Oct 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The "point" is upholding the constitution and maintaining rule of law in this country so as not to descend into corrupt banana republic status.  If Nixon had Bill Barr and Fox News on his side, I doubt he would've been under any pressure to leave office.  That's not the way history played out, however, so presidents are still subject to legal repercussions; even for a lot less than the things Trump has done.


Nuh uh. Presidents are above the law you silly peasant


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The "point" is upholding the constitution and maintaining rule of law in this country so as not to descend into corrupt banana republic status.  If Nixon had Bill Barr and Fox News on his side, I doubt he would've been under any pressure to leave office.  That's not the way history played out, however, so presidents are still subject to legal repercussions; even for a lot less than the things Trump has done.



Right, right. No political motive at all. Upholding the Constitution, _thats _what's driving this.
Just some good-ole senators lookin' out for us common folk.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 27, 2019)

0x3000027E said:


> Right, right. No political motive at all. Upholding the Constitution, _thats _what's driving this.
> Just some good-ole senators lookin' out for us common folk.


He asked what the point was, not what the motives may be. Nice ignoratio elenchi though, with a hint of strawman.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Which makes two separate politically-motivated attempts to extort a foreign government for campaign assistance instead of one.  Mulvaney's statements did a lot more harm than good, which is a big part of the reason he made a half-assed attempt to withdraw those statements just hours later.  I'm sure it won't be long until he's canned, but the damage has already been done.
> 
> Precisely what Bill Taylor confirmed, along with Gordon Sondland to a lesser extent.


Like I said, this is a ridiculous take on the situation and a purposeful misread of what was said. The investigation into the 2016 election hacking predates the phone call, by a lot. Moreover, it does not serve the interests of the Trump administration - the opposite is true, it's a hindrence. Ideally Trump would like the investigation concluded as quickly as possible because it casts a false shadow of illegitimacy on his presidency, his previous actions confirm that's how he feels about it. The investigation explicitly serves the interest of national security, not Trump's campaign, so your hot take is lukewarm.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Like I said, this is a ridiculous take on the situation and a purposeful misread of what was said. The investigation into the 2016 election hacking predates the phone call, by a lot. Moreover, it does not serve the interests of the Trump administration - the opposite is true, it's a hindrence.


Oh, we're still talking about two different things.  Mulvaney admitted quid pro quo in regards to opening an investigation into the loony 4chan-derived conspiracy theory about Ukraine interfering with the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary.  Not in regards to looking into the Mueller investigation.  Though either would've been an attempt to benefit Trump, and by extension, his campaign.  Not that the White House transcript of the phone call supports this nonsense regardless, so it's hardly worth debating.



Foxi4 said:


> The investigation explicitly serves the interest of national security, not Trump's campaign, so your hot take is lukewarm.


The Mueller investigation served the interest of national security.  An investigation _into_ the Mueller investigation serves only the interest of undermining national security for partisan purposes.  Odds are it goes absolutely nowhere, but if it creates any kind of temporary distraction away from impeachment proceedings, then I'm sure Trump will be pleased with this waste of taxpayer dollars anyway.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh, we're still talking about two different things. Mulvaney admitted quid pro quo in regards to opening an investigation into the loony 4chan-derived conspiracy theory about Ukraine interfering with the 2016 election on behalf of Hillary.  Not in regards to looking into the Mueller investigation.  Though either would've been an attempt to benefit Trump, and by extension, his campaign.  Not that the White House transcript of the phone call supports this nonsense regardless, so it's hardly worth debating.
> 
> The Mueller investigation served the interest of national security.  An investigation _into_ the Mueller investigation serves only the interest of undermining national security for partisan purposes.  Odds are it goes absolutely nowhere, but if it creates any kind of temporary distraction away from impeachment proceedings, then I'm sure Trump will be pleased with this waste of taxpayer dollars anyway.


You're referring to CrowdStrike, you can call it by name. We're absolutely talking about the same thing, investigating the 2016 election hacking is an integral part of the election interference investigation, which in turn led to the Mueller probe, all three are intrinsically connected, so don't twist this around on me. Is it a wrong-headed move? Sure, the conspiracy has little to do with reality. With that said, the US government has investigated dumber things before, so it's not beyond the pale. Does it serve Trump to investigate the DNC server hacking, including silly conspiracy theories? Not in particular, I don't know why you'd draw that connection. As for investigating the Mueller probe itself, it absolutely does have plenty to do with national security *if* it was fruit of a poisonous tree - if it turns out that all this nonsense was specifically put in motion to remove Trump because he was _an inconvenient candidate_, it's most certainly worth looking into. There's no shortage of evidence when it comes to anti-Trump bias in the higher echelons of power, dating back to before he was even a nominee. If you want to be a part of a democracy in which the ruling party picks and chooses who gets to run and drowns everybody else in ridiculous investigations in search of a crime, that's fine - as far as I'm concerned, all of this should've been concluded as soon as Mueller established that the Trump campaign did not coordinate with Russia. Of course that's a pretty big "if", but that's besides the point.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Whats even the point for impeachment? His term is almost up, 2020 is coming. There's no point. Unless they fear Trump will win reelection so they have to get rid of him now to prevent him winning again. So basically all their confidence that their political party will win is no where to be found. All that confidence that Democrats will win, Trump has no chance, they don't even believe it themselves when they say it. So they have to get rid of him now. I don't believe them when they say a Democrat will still win and this impeachment is only about the principle, its about punishing bad acts. I think there is more to it then that. I think they actually think Trump is going to win 2020 and they are just bluffing.


Well, the 'principle' that they state is congressional oversight of the executive branch. The political statement is 'no one is above the law'. I personally think Trump's political brand has lost its favor in most swing states and nationwide momentum is stalling. How exactly did Conservatives lose the house if his political momentum has only been gaining? He certainly would need more support than 2016 to beat anyone other than Clinton or Biden which are two of the least enthusiastic candidates by measuring grass-root supporters.

There are many who are looking at campaign promises that were made and which ones were kept. The wall, ACA repeal and replace, lock her up, withdraw from endless wars in middle east, those haven't gone smoothly. Do we count ISIS as defeated? Taxes were cut, I guess I benefited more than most due to brackets but everyone got something. My state taxes went up due to the changes but that's not going to effect most that live in deep red states. Property is cheaper, less tax culpability.

If he wasn't in a quagmire of legal strife on a daily basis and didn't enter in trade wars he would have an advantage in the current economy as an incumbent. While day-traders may turn to excitement by market fluctuations due to the inane tweet or policy decision of the day others with pensions tethered to low risk mutual funds want more... assured stability. He could have campaigned on that against a progressive candidate and with a strong economy 'killed them at the polls'. I don't see how you think political strategy of 'owning the liberals' vs carrying the concerns of the majority would be in a conservative's best interest.

I guess what I'm saying with this huge rant is just because a few are hyper partisan doesn't mean the majority of election deciding voters are. They swing for what suits them and the candidate who appeals to them will win the race. The 'base' will impact some amounts but without the independents, no one wins. It remains to be seen if Trump/conservatives will appeal to these voters in 2020 when they didn't unanimously do so in 2018.

EDIT: My third paragraph was not meant to be targeting you specifically but those who value Trump's Twitter/media antics.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Does it serve Trump to investigate the DNC server hacking, including silly conspiracy theories? Not in particular, I don't know why you'd draw that connection.


Discrediting the Mueller report's findings and turning accusations of seeking foreign aid for a political campaign back onto the Democrats are both very much relevant to Trump's interests.  I don't think attempts to make Hillary Clinton the face of the entire 2020 Democratic party will be successful, but it's all about his ego rather than anything logic-based.



Foxi4 said:


> As for investigating the Mueller probe itself, it absolutely does have plenty to do with national security *if* it was fruit of a poisonous tree - if it turns out that all this nonsense was specifically put in motion to remove Trump because he was _an inconvenient candidate_, it's most certainly worth looking into. There's no shortage of evidence when it comes to anti-Trump bias in the higher echelons of power, dating back to before he was even a nominee.


Give me a break.  The investigation was initiated by a Republican deputy AG, led by a Republican special counsel, and didn't result in any conclusively damning evidence against Trump himself, let alone any impeachment proceedings.  Over thirty indictments and convictions otherwise, but fall guys gonna take the fall.

As far as "bias" goes, Trump got more free air time than any other candidate in history.  Every network, including CNN and MSNBC, knew his populist rhetoric was bullshit and a Trump presidency would be great for their corporate sponsors' bottom line.  If you want to see what media bias really looks like, Bernie Sanders is a much better example.  They do everything they can to avoid even mentioning his name, let alone covering any of his rallies or campaign events.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 27, 2019)

billapong said:


> I'm not against investigating Trump, but when the investigations turn out no collusion or whatever then I'm against the side that set the rules that no longer want to follow the set rules and accept the results.
> 
> I'm against this impeachment investigation because it was planned from before Trump took office. It's not about him doing anything wrong; it's about removing him from office at any cost. If the investigation does indeed turn up evidence and he is impeached because of the evidence and fair and just hearings then that's fine, but right now at the current point in time this it's all been rigged against him, which is why if I pulls through he's going to gain more support from his base and people that realize what the Democrats actually planned and tried to do from the start.
> 
> ...



Why do you think republicans spent so much time and effort into Benghazi ($ 7 million) and Hillary's emails (? I've seen estimates of 20million but no concrete figures)? It was a considerable amount of tax dollars for two investigations that carried on for years longer than Trump has endured to not come up with ONE conviction - Ok, they convicted Libyan militants involved w/ Benghazi attack but no Americans. If you think political assassination through investigation is something that has just been invented to take out Trump... I fear you must not be old enough to vote or wise enough to do so with any true intention. There are two reasons why Clinton was and will be continued to be attacked at brought up in right wing media at every turn, they knew she was eventually going to run for president and it is an easy fundraising strategy. Perhaps the same can be said for Trump despite his tenor in politics, time will tell. 

Don't mistake me for saying that Clinton was not responsible for poor decision making on either account but just spend enough time to realize few things in our country are truly novel. Anyone who has grey in their hair should be able to attest for that.

Also, don't presume that if a few democrats did have such an intention that it absolves the person being investigated. Not everyone has perfect motives but if the evidence supports an investigation then it is legitimate.

Delusions of grandeur much? I'm not going to request personal information as I'm sure is against some code of conduct somewhere on these forums, but pray tell how does one bankrupt Liberal organizations?

Finally, my thoughts on the counter investigation and Trumps supposed gain of support. Unless they find CIA agents that fessed up and admitted: "yea we committed treasonous acts, interfered in our elections by posing as Russians who contacted the Trump campaign to be able to entrap them with a collusion investigation and then tricked the FBI to get on board with the aid of a few FBI agents who wanted to entrap The Trump campaign" Do I need to continue, really... Sure I guess if they find that I'll go vote for him in 2020, despite any policy disagreements I may hold. Just don't hold your breath for that outcome.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You're referring to CrowdStrike, you can call it by name. We're absolutely talking about the same thing, investigating the 2016 election hacking is an integral part of the election interference investigation, which in turn led to the Mueller probe, all three are intrinsically connected, so don't twist this around on me. Is it a wrong-headed move? Sure, the conspiracy has little to do with reality. With that said, the US government has investigated dumber things before, so it's not beyond the pale.
> As for investigating the Mueller probe itself, it absolutely does have plenty to do with national security *if* it was fruit of a poisonous tree - if it turns out that all this nonsense was specifically put in motion to remove Trump because he was _an inconvenient candidate_, it's most certainly worth looking into. There's no shortage of evidence when it comes to anti-Trump bias in the higher echelons of power, dating back to before he was even a nominee. If you want to be a part of a democracy in which the ruling party picks and chooses who gets to run and drowns everybody else in ridiculous investigations in search of a crime, that's fine - as far as I'm concerned, all of this should've been concluded as soon as Mueller established that the Trump campaign did not coordinate with Russia. Of course that's a pretty big "if", but that's besides the point.



I had to reread your statement as I missed the point you were making, but sure I'll skip to the point that I agree about it being a big 'If'. 



Foxi4 said:


> There's no shortage of evidence when it comes to anti-Trump bias in the higher echelons of power, dating back to before he was even a nominee.



This part in particular though, I'm curious, what are you referring to exactly? When Pres Obama roasted Trump at a political function in 2011 over the birth certificate conspiracies? Or something else?

This corespondent dinner in 2011 is what I'm referring to:


I mean sure Hollywood/California leans to the left and they tend to demean and insult those that disagree with them. Trump put himself in a precarious situation by relentlessly pushing that conspiracy on talk shows around 2011. I've heard he was strongly considering a 2012 run as a republican candidate but never committed, he gave a concession speech though which was all I caught at that time as it stuck out to me as odd when I didn't even know he was invested. I mean he's floated this idea along since the late 80's I kind of never thought to pay attention to someone who says things for headlines in the news, I just always thought it was empty self-promotion - free brand advertisement.


----------



## notimp (Oct 27, 2019)

0x3000027E said:


> Right, right. No political motive at all. Upholding the Constitution, _thats _what's driving this.
> Just some good-ole senators lookin' out for us common folk.


Its all three things.

Its legitimate.
Its done to harm the public image of the Potus.
Its unlikely to suceed, because of the majorities youd have to achieve.

If you think back in history, its more likely that a president will resign, before getting impeached. So 'public pressure' is part of whats needed. Especially since in many aspects a ruling president enjoys legal immunity.

System works as it is supposed to. Its not unfair, simply because you dont like it.



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Whats new is this complete disregard for the sanctity of the process. So storming a chamber of congress because you want to prevent a hearing from getting held, kind of very problematic, because it prevents the politcal system from working.

Same as with not letting any laws pass. This is only done by a minority in congress to prevent political progress. Because they know, that they cant get numbers, and any change will be 'worse' for them than they fixed up things currently. For immediate action they sign presidential decrees, and that is how you prevent democracy from working. While still keeping america functional.

Conservatives are the bad guys here. Objectively.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I had to reread your statement as I missed the point you were making, but sure I'll skip to the point that I agree about it being a big 'If'.
> 
> This part in particular though, I'm curious, what are you referring to exactly? When Pres Obama roasted Trump at a political function in 2011 over the birth certificate conspiracies? Or something else?
> 
> ...


Some links have been posted earlier in the long-running history of TRUMPtemp threads, this isn't the first nor the last one, so I can see how one would get lost in the sauce. I already posted this article by Politico:

https://www.politico.eu/article/cou...election-2016-american-president-impeachment/

But the number one piece of evidence is of course the famous exchange between Agent Strzok and his mistress, Lisa Page. During the exchange they've explicitly stated that "they" won't let Trump be elected, and it is unclear to me what kind of "they" they were referring to. If government agencies involve themselves with manipulating the results of elections then it's bad news for Democracy in America, but that's just my take on the issue. The problem with the government investigating the government is just that - conflicts of interest and professional ties often times obscure the truth.


----------



## notimp (Oct 27, 2019)

@Foxi4:

Stop doing that. If you post something highly controversial, that you want others to look into - post a source link.

Dont say 'of course they said that...'.

About 'they won't let someone be elected'.

How this works:

If its your own party - yes. You've already seen that in the recent past, with high profile democrate donors announcing, that they will sponsor Trump if Elizabeth Warren would become forerunner. Last election you've already seen how the democratic party leadership prevented Bernie Sanders from getting a chance at the ticket - by trowing their own counter campaign shortly before the decision on a candidate was held.

If you talk about election campaigns, everything goes there. I've read interviews with campaign managers that get booked by different campaigns internationally, that talk about actively engineering smear campaigns against their political opponent in some african state, and then get booked by an east european country to manage their campaign shortly thereafter. There arent very many of those with high accolades available at any time, and they make a living selling their services around the world. Its a trade.
Here is one of the tamer ones in an interview:


If you talk about election manipulation - yes, gerrymandering is exactly that.

If you talk about the voting process in specifics - yes when you can pull some strings in texas, in regards to announcing polling numbers, which Bush Jrs brother famously was involved in. But there you usually only talk small numbers of votes you may or may not be able to flip.

If you are talking about pre-announcing results when margins of error are still too hight to call a close election, yes you had that with Bush as well. That produces effects, where news stations copy the fist one that calls an election, because they don't want to be perceived 'late' and then 'taking back' a result produces so much problems for media outlets in general, that the pressure to do so would be so high - you basically would have to come with a court  document for them to say 'yes - we mistakingly called election results'. But then again, this is only an issue with very close call elections. (Bush Jr.)

If you are talking about the voting process in general. You are an idiot. Because, that cant be 'fixed' easily in modern democracies, usually. WHY?

Simple. What are elections? You have have a room. You have delegates of both campaigns in that room overlooking procedure. You have a simple as f*ck procedure with paperslips and people counting crosses, that everyone understands, and you have people looking each other over the shoulder. You have the possibility of recounts.


If you are completely assinine, backwards dumbf*cks, you introduce 'voting mashines' into the process - which eliminate the element of 'every bystander understanding the process' and you introduce a fucking huge issue.

Thats why usually only the US and some third world countries go with voting mashines. Because they are idiots being sold on 'more easy' by some company that screws together windows 95 boxes with two buttons for a living.

That said, even with voting machines, you would have to introduce an attack that scales (f.e. get into the systems they are set up from - but at least the admins there usually have fraud prevention procedures in place).

You could also attack the systems that transmits the counted votes and aggregates them in a national database, where the media takes its data from. In the past those were done via phonecalls - and that was kind of OK/secure enough. The more complexity you introduce, the worse of you are. In any case - once the vote count is announced, the election staffers, chrosscheck with their own results again to make sure they match.

And if they dont - or if any irregularities are found > recount. Which you can do - with paper ballots.
-

So, please - STOP being the IDIOT that goes through life worrying that 'they' might change a face people liked. In world conspiracy.

To personalize politics (make people talk about Trump for 80% of the postings in here) is also a manipulation strategy - because a single face, doesnt count for jack. Its always at least a group of individuals, that give advice to that face - and those either come with them, or from institutions.

If you talk about bought favors with donation money - YES, thats there to manipulate your 'faces' and 'parties' decisions. Outright, and very clearly.

The only way you prevent that from happening is, to make it possible for a candidate to run a basic campaign on the STATES money (funds), and if they get traction you feature them in public debates, which cost them nothing, which is in place in every good democracy, but certainly NOT the US. They only way you could/would fix that is - to make laws against elections spending. But you certainly dont make those.

And in regards to circumventing those - yes the US is world leading (for democracies) in that as well, because the entire 'election pack' thing, is simply a croney process to circumvent the lax spending limits that are in place in your country.

Everybody knows those things.

So which is it for you? Which flavor of manipulation from 'them' are you so worried about - because they are all in place.

Coming back to the simple voting procedure at the core - this cant be manipulated easily in real democratic elections.

You vote in secret (Your own decision). In a public place (someone else cant pressure you - say work, say your husband in that setting). On a piece of paper, that then gets counted, with representatives of both parties looking over each others shoulder, and understanding the process fully. Once the count is finished, they pick up a phone, and tell their results to an aggregator (today this is a database), then independant media calls the result, if they see it (with statistical probability), then a final result is announced after that - and every body along the way is crosschecking. If irregularities are found, you have recounts, or have to repeat elections. And yes there are laws for that as well. Its a pretty failproof system. And it has to be because - otherwise OF COURSE at every point someone would try to change outcomes. And everyone is actively doing so at every point they see fit currently as well.

Your contribution to this: Worrying - what would happen if someone has the power like He-Man (Master of the Universe).

Get educated. If your idea of political systems comes from the X-Files. Have you done your homework? Before your next posting, write me a three page article about systems of checks and balances within the US government. Then share it with the class, so everyone can learn.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> @Foxi4:
> 
> Stop doing that. If you post something highly controversial, that you want others to look into - post a source link.
> 
> ...


Your criticism would be very biting if only I didn't post the link to the Politico article I referenced. As for the texts, their contents are well-known to everyone familiar with the matter, they're literally public record - that's hardly "controversial", it's fact. If restating widely known and public information is what you require, here you go:


> In early August 2016, after Page asked Strzok, "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!", Strzok responded: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

You can't expect people to hold your hand through everything, particularly things you should already know if you're participating in the discussion. The crux of the issue with their texts is the "we" - establishing who "we" was is important, and unfortunately I don't buy Strzok's excuse given at the time. You might think that by "we" they mean themselves, but I find it hard to believe that they thought they could do that all by themselves, so it either points to an anti-Trump bias in the agency _or_ it's very unfortunate hyperbole.

As for "checks and balances", I'm more than familiar with the principles governing American elections, and I'm afraid that I won't entertain your request of writing an essay just because you got mildly upset. I was pretty clear what kind of interference I was referencing, you're welcome to just scroll up and find out yourself.


----------



## notimp (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Your criticism would be very biting if only I didn't post the link to the Politico article I referenced.


In there I didnt find the statement that 'they would prevent him from becoming president'. Thats what made me angry in the first place. If you have indeed seen it, please quote it in here (full sentence/quote) and I'll look at it again. Honestly. I'd be interested in that exchange as we'll, only not so much from a point of 'someone is telling us, the truth, on the internet' but out of curiosity.

Get to know the systems, then you are less likely to fall for stories. 

If you want horror stories about manipulating election campaigns - here, we have them as well: 
https://gbatemp.net/threads/corrupt-politicians-extortion-money.535652/page-2#post-8617293

But again, part of that is how its designed to work (everyone with money competing against other people with money). Its very important that the core voting procedure is not easily manipulated though (which it isnt (if you dont use voting machines)).

And the easiest way to manipulate those systems is to make votes count 'differently' depending of where they were boxed. Which of course the US has in place as well (electoral delegates). No other western democracy.
But this can be argued to be in place because otherwise the middle of the country would get fucked over every time (because of population concentrations at the coasts).

But if you look at gerrymandering - this is outright manipulation of the process, in public. And its fair game, until someone fixes it in laws.

Which is why the republicans are so interested in an everlasting stalemate (no laws getting passed in congress). (Thats the short version.)

If you dont know anything - dont take shortcuts like 'what if they can switch the president behind the scenes', someone is telling us! I only need to know who 'they' are. Get to know the systems that are in place, then you'll unterstand. Its public information. As in media talks about it all the time. (FOX news might not tell you, but then, they are hardly a news source at this point..  )


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> In there i didnt fin the statement that 'they would prevent him from becoming president'. Thats what made me angry in the first place. If you have indeed seen in please quote it in here (full sentence/quote) and I'll look at it again. Honestly. I'd be interested in that exchange as we'll only not so much from a point of 'someone is telling us, the truth, on the internet' but out of curiosity.
> 
> Get to know the systems, then you are less likely to fall for stories.
> 
> ...


I am also interested in passing as few laws in Congress as possible, and hopefully further deregulation, until the government is "so small I can barely see it" - that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a different way of looking at things. Conservative-minded people believe that people should be left to their own devices and establish relations with contracts, which relegated the government to its most basic functions. Liberal-minded people believe the opposite, that interactions between people should be strictly regulated in order to ensure fairness, that puts additional responsibilities on the government. Fairness is the motivating principle of any left-minded person, but conservatives and liberals have a very different understanding of what is fair. Conservatives (and I am talking strictly about the American definition, as the word functions differently in Europe) on the other hand are motivated by freedom, at the cost of almost everything else. To a conservative, executing a contract that is not beneficial to one of the parties is entirely fair as both parties signed it knowing the terms, to a liberal that's exploitative. To a conservative, an individual and their rights are paramount, but that also includes the right to make poor decisions - liberals do not share that belief. Broad strokes, I know, but that's the gist of it. It's very much a point of view issue, not a good versus evil issue.


----------



## notimp (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I am also interested in passing as few laws in Congress as possible, and hopefully further deregulation, until the government is "so small I can barely see it" - that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a different way of looking at things.


Yes, its undemocratic.

No joke.

The short version goes as follows. American 'caucasion' populations are shrinking (not because of conspiracies, but because if you are wealthy and live in cities or suburbs, you get less children (more money for better life style (your children cost you more, than poor people ones, because otherwise the neighbors would talk), neighbors do it as well), statisically (happens all around the world)). You make up for that with immigration. Those populations are very much less likely to vote republican in general though - so the republican party - when still 'actionable' and in power - made laws to 'wall up'  their numbers through stuff like gerymandering. Which is outright fraud (in terms of how the system was supposed to work). But legal (Until someone 'fixes' the loophole).

Now - the republican party is very much engaged in finding strategies to also engage immigration populations to vote for core conservative interests, but until they see that succeeding - walling up congress from fixing the voting system in the US - is easier for them.

And indeed - you cant really blame them for it, because its legal.

So now you have disabled democracy (senate, law making) - and you coast by on presidential decrees. (Daily needed laws to keept things going. But they didn't go though a democratic process of law making, it was just one guy with a pen. That signed something he certaintainly didn't unterstand - if you look at Trump.).

Thats what this very, very obviously looks like from an outside perspective. (I'm a european citizen, we all know and talk about that, left and right alike. Because it isn't our country, we can joke about it - kind of thing.)


And concerning a 'slim gouvernment - that wont take me money!' what is that? Gouvernment working against its own interests? Do you really think, that this is a real thing?  Small gouvernment is another way of demanding deregulation of businesses. Why would you?

Its just saying one thing and meaning another.

Legitimately you could be for 'small gouvernment' in a failed state, where everyone has a brother an cousin working in the gouvernment, and counts on them for favours. But thats not a US problem currently. Megacorps are.

(If your economies are failing, one way of stabilizing economic systems is to produce millions of government jobs. But then your competitiveness usually tanks, and corruption becomes a big issue - so where that is happening, those countries, from a capitalist free economy standpoint have issues. The IMF, then f.e. would say 'make your governments smaller'. But in the US - whenever you hear that phrase currently - it just mean 'deregulate businesses more'. And then again - why?)


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> Yes, its undemocratic.
> 
> No joke.
> 
> ...


I disagree with the notion that corporations are the root of all problems in America, but as I said, it's a matter of your point of view. I also fail to see how deregulation or passing less laws in "undemocratic" in any way - the last thing I want the government to do is to regulate things that don't need regulating just so that "they're doing something", and if there is a sizable portion of the voting public that shares this sentiment then it is the designated role of their democratically elected officials to enact their will. You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that I'm an American, or live in America, or both, when neither is true. I simply want less government intrusion in my daily life, that's not too much to ask for. You absolutely do not need "a daily influx of laws" to "keep things going" - things will keep on going regardless, because people make things "go", not the government. The reason why the light is on in your room right now is because somewhere on the other end of a cable there's an electrician standing in front of a switchboard making sure that everything's working dandy - the government doesn't make that happen, your energy provider does, and they render you this service because you give them money. The same thing can be said about most things in life, in one way or another. The government is not the quantum of life - money is, or rather, the abstract concept of value resulting from your sacrifice of time and labour which you exchange for goods and services. Many of us Europeans tend to forget about that, very few people on the old continent share my views, most of them left in the 17th century to start a superpower on the other side of the ocean for laughs, and now we're here. To the casual observer it would appear that it was their principles that were more effective.


----------



## notimp (Oct 27, 2019)

That was worded too strongly on my part. They are not the source of all your problems. But small and medium enterprises are hurting because of market concentrations (Megacorps selling under cost for a few decades to then be able to pick up monopolies).

Megacorps are very helpful in international trade for example - but we know, that those profits, dont go back to America (or bigger European countries like germany) - at least not in a way that creates jobs) currently.

And you only can tackle that - through regulation. So if you make governments smaller...

(You reduce the pressure on bigger companies, is all I'm saying.)

I'm sure somehow you could also make a case, why Megacorp are essential for americas wellbeing these days ('international competition!'), but those cases are harder and harder to make.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The video above is in german. Sorry. I'll try to find something similar in english as well.

edit: Best thing I could come up with in five minutes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...9479f4-a2c5-11e7-b573-8ec86cdfe1ed_story.html
Thats the guy interviewed in the video above (sadly in german).

The point is not that he came from Belarus, and now works for Russia. The point is that political campaign designers on that level work internationally for  - essentially the best bidder, and that close to everything is fair game in campaigns. ("Build a wall" - is a great image, right? Never was sensible to build one, but it was an easier way to tell people, that you'd be for a tougher immigration policy with Mexico. And thats not even a good example. A good example would be to take peoples preferences by buying facebook data from third party companies, then equipping your staffers with iPads sporting 80 different interview guidelines, that get dynamically pulled up, before they knock on your door. Or smear campaigns, or...  Fear, uncertainty, doubt campaigns (famous Daisy ad: h**ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k) In campaigning, really almost anything goes.)


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> That was worded too strongly on my part. They are not the source of all your problems. But small and medium enterprises are hurting because of market concentrations (Megacorps selling under cost for a few decades to then be able to pick up monopolies).
> 
> Megacorps are very helpful in international trade for example - but we know, that those profits, dont go back to America (or bigger European countries like germany) - at least not in a way that create jobs) currently.
> 
> ...


You seem to subscribe to the idea that certain businesses are too big to fail - I don't. In fact, in many cases it is the government's interference in free enterprise that leads to the establishment of monopolies as restrictive regulation eliminates any possibility of competition. In a normal free market model customer is king, and if a given enterprise is providing a service or product that is sub-par, three new enterprises immediately start competing to take its place. Customers are left to vote with their wallet and only the best competitors survive until all redundancy is eliminated and the product delivered is perfectly satisfactory, which is never, as this process never really ends thanks to technological developments over time. In a highly regulated economy there's 500 boxes you need to tick, plus an additional 300 hoops to jump through before you're even allowed to get to the start line, and getting there is an expensive process which, you guessed it, eliminates smaller players from the race before they even start. Of course the truth is somewhere in the middle - you can't live in a society with no government as it would immediately turn to anarchy and collapse, you also can't run a society on the opposite extreme or you'll end up with a distopian nightmare along the lines of superpowered North Korea. It's a balancing act between freedoms and obligations, all in the pursuit of fairness, however you define it. Now, it's been a nice philosophical exchange, but I believe we're straying quite far away from the topic at hand, best if we return to it before we get completely lost in the weeds.

EDIT: No need to find a different video, I know a little German, I can handle it, if I ever feel inclined to watch it.


----------



## notimp (Oct 27, 2019)

I'm mostly subscribing to the fact that medium size german cities are becoming derilict, because, every third store there is vacant - because the 'specialists shop' ecosystem already died because of (first) big chains, and then Amazon.

In the US, think radioshack.

Then I'm thinking about, that Amazon doesnt pay taxes in germany at all (they use loopholes to pay in the most economically liberal european country, which interestingly enough, according to them, is small, but makes all the profits from their european business ventures). And that every time we want to regulate that -

Donald Trump threatens Germany with import taxes on cars.

Thats really how that works.

The effects (cities in the midlands dying), you have in the US as well. But its also about how taxes can work to compensate that. Design cities differently, stuff like that.

Thats also why Megacorps are good for the US in international trade, but bad for them domestically. (Their profits dont come back to the US.) In one simple example.

(The economics for this check out, btw - this really is, why cities in germany become derelict. And small and medium enterprises are dying, if essentially they are not 'export focused' (the best in their fields (small niches f.e.) internationally).)


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

notimp said:


> I'm mostly subscribing to the fact that medium size german cities are becoming derilict, because, every third store there is vacant - because the 'specialists shop' ecosystem already died because of (first) big chains, and then Amazon.
> 
> In the US, think radioshack.
> 
> ...


Good. Inefficient businesses that provide sub-par goods and services *should* go bankrupt, that's how the cookie crumbles. The "evil Amazon" you mention started off as a small book store in 1995, it's a relatively "young" business, in relative terms, and because of its good initial business plan and efficient operation it conquered the world. The same can be said about a lot of other "dot com era" start ups. In fact, most of the "mega corporations" that fuel our day to day life, for instance Google or eBay, we're founded in our lifetime, most times in a garage. I'm sorry to hear about derelict German cities, but I can think of a number of reasons why that's the case besides "evil mega corpos stealing people's jobs" - they're the same reasons why the "evil mega corporations" that immediately come to mind all primarily originate from the US, or other countries with relatively lax regulation - it enables rapid growth which is almost impossible to achieve in countries that stifle progress with reams of regulations, for instance countries like Germany. EU regulations added on top of the cake as extra icing certainly don't help. Like I said though, it's another discussion for another thread - let's not derail this one with economic theory.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The "point" is upholding the constitution and maintaining rule of law in this country so as not to descend into corrupt banana republic status.


How do you maintain all that when Trumps presidency is almost over, the damage is done already. You're like over 50 yrs too late, all the presidents are bought off. Your votes don't matter.




RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Well, the 'principle' that they state is congressional oversight of the executive branch. The political statement is 'no one is above the law'. I personally think Trump's political brand has lost its favor in most swing states and nationwide momentum is stalling. How exactly did Conservatives lose the house if his political momentum has only been gaining? He certainly would need more support than 2016 to beat anyone other than Clinton or Biden which are two of the least enthusiastic candidates by measuring grass-root supporters.
> 
> There are many who are looking at campaign promises that were made and which ones were kept. The wall, ACA repeal and replace, lock her up, withdraw from endless wars in middle east, those haven't gone smoothly. Do we count ISIS as defeated? Taxes were cut, I guess I benefited more than most due to brackets but everyone got something. My state taxes went up due to the changes but that's not going to effect most that live in deep red states. Property is cheaper, less tax culpability.
> 
> ...


I keep hearing the opposite that the Democrats need a miracle to win. It's either Bernie or Bust.

If taxes changes didn't effect deep red states why do you think that is? And do you see that as a positive or negative? Why is property cheaper in red states compared to blue?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> How do you maintain all that when Trumps presidency is almost over, the damage is done already. You're like over 50 yrs too late, all the presidents are bought off. Your votes don't matter.
> 
> I keep hearing the opposite that the Democrats need a miracle to win. It's either Bernie or Bust.
> 
> If taxes changes didn't effect deep red states why do you think that is? And do you see that as a positive or negative? Why is property cheaper in red states compared to blue?


I don't know why people actually think that - Sanders is an unelectable candidate, he has almost no chance of success.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know why people actually think that - Sanders is an unelectable candidate, he has almost no chance of success.


I got that from this opinion peace. Basically if they aren't successful in impeachment then they feel Bernie Sanders is their only savior to fight Trump.

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-bust-warningignore-it-trump-wins-opinion-1467225

Basically the Democratic Candidates are unelectable. They are just horrible at promoting themselves, they don't know how to work social media. The only one that I can think of who knows how to work media is Andrew Yang. People like to counter that by saying well if you pick a president based on memes then you are stupid, its all about policy over memes, but that's what people respond to nowadays, social media, that's just how things are.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> In fact, in many cases it is the government's interference in free enterprise that leads to the establishment of monopolies as restrictive regulation eliminates any possibility of competition.



Exactly.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The "point" is upholding the constitution and maintaining rule of law in this country so as not to descend into corrupt banana republic status.  .




That's fuckin' rich coming from the left. Jesus.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know why people actually think that - Sanders is an unelectable candidate, he has almost no chance of success.


Nationally, Sanders beats Trump by +9% in a recent CNN poll. This is consistent with a recent SurveyUSA poll and a recent FOX News poll.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> That's fuckin' rich coming from the left. Jesus.


If there's no substance in your post, it's probably not worth posting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Basically the Democratic Candidates are unelectable.


Many Democratic Candidates do very well against Trump in head-to-head polls.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If there's no substance in your post, it's probably not worth posting.
> 
> .




If it requires no explanation, then it has substance.


----------



## Bonehead (Oct 27, 2019)

ITT:  I'm 16 and Donald Trump is the greatest president ever.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Nationally, Sanders beats Trump by +9% in a recent CNN poll. This is consistent with a recent SurveyUSA poll and a recent FOX News poll.


Sanders literally almost died earlier this month. If you intend to vote for him, I sure hope you have a good VP pick too. I'm not even going to mention his policies from Loonbagia which have no basis in reality and cannot be enacted in the manner he promises. There isn't enough rich in the world for him to eat. You do you though, guys - it's your wasted vote. 

As far as polling is concerned, according to Moody's model Trump remains the favourite to win, which is to be expected when we look at who he's running against. Time will tell how all of this will turn out.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Sanders literally almost died earlier this month. If you intend to vote for him, I sure hope you have a good VP pick too. I'm not even going to mention his policies from Loonbagia which have no basis in reality and cannot be enacted in the manner he promises. There isn't enough rich in the world for him to eat. You do you though, guys - it's your wasted vote.
> 
> As far as polling is concerned, according to Moody's model Trump remains the favourite to win, which is to be expected when we look at who he's running against. Time will tell how all of this will turn out.



I don't plan on voting for Sanders in the primary.
Having a heart attack doesn't disqualify a person or his or her policy positions.
In the general election, I plan on voting for whichever Democrat wins the primary.
Sanders' progressive policy positions are reasonable.
Polling shows most Democrats with significant leads against Trump in head to head match ups.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I don't plan on voting for Sanders in the primary.
> Having a heart attack doesn't disqualify a person or his or her policy positions.
> In the general election, I plan on voting for whichever Democrat wins the primary.
> Sanders' progressive policy positions are reasonable.
> Polling shows most Democrats with significant leads against Trump in head to head match ups.


I never said that his heart attack characterises his policy positions, I said that it characterises him - more specifically, it makes him unelectable as it makes it seem like he's not even going to go through one term, let alone the usual two. His policy is not reasonable - it's impossible to enact, not without a massive tax hike that will affect everyone on the economic ladder, not just "the rich". He's been exposed on stage in this regard and continues to be disingenuous.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I never said that his heart attack characterises his policy positions, I said that it characterises him - more specifically, it makes him unelectable as it makes it seem like he's not even going to go through one term, let alone the usual two. His policy is not reasonable - it's impossible to enact, not without a massive tax hike that will affect everyone on the economic ladder, not just "the rich". He's been exposed on stage in this regard and continues to be disingenuous.



Lots and presidents, vice presidents, and presidential candidates have suffered from heart disease before or during office, and it's also irrelevant to whether or not a person would be a good president. If you don't want to vote for someone because of health or age concerns, that's fine I guess, but I'm not particularly interested in discussing it. Trump is old, obese, doesn't exercise, on cholesterol medication, eats badly, etc., but you don't see me bringing that up as a reason not to vote for him.
Medicare for All, if that's what we are talking about, has effectively been enacted all over the world, so it's more than doable. While the middle class will be paying increased taxes, the rich disproportionately pay more of those taxes, and it's a net tax cut for the middle class when you consider the substantial savings on health care. Anyone who says Medicare for All is anything other than an effective tax cut for the middle class is wrong or lying.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Lots and presidents, vice presidents, and presidential candidates have suffered from heart disease before or during office, and it's also irrelevant to whether or not a person would be a good president. If you don't want to vote for someone because of health or age concerns, that's fine I guess, but I'm not particularly interested in discussing it. Trump is old, obese, doesn't exercise, on cholesterol medication, eats badly, etc., but you don't see me bringing that up as a reason not to vote for him.
> Medicare for All, if that's what we are talking about, has effectively been enacted all over the world, so it's more than doable. While the middle class will be paying increased taxes, the rich disproportionately pay more of those taxes, and it's a net tax cut for the middle class when you consider the substantial savings on health care. Anyone who says Medicare for All is anything other than an effective tax cut for the middle class is wrong or lying.


You must mean every economist worth their salt then. You're welcome to believe that if you wish, Biden has already pointed out the inaccuracies in the way Sanders, and now also Warren, are peddling his plan, and last time we saw Ted Cruz perform a glorious disembowelment of the proposal on national television. Just because "every other country" is doing "something similar" does not mean that:

It's the right thing to do
This particular proposal is the way to do it
It even applies to the America, a country that operates on vastly different social and economic principles
But hey, you've never shied away from incomplete/inaccurate comparisons and other assorted Democratic cons and scams, so I can see how you'd buy this one too.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 27, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> That's fuckin' rich coming from the left. Jesus.


The thing about extremist political affiliates is that you guys tend to demonize the other side. You've somehow got it in your head that they are the enemy. We are all in this together, and believe it or not, the left wants what's best for the country as much as the right.

In you're statement, do you honestly believe that an entire political wing, like half the population, wants to destroy the foundation of the constitution? That's a ludicrous idea. That would mean half the country are terrorists.

It's not the left or the right that is the problem. Its extremism. Nothing more than ignorant generalizations and spreading of propaganda.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> The thing about extremist political affiliates is that you guys tend to demonize the other side. You've somehow got it in your head that they are the enemy. We are all in this together, and believe it or not, the left wants what's best for the country as much as the right.
> 
> In you're statement, do you honestly believe that an entire political wing, like half the population, wants to destroy the foundation of the constitution? That's a ludicrous idea. That would mean half the country are terrorists.
> 
> It's not the left or the right that is the problem. Its extremism. Nothing more than ignorant generalizations and spreading of propaganda.


@WeedZ is right - it's highly improbable that half of the country is just "evil", and this works both ways - there's no point in demonising each other. It is unfortunate that _they're_ wrong though, I wish they were on board with out _obviously better_ ideas.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You must mean every economist worth their salt then. You're welcome to believe that if you wish, Biden has already pointed out the inaccuracies in the way Sanders, and now also Warren, are peddling his plan, and last time we saw Ted Cruz perform a glorious disembowelment of the proposal on national television. Just because "every other country" is doing "something similar" does not mean that:
> 
> It's the right thing to do
> This particular proposal is the way to do it
> ...


Medicare for All is the right thing to do, and there's nothing about it that precludes the United States from enacting it. I've also heard no better alternative.

Biden's criticisms of Medicare for All weren't substantial. We know how we are going to pay for it.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Sanders literally almost died earlier this month. If you intend to vote for him, I sure hope you have a good VP pick too. I'm not even going to mention his policies from Loonbagia which have no basis in reality and cannot be enacted in the manner he promises. There isn't enough rich in the world for him to eat. You do you though, guys - it's your wasted vote.
> 
> As far as polling is concerned, according to Moody's model Trump remains the favorite to win, which is to be expected when we look at who he's running against. Time will tell how all of this will turn out.



You are grossly ignorant on healthcare in geriatric populations if you think Sanders almost died. At his age he's against the norm to not have a stent put in place yet. Cardiac cath labs do this all the time. I've seen patients over 50 that get stents and run the Boston marathon within the same year. It's a product of genetics and diet, but not an indicator whether or not someone is unable to hold a high stress job.

Trump actively lies about his height and weight to skew his BMI. Has he undergone medical procedures prior to entering the oval office, what about during his term? Americans sure as hell will never be privy to Trump's medical records, nothing that would be close to accurate. If I was only concerned over a candidate's health I would take Sanders over Trump just for the fact of being able to make an informed decision due to Sanders' transparency.

Yourself and others here may disagree with implementing Sanders' policies but he's by far from an inept politician. He's sponsored and cosponsored significant pieces of legislation throughout his tenure. He also has history in collaborating w/ people across the aisle to join him. Most people just move the goal post with him as they just don't want to support his main tenants of his policy. There are some policies I wish Sanders would drop for a successor to pick up because I think the biggest issue he will face is not having the correct prioritization of policy implementation if elected.

If I was a small business owner, I would desire middle class income to increase if I desired to expand and grow alongside them. Gathering more customers that have more expendable income is key. How can we increase middle class income? Republicans have claimed they have the solution for decades and for decades wages for the middle class have become stagnant. No serious economist would discount the importance of disposable and discretionary income yet when we all subject ourselves to the trickle-down models we are doing just that. I've had countless inane arguments in the past 18 years over this, ever since the bush tax cuts. I admit I was too young and naive during the Reagan tax cuts and supported them viciously. One argument in particular that transcended all others was the prospect that the rich will take flight with tax increases. If the middle class (i.e. consumers) have more money to spend, they will keep the rich around to try to make money by offering products and services. It's that simple.

Sorry, we are so derailed at this point that I have no idea if I'm going to pursue further economic discussion here as most present can't even be genuine to give an ounce of criticism to their own side.

It would seem logical to support a policy that aims to improve the quality of life of majority of Americans while also increases middle-class discretionary income due to not having to pay premiums and co-payments. Yes, taxes go up but effective costs are cheaper in every projection I've come across. To the younger population, some with young children here. Wouldn't it be nice not having to search for employment while having to factor medical/dental/vision plans, how about when taking an offer for higher salary but having to face a gap in coverage with the new employment? How many had a spouse that had to strategically hold a job just for 'benefits'? This is what people desire when medicare for all is discussed. We know of many politicians have no sincere intention of addressing this issue. A half-hearted 'repeal and replace ACA' campaign promise that never brought forth any adequate solution.

To those who hold the argument 'Socialism is terrible!' Then let's rip out everything listed below:

Guaranteed public education
Public transportation
Fire departments
Police departments
Public libraries
Every branch of the US military
Roads & highways
Social Security
Medicare/medicaid
Public, not private prisons & jails
Public hospitals
The Veterans Affairs Administration
Public universities
Public parks
Public toilets
Public drinking fountains
Public parking
Public financing of sports stadiums
Wall Street bailout
Auto company bailout
Farm subsidies
Bailout of farmers affected by the tarriffs


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 27, 2019)

Bonehead said:


> ITT:  I'm 16 and Donald Trump is the greatest president ever.


i can see your young but also naive let me guess you family is die hard red?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You are grossly ignorant on healthcare in geriatric populations if you think Sanders almost died. At his age he's against the norm to not have a stent put in place yet. Cardiac cath labs do this all the time. I've seen patients over 50 that get stents and run the Boston marathon within the same year. It's a product of genetics and diet, but not an indicator whether or not someone is unable to hold a high stress job.
> 
> Trump actively lies about his height and weight to skew his BMI. Has he undergone medical procedures prior to entering the oval office, what about during his term? Americans sure as hell will never be privy to Trump's medical records, nothing that would be close to accurate. If I was only concerned over a candidate's health I would take Sanders over Trump just for the fact of being able to make an informed decision due to Sanders' transparency.
> 
> ...


Regarding Sanders, it's obviously a hyperbolic statement on my part - the point is how it looks like to the voting population, not whether or not he's actually on his death bed. I'm sure he has a goog couple of years ahead of him, the devil doesn't take his own keenly. You could say the same thing happened to Biden when a blood vessel burst in his eye when he was on-stage - it's not a big deal and it happens to everyone, but it doesn't "look good". Any sign of Ill health in a candidate is usually reflected in the poll numbers they're going to get in the future.

As for "socialism is bad", there has to be a balance between what should be publicly funded and what should be funded by individuals, and there is no consensus on what "the greater good" is, so this estimation will always look different depending on the individual making it. Personally I'm not opposed to axing a number of things you've mentioned, particularly bailouts, farm subsidies and a number of industries in the "public" sector. The notion that libertarians such as myself dream of a world with no roads is a gross mischaracterisation of our beliefs, verging on reductio ad absurdum - "you want a small government, therefore you must want roads to be torn out of the ground" is a bad look, nobody's ever proposed that. With that said, just to humour you, roads pre-exist the government. The same can be said about many lighthouses, particularly in Britain, which were originally built by sea faring companies to light the way for their cargo ships, they were not built for the sake of public safety. They were owned privately and collected dues from those who used their services. That's besides the point though, it's just an anecdote that doesn't really apply to modern life.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> How do you maintain all that when Trumps presidency is almost over, the damage is done already. You're like over 50 yrs too late, all the presidents are bought off. Your votes don't matter.


So you're saying we're _already _a banana republic?  You might be correct, but I choose to take a slightly less nihilistic viewpoint, at least for now.  If the Supreme Court does end up ruling that the president is above the law and thus a de facto king, then it's time to start throwing some tea into a harbor again.  It's both funny and sad how history tends to repeat itself.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't know why people actually think that - Sanders is an unelectable candidate, he has almost no chance of success.


There were a whole lot of people who said the same thing about Donald Trump.  It's deeply ignorant to suggest a candidate who intends to follow through with his populist proposals can't possibly win, when a candidate who ran on most of the same populist proposals already won despite having no intention to follow through with any of them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There were a whole lot of people who said the same thing about Donald Trump.  It's deeply ignorant to suggest a candidate who intends to follow through with his populist proposals can't possibly win, when a candidate who ran on most of the same populist proposals already won despite having no intention to follow through with any of them.


Deeply misguided people with whom I disagreed from Day 1. Of course you can support your candidate of choice, I can only share my own personal hunch with you. You're really hungry to eat the rich, but I don't think that's going to happen in your lifetime - it's a bit of an immature dream to have. At some point people stop believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Bernie Sanders, but it's a gradual process that takes some people longer than others.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Deeply misguided people with whom I disagreed from Day 1.


The sentiment is equally misguided today.  Depending on which poll you look at, Sanders is either second or third place right now.  He's also the one candidate that beats Trump at his own game: running as a populist "outsider."  Midwestern farmers and auto workers are eager for an alternative now that it has been made clear the incumbent doesn't care about them.



Foxi4 said:


> Of course you can support your candidate of choice, I can only share my own personal hunch with you. You're really hungry to eat the rich, but I don't think that's going to happen in your lifetime - it's a bit of an immature dream to have.


And surrendering your soul to the corporate status quo, licking boot for table scraps, is somehow the "mature" route to take?  History is full of examples of the working class being pushed past the breaking point to revolution.  Bernie Sanders has the potential to get us there faster, and through peaceful means, which is why I support him.  If he fails, there's always violent revolution to fall back on, though that's objectively a far more "immature" solution.  And if it turns out that fails because Americans are too fat, stupid, and complacent to recognize how the current system of indentured servitude keeps them on their knees, so be it.  When I'm old and living in a different part of the world, at least I'll be able to say I refused to fall in line with the cattle and carpetbaggers who propped up the crony capitalism which eventually caused America to implode in on itself.

"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The sentiment is equally misguided today.  Depending on which poll you look at, Sanders is either second or third place right now.  He's also the one candidate that beats Trump at his own game: running as a populist "outsider."  Midwestern farmers and auto workers are eager for an alternative now that it has been made clear the incumbent doesn't care about them.
> 
> And surrendering your soul to the corporate status quo, licking boot for table scraps, is somehow the "mature" route to take?  History is full of examples of the working class being pushed past the breaking point to revolution.  Bernie Sanders has the potential to get us there faster, and through peaceful means, which is why I support him.  If he fails, there's always violent revolution to fall back on, though that's objectively a far more "immature" solution.  And if it turns out that fails because Americans are too fat, stupid, and complacent to recognize how the current system of indentured servitude keeps them on their knees, so be it.  When I'm old and living in a different part of the world, at least I'll be able to say I refused to fall in line with the cattle and carpetbaggers who propped up the crony capitalism which eventually caused America to implode in on itself.
> 
> "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." - Warren Buffett


Sanders is selling you the idea of an unachievable Utopia where the haves fund a lavish lifestyle for the have nots, that's not how it's going to work out. The best you can do for society is to enable and empower people to prosper by removing legal boundaries that prevent them from doing so - the rest is up to them. A society based on envy of the rich, because that's what this really is all about, is doomed to fail - you don't own those people's money, and you're not entitled to it. This isn't a thread about Sanders though, we've had the capitalism versus socialism conversation before, ad nauseum.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Regarding Sanders, it's obviously a hyperbolic statement on my part - the point is how it looks like to the voting population, not whether or not he's actually on his death bed. I'm sure he has a goog couple of years ahead of him, the devil doesn't take his own keenly. You could say the same thing happened to Biden when a blood vessel burst in his eye when he was on-stage - it's not a big deal and it happens to everyone, but it doesn't "look good". Any sign of Ill health in a candidate is usually reflected in the poll numbers they're going to get in the future.
> 
> As for "socialism is bad", there has to be a balance between what should be publicly funded and what should be funded by individuals, and there is no consensus on what "the greater good" is, so this estimation will always look different depending on the individual making it. Personally I'm not opposed to axing a number of things you've mentioned, particularly bailouts, farm subsidies and a number of industries in the "public" sector. The notion that libertarians such as myself dream of a world with no roads is a gross mischaracterisation of our beliefs, verging on reductio ad absurdum - "you want a small government, therefore you must want roads to be torn out of the ground" is a bad look, nobody's ever proposed that. With that said, just to humour you, roads pre-exist the government. The same can be said about many lighthouses, particularly in Britain, which were originally built by sea faring companies to light the way for their cargo ships, they were not built for the sake of public safety. They were owned privately and collected dues from those who used their services. That's besides the point though, it's just an anecdote that doesn't really apply to modern life.



I'm just arguing that in the age of modern medicine, with the exception of severe pre-existing conditions, health of a candidate is something that is only weighed by those who know nothing else of a candidate. When it comes time for voters to choose in a general election, I don't expect it's made any serious impact. Sure it will affect primaries and polling samples around the time of the incident. Sanders vs Warren, I'd consent that Sanders will have to address to the electorate whether or not he intends to persevere for two terms or not. I'm actually not very confident he intends to run for two terms. I originally expected him to try to pass the mantle along to another progressive candidate after four years, Warren being my hunch - but it would ultimately come down to a primary. We don't have much history of presidents only seeking one term in the modern era. 

Actually, after typing this out I looked up that march of this year he filed for 2024 senate reelection. If he still intends to serve the public as a senator I don't see why he wouldn't intend to do so as president via a 2nd term.

I've aligned with libertarian views from time to time, I agree balance is important. It's just equally disingenuous however for anyone to portray any democratic candidate, even Sanders, as a full blown socialist. I'm aware of privatized infrastructure. One of the biggest issues with privatization of societal resources is that upkeep falls on those who use it or access is restricted to only those who can afford it. Identifying which resources or services are essential to a society and providing appropriate access with governmental funding through federal or local taxation is key. It's a quagmire I'd refrain from entering as I'm no politician and my edge for debating such facets have long dulled in my later years.

There were many conversations to address since my last post, I admit in my laziness I didn't properly quote a reply to each person so some points probably should be viewed as more generalized rather than a direct response. I still have someone who directly inquired on something I wrote yesterday I may or may not respond to tonight due to time constraints.

EDIT: Added 'in the modern era' for clarity.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Sanders is selling you the idea of an unachievable Utopia where the haves fund a lavish lifestyle for the have nots, that's not how it's going to break down.


Neither the rights to healthcare, higher education, nor basic housing can be considered "lavish" in the richest nation on Earth.  Sanders' platform also isn't radically new or different, it's basically the New Deal with a fresh coat of paint.  It's been done in this country before, it can be done again.



Foxi4 said:


> The best you can do for society is to enable and empower people to prosper by removing legal boundaries that prevent them from doing so - the rest is up to them.


Ah yes, give the corporations infinite freedom to exploit the rest of us.  That will solve everything!



Foxi4 said:


> A society based on envy of the rich, because that's what this really is all about, is doomed to fail - you don't own those people's money, and you're not entitled to it.


Which suggests you believe that the rich are entitled to the fruits of others' labor.  That random individuals are entitled to become billionaires at birth.

The concept that workers are entitled to a living wage and upward mobility is a quintessential part of the American dream, it has nothing to do with "envy."  Let the middle class disappear, and the USA becomes no better than any other third-world country around the globe.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Sanders is selling you the idea of an unachievable Utopia where the haves fund a lavish lifestyle for the have nots, that's not how it's going to work out. The best you can do for society is to enable and empower people to prosper by removing legal boundaries that prevent them from doing so - the rest is up to them. A society based on envy of the rich, because that's what this really is all about, is doomed to fail - you don't own those people's money, and you're not entitled to it. This isn't a thread about Sanders though, we've had the capitalism versus socialism conversation before, ad nauseum.


Are they entitled to a safe and secure nation. To freely commerce under the protection of our own countrymen? American imperialism is at the behest of the wealthy. For the wealthy to garner more wealth and the middle-class has funded it for over a century, Banana Wars anyone? Since then, how many governments have we toppled and installed to ensure business was conducted on our terms? It's interesting that so many use entitlement as a derogatory insult to those who have not but completely ignore looking at the entitlements of those who have plenty.

I think the bias has to do with those who aspire themselves to be wealthy. But that's not meant as any projection to you just an interesting observation of dialogue I've seen all too often. In an ideal situation we all benefit, that would require some balance. We won't be agreeing to where that balance lies, but that's fine.

EDIT : Typos, added a specific historical reference for clarity.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm just arguing that in the age of modern medicine, with the exception of severe pre-existing conditions, health of a candidate is something that is only weighed by those who know nothing else of a candidate. When it comes time for voters to choose in a general election, I don't expect it's made any serious impact. Sure it will affect primaries and polling samples around the time of the incident. Sanders vs Warren, I'd consent that Sanders will have to address to the electorate whether or not he intends to persevere for two terms or not. I'm actually not very confident he intends to run for two terms. I originally expected him to try to pass the mantle along to another progressive candidate after four years, Warren being my hunch - but it would ultimately come down to a primary. We don't have much history of presidents only seeking one term in the modern era.
> 
> Actually, after typing this out I looked up that march of this year he filed for 2024 senate reelection. If he still intends to serve the public as a senator I don't see why he wouldn't intend to do so as president via a 2nd term.
> 
> ...


Survival is higher when they're 40 yrs not 78. A bunch of past presidents had heart attacks when they were younger so of course they were more likely to survive. Survival rate the older you are after a heart attack is lower. 2/3rds die within 8 yrs. At Sanders age average is 3 yrs. Will Sanders make it to 86 yrs old to run a 2 term presidency? Or even a 1 term. Sanders is still at risk even with that stent put in.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Neither the rights to healthcare, higher education, nor basic housing can be considered "lavish" in the richest nation on Earth.  Sanders' platform also isn't radically new or different, it's basically the New Deal with a fresh coat of paint.  It's been done in this country before, it can be done again.
> 
> Ah yes, give the corporations infinite freedom to exploit the rest of us.  That will solve everything!
> 
> ...


Healthcare or higher education are not rights, they're services. People are entitled to whatever fortunes their families have accumulated, and if they employ workers, they're entitled to the "fruits" of whatever "labour" they've contracted them to do - that's how a contract works. As far as the middle class is concerned, you should keep in mind which system created it and made it prosper and which led to its downfall. Again, we're straying off-topic - if you want to discuss that, we can take it elsewhere.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Healthcare or higher education are not a right, they're services. People are entitled to whatever fortunes their families have accumulated, and if they employ workers, they're entitled to the "fruits" of whatever "labour" they've contracted them to do - that's how a contract works. As far as the middle class is concerned, you should keep in mind which system created it and made it prosper and which led to its downfall. Again, we're straying off-topic - if you want to discuss that, we can take it elsewhere.



I don't know why people say education is a right. I see no stone tablet from God with it engraved that all humans must have the right to education by force and someone's labor to teach them. Thinking about how humans use to live as hunter gatherers, classrooms did not exist when we were scavenging for food in the deserts of Africa.  They had no right to an education. Its a concept people invented that we should teach people. And use our resources to do it. Its a choice that we all decided. We don't have to take care of other humans but do so by choice. Its not a right, God is not going to punish us for not doing so, its a choice. Rights is a human made concept and can easily be given and taketh away, and governments around the world do so all the time.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Healthcare or higher education are not a right, they're services.


Bull.  Shit.  The idea that everything is subject to the profit motive is exactly what's caused such a huge decline in the quality of America's healthcare and education systems relative to the rest of the world, not to mention the skyrocketing costs associated with them.



Foxi4 said:


> As far as the middle class is concerned, you should keep in mind which system created it and made it prosper and which led to its downfall.


The New Deal, unions, and a strong social safety net were largely responsible for the rise of a strong middle class in America over a period of 50 years.  The middle class has been in decline ever since crony capitalism started to take root in the 1980s.



SG854 said:


> I see no stone tablet from God with it engraved that all humans must have the right to education by force and someone's labor to teach them.


Man was responsible for writing the bible, just as man was responsible for writing the constitution.  God is irrelevant to all the rights that we enjoy, past, present, and future.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Survival is higher when their 40 yrs not 78. A bunch of past presidents had heart attacks when they were younger so of course they were more likely to survive. Survival rate the older you are after a heart attack is lower. 2/3rds die within 8 yrs. At Sanders age average is 3 yrs. Will Sanders make it to 86 yrs old to run a 2 term presidency? Or even a 1 term. Sanders is still at risk even with that stent put in.


Your stats are off, way off for his case. Without a source I'm not sure if you are using an outdated journal article or just napkin statistics. Or are using type 2 MI stats?

http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/71/18/2015

Epidemiology and mortality/morbidity of CAD - he had an ischemic event that was resolved with two stents. His first at age 78. He has favorable BMI, I don't know his cholesterol levels. Family history would be another important component. But given his current age at first incident I'd presume his genetics are in his favor. I don't have his CAC scores. I'm left to presume he does not have significant atherosclerosis.

TLDR: With proper diet and exercise he will continue wagging his finger at billionaires for years to come, elected or not. His all-cause mortality is still much closer to those who have had no heart issues than those who do. Until additional information could be provided to suggest otherwise that is.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Your stats are off, way off for his case. Without a source I'm not sure if you are using an outdated journal article or just napkin statistics. Or are using type 2 MI stats?
> 
> http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/71/18/2015
> 
> ...


I got it from here. Publish date 2018, its recent.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/jaha.117.007230?etoc=


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I got it from here. Publish date 2018, its recent.
> 
> https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/jaha.117.007230?etoc=



This is almost useless in a comparison as these patients are laden w/ comorbidities not present w/ Sanders. I'm appreciative of the share though I haven't read up on these in a few years.

I will say if we were to use the life expectancy chart below from your quoted link - his median survival age like I stated previously would be much closer to an additional 12 yrs than 3.5 due to no listed comorbidites and it being his first Stent at age 78.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> This is almost useless in a comparison as these patients are laden w/ comorbidities not present w/ Sanders. I'm appreciative of the share though I haven't read up on these in a few years.
> 
> I will say if we were to use the life expectancy chart below from your quoted link - his median survival age like I stated previously would be much closer to an additional 12 yrs than 3.5 due to no listed comorbidites and it being his first Stent at age 78.


He doesn't have comorbidities as far as you know. But Sanders is an honest person so even he did have other health complications then he would've let the public know by now, or not to increase chances of wining after he saw what the public said about his Heart Attack.

Sanders is a relatively healthy person, with him doing nothing unhealthy that would cause a heart attack for a younger person. The fact that he had Heart Attack because of age is just a fact of life. I don't really know how bad of a condition Sanders is in since we both have a lack of knowledge of his health history, so it was just a general post I put about the life expectancy and heart attacks even with people that receive PCI or CABG. But do you really think Sanders has 8 yrs left in him? If Trump wins the next presidency then does he have 12 yrs? The 12 yrs in your chart is pushing it. He could die sooner. He's already at the average life expectancy age. At most I see him living for at least 1 term, not 2 terms.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> He doesn't have comorbidities as far as you know. But Sanders is an honest person so even he did have other health complications then he would've let the public know by now, or not to increase chances of wining after he saw what the public said about his Heart Attack.
> 
> Sanders is a relatively healthy person, with him doing nothing unhealthy that would cause a heart attack for a younger person. The fact that he had Heart Attack because of age is just a fact of life. I don't really know how bad of a condition Sanders is in since we both have a lack of knowledge of his health history, so it was just a general post I put about the life expectancy and heart attacks even with people that receive PCI or CABG. But do you really think Sanders has 8 yrs left in him? If Trump wins the next presidency then does he have 12 yrs? The 12 yrs in your chart is pushing it. He could die sooner. He's already at the average life expectancy age. At most I see him living for at least 1 term, not 2 terms.


While I wouldn't want to work into my 80s but I've met many who do. They see retirement as death and stay busy with work until they physically cannot persist through the day. I think he has a solid 7-8 years without much inhibition. That last year or so of office he will probably start scaling back. I'm really not sure what the future holds for him though. I know this is his last shot, if he doesn't win the primary I don't think he will ever seek another run, but I could see him on the campaign trail assisting a colleague.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> While I wouldn't want to work into my 80s but I've met many who do. They see retirement as death and stay busy with work until they physically cannot persist through the day. I think he has a solid 7-8 years without much inhibition. That last year or so of office he will probably start scaling back. I'm really not sure what the future holds for him though. I know this is his last shot, if he doesn't win the primary I don't think he will ever seek another run, but I could see him on the campaign trail assisting a colleague.


Essentially its Bernie or Bust, now or never. Which means a Trump victory will hurt Bernie supporters supper hard.


----------



## billapong (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Why do you think republicans spent so much time and effort into Benghazi ($ 7 million) and Hillary's emails (? I've seen estimates of 20million but no concrete figures)?
> 
> Delusions of grandeur much? I'm not going to request personal information as I'm sure is against some code of conduct somewhere on these forums, but pray tell how does one bankrupt Liberal organizations?



Benghazi turned out to be a dud, but regarding the emails; the bitch surely looks guilty in my eyes after wiping and destroying the unauthorized illegal server she was using. It's not like Trump who used an authorized secure server to store the Ukraine transcripts on and then readily turned over the info when requested. The bitch straight up wiped the drives and then destroyed the hardware. Clearly, nothing to hide there.

It takes what, 10,000 liberal trolls to get one person fired over a single Twitter post they made 10 years ago? Well, it only takes 1 billapong to get an entire workforce fired and their company shut down (for what they stand for and are doing in the present day - this is much more important then what someone said 10 years ago). I'd go into details, but like you said, that wouldn't be too smart. Let's just say I've been fine tuning the method and so far have escaped any legal repercussions (since my methods are legal in nature) and my ethical and moral standings support what I'm doing. : )


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 28, 2019)

billapong said:


> Benghazi turned out to be a dud, but regarding the emails; the bitch surely looks guilty in my eyes after wiping and destroying the server she was using. It's not like Trump who used a secure server to store the Ukraine transcripts on and then readily turned over the info when requested. The bitch straight up wiped the drives and then destroyed the hardware. Clearly, nothing to hide there.
> 
> It takes what, 10,000 liberal trolls to get one person fired over a single Twitter post they made 10 years ago? Well, it only takes 1 billapong to get an entire workforce fired and their company shut down. I'd go into details, but like you said, that wouldn't be too smart. Let's just say I've been fine tuning the method and so far have escaped any legal repercussions (since my methods are legal in nature) and my ethical and moral standings support what I'm doing. : )


If its a startup company, as I said before it's much easier to just rebrand. Especially if there's no criminal involvement and only public scrutiny. Also Causation/Correlation are two different things. I might write a mean yelp review but it doesn't mean I caused a restaurant to shutdown or swap ownership. It means I vented on the internet. Any legitimate organization has a social media division in the marketing department that would negate a single user, or even a user with bot accounts.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If I was a small business owner, I would desire middle class income to increase if I desired to expand and grow alongside them. Gathering more customers that have more expendable income is key. How can we increase middle class income? Republicans have claimed they have the solution for decades and for decades wages for the middle class have become stagnant. No serious economist would discount the importance of disposable and discretionary income yet when we all subject ourselves to the trickle-down models we are doing just that. I've had countless inane arguments in the past 18 years over this, ever since the bush tax cuts. I admit I was too young and naive during the Reagan tax cuts and supported them viciously. One argument in particular that transcended all others was the prospect that the rich will take flight with tax increases. If the middle class (i.e. consumers) have more money to spend, they will keep the rich around to try to make money by offering products and services. It's that simple.


If a Middle Class persons income increased that would put them in the upper class. Basically upward mobility. I don't think just looking at how many people are in which class is a good indicator of how well a group of people are doing, because you're just looking at numbers and not actual persons. How long do those people stay in the lower, middle and upper class? What about downward mobility? Wages for middles class has been stagnant but how long do people stay in the middle class? Are they the same people from 5 or 10 years ago? Did they move up or down? Without looking at actual persons you can't grasp how well the economy is doing.


----------



## billapong (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If its a startup company, as I said before it's much easier to just rebrand. Especially if there's no criminal involvement and only public scrutiny. Also Causation/Correlation are two different things. I might write a mean yelp review but it doesn't mean I caused a restaurant to shutdown or swap ownership. It means I vented on the internet. Any legitimate organization has a social media division in the marketing department that would negate a single user, or even a user with bot accounts.



That's assuming my involvement was purely some social media  or online presence. When I hear about online "SJW" and Twitter "activists" I usually laugh. No, there's a lot more involved then simply posting shit online.


----------



## Bonehead (Oct 28, 2019)

I have guns, so I'm okay with all of those things being taken away.  I'll still get mine.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If a Middle Class persons income increased that would put them in the upper class. Basically upward mobility. I don't think just looking at how many people are in which class is a good indicator of how well a group of people are doing, because you're just looking at numbers and not actual persons. How long do those people stay in the lower, middle and upper class? What about downward mobility? Wages for middles class has been stagnant but how long do people stay in the middle class? Are they the same people from 5 or 10 years ago? Did they move up or down? Without looking at actual persons you can't grasp how well the economy is doing.



EDIT v2: Had to manually reinsert images
EDIT v1: I had a few clarifications that needed to be made so I snipped my post and pasted it back with the required changes. This is lengthy, but you have been inquiring on a topic that isn't able to be answered in a few sentences. If you have further questions I expect you to seek out the information as the time investment for economic debates is beyond the scope of what the original topic of discussion is supposed to be and this is not something I'm wanting to debate as most aren't genuinely desiring discussion, but to just continuously move goalposts.

No first you need to define upper class before you try to make such as claim. Wages for middle class have been stagnant. This isn't an opinion. It's fact.

*https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/*
The 2018 piece from Pew reported that, in 2016, the median *income* for the upper-*income class* was $187,872. While for the middle *class*, it was $78,442, and for the *lower class*, it was $25,624.

The vast, and I do mean vast majority of middle-class families will never become upper class. A good indicator for how a group is doing is by using median income.

A growing Wealth inequality is demonstrated as on the rise due to an increase in low and upper class but dwindling of middle class. In healthy economies we would like to see an increase of both middle-class and upper-class with the median income of all three increasing.











What we are experiencing is negative for the health of our economy. The median income for the upper class has ~60% growth, middle class 43% growth and lower class 36% growth in median income. If we account for cumulative inflation it can easily be determined that we are in a stagnation by examining our purchasing power.










$1 dollar in 1970 is worth over $6 dollars today ("In other words, *$1* in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $6.19 in 2016, a difference of $5.19 over 46 years. ")


Actual growth rates from 1970 - 2018
1.36 lowerclass median income growth
1.43 middleclass median income growth
1.583 upperclass median income growth


While we can observe a decent gap in growth, but maybe 50 years is too far back to hold validity. Let's examine inflation and growth rate of median income of growth since the 90s.

$1 dollar in 1990 is worth almost $2 dollars today ("In other words, $100 in *1990* is equivalent in purchasing power to about $192.12 in 2018, a difference of $92.12 over 28 years.")

Actual growth rates from 1990 - 2018
1.110 lowerclass median income growth
1.139 middleclass median income growth
1.223 upperclass median income growth










Whether you look at 50 years back or just only 30. We have a significant shortfall in growth in wages for those not in the upper income classification. But wait, who has had growth in median income that reflected the amount equivalent in purchasing power? Those who aren't working jobs, but that are investors and live off investments. CEO compensation vs worker compensation is another concerning disparity that is often mentioned as well.

*https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/*

"From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%."

Let’s start looking at median net-worth of each income then to see how the disparity of wage effects families net-worth over time. So what issue are we facing? A growing gap in the wealth of upper-income families to lower-income families and middle-income families.









--------------------

To those who can afford to start their own business or invest more than 30% of their annual income in diversified stocks, sure they will potentially benefit from the current status quo. The rest will not. If the economic structure isn't benefiting the majority, then our society is becoming 'poorer'. That's just how that works. It may seem absurd at first to see those figures. Think oh sure in the 70s, lower income families had as much purchasing power as upper middle-class families today but think about it. Most people didn't need to take out 30year loans to afford a home, owned more land, boats. Now more and more people are in rent controlled homes, can't get approved to purchase their first home without a cosign from their parents or waiting 5+ years after joining the workforce just to afford a down-payment - a down-payment! People I grew up with were able to self-finance the entire construction of their home during that time and it be paid off!

Sigh... look, this is a sincere concern as I see communities who didn't grow up with the silver spoon I shoved in my families' mouth. I don't think the majority of the youth are better off today than they were a few decades ago. Place your blame on the immigrants or people on welfare but they aren't the ones who siphoned up all the wages of most Americans. Most people in my generation have decided they earned what they earned and are willing to shore up what's left of it and tune out the concerns and pleas of the younger generations. Be thankful there are some who haven't.

I've said my peace on the economic state the Country is in. I'm sure people will bring up convenient distractions to try to explain away how Americans weren't robbed over the past years, but all the evidence is there. This is why you have 'radicals' who want to substantially increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy. To revert taxation back to where it was in the 70s, prior to Reagan tax cuts, which would lessen the effective tax burden on the middle class to increase discretionary income, small business ventures, and fund societal resources that have been starved for generations.

Caveat/advanced rebuttal to data selection: There are models that attempt to broaden the middle-class by increasing the upper limit to 250k, while it increases the number of families proportionally that are 'middle-class' it actually only further exacerbates the wealth inequality and growth rate of income from upper-class vs lower-class and middle-class. With the exception of places with extremely high cost of living like New York City or Los Angeles, I find that to be a poor model of definition as it doesn't apply well to the majority of America.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 28, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> EDIT v2: Had to manually reinsert images
> EDIT v1: I had a few clarifications that needed to be made so I snipped my post and pasted it back with the required changes. This is lengthy, but you have been inquiring on a topic that isn't able to be answered in a few sentences. If you have further questions I expect you to seek out the information as the time investment for economic debates is beyond the scope of what the original topic of discussion is supposed to be and this is not something I'm wanting to debate as most aren't genuinely desiring discussion, but to just continuously move goalposts.
> 
> No first you need to define upper class before you try to make such as claim. Wages for middle class have been stagnant. This isn't an opinion. It's fact.
> ...


Could the growing gap between middle and uppers class be because more middle class people are entering the upper class? This can affect wealth accumulated in the top 20% because more people are up there now compared to the past. This is why numbers about wealth is useless without talking about individual peoples. 

Family sizes and the number of those working in that family also affect household income too. Are the same number of people living in households now compared to before? Your statistics are using household incomes and not talking about individuals. If family sizes have become smaller and the number that work in that family reduce because of smaller families, and household statistics takes all of the income of the people in that family combined then of course household incomes go down. 


Economic mobility is a good indicator if the American dream is alive and well, and so far I get two conflicting opinions/statistics about how economical mobile Americans are. Some areas in the U.S. there is great mobility and some other areas there is not.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Could the growing gap between middle and uppers class be because more middle class people are entering the upper class? This can affect wealth accumulated in the top 20% because more people are up there now compared to the past. This is why numbers about wealth is useless without talking about individual peoples.



I've semi-addressed this already. There are those who have entered upperclass from middleclass. This is where things get lost. You claim some have upward mobility but also ignore the downward mobility. Equal parts of people who entered upper class have fallen into lower class. We've also significantly increased the proportion of people in dual income families. We had the dot com boom, more automation, the highest worker productivity in human history, and in the end we've only obtained upward mobility for a minority. If you want to talk to individual people than you can. But multi-generational statistical trends are going to be more objective than anecdotes.

Below is a link that is a good read - It's alot but you have to start somewhere.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labor-productivity-and-compensation-gap.htm








SG854 said:


> Family sizes and the number of those working in that family also affect household income too. Are the same number of people living in households now compared to before? Your statistics are using household incomes and not talking about individuals. If family sizes have become smaller and the number that work in that family reduce because of smaller families, and household statistics takes all of the income of the people in that family combined then of course household incomes go down.



One income families vs two income families. There was a time when one income would be sufficient for most families, would nearly guarantee entrance into middle-class if two incomes were available. We've long lost that option and more american families are forced to have dual incomes to stay afloat. The reasoning behind this pressure for dual incomes is to secure medical benefits and provide a safety net to pay loans/bills if the other spouse is in-between jobs or the employer offers unsatisfactory benefits. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/fathers-day-facts/

"As of 2016, about a quarter of couples (27%) who live with children younger than 18 were in families where only the father works. This marked a dramatic change from 1970, when almost half of these couples (47%) were in families where only the dad worked. The share of couples living in dual-earner families has risen significantly and now comprises the majority of two-parent families with children."








SG854 said:


> Economic mobility is a good indicator if the American dream is alive and well, and so far I get two conflicting opinions/statistics about how economical mobile Americans are. Some areas in the U.S. there is great mobility and some other areas there is not.



I just want to drive this home about the dual income families that I didn't before. The fact that there is a significant increase in household with dual incomes and that there is not even more people in the middle and upper income bracket is further confirmation that something is broken.

There are some societal factors impacting the dip in dual income at the end, since 2000s, stay at home fathers have emerged. Mr. Moms if you will. There also is a divorce rate influence, but since divorce impacts all social classes, and an equal part of those divorce also remarry, I exclude it. 

I am concluding my provision of economic information that is way off-topic. If you need more you have ample resources at your disposal. You don't need me to write essays to continue to inform you. If you want any further discussion with me you will need to provide stats and analysis. I can't just talk about anecdotes. If anyone was to actually support economic policy of any kind I would expect the math to support it or I would declare them a lunatic and move on.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Neither the rights to healthcare, higher education, nor basic housing can be considered "lavish" in the richest nation on Earth.



We wouldn’t be the richest nation for much longer if any of those were recognized as “rights.” None of these are “rights” in any founding document. Not the Declaration. Not the Constitution. Not any amendments to the Constitution. If they were, the USA would’ve dissolved 240 years ago, flat broke.


----------



## tinkle (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> We wouldn’t be the richest nation for much longer if any of those were recognized as “rights.” None of these are “rights” in any founding document. Not the Declaration. Not the Constitution. Not any amendments to the Constitution. If they were, the USA would’ve dissolved 240 years ago, flat broke.


You clearly live at home with your parents.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> We wouldn’t be the richest nation for much longer if any of those were recognized as “rights.” None of these are “rights” in any founding document. Not the Declaration. Not the Constitution. Not any amendments to the Constitution. If they were, the USA would’ve dissolved 240 years ago, flat broke.


Thank you for admitting that the difference between us is you don't think health care, education, and housing should be rights. That makes things easy.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> We wouldn’t be the richest nation for much longer if any of those were recognized as “rights.”


The money gets spent either way.  The federal budget deficit is about 60% higher (over $1 trillion) under Trump than it was at any point during the Obama years.  Right now it's spent on corporate welfare and making the rich richer, when it could be going to much more worthy causes.


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 29, 2019)

Dear Democratic Colleague,

For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry “lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding.” They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.

Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Multiple past impeachments have gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be “an impermissible intrusion on the House’s constitutional authority.” More than 300 legal scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that “the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins.”

The Trump Administration has made up this argument – apparently out of whole cloth – in order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized subpoenas.

This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.

This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel.

We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives.

Nobody is above the law.

best regards

Nancy


Interesting to see what excuse his lawyers magic out of thin air to obstruct now.


----------



## billapong (Oct 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The money gets spent either way.  The federal budget deficit is about 60% higher (over $1 trillion) under Trump than it was at any point during the Obama years.  Right now it's spent on corporate welfare and making the rich richer, when it could be going to much more worthy causes.



So the people that are working are getting paid and the people who aren't working aren't getting paid. Sounds about fair to me. There's no reason why the rich people who have made something of themselves should have to give their money to freeloading scum like yourself, simply because you're lazy and envious.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



seany1990 said:


> Dear Democratic Colleague,
> 
> For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry “lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding.” They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.
> 
> ...



or what excuse the democrats come up with on why they haven't actually impeached him yet ...


----------



## Xzi (Oct 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> So the people that are working are getting paid and the people who aren't working aren't getting paid.


Rofl, you think Jeff Bezos _works_ to earn thousands of dollars a second?  He doesn't work at all, and even if he did, nobody's labor has that kind of value as an individual, such wealth is only obtained by exploiting the labor of others.



billapong said:


> There's no reason why the rich people who have made something of themselves


If you're born rich, staying rich is not "making something of yourself."  Rather, it makes you a useless leech and a net drain on society.



billapong said:


> give their money to freeloading scum like yourself, simply because you're lazy and envious.


I pay my taxes, unlike billionaires and yuppie scumbags (a group you're probably a part of) that do their best to avoid supporting their country and fellow countrymen.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> So the people that are working are getting paid and the people who aren't working aren't getting paid. Sounds about fair to me. There's no reason why the rich people who have made something of themselves should have to give their money to freeloading scum like yourself, simply because you're lazy and envious..



I'm not quite sure what your goals are. Do you not want a healthy economy? or a fair and representative government? or public services like firefighters, clean water, or a judicial system? 

Or do you believe those things are achieved by the rich obtaining more money and not through reforms and managing influence and wealth?


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 29, 2019)

hell SSI is a trap i live it but i want to work but cant because soon as i do i get thrown under the bus i can barely make ends meet (live on my own with section 8) but i doubt the government would ever loosen the restrictions to EVEN ALLOW me to work i only worked once in my life at minimum wage even payed taxes on it the government is all too eager to take away your benifiets but take their sweet ass time to reinstate fully


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 29, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I'm not quite sure what your goals are. Do you not want a healthy economy? or a fair and representative government? or public services like firefighters, clean water, or a judicial system?
> 
> Or do you believe those things are achieved by the rich obtaining more money and not through reforms and managing influence and wealth?



He wants whatever Sean Hannity on Fox tells him to want


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Thank you for admitting that the difference between us is you don't think health care, education, and housing should be rights. That makes things easy.




I've posted elsewhere here, recently, that I support public schools. Perhaps I should have been more specific that I support the traditional form of public education, which is through secondary school. That's enough, if the schools are doing their job of teaching correctly, to prepare a person to function as a adult in the workplace and society generally. But Xzi said "higher education." Sorry, can't get on board with that.

But as I said before, no founding document establishes any of those things as rights. They have never historically been considered rights in the USA. If you want them to be rights, pass an amendment.




tinkle said:


> You clearly live at home with your parents.



You're quite wrong, but judging from your immediate use of ad hominem, that probably isn't something you worry about.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> So the people that are working are getting paid and the people who aren't working aren't getting paid. Sounds about fair to me. There's no reason why the rich people who have made something of themselves should have to give their money to freeloading scum like yourself, simply because you're lazy and envious.



Working = rich, unemployed = poor?

Last year unemployment was 6.6mil. But 43.1mil americans were below the poverty line. On average, even with a doctorate, people are still only making five figures a year. Naivety aside, why do people want others to suffer? Where does this "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude come from? What happened to making America great?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 29, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I'm not quite sure what your goals are. Do you not want a healthy economy? or a fair and representative government? or public services like firefighters, clean water, or a judicial system?
> 
> Or do you believe those things are achieved by the rich obtaining more money and not through reforms and managing influence and wealth?


Just in this thread alone we've discussed this at length. It's more of an ideology of his at this point.

Funding public education so that general populace would be equipped to pursue trade schools or higher education in colleges - worth it because I would like my contractors to know how to construct my house properly and follow the layout designed by my architect. Or have a Civil engineer that knows who to design the infrastructure I use to commute to my office. If we can provide incentive to those who have the ability to pursue that additional training or education than we benefit by having a successful and competent workforce.

We have student loan forgiveness for those who work in public service. I believe it should be expanded to those who do trade skills that we have deficits in. We used to have family businesses that passed down those trade skills but they have eroded over the years. STEM fields are also at a shortage because of supply/demand.

The higher educated our populace is, the better we are as a whole. But I do think if we are footing the bill, we have to increase the rigors of admissions and require an occupational declaration (I know people declare their majors but beyond the degree, to ensure that a society who funds the education is getting a proper return on investment) Once people work a number of years in their declared field their educational loan should be forgiven.

If they renege on their declaration or drop out the workforce before their loan is forgiven then the expense of that education should fall under their responsibility, prorated to however much left they owe. This would aim to prevent abuse or waste.

Why am I thinking about this? If someone wanted to make all public colleges tuition free, there will be a fiscal party that will have to be persuaded to jump on board. This is what I envision an appropriate compromise would be.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 29, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I've semi-addressed this already. There are those who have entered upperclass from middleclass. This is where things get lost. You claim some have upward mobility but also ignore the downward mobility. Equal parts of people who entered upper class have fallen into lower class. We've also significantly increased the proportion of people in dual income families. We had the dot com boom, more automation, the highest worker productivity in human history, and in the end we've only obtained upward mobility for a minority. If you want to talk to individual people than you can. But multi-generational statistical trends are going to be more objective than anecdotes.
> 
> Below is a link that is a good read - It's alot but you have to start somewhere.
> https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/understanding-the-labor-productivity-and-compensation-gap.htm
> ...


Oh No, I did acknowledge downward mobility. You can look back to the first post I posted in response to your income inequality comment and you can see I mention downward mobility. Downward mobility can be cause by a number of things, someone loosing their business, someone retiring, a person selling their house they move up the income bracket then when they buy a new house they move back down. 

I would say the increase in proportions of dual income families is a positive. I prefer women entering the workforce, 1) Women are not forced to be stay at home moms, and 2) dual income means more disposable income for families. Its an all around positive. 


So there is an increase in wages as productivity rose, your chart shows people making more then they did in the past. It's just that wages having kept up equally with productivity. Its newer machines and robots that have increased productivity not that humans are working harder. If a company invests millions of dollars in new machines and technology who should reap the benefits of the increased productivity? Because the increased productivity was generated by the owners investment not the workers. I think technology is creating this gap. And I can only assume the democratic position is that even though all that extra money is being generated by the owners investment making him the one entitled to that money, we have to create law to redistribute that money to the workers. Basically making people nowadays earning more for less work compared to their past ancestors.


----------



## billapong (Oct 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I pay my taxes, unlike billionaires and yuppie scumbags (a group you're probably a part of) that do their best to avoid supporting their country and fellow countrymen.



Yet you want Bezos money. Typical socialist leech. I support people who support themselves, not people who simply want hand outs. I'm not going to support freeloaders and if they die because they refuse to work that's their fault. Not mine. You aren't my responsibility. *spits on the ground*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osaka35 said:


> I'm not quite sure what your goals are. Do you not want a healthy economy? or a fair and representative government? or public services like firefighters, clean water, or a judicial system?
> 
> Or do you believe those things are achieved by the rich obtaining more money and not through reforms and managing influence and wealth?



Sure, I find those things you listed useful and they will vanish or become scarce if we adopt socialism. I want people to put in their best effort. Life isn't fair and it's not my responsibility to feed the rest of the world, especially people who simply refuse to work. They can starve to death and it will serve them right.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



WeedZ said:


> Working = rich, unemployed = poor?
> 
> Last year unemployment was 6.6mil. But 43.1mil americans were below the poverty line. On average, even with a doctorate, people are still only making five figures a year. Naivety aside, why do people want others to suffer? Where does this "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude come from? What happened to making America great?



Because they leeching off of me makes me poor and their attitude is "fuck you, I won't work and you have to pay for me and I'll steal all I want from you". I'm not the bad guy for sticking up for myself. The leeches who would ruin me to support their lousy life styles are the bad guys.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yet you want Bezos money.


I want people to pay their fair share in taxes if they want to keep calling themselves American.  If you want to live in a corrupt oligarchy that provides zero services in return for taxes paid, then Russia's your best bet.



billapong said:


> I support people who support themselves, not people who simply want hand outs.


You support the corporate status quo, which means you have no real morals or values.  Socialism for the rich, bootstraps for the rest of us.


----------



## osaka35 (Oct 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> Sure, I find those things you listed useful and they will vanish or become scarce if we adopt socialism. I want people to put in their best effort. Life isn't fair and it's not my responsibility to feed the rest of the world, especially people who simply refuse to work. They can starve to death and it will serve them right..


What about private businesses which would fail without the government bailing them out? By your logic, wouldn't they have failed hard enough to deserve death?


----------



## billapong (Oct 29, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> What about private businesses which would fail without the government bailing them out? By your logic, wouldn't they have failed hard enough to deserve death?



In life when you do anything you take the risk of failing. Life isn't fair and you can't make it that way. If you tax the rich to feed the poor the rich are victims and once the rich run out of money then everyone will be poor. If your business fails then it fails. Shit happens. You survive or you don't. The Government needs to keep its hands out of the private sector as their over involvement has stifled innovation and hurts the little man. I don't believe in "bail outs". If you get yourself into a mess than it's your job to dig yourself out and there's a possibility you may never do so. That's just life. There's no need to punish me and make me poor because other people fucked up or refuse to lift a finger. It's not my problem.


----------



## tinkle (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> ad hominem


Oh, sorry, I fell asleep while you lost the argument.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 29, 2019)

god this turned into a toxic cestpool very fast trump supporters were always like this very close proxcimity to neo nazi's i'll just waqtch from afar and let you rabid dogs fight *pulls out a newspaper*


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 29, 2019)

Interesting side discussion, but I'm not sure why it's held in this thread. It's not that there's nothing happening on-topic lately... 

Yesterday Gordon Sonderland testified. If that doesn't ring a bell, you might want to check back in this thread a bit (e.g. posts 203 and 217). It's the guy (okay: European ambassador) that texted Taylor that "Trump was crystal clear that he didn't want a quid quo pro" in the Zelenskiy case. He admitted he made that text, but also understood better that some things just ARE crimes even if you say you don't want it to be one. Basically, Zelensky not just had to start an investigation into Hunter Biden, but also to publicly state this(1).

In addition to that, Alexander Vindman will also make statements today. This is the first time a white house employee testifies, but he apparently also has expressed deep concerns that the presidency had plans to have a US citizen prosecuted by a foreign entity for nothing but political gains.

There's also talks of John Bolton for a future hearing. He's currently being stonewalled, but apparently he was anything but buddies with Giuliani (guess over what dispute?).




(1): while the reason of this isn't mentioned, it's not hard to guess that if this hadn't been uncovered, conservative media would ruin Joe's chances of running for president by making all sorts of allegations ("what's the worth of a man whose own son is under investigation?", "Should he be leading the country if he can't even properly raise his son?" and more of those stabs below the belt).


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Interesting side discussion, but I'm not sure why it's held in this thread. It's not that there's nothing happening on-topic lately...
> 
> Yesterday Gordon Sonderland testified. If that doesn't ring a bell, you might want to check back in this thread a bit (e.g. posts 203 and 217). It's the guy (okay: European ambassador) that texted Taylor that "Trump was crystal clear that he didn't want a quid quo pro" in the Zelenskiy case. He admitted he made that text, but also understood better that some things just ARE crimes even if you say you don't want it to be one. Basically, Zelensky not just had to start an investigation into Hunter Biden, but also to publicly state this(1).
> 
> ...




You know you're not getting any of that from actual transcripts, right? It's just what Schiff's staff is leaking, illegally. With their spin on it. The only transcript released in this whole secret circus so far was the actual phone call. 

I'm not saying there hasn't been a witness yet with something damaging to say. It's possible, every public figure has enemies. Just, technically all the actual testimony you're reading about in NYT and other sources is not direct reporting ... the media is being fed the Schiff schtory, and they're printing/broadcasting it as truth. 

If the House vote on Thursday is for rules of fair due process in which both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice, then it'll be worth hearing what is said. If they vote for anything less than that, then they are just demonstrating how full of shit they are, i.e. show me the man and I will give you the crime.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You know you're not getting any of that from actual transcripts, right? It's just what Schiff's staff is leaking, illegally. With their spin on it. The only transcript released in this whole secret circus so far was the actual phone call.
> 
> I'm not saying there hasn't been a witness yet with something damaging to say. It's possible, every public figure has enemies. Just, technically all the actual testimony you're reading about in NYT and other sources is not direct reporting ... the media is being fed the Schiff schtory, and they're printing/broadcasting it as truth.
> 
> If the House vote on Thursday is for rules of fair due process in which both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice, then it'll be worth hearing what is said. If they vote for anything less than that, then they are just demonstrating how full of shit they are, i.e. show me the man and I will give you the crime.


Interesting. It's true that there's hardly (or even no) open confessions at this point. But that doesn't mean what is brought out is democratic propaganda. Heck...republicans are equally present in these hearings, and as a party, they've got more to win with an impeachment than democrats(1).

I'll also remind you that the white house continues to defy acknowledging the simple fact that the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment. It is not something the white house can choose to ignore, so their complete lack of co-operation and attempts to forbid members to speak out are acts of crime in and off themselves. Or at the very least strongly paint the context in which the hearings take place.

House of representative republicans never lacked the power to call witnesses, talk to them and so on. They're just playing the victims because they don't have the majority there, that's all.




(1): think about it this way: Trump's popularity never rose above 50% since his inauguration. But due to him being the sitting president, any republican wanting to run for president is just dead in the water. If he's impeached, however, potential candidates have a better chance at securing a 2020 republican president.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> ... But that doesn't mean what is brought out is democratic propaganda. Heck...republicans are equally present in these hearings ...




Are you suggesting the summaries of testimony are being leaked by Republican members of the committee?




> I'll also remind you that the white house continues to defy acknowledging the simple fact that the house of representatives has the sole power of impeachment.



The White House _has_ acknowledged that. The House of Representatives has the power, i.e. the whole body, not the Speaker, not any individual committee. And a proper resolution would establish an impeachment committee, not designate the impeachment investigation to an existing committee which already has a job.

Thursday will be the fourth time since December 2017 that the Democrats have held a vote on whether to open an impeachment inquiry. At least the previous three times they did actually vote on it, instead of just going ahead with it without voting first as they did this time.

Also, as far as I know fewer than 40 members of the House can attend and have access to transcripts of Schiff's secret hearings, and are sworn to secrecy about the specifics (leaks notwithstanding). So everyone else in the House voting on Thursday, i.e. the other 400 members, will be doing so based on media reports and scuttlebutt, not actual evidence.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I've posted elsewhere here, recently, that I support public schools. Perhaps I should have been more specific that I support the traditional form of public education, which is through secondary school. That's enough, if the schools are doing their job of teaching correctly, to prepare a person to function as a adult in the workplace and society generally. But Xzi said "higher education." Sorry, can't get on board with that.
> 
> But as I said before, no founding document establishes any of those things as rights. They have never historically been considered rights in the USA. If you want them to be rights, pass an amendment.
> 
> ...


Your distinction between free secondary education and free higher education is arbitrary, and it's harmful.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Oh No, I did acknowledge downward mobility. You can look back to the first post I posted in response to your income inequality comment and you can see I mention downward mobility. Downward mobility can be cause by a number of things, someone loosing their business, someone retiring, a person selling their house they move up the income bracket then when they buy a new house they move back down.



Those few things you state in relation to downward mobility are not things that would impact multigenerational data I presented. So I stand by my earlier statement. Those things could explain a temporary shift during a recession, but not the data I provided. And certainly not during economic booms like the .com boom. Please go back and review. I'm not going to debate math with someone who isn't understanding the data beyond a case by case interpretation to try and twist data to only suite their narrative.



SG854 said:


> I would say the increase in proportions of dual income families is a positive. I prefer women entering the workforce, 1) Women are not forced to be stay at home moms, and 2) dual income means more disposable income for families. Its an all around positive.



I'm not opposed to women participating in the workforce. However, this is Dis-ingenious and such a fallacy to ignore the larger issue. You aren't digesting the facts provided. I keep stating them but it's hard to understand if you are genuinely trying to discuss but so confused on the actual state of reality or if you purposefully keep spouting things that are just demonstrably misleading to avoid addressing the points I have provided in a legitimate manner. 

I never said Dual income is a negative thing. However, dual income has become a necessity to offset the lack of increase in wages for an increased proportion of families. Many families have the same purchasing power with two people working than back in the 70s when it was more common to have only a single income provider. We have the same purchasing power which means we are effectively being paid less. That can't be that hard to grasp, can it? We should have seen an increase of the middle class and the upper class by the increase in dual income families but the middle class has only decreased and worse the lower class has increased. This confirms that there is an issue w/ our economy and how it is currently structured.



SG854 said:


> So there is an increase in wages as productivity rose, your chart shows people making more then they did in the past. It's just that wages having kept up equally with productivity. Its newer machines and robots that have increased productivity not that humans are working harder. If a company invests millions of dollars in new machines and technology who should reap the benefits of the increased productivity? Because the increased productivity was generated by the owners investment not the workers. I think technology is creating this gap. And I can only assume the democratic position is that even though all that extra money is being generated by the owners investment making him the one entitled to that money, we have to create law to redistribute that money to the workers. Basically making people nowadays earning more for less work compared to their past ancestors.



'My chart' - label which one you are referencing. I'm presuming you mean the Productivity chart from Department of Labor.

Of course technology created this gap. No one is confused about this. That's not even worth mentioning. The productivity of workers increases. What goods and services we can provide in a given day with the same labor has increased. Our pay for our labor has not increased as it should. The profits of that productivity increase has not gone to the workforce in any rate that is remotely equivalent to the rate that goes to investors and owners. This is the point, you say you have to create a law to address this, however, we had unions that negotiated on behalf of the workers to ensure their labor was compensated. We've allowed laws (such as 'right to work' among a multitude of others) to cripple the bargaining power workers of a given industry have to ensure proper wages according to their labor. 

You still have yet to provide relevant statistics and a proper analysis for us to discuss your point of view. I'm still waiting. If your intent is to merely question mine, then you are doing both of us a disservice. 

One final note, 'all that extra money being generated by the owner's investment making him entitled to that money'. I don't think the owner is the one who generates all that extra money if we are talking about labor productivity of workers. Maybe you can clarify because if you think an owner who benefits from the fruits of his employees, from their ingenuity/resourcefulness in cutting costs or expanding client share by using automated tasks that they or another entity other than the owner created, that he should not provide a portion of the profits, to ensure fair compensation of wages that increase as his? Better yet. Don't answer or respond to this as well until you bring a relevant statistic and analysis. For clarity, I'm not talking about a small business owners. I'm talking about CEOs of large corporations and stock investors of publicly traded companies. 

Even companies that invest in automation via robotics still have to have workers skilled in the installation, operation, and maintenance of those devices but are they being promptly rewarded at the same growth rate as the CEO and investors year after year? Workers that are undoubtedly essential to the growth and expansion of the business are not compensated on average with a growth rate that is anywhere near the +900% salary jump of CEOs or +%700 jump of stock investors.

I'm talking about growth rates of wages. I'm not sure you can view beyond a single snapshot but I'm discussing something that occurred during the span of my entire lifetime.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Are you suggesting the summaries of testimony are being leaked by Republican members of the committee?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What they are voting for, just to be clear, is procedural rules of the hearings, ie the format for how they will be conducted. This is not on any articles of impeachment or anything that would require an ounce of evidence. I'm not sure if you are misinformed about the vote or merely gas-lighting.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Your distinction between free secondary education and free higher education is arbitrary, and it's harmful.




Ridiculous. And it's not _my_ distinction, it's a historical one. And not just in the US but pretty much globally. I know some countries in Europe have started offering conditional "free" college, but it's a rather recent thing. And it's probably gonna happen here eventually. Doesn't mean I have to think it's the way it should be though.





RationalityIsLost101 said:


> What they are voting for, just to be clear, is procedural rules of the hearings, ie the format for how they will be conducted. This is not on any articles of impeachment or anything that would require an ounce of evidence. I'm not sure if you are misinformed about the vote or merely gas-lighting.



Yes, I've read that. I referred to that above when I said they need to vote on public hearings where "both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice" to prove this isn't rigged. But why did the House feel it was necessary to have a vote three times before since Dec 2017 on whether to open an impeachment inquiry, but this time the Speaker just announced it was happening without any vote? Because they couldn't get the votes all those other times, so they just did away with it? Defend that.

Voting on procedural rules for an impeachment inquiry, when there hasn't yet been a vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry, necessarily requires that the members are voting to approve or reject the inquiry itself. So I disagree with this "it's just about the rules" angle.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Ridiculous. And it's not _my_ distinction, it's a historical one. And not just in the US but pretty much globally. I know some countries in Europe have started offering conditional "free" college, but it's a rather recent thing. And it's probably gonna happen here eventually. Doesn't mean I have to think it's the way it should be though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can reject it but it isn't required. You can claim historical precedent but that's fine. The committees themselves that are involved could vote to dismiss their involvement if they so desired. As far as "both parties can call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, confront their accusers, be represented by counsel of choice" - this will be decided and outlined by Thursday's vote. I'm not concerned with how the process has proceeded because no rules have been broken. If we want to require such votes before proceeding in an inquiry then it needs be written in as a rule. Historical precedent can't be relied on in our government. This goes for both sides. I didn't argue about Mitch McConnell holding up a confirmation vote for a supreme court justice as we didn't put in effect in the rules that he couldn't.  If you don't pressure our officials to fix the process using written rules then all you are doing is the same as what the republicans are doing, pounding sand.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Ridiculous. And it's not _my_ distinction, it's a historical one. And not just in the US but pretty much globally. I know some countries in Europe have started offering conditional "free" college, but it's a rather recent thing. And it's probably gonna happen here eventually. Doesn't mean I have to think it's the way it should be though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you articulate why one should be free but the other should not be free? If you cannot, the distinction is arbitrary, as I said.


----------



## billapong (Oct 29, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> gas-lighting.



As a victim of actual years long abuse by gas-lighting I find your comments highly offending. For almost a decade I was submitted to it so your frivolent use is horse shit. It's like people saying "They feel raped" about situations that don't involve being held down and forced to participate in sexual actions. Let me tell you, if I were to actually gas light you or rape you I think you'd wouldn't use the words so liberally.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Can you articulate why one should be free but the other should not be free? If you cannot, the distinction is arbitrary, as I said.



Well I'd say the most significant distinction, besides the fact that it has been the norm historically in developed nations for over a century, is that generally speaking secondary education covers until the age of adulthood. Once you're an adult, the direction you take and choices you make are yours, or should be. 

Is the traditional separation of free public education through secondary school, but not for college, arbitrary? I guess to an extent it is, but when it comes to government provided services, the cutoff usually is to some extent.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> As a victim of actual years long abuse by gas-lighting I find your comments highly offending. For almost a decade I was submitted to it so your frivolent use is horse shit. It's like people saying "They feel raped" about situations that don't involve being held down and forced to participate in sexual actions. Let me tell you, if I were to actually gas light you or rape you I think you'd wouldn't use the words so liberally.


While this doesn't dignify a real response given your responses so far I feel it best to nip this here and now. If you genuinely find offense to a term and demand others to give respect and credence, then you will need to carry yourself in a manner to give in kind. 

Furthermore, you couldn't gaslight me in the context as you are suggesting as I'm not subject to your authority. There is a specific and intended use of gaslight in politics, it's been used for years. People have used other terms that have been tabooed in political discussions. Our current president uses witch-hunt, lynching, just to name a few. If you denounce the uses of those by Trump as aggressively as you brought your complaint to me then I would be apt take you seriously as you would have principled ground to stand on.

For now, by someone who has warred against political correctness and all other 'liberal agendas', I just can't. I believe you are an insincere political activist who sways to interject in any manner possible to distract from the current topic of discussion as discussing the current facts are inconvenient for your objective.


----------



## billapong (Oct 29, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> While this doesn't dignify a real response given your responses so far I feel it best to nip this here and now. If you genuinely find offense to a term and demand others to give respect and credence, then you will need to carry yourself in a manner to give in kind.
> 
> Furthermore, you couldn't gaslight me in the context as you are suggesting as I'm not subject to your authority. There is a specific and intended use of gaslight in politics, it's been used for years. People have used other terms that have been tabooed in political discussions. Our current president uses witch-hunt, lynching, just to name a few. If you denounce the uses of those by Trump as aggressively as you brought your complaint to me then I would be apt take you seriously as you would have principled ground to stand on.
> 
> For now, by someone who has warred against political correctness and all other 'liberal agendas', I just can't. I believe you are an insincere political activist who sways to interject in any manner possible to distract from the current topic of discussion as discussing the current facts are inconvenient for your objective.



I'm not trying to interfere with the hate Trump circle jerk. I was pointing out that as someone who has been abused your liberal use of the term gas lighting is offensive - just the same outrage you'd find from the Liberals who claim Trump using the word lynching is wrong. Except, they get a pass, right? My objection is relevant because I'm directly responding to the discussion. It's the same thing as the people in LBTQxyz123 threads saying they feel "this and that". If I'm breaking the rules then every one of their posts related to how they "feel" should be removed. As for Trump being impeached, nothing has changed - it still hasn't happened.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 29, 2019)

billapong said:


> I'm not trying to interfere with the hate Trump circle jerk. I was pointing out that as someone who has been abused your liberal use of the term gas lighting is offensive - just the same outrage you'd find from the Liberals who claim Trump using the word lynching is wrong. Except, they get a pass, right?


Just as a quick check, you don't even know what my political affiliations or beliefs are, so you don't know who I give a pass to or not. Or if I have an inconsistency in what I've said. I do know the people who bashed Trump for his lynching use also bashed Biden. The people who call out people who use 'black face' call out people who are both sides of the political spectrum. Those people are principled in their belief. You sir are not. That's the difference.

I've said what I've said. If you want anything else from me see my prior statement. There's nothing left for me to address.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 29, 2019)

I'm sure when trump is out either by 2024 or forced out that memo stating "the president cant be criminally charged" will be thrown into a dumpster fire and new rules will be enacted to allow without a reasonable doubt 2/3's   vote plus evidence to support criminal activity the president will be not immune to charges (also non self pardonable also if found guilty will be immediently removed from office even w/o impeachment of course safegards will be put in place to prevent abuse of that rule (without them the other side (mainly republicans) would falsely charge for removal (a d*ck move but could be a possible abuse scenario) also maybe force all elected candidates to release their tax returns or be disqualified to run


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Oct 29, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> I'm sure when trump is out either by 2024 or forced out that memo stating "the president cant be criminally charged" will be thrown into a dumpster fire and new rules will be enacted to allow without a reasonable doubt 2/3's   vote plus evidence to support criminal activity the president will be not immune to charges (also non self pardonable also if found guilty will be immediently removed from office even w/o impeachment of course safegards will be put in place to prevent abuse of that rule (without them the other side (mainly republicans) would falsely charge for removal (a d*ck move but could be a possible abuse scenario) also maybe force all elected candidates to release their tax returns or be disqualified to run


Impeachment is a good process on it's own. There aren't issues there. "The president can't be criminally charged" is just a policy by the department of justice, who instead defers the criminal activities to Congress or sits on them until the term ends (happened with Clinton who got nailed on contempt of court charges the moment he left office).


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Are you suggesting the summaries of testimony are being leaked by Republican members of the committee?


It's certainly possible. Democrats have the majority, so on the basis I don't know anyone, chances are larger it's a Democrat. But I don't see why you'd rule out Republicans because of partisanship. Plenty of anonymous testifications of white house officials saying trumps ignorance knows no bound. And Republicans can probably guess that there's no reason to support a crook, so better to get it over with faster. In that aspect, they have more reasons to get this to the public than democrats. 



Hanafuda said:


> The White House _has_ acknowledged that. The House of Representatives has the power, i.e. the whole body, not the Speaker, not any individual committee. And a proper resolution would establish an impeachment committee, not designate the impeachment investigation to an existing committee which already has a job.


Sorry, but it's not up to you (or, probably, also the white house) to decide how a proper resolution looks like. 


Hanafuda said:


> Thursday will be the fourth time since December 2017 that the Democrats have held a vote on whether to open an impeachment inquiry. At least the previous three times they did actually vote on it, instead of just going ahead with it without voting first as they did this time.
> 
> Also, as far as I know fewer than 40 members of the House can attend and have access to transcripts of Schiff's secret hearings, and are sworn to secrecy about the specifics (leaks notwithstanding). So everyone else in the House voting on Thursday, i.e. the other 400 members, will be doing so based on media reports and scuttlebutt, not actual evidence.


Okay... And? If it was up to the president, there 'd be no vote based on zero hearings. 40 still beats 0,right? Again : dirty, but I feel like bringing everything out in the open isn't so much a recipe for a better trial but an invitation for scrutiny.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Well I'd say the most significant distinction, besides the fact that it has been the norm historically in developed nations for over a century, is that generally speaking secondary education covers until the age of adulthood. Once you're an adult, the direction you take and choices you make are yours, or should be.
> 
> Is the traditional separation of free public education through secondary school, but not for college, arbitrary? I guess to an extent it is, but when it comes to government provided services, the cutoff usually is to some extent.


If you agree the distinction is arbitrary, and we know that the financial barriers to higher education are contributing to the problems of social inequalities, why wouldn't we want higher education to be free?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you agree the distinction is arbitrary, and we know that the financial barriers to higher education are contributing to the problems of social inequalities, why wouldn't we want higher education to be free?



First of all, I’m generally disinclined to look to more government as the solution to all life’s problems. Second, social inequalities will exist, always. Some people — most people — are just too stupid to justify teaching beyond a certain point. And too many people are going to college already as it is. The kid who works the cash register at my dry cleaner has a bachelors in marketing.

Higher education should be reserved for higher intellects. But once you open the “free” barn door and call it a “right” _every_ dumbass goes to college. And that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> First of all, I’m generally disinclined to look to more government as the solution to all life’s problems. Second, social inequalities will exist, always. Some people — most people — are just to stupid to justify teaching beyond a certain point. And too many people are going to college already as it is. The kid who works the cash register at my dry cleaner has a bachelors in marketing.
> 
> Higher education should be reserved for higher intellects. But once you open the “free” barn door and call it a “right” _every_ dumbass goes to college. And that doesn't make any sense.


Your ideology is, "Higher education should be reserved for higher incomes."


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Your ideology is, "Higher education should be reserved for higher incomes."



I didn't say that. But life does and always will work that way. First class air travel is reserved for higher incomes. Ferraris are reserved for higher incomes. Parking a yacht in the harbor at Monaco during the Grand Prix is reserved for higher incomes. If you were to get your dream of free college education made to reality, having a college diploma would be of no more value than having a high school diploma is now. (and we're getting close to that already)

What matters more nowadays is not whether you went to college, but which college you went to, and in what area of study. So, in your world of higher education being a right, does everyone have the right to the _same_ education? Does everyone have the right to major in whatever subject they like? Will your local community college diploma be legally equivalent in value to one from Harvard/Yale/MIT? Does everyone have the right to go to Carnegie Mellon and major in Robotics if they want to, at taxpayer expense? I mean, it's their _right_.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I didn't say that. But life does and always will work that way. First class air travel is reserved for higher incomes. Ferraris are reserved for higher incomes. Parking a yacht in the harbor at Monaco during the Grand Prix is reserved for higher incomes. If you were to get your dream of free college education made to reality, having a college diploma would be of no more value than having a high school diploma is now. (and we're getting close to that already)
> 
> What matters more nowadays is not whether you went to college, but which college you went to, and in what area of study. So, in your world of higher education being a right, does everyone have the right to the _same_ education? Does everyone have the right to major in whatever subject they like? Will your local community college diploma be legally equivalent in value to one from Harvard/Yale/MIT? Does everyone have the right to go to Carnegie Mellon and major in Robotics if they want to, at taxpayer expense? I mean, it's their _right_.


I'm not going to substantively address your air travel analogy, since it's apples and oranges.

Everyone should have a right to a quality higher education in the form of public universities. Anything less than that is to continue the same cycles of rich families educating the rich and poor people largely not being able to earn the education needed for upwards social mobility.


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I didn't say that. But life does and always will work that way. First class air travel is reserved for higher incomes. Ferraris are reserved for higher incomes. Parking a yacht in the harbor at Monaco during the Grand Prix is reserved for higher incomes. If you were to get your dream of free college education made to reality, having a college diploma would be of no more value than having a high school diploma is now. (and we're getting close to that already)
> 
> What matters more nowadays is not whether you went to college, but which college you went to, and in what area of study. So, in your world of higher education being a right, does everyone have the right to the _same_ education? Does everyone have the right to major in whatever subject they like? Will your local community college diploma be legally equivalent in value to one from Harvard/Yale/MIT? Does everyone have the right to go to Carnegie Mellon and major in Robotics if they want to, at taxpayer expense? I mean, it's their _right_.



Out of curiosity, do you have a university degree? If so who paid for it?


----------



## morvoran (Oct 29, 2019)

Well, call me surprised.  It seems ol' Shifty Schiff went and changed the rules of his secret impeachment plan again. 

First, he tried to hold it in public which ended in disgrace, then he went and hid in the basement of the House away from the public like any troll would.  Now, since the House Republicans that were allowed to sit in and ask questions of the witnesses kept proving there is still no reason to impeach Trump, Good old "I have concrete proof of Russian collusion" Schiff decided to block any future witness from answering any questions given by the House Minority Republicans. 

The *entire* House of Representatives are in charge of impeachments, not just the Majority of the House.
He should be ashamed of himself as well as any Democrat that supports this new age lynching of our Great President Trump.  This whole fiasco is what Hamilton was afraid of when the articles of impeachment were drafted. 

Source: Here


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Well, call me surprised.  It seems ol' Shifty Schiff went and changed the rules of his secret impeachment plan again.
> 
> Source: Here


Cool story.  Missing a lot of context and a reliable source, however.  Republicans cannot argue against the clear-cut evidence any more, so instead they're now spending all their time and effort trying to unmask the initial whistleblower to score some brown-nosing points (and potentially get a protected witness killed in the process).  As the head of this investigation, it's Schiff's job to ensure the whistleblower's identity remains secret.

A resolution to "formalize" the impeachment inquiry was introduced today, with a vote scheduled for Thursday.  Not that I expect Republicans to cooperate with the process either way, but they'll soon get what they want, or at least what they _think_ they want, as far as making it public goes.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 30, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Those few things you state in relation to downward mobility are not things that would impact multigenerational data I presented. So I stand by my earlier statement. Those things could explain a temporary shift during a recession, but not the data I provided. And certainly not during economic booms like the .com boom. Please go back and review. I'm not going to debate math with someone who isn't understanding the data beyond a case by case interpretation to try and twist data to only suite their narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They agreed to those lower wages. The signed a Job Application agreeing to work for those wages. Why complain when you agreed to it? They knew what they were getting into.

Why would workers get the benefits of a very successful business when their work is based on Salaries not Investments or Sales. Of course the top 1% incomes grow 3 times faster then the rest of the country during a successful event.


Since their earnings are based on Investments and Sales it makes their incomes more volatile compared to the lower classes. Lower Class salary workers $50,000 or less during the recession in 2007-2009 incomes fell by 2%, incomes of the top 5% incomes fell by 50%. Less people are buying stuff during a recession so business owners are hit the hardest.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204346104576638981631627402




Worker output and Wages have been keeping pretty much in line with each other. Your chart doesn't include health care and social security. These things have increased faster then wages. When you take hourly pay and all the benefits into account, then wages have kept up. The stagnant wages is because you are getting it instead from your health care and social security.

It wasn't until after 2003 that workers weren't being compensated for their output. This could be because a relative raise in price of goods and services like housing and education, not a decrease in worker bargaining power, and rising Health Care costs and benefits costs which is the fault of the medical industry and not Business Owners. Why should business owners pay higher wages to pay for the corrupt shit other industries are doing? Go after the housing industry and not Business owners selling products.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime...gap-between-real-wages-and-labor-productivity


----------



## morvoran (Oct 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Cool story. Missing a lot of context and a reliable source, however. Republicans cannot argue against the clear-cut evidence any more, so instead they're now spending all their time and effort trying to unmask the initial whistleblower to score some brown-nosing points


  A House Republican is the source, so that's more reliable source than any of the lame stream media like MSDNC or CNN (communist news network).  The whistleblower is not even important any more as even the lame House demonrats have given up on their testimony, whoever it may be, since the transcript was proof enough Trump did no wrong.



Xzi said:


> and potentially get a protected witness killed in the process)


 Ha ha ha.. Keep it up, you'll get that stand up special on Netflix one day (since they are letting all the lamest comedians have specials now).  The whistleblower isn't holding secrets on the Clintons, so they are safe.  Republicans aren't the ones that kill people like Demonrats such as the Clintons, Joe Scarborough, and Obama.



Xzi said:


> As the head of this investigation, it's Schiff's job to ensure the whistleblower's identity remains secret.


 No, it's Schiff's job to hold a fair and transparent impeachment hearing which he has not since Trump was elected.  Trump should be allowed to face his accuser and have his legal team ask questions.  It's also not his job to lie to the American people like reading off his own version of the Ukraine phone call transcript or lying about having concrete proof of Russian collusion.



Xzi said:


> A resolution to "formalize" the impeachment inquiry was introduced today, with a vote scheduled for Thursday. Not that I expect Republicans to cooperate with the process either way, but they'll soon get what they want, or at least what they _think_ they want, as far as making it public goes.


  Yeah, since the Demonrats are in charge of the process, I don't have any faith that it will be fair, formal, or what the Republicans want.  I'm sure Schiff and Pelosi will add terms to the inquiry that will end up treating Trump as if he actually committed a crime (by the way, winning the 2016 election is not illegal).


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> A House Republican is the source


Like I said, you're missing a reliable source.



morvoran said:


> Republicans aren't the ones that kill people


Talk about selective amnesia.



morvoran said:


> Yeah, since the Demonrats are in charge of the process, I don't have any faith that it will be fair, formal, or what the Republicans want.


Republicans (cuckservatives) set most of the rules on impeachment proceedings.  The only reason for arguing process now is that they can't argue the evidence.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Like I said, you're missing a reliable source.


 I never said the source was Mitt Romney (the closet democrat) or any other Rino/never-Trumper.  I'm talking about the House Republican Steve Scalise.



Xzi said:


> Talk about selective amnesia.


  I guess so.  I can't think of any Republicans that murdered anybody, unless you mean how Trump ordered the killing of Al-baghdadi (I hear a lot of liberals are not too happy about that) or GWB being responsible for the death of Saddam Hussein.  Speaking of Scalise, hmm, what happened to him at that baseball practice back in 2017???  Hmmmmm



Spoiler



Scalise was shot by a far left activist[5][6] on June 14, 2017 at a baseball practice for the congressional baseball team in Virginia and was taken to the hospital in critical condition.[7][8] He returned to the House on September 28, where he gave a speech about his experience related to the traumatic events.[9]





Xzi said:


> Republicans (cuckservatives) set most of the rules on impeachment proceedings. The only reason for arguing process now is that they can't argue the evidence.


  Um, do you live in a parallel world and only visit this one to post nonsense on GBAtemp?  Since before Trump was elected, the Democrats have been working on this whole impeachment fiasco/nonsense/mess.
They have every right to argue about the process since they are being stonewalled by the "do-nothing" demonrats that can't pass or work on any legislation other than trying to undo the 2016 election that Trump won fair and square even with the Dems using Russia and Ukraine's help to influence the election. Just wait for the FISA abuse report to be released.  I hope Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadsler get locked up for years.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 30, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> Out of curiosity, do you have a university degree? If so who paid for it?




I had a modest scholarship (I think it was about $500 a semester?, which was actually helpful since we're talking about 1985-89), but mostly my undergrad diploma was paid for by me working on the packing line in a factory that makes the top of a beer/soda can, during summers while I was in school. (The company is called Crown, Cork, & Seal) I worked 20 days in a row, then one shift off due to State law, then 20 days again, and took as much overtime as I could get. I did a lot of 12 and 16 hour shifts. I made enough each summer to cover my tuition, rent, books, etc. No debt.

I have a postgraduate degree as well, for which I did take student loans. Paid that off about 10 years after graduating. I didn't have to borrow too much ... I worked for 2 years as an English teacher in Japan after I got the bachelor's and made/saved some money. JET Program.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> I'm not going to substantively address your air travel analogy, since it's apples and oranges.
> 
> Everyone should have a right to a quality higher education in the form of public universities. Anything less than that is to continue the same cycles of rich families educating the rich and poor people largely not being able to earn the education needed for upwards social mobility.




Actually you didn't substantively address anything from my post. What about the second paragraph ... you're saying the right applies to public universities?? So the rich people go to private universities, and a public college diploma counts for shit. Just like now, only more so.

You also didn't address my question about whether you get to major in anything you please, no matter how poorly you've done academically or behaviorally. I mean why not, it's my right! I'm 52 years old and tired of my career and want to go to engineering school now. It's my right! I want to stay in college forever and live the party student life while never finishing a diploma because I'm Peter Pan! It's my right!!

I know you want to say, well, there'll be these limits and conditions. But then it's not a right. That's a law/regulation. I don't support such a law, but you're free to vote for a candidate who's willing to buy your vote with such promises. Bread and circuses, until the fall.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I guess so. I can't think of any Republicans that murdered anybody


2018 was full of right-wing terrorist/mass shooter killings almost exclusively.  This year the most notable one was the El Paso shooter.  I know you're not that dumb though, just playing dumb in a poor attempt to save face.



morvoran said:


> Since before Trump was elected, the Democrats have been working on this whole impeachment fiasco/nonsense/mess.


Tough argument to make considering he committed probably a hundred different impeachable offenses over the last three years before Pelosi finally had her hand forced.  Violation of the emoluments clause on its own is definitely impeachable.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 30, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I had a modest scholarship (I think it was about $500 a semester?, which was actually helpful since we're talking about 1985-89), but mostly my undergrad diploma was paid for by me working on the packing line in a factory that makes the top of a beer/soda can, during summers while I was in school. (The company is called Crown, Cork, & Seal) I worked 20 days in a row, then one shift off due to State law, then 20 days again, and took as much overtime as I could get. I did a lot of 12 and 16 hour shifts. I made enough each summer to cover my tuition, rent, books, etc. No debt.
> 
> I have a postgraduate degree as well, for which I did take student loans. Paid that off about 10 years after graduating. I didn't have to borrow too much ... I worked for 2 years as an English teacher in Japan after I got the bachelor's and made/saved some money. JET Program.
> 
> ...


The information regarding the relationship between  income inequality and education inequality speaks for itself. I'm also not particularly interested in responding to your party strawman, since it's a distraction from the issue of unequal access to education.

Also, what you did in the 1980s isn't comparable to what things are like now.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 30, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The information regarding the relationship between  income inequality and education inequality speaks for itself. I'm also not particularly interested in responding to your party strawman, since it's a distraction from the issue of unequal access to education.




I think that's the most roundabout way of saying "no comment" I've ever seen. 

Good night, Lacius. Just so you know, I enjoy discussing issues with you. I don't agree with you on much, and I know the feeling is mutual. But you know your position and advocate very well for it. :thumbsup:




Lacius said:


> Also, what you did in the 1980s isn't comparable to what things are like now.



Well, since you added to your post ....

Factories still make things and will hire temps in summer due to heavier demand. Construction jobs can be had just by walking onto a site and asking sometimes. Did that too, after I got back from Japan but before I went back to school. Worked with a crew pouring the concrete floors/ceilings for a Holiday Inn.

The JET Program still exists. It's a great deal.

I just don't see the attitude these days from many young people that they'll do whatever it takes. Instead I hear, "boo hoo, it's different now. You had it so easy back then." When I was in undergrad, because I made a finite amount at that summer job I was strictly budgeted through the school year. When I couldn't make the budget I sold blood plasma. I still have a scar I can show you on the inside of my right elbow from the regular needle insertions.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 30, 2019)

Education is free. Internet with all the worlds knowledge at my finger tips. Its better now, fuck the past. Learn on your own, start up your own business, fuck college. Getting a device with internet is a Hell a lot cheaper then going to college.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 30, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I think that's the most roundabout way of saying "no comment" I've ever seen.
> 
> Good night, Lacius. Just so you know, I enjoy discussing issues with you. I don't agree with you on much, and I know the feeling is mutual. But you know your position and advocate very well for it. :thumbsup:


If the rebuttal is "what about people who want to stay in school and party all the time," I'm not going to have much of a comment.

Regardless, I didn't mean to derail the thread.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 30, 2019)

Xzi said:


> 2018 was full of right-wing terrorist/mass shooter killings almost exclusively. This year the most notable one was the El Paso shooter. I know you're not that dumb though, just playing dumb in a poor attempt to save face.


Oh, I thought you were talking about politicians that kill.  That's why what you said didn't make since when you were talking about republicans.   As far as mass shootings, there were far many more left leaning shooters than right leaning ones.  I'm not sure what "right-wing terrorist" you're talking about.



Xzi said:


> Tough argument to make considering he committed probably a hundred different impeachable offenses over the last three years before Pelosi finally had her hand forced. Violation of the emoluments clause on its own is definitely impeachable.


  Ok, name one impeachable offense that Trump committed.  You were obviously joking about that emoluments clause so that doesn't count.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Source: Here



So your credible source is Steve Scalise's opinion? LMAO! Okay. But, let's go there. Do you mean like how Trump orders people not to testify? Hypocrite. HYPOCRITE!!!!




morvoran said:


> Ok, name one impeachable offense that Trump committed.




And obviously EXTREMELY ignorant.


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> As far as mass shootings, there were far many more left leaning shooters than right leaning ones.


I knew you were a Qanon moron. Anybody with an ounce of sense will just put you on ignore which is what I'm now doing.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Oh, I thought you were talking about politicians that kill.


Politicians do their killing indirectly, like all the Kurds who were killed as a result of Trump's dangerously incompetent foreign policy decisions.  Obviously that's not the type of thing I was referring to, I was referring to all the brainwashed morons who would gladly kill somebody Trump doesn't like at his behest.  That's why anonymity is important for the whistleblower.  Not to mention their testimony has already been corroborated by several other people, so it completely invalidates the need to unmask a protected witness.



morvoran said:


> Ok, name one impeachable offense that Trump committed. You were obviously joking about that emoluments clause so that doesn't count.


I was not kidding, and the fact that you're happy to ignore parts of the constitution out of convenience already put you on the losing side of this argument.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 30, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> So your credible source is Steve Scalise's opinion? LMAO! Okay. But, let's go there. Do you mean like how Trump orders people not to testify? Hypocrite. HYPOCRITE!!!!


 Scalise's opinions are better than anything Schiff and pelosi have said so far.  Did you hear Schiff read off his own version of the Ukraine call and pelosi said those were Trump exact words?  Hypocrisy!!!  Also, what part of what scalise said can be misconstrued as false?  You can argue it's his opinion based on fact, but you can't say the facts they are based on are not true.
How do you know Trump himself ordered people not to talk?  Even if he did, why go along with a secret process where people are convicting him of crimes when none were committed to push him out of office just because they aren't happy with the results of the 2016 election?



D34DL1N3R said:


> And obviously EXTREMELY ignorant.


 and yet you didn't offer one impeachable crime he committed?  How ignorant.



seany1990 said:


> put you on ignore which is what I'm now doing.


Thank you!!!



Xzi said:


> Politicians do their killing indirectly, like all the Kurds who were killed as a result of Trump's dangerously incompetent foreign policy decisions.


. Better them than our service men/women.  I guess it's ok to you for our people to be killed to protect foreigners that hate us and refuse to protect themselves. Ok.



Xzi said:


> Obviously that's not the type of thing I was referring to, I was referring to all the brainwashed morons who would gladly kill somebody Trump doesn't like at his behest.


. You seem to be confusing Republicans with Democrats again.  Was there another party switch that happened the past couple of weeks I didn't hear about like the one you believe happened after the civil war?  Maybe that monkeydude was right, Obama was a Republican?



Xzi said:


> That's why anonymity is important for the whistleblower. Not to mention their testimony has already been corroborated by several other people, so it completely invalidates the need to unmask a protected witness.


 yes, and yet, the Dems are still trying to impeach Trump for that perfect call.  
Also, we have had the transcript for the call for weeks now.  Why do the Dems need anybody, including the whistle blowing coward, to testify about the call when we know exactly what was said in that call?  What can anybody else say about that call that we can't read for ourselves?  Do you and the house Dems need others to interpret the call for you to see things that aren't there? You Dems make my head spin.



Xzi said:


> was not kidding, and the fact that you're happy to ignore parts of the constitution out of convenience already put you on the losing side of this argument


Again with the confusion.  You should read up on what the Constitution says about impeachment and what is an impeachable offense.
I'm always on the winning side of arguments because I look up stuff for myself instead of only going by what Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow tells me.


----------



## billapong (Oct 30, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> I knew you were a Qanon moron. Anybody with an ounce of sense will just put you on ignore which is what I'm now doing.



He's technically correct though. Maybe you should do some research into the political affiliation of the mass shooters since Trump has taken office. You might learn something and then put yourself on ignore.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> He's technically correct though. Maybe you should do some research into the political affiliation of the mass shooters since Trump has taken office. You might learn something and then put yourself on ignore.


That's just the typical response of a liberal moron who has nothing to back up their argument and resorts to name calling.  It's nice that some of these ridiculous liberals deal with themselves by adding me to their ignore list, so I don't have to ignore them.  There are several other liberal trolls on here that I wish would add me to their ignore list.
This is why Schiff is trying to impeach Trump in secret.  He has no case for impeachment, so he questions as many witnesses as he can then leaks the parts that suits his agenda to make Trump look bad.  Can't defend his actions in public, so he has to hide like the Demonrat troll he is in the basement.


----------



## billapong (Oct 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> That's just the typical response of a liberal moron who has nothing to back up their argument and resorts to name calling.  It's nice that some of these ridiculous liberals deal with themselves by adding me to their ignore list, so I don't have to ignore them.
> This is why Schiff is trying to impeach Trump in secret.  He has no case for impeachment, so he questions as many witnesses as he can then leaks the parts that suits his agenda to make Trump look bad.  Can't defend his actions in public, so he has to hide like the Demonrat troll he is in the basement.



Well, Liberals live in a subjective reality. I personally would like the Democrats to actually do something they say they're going to do and impeach him in the house already. That way it can make its way into the Senate and get stomped. I have a feeling it's more for show then anything else, especially considering it's been the plan all along. The reason doesn't really matter because they were simply looking for any reason to begin with. It's not fair, but hey, it'll backfire and burn down just like the Liberal policies are doing in (and to) California.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 30, 2019)

Liberals don't take showers


----------



## morvoran (Oct 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> I have a feeling it's more for show then anything else, especially considering it's been the plan all along.


 I always suspected it was to waste Trump's first four years in the hopes he won't be elected for a second term, but there is no way the Dems will hold onto the house after 2020 since they haven't done anything other than try to impeach Trump (which they must know isn't going to happen).  
On top of that, Trump is going to get a second term with a republican majority house and senate, so they aren't doing anything but wasting time and making the Democrat party look worse than they already do


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 30, 2019)

When people say they can't find a reason to impeach Trump...
Me: HELLO, BRIBERY? You know just telling the foreign country to reccive aid they have to look into one of their rivial political candiadates and cough up dirt,  IS  totally not a impeachable. NOT AT ALL. Sigh... feel like humanity is growing more hopeless by the day.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 30, 2019)

Fuckin' neocons will do the craziest mental gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable rofl.  Guess Republicans are anti-constitution, anti-law, and anti-military now.  Maybe behind their thin masks they always were though.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> and yet you didn't offer one impeachable crime he committed?  How ignorant.



Because I need to explain or justify ANYthing to YOU? HAHAHAA!!!! Go cry about it.



> I'm always on the winning side of arguments because I look up stuff for myself instead of only going by what Don Lemon and Rachel Maddow tells me.



You just continue to make yourself look more stupid by the second. Very, very, VERY few people here would believe you even for a split second. I'm seen a LOT of the shit you post, and there's just not a chance in hell you "look up stuff for myself", and you've not "won" anything around here from what I've seen. In fact, you're on the losing side. Try to keep shit straight, yeah? Buh bye now.


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 30, 2019)

billapong said:


> Well, Liberals live in a subjective reality. I personally would like the Democrats to actually do something they say they're going to do and impeach him in the house already. That way it can make its way into the Senate and get stomped. I have a feeling it's more for show then anything else, especially considering it's been the plan all along. The reason doesn't really matter because they were simply looking for any reason to begin with. It's not fair, but hey, it'll backfire and burn down just like the Liberal policies are doing in (and to) California.


It is just for show in yet another attempt to keep tainting Trump's image. Watch this shit get dragged on until election day and beyond once Trump is reelected.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 30, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They agreed to those lower wages. The signed a Job Application agreeing to work for those wages. Why complain when you agreed to it? They knew what they were getting into.



This is a fallacy. If this ultimately drives all your concerns then a genuine discussion is unobtainable. There are some workers who have a set of skills who have more negotiating power than others. There are some who work in industries due to either civil service or jobs whose corporations ban any union formation. Your argument is equivalent to saying this is the status quo, accept it and don't ask for change. At the time of hire most upperclass workers do have options to ensure proper wage growth. Lowerclass and middleclass do not, unions are one of the major pressures available to address this. Let's avoid blaming less affluent people for systemic economic issues and focus on solutions.



SG854 said:


> Why would workers get the benefits of a very successful business when their work is based on Salaries not Investments or Sales. Of course the top 1% incomes grow 3 times faster then the rest of the country during a successful event.



You state the status quo but ignore what would happen if unions were present in ever industry. It should be standard that each worker receives quarterly and yearly bonuses just as the Managers, Directors, VPs, and CEOs do in any large corporation. The lack of negotiation is what is at fault.



SG854 said:


> Since their earnings are based on Investments and Sales it makes their incomes more volatile compared to the lower classes. Lower Class salary workers $50,000 or less during the recession in 2007-2009 incomes fell by 2%, incomes of the top 5% incomes fell by 50%. Less people are buying stuff during a recession so business owners are hit the hardest.
> 
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204346104576638981631627402



Your article is behind a paywall, if it's not able to be viewed by all I won't discuss it, that's my policy. Even if the top 5% incomes fell by 50%, it is confirmation that the importance of lowerclass and middleclass wage growth should be prioritized much more than it is currently. Over 80% of Americans fall within those brackets. Their discretionary income is the lifeblood of any small business and impacts the bottom line for virtually all other industries directly or indirectly.



SG854 said:


> Worker output and Wages have been keeping pretty much in line with each other. Your chart doesn't include health care and social security. These things have increased faster then wages. When you take hourly pay and all the benefits into account, then wages have kept up. The stagnant wages is because you are getting it instead from your health care and social security.









So I've seen compensation being used instead of wages but it's not a universally defined criteria. I can find multiple authors than use different evaluations for compensation. This one above is just one of the examples. While SS is constantly applied, the compensation for healthcare has been another variable that is being interpreted differently by different authors. I have to point out something else. The amount the employer pays vs the employee - that rate has been pushing more on the employee over time. I would expect higher wages to compensate this but they aren't. 

Forgive me for yet another shameless plug for the need of medicare for all. If the projection of tax increase on average is less than the 6k for family coverage then it is a direct savings for families and will again increase discretionary income. As far as business expenses would the % they pay for medicare for all be cheaper than what they are paying as well? The projections I saw say yes, a huge weight off of small businesses that can't afford to supply group benefits and allows them to more effectively compete in the market. I know this isn't the discussion so I'll stop. I've been invested in this since the 90s when a long brutal discussion w/ an economics professor I met while skiing and changed my mind to support it.






While I trust that you can do the math, to drive home a point I'll go ahead and supply the delta.

26% Employee paying 26% in 1999 but now is paying 29% in 2019

That was family, what about single coverage?
the employee paying 17% or $1,242 (up from 14% in 1999)

A quick conclusion statement to insure the point is made: If the % of the share of costs of these benefits are increasing for employees and decreasing for employers, where is the wage growth to offset that change? Again, take away unions that negotiate for workers and what you are left with are employers will continue to shift the cost (a huge and growing cost) of healthcare benefits on to the employees.





Other figures are  below. This graphic is 2008-2017





A quick question how are you looking at SS as a benefit. Are you looking at the consumption or the amount each worker is paying per paycheck in payroll taxes? The former is not something drawn out until retirement and is not the focus of this discussion. The later is noteworthy. This is something that you may find interesting. We have been paying the same % base of SS for 30 years. Employee and Employer splits this 6.2% each. The same is done for 2.9% medicare tax - 1.45% for each. So if these are constant %'s how can they attribute to wage stagnation? In the .com boom no less? The answer is this is a farce to suggest it has any culpability. Let's move on to the next point now shall we.









SG854 said:


> It wasn't until after 2003 that workers weren't being compensated for their output. This could be because a relative raise in price of goods and services like housing and education, not a decrease in worker bargaining power, and rising Health Care costs and benefits costs which is the fault of the medical industry and not Business Owners. Why should business owners pay higher wages to pay for the corrupt shit other industries are doing? Go after the housing industry and not Business owners selling products.
> 
> https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime...gap-between-real-wages-and-labor-productivity



You still appear to have such a limited perspective on the actual issue. Even so, I appreciate you bringing sources instead of just questions. How does the housing industry effect the wages of employees unless they are being zoned out of the districts that they work and are forced to relocate due to commute? I'm not sure. I'm really overreaching to understand what you mean. I agree it can affect discretionary income and I want it addressed through regulations (the free market purists are dying inside when they read this). But just remember we are talking about wages and income not living costs. Don't confuse the two.

"But when the numbers are measured more comprehensively—when wages are broadly defined as compensation to include benefits, comparable price indexes are used to calculate differences in wage and output growth in constant dollars, and the output is measured net of depreciation—the puzzle of lagging wages disappears, at least for 1970–2000."

Do you understand that only a small minority of workers get healthcare benefits without it deducting their pay? Most will pay a share with their employer, this impacts each worker to a various degree. Have you actually read the entire article of what you posted from piie.com

"The explanation for the sluggish rise in real wages over the long run—1970 through 2000—may lie not with something that weakened labor's bargaining power but instead in changes in the relative prices of the goods and services that workers consume and those that they produce. In particular, in thinking about policies to raise middle-class incomes, we should be concerned about (a) the rising relative prices of goods and services that workers consume such as housing and education; (b) the rising costs of benefits, especially health care, and (c) the slow productivity growth in services as compared with the rapid productivity growth in investment goods. In the period after 2000, the declining share of labor (and rising share of profits) does warrant further explanation (in a recent working paper, I argue this growing gap reflects a particular type of technical change), but prior to that, simplistic comparisons of "real" output per worker and "real" wages are likely to lead analysts to draw the wrong conclusions."

While I appreciate his view as he validates a few significant issues, he has some questionable conclusions. I concede there isn't one sole contributor to this crisis and perhaps I could be more clear. The issue we face is the amount of depth of economic policy required to discuss vs the amount of effort we are willing to provide to discuss. You've shown willingness to bring sources and analysis as requested so I will continue in good faith. So let's start here and move forward. 

(a) The rising relative prices of goods/services that workers consume - does this impact wages that workers receive? take home pay? housing impacts the remaining discretionary income, education is a mixed bag. It can influence pay if you were talking about the level of education/training, however, if you are talking about the payment of education well then student loan debt would be a factor worth examining and I bring it up to show how it hurts discretionary income but to get back on topic... The author is disingenuously confusing shrinking discretionary income w/ stagnant wages. The problems compound each-other sure but stating that one is the cause of the other is... well laughable and absurd. Even if I was being the most generous and he is alluding to job training, that's not a real factor, HR weeds out unqualified workers and qualified vs over qualified workers that don't require training are abundant in the workforce yet their wage growth is not observable. This would fall into another snapshot argument and not something that would actually impact generational growth. So I'll throw that out as well. Yea, I'm sorry no ground here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/your-money/student-loan-debt-parents.html





So we identified that student debt is out of control. I've seen CPI vs student loan and its rough. I made a previous post within the past day or two about my presumptions on addressing student loan debt in a fiscal manner through student loan forgiveness. I don't write policy so take it with a grain of salt. Just a off the cuff suggestion of a potential compromise to the proposal for tuition-free higher education. Both a loan forgiveness route and tuition free would probably be funded through the proposed taxation methods if this ever was taken up in congress. But this is off topic again so I'm going to move on.







(b) the rising costs of benefits, especially health care,

See chart above. I want to reiterate that only a small, very small minority of workers get healthcare benefits without it deducting their take-home pay. Most will pay a share of the premiums with their employer, this impacts each worker to a various degree. I concede to his point this both affects the real wages of workers and impacts discretionary income. All the more reason to pass medicare for all.

(c) the slow productivity growth in services as compared with the rapid productivity growth in investment goods. In the period after 2000, the declining share of labor (and rising share of profits) does warrant further explanation (in a recent working paper, I argue this growing gap reflects a particular type of technical change), but prior to that, simplistic comparisons of "real" output per worker and "real" wages are likely to lead analysts to draw the wrong conclusions."

Or people would realize sometimes simplistic comparisons give correct conclusions. He concedes that there is a gap. I read his recent working paper, a line struck out that seemed pertinent to mention, I encourage you to read it as well:

"Several papers have explained the recent decline in labor's share in income by claiming that capital has been substituted for labor." 

This is another instance of observing an effect and incorrectly conflating it with the cause. The cause is the removal of union pressure that fought for an adequate labor share. The effect is when that pressure is removed, a decrease in labor share is replaced by capital investments. It merely filled the void and has a higher yield of profits to the status quo, ie CEOs and share holders. This best explains the growth of the investors and CEOs as well as the stagnation of the labor force's wages.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Education is free. Internet with all the worlds knowledge at my finger tips. Its better now, fuck the past. Learn on your own, start up your own business, fuck college. Getting a device with internet is a Hell a lot cheaper then going to college.


Except you need a foundation to ensure you are learning accurate information. We do live in an information age, but the last thing we need to deal with are people who read web MD and tell doctors who went through accredited institutions how to practice medicine. I know what you are saying and to a large degree I agree with you, just giving a bit of devil's advocate that not everyone is willing to multi source information to ensure it has validity. We need accreditation and standards so we can expect quality goods/services. Things that I'm referring to are licenses, degrees, or certifications and they need to be provisioned by accredited institutions to have worth/credibility.

There might be other examples that would suite better but it's the first one that came to mind. There are some things that formal institutions can't teach or keep up with. Those would benefit from self-learning and given a proper foundation, the internet can be a good source of information.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 30, 2019)

This shouldn't be closed, but I do think all this off-topic stuff should be moved to a new thread.


----------



## morvoran (Oct 30, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Because I need to explain or justify ANYthing to YOU? HAHAHAA!!!! Go cry about it.
> 
> You just continue to make yourself look more stupid by the second. Very, very, VERY few people here would believe you even for a split second. I'm seen a LOT of the shit you post, and there's just not a chance in hell you "look up stuff for myself", and you've not "won" anything around here from what I've seen. In fact, you're on the losing side. Try to keep shit straight, yeah? Buh bye now.


 Oh, wow, with your superb intellect showing by resorting to insults without anything to back up what you say, how could I have ever thought I could reach the same level as you?  Maybe I should sniff industrial strength glue to lower my IQ level to match folks like you.




Xzi said:


> Fuckin' neocons will do the craziest mental gymnastics to justify the unjustifiable rofl.  Guess Republicans are anti-constitution, anti-law, and anti-military now.  Maybe behind their thin masks they always were though.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


  I like how "fuckin' liberalcons" always try to attack the right by saying the republicans are exactly what the demonrats are.  Oh, wait, I don't like that and is why I chose to #walkaway from the shithead democrat party.

Anti-constitution =  Dems - takes away guns from law abiding citizens and change the 2nd amendment

Anti-law = Dems create laws against illegal aliens then create sanctuary cities and protect them over legal immigrants/citizens.  The DNC colluded with Ukraine to spy on a US citizen running for president in 2016.

anti-military =  remember when the Washington Post called al-baghdadi an "austere religious scholar"?  What was that about?  Key Senate Democrats signaled Monday their caucus is likely to filibuster a proposed 2020 defense spending bill, which Senate Republican leaders plan to offer for a vote this week.

I wish you liberal democrats would use actual facts and evidence instead of just spewing insults and hate.  It would make conversations a lot better here.  I know it's hard to find truths and facts to back up the bullshit your party spreads, but at least put some effort into it.  You folks just mirror your leaders in the House that are trying to impeach Trump on nothing but the fact they don't like the results of the 2016 election.  You just spew your own insults and hate and then say people like me don't bring anything to the conversation when the right wingers here are the only ones that actually provide real information in these conversations.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 30, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> This shouldn't be closed, but I do think all this off-topic stuff should be moved to a new thread.


I agree, and apologize, any further economic discussion will be pursued in another thread.


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> When people say they can't find a reason to impeach Trump...
> Me: HELLO, BRIBERY? You know just telling the foreign country to reccive aid they have to look into one of their rivial political candiadates and cough up dirt,  IS  totally not a impeachable. NOT AT ALL. Sigh... feel like humanity is growing more hopeless by the day.


Here is the spiel.

President has presidential immunity. He is not liable for what he does in office by law. Impeachment is a political process to 'offset' that (systems of checks and balances). It (its clause) is written purposefully vague. So many things can fall under it (dependent on you being able to convince the public (via media), that starting the process is proper) - and if something is an impeachable offense - ultimately is only decided by senate. Where dems dont have a 2/3 majority (which they would need).

So the most likely outcome is that he wont be impeached. But reps are fighting back on 'public perception' being the cause he shouldnt - which is pretty much bull.  In the end though they will not let him be impeached, get a little reputation damage - and then the next elections will be held.

Most likely.

None of this has to do with if what he did was legal, and some has to do with if it was moral, but really not that much (you couldnt impeach a president against the public revolting, but thats pretty much it..  ). Almost all of it is political.

Politicians at high ranks - for acts they did in office, when they had immunity - dont answer to the law, they answer to political committees.

Its a thing.


----------



## billapong (Oct 31, 2019)

notimp said:


> Here is the spiel.
> 
> President has presidential immunity. He is not liable for what he does in office by law. Impeachment is a political process to 'offset' that (systems of checks and balances). It (its clause) is written purposefully vague. So many things can fall under it (dependent on you being able to convince the public (via media), that starting the process is proper) - and if something is an impeachable offense - ultimately is only decided by senate. Where dems dont have a 2/3 majority (which they would need).
> 
> ...



Yet people wonder the the USA President is called "the most powerful person in the World".

Yet people wonder why the "elite" Government officials get a pass on all sorts of illegal shit.

I suppose lacking an education is a great excuse for ignorance, but then rejecting facts and not learning when given the chance to is no excuse.

(I think Liberals need to read my first sentence again. *Trump is the most powerful person in the World* and since he puts up with your shit he's also the most respectful and tolerant. If he were part of the LBGTQxzy123 crowd he'd have you ruined for disagreeing with him or if he was a socialist he'd have you killed. Liberals should count their blessings).


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 31, 2019)

Another 20IQ post from Billabong LMAO. You couldn't come up with a coherent thought even if there was a gun to your head


----------



## billapong (Oct 31, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> Another 20IQ post from Billabong LMAO. You couldn't come up with a coherent thought even if there was a gun to your head



I guess since you Liberals are scared of guns I have nothing to worry about. Do your argue that Trump isn't the most powerful man in the world? Do you argue that the LBTAQ389fdisifdklzxxc group wouldn't ruin you for disagreeing with them? Do you argue that under a communist state the leader wouldn't have his opposition killed? Or do you just want to try to sound smart, because if you're trying to do that you're going to have to ask your Liberal overlords to teach you how, because you're failing miserably. Actually, you following me around replying with ZERO substance has earned you a place on my ignore list. I hope you choke to death on your ignorance.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2019)

billapong said:


> Yet people wonder the the USA President is called "the most powerful person in the World".
> 
> Yet people wonder why the "elite" Government officials get a pass on all sorts of illegal shit.


This is actually something thats the case in quite a few countries around the world. If you think about it, the president can sign some laws into action, just by giving his signature. He can sign off on extralegal killings (as we just saw in action) in the US, but more importantly - in concept, he might have to decide on stuff thats important for the nation, but might leave him compromised in the eyes of the law.

Diplomatic immunity also is something that exists and does not only apply to the POTUS, f.e.

Certain state agencies (secret services community) are entirely above the law. If you think about James Clapper lying to the nation, and indeed the world, under oath, in a state hearing - and recusing himself with "this was the least untruthfull I could be" - has to fear no legal consequences for his actions.

Usually how those instances are supposed to work is, that you have again, a political committee that gets briefed in secrecy, and that can prevent or sign off on some stuff, or a publicly elected figure (think president), that has to sign off some of the stuff they do.

So - if you make 'the law' or are supposed to act on the fringes of it there are some political positions, that - while acting in an official capacity you are meant to be above the law. To make sure, they arent easily compromised. (Think, f.e. extortion.) To make sure that they don't abuse their power, you make them accountable by other means of checks and balances.

Even if they do something stupid - in the interest of the nation, you put what they said (protocol) onto a different, classified, server (as we've learned in this case) - or you rewrite the official transcript of the call to be less damaging (public perception around the world). In the olden days, you would have signed off on that 'document of record' to be classified for 50 years, and no one would have been any wiser. (And then denounced anyone who blew the whistle as a spy) As a journalist for example, you could ask the government through freedom of information requests to hand over such protocols (if you know they exist), but if they are still classified, you wont even be told that they exist, or get any response - you simply would be ignored. Now - usually, all that stuff is on protocol (someone, somewhere puts it in writing), and will be released 50 years, maybe a 100 years post facto for 'public consumption' (think Nixon tapes  ). But there are ways to even meddle with that, f.e. taking those documents and putting them in your 'presidential' private library (usually a fund financed vehicle), and then you have more control over it... Stuff like that.

The long and short of it is, that yes - a select few people are above the law, when acting within the capacity of their jobs. And to keep them honest you have 'councils of their peers' (political instruments), and 'public rituals' to allow for public pressure.

The justification for it, btw is 'greater pubic good', or stuff thats 'in the interest of the nation'. You know - like digging up dirt on your political opponent..


----------



## billapong (Oct 31, 2019)

notimp said:


> This is actually something thats the case in quite a few countries around the world. If you think about it, the president can sign some laws into action, just by giving his signature. He can sign off on extralegal killings (as we just saw in action) in the US, but more importantly - in concept, he might have to decide on stuff thats important for the nation, but might leave him compromised in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Diplomatic immunity also is something that exists and does not only apply to the POTUS, f.e.
> 
> ...



Diplomatic immunity is touched on in Hollywood movies often so you'd think that most people would realize "it's a thing". Some people need the leeway to go about protecting the best interests of this country without having to deal with laws that are meant for the general public. If you disagree with this then that's just too bad - it is what it is.

You should just be thankful that you can disagree and do so publicly without being thrown into a prison camp and then having your organs harvested before they kill you (and have those organs go to the people you're speaking out against). What's this nonsense I'm talking about? Prison camps? Organs? Just normal every day business in China, that happens to be a communist state.

It's the same thing that would eventually happen in the USA if we adopt socialism. Maybe not right away, but once we give up our rights because some people have no idea how to live our own lives and think the Government knows best we'll soon be dealing with being powerless. The Constitution isn't outdated. It predicts human behavior perfectly and since humans keep repeating the past its very fitting for our current time.

Trump is the most powerful man in the world. He should be respected just like any other President should be respected. He's a great leader because he doesn't throw his critics in jail. The LGBTQxyz123 people will ruin your life if you don't address them in a certain manner. Leaders in communist countries will have you executed for disagreeing with them. Communist countries like Iran will chop your hands off for stealing or throw you off a building for being gay. Yet, people want that to happen here?

Trump is the most powerful man in the world. There's a process created for dealing with corrupt Presidents. The process shouldn't be premeditated or abused, but that's exactly what the Liberals have done and are doing. It's just unfortunate that the majority of the general public needed a spread sheet to explain the basic impeachment process to them, but I guess teaching "gender studies" to confused youth who unfortunately through years of being misinformed can't figure out if their own sex is much more important then teaching kids about how their Government actually functions (hint - teaching them how things work would go against the Liberal agenda, because if they knew the truth and how things should be the Liberals wouldn't get away with so much of their shit - it benefits them to lie to, confuse and distract the kids/young adults).

This entire impeachment effort was premeditated and the process is being abused, yet everyone's eyes are on Trump and are only paying attention to the selective information they're being spoon fed from the main stream media. Well, the circus is going to end up with the Clowns getting hurt and the Ringmaster still being in control. It's just too bad the priority of the Liberals is to destroy our country. Imagine if all of these mindless people were motivated by their masters to do good instead of evil.

Edit: Illegal Alien, Illegal Alien, Illegal Alien, Illegal Alien. Sorry, I wanted to get in my $1,000,000 fine for today for violating NYC laws for simply saying that simple phrase. There's no such thing as "hate speech". There's only free speech. Now try to collect that fine. I'm waiting (with various tools in hand). *Wonderful Liberal wonderland*


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2019)

The president also can 'presidentially pardon' people. Which is a 'get out of jail for free' card, if you think about it.  So he does something illegal, then gets into jail, then pardons himself, then.. 

Point being - in a very few select political roles, you dont answer to the law, but to political committees and the public (just elections usually (most often)) instead.


----------



## Xzi (Oct 31, 2019)

billapong said:


> What's this nonsense I'm talking about? Prison camps? Organs? Just normal every day business in China, that happens to be a communist state.


Yes, let's just ignore the fact that the US also has prison camps where ICE officers regularly abuse and rape detainees.  Also that some exclusively imprison toddlers and children.  Also that China is an oligarchy, with inequality second only to the US, that Trump has repeatedly praised on Twitter.



billapong said:


> It's the same thing that would eventually happen in the USA if we adopt socialism.


We already adopted it, and the period between 1930 and 1980 was the most prosperous in American history so far precisely because we did identify more as a social democracy at that time.  Since then it's been one grifter after another selling us "trickle down" and "free market" economics, slowly choking all the life from unions and the middle class.



billapong said:


> The Constitution isn't outdated.


Agreed, it's just too bad the Republican party ignores the parts they don't like, such as that pesky emoluments clause and the stuff about impeachment.  It's the two-party system that's outdated and causes so much tribalism.



billapong said:


> Trump is the most powerful man in the world. He should be respected just like any other President should be respected. He's a great leader because he doesn't throw his critics in jail.


Wow, talk about a low bar.  He does use the office of president to attempt to smear his critics, which is traditionally below the dignity of the position.  Respect is earned or lost from one's actions, not from their title.



billapong said:


> This entire impeachment effort was premeditated


Was it a given that Trump would fuck up badly enough to be impeached?  Maybe, but you can't blame anyone else for that, especially if you want to keep claiming that Republicans are the party of "personal responsibility."  John Kelly was probably the last guy that stood any chance of keeping this administration from going off the rails, and he warned Trump that hiring a 'yes man' to succeed him would lead to impeachment.  The "StAbLe GeNiUs" ignored his advice, so now here we are.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 31, 2019)

billapong said:


> Diplomatic immunity is touched on in Hollywood movies often so you'd think that most people would realize "it's a thing". Some people need the leeway to go about protecting the best interests of this country without having to deal with laws that are meant for the general public. If you disagree with this then that's just too bad - it is what it is.
> 
> You should just be thankful that you can disagree and do so publicly without being thrown into a prison camp and then having your organs harvested before they kill you (and have those organs go to the people you're speaking out against). What's this nonsense I'm talking about? Prison camps? Organs? Just normal every day business in China, that happens to be a communist state.
> 
> ...


Trump has done a lot worse than getting a blowjob, which we impeached a liberal for. So far trump has bought an international hotel for making money off of foreign diplomats, rented space at trump tower for foreign entities, fired an fbi director for investigating crimes against him, and most recently tried to bribe a foreign government to investigate american citizens. So stop with the "misuse of impeachment"

Also, communism =/ socialism. You have it backwards. Socialism is for the individual, communism is for the state. We are already a socialist country. You benefit from socialism. The only "right" that socialism takes from anyone, is the right to take advantage of the impoverished.

You seem to identify as one of the billionaire's that people are speaking out against. That's not you. You dont realise just how much you benefit from socialism. But maybe your kids will, when these criminals pretending to be conservatives completely ruin education, or crime is out of control because we are short on police, or public transport comes to an end, or the environment itself becomes a health hazard, or only elites (not you) can afford proper healthcare. I can go on.

Edit: take a moment and really think what the country would actually be like if it were the way these "conservatives" want it. Where everyone is for themselves and people in need are left to their own demise because "it's not my problem". It would be a hell.


----------



## billapong (Oct 31, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Trump has done a lot worse than getting a blowjob, which we impeached a liberal for. So far trump has bought an international hotel for making money off of foreign diplomats, rented space at trump tower for foreign entities, fired an fbi director for investigating crimes against him, and most recently tried to bribe a foreign government to investigate american citizens. So stop with the "misuse of impeachment"



Trump boasting by putting up people in his properties makes him so little revenue that's it's asinine to say it's a crime. Oh shit, his business makes a little bit of money off of people staying at his hotels. So what. It's not like a few thousand dollars in profit means much to a billionaire. Every single President in my lifetime has used tax payers money for all sorts of personal interests. I don't have a problem with them staying in his hotels, which in turn shows the foreign leaders how powerful he is (leaves a good impression) when these guests or events could have been hosted at another place. Would that other place not also profit from that? Would you rather they stay at a Liberal owned establishment? 

Other then the Ukraine issue, which is being used as an excuse in a premeditated attack (like I said) the rest of your "impeachable offenses" are horse shit. I don't think any #metoo women would appreciate you comparing a women being abused in the White House's Oval Office to someone simply staying the night at a hotel.



> Also, communism =/ socialism. You have it backwards. Socialism is for the individual, communism is for the state. We are already a socialist country. You benefit from socialism. The only "right" that socialism takes from anyone, is the right to take advantage of the impoverished.



I don't have anything backwards. Throughout the entire world's history socialism has lead to communism. Yet, fools like you think it could work. It'll never work when you involve human instinct into the equation. It's a flawed system that has failed time and time again. It's like these kids telling older folks "okay boomer" because they think the older generation isn't listening to them. It's not that we aren't listening, we hear you loud and clear. It's that we've already been where you are at and grew the fuck up. We've gone through the same behavioral and thought patterns you have and realized what works and what doesn't. Socialism doesn't work. Once you realize that then maybe you can get your head out of your ass and contribute something positive to society. There's a reason most older people are Conservatives, it's because they survived Liberalism and realize it's the creations of devils spawn. You'll find most Conservatives were Democrats or Liberals at one point in time, mostly because that's how the education system produced them. They aren't given a choice. They are produced to not think for themselves and embrace a negative life system that ruins everything around them (including themselves). It's not only until they get older or start to question things and take up moral values that they realize that Liberals and Democrats in general are horrible people.



> You seem to identify as one of the billionaire's that people are speaking out against. That's not you. You dont realise just how much you benefit from socialism. But maybe your kids will, when these criminals pretending to be conservatives completely ruin education, or crime is out of control because we are short on police, or public transport comes to an end, or the environment itself becomes a health hazard, or only elites (not you) can afford proper healthcare. I can go on.



If I were a billionaire I'd personally hire investigators to find some of the members on this board and ruin their lives for pushing socialism on others. If the LGBTQ community can "cancel" people for simply not addressing them as "he", "she" or "it" then I'll be God damned if I can't fucking ruin people who support killing babies and taking my money to give to illegal aliens who in turn rape and kill our citizens. Sadly, I'm not rich, but if I ever do run into a lump sum some of this sites users will go down and HARD.



> Edit: take a moment and really think what the country would actually be like if it were the way these "conservatives" want it. Where everyone is for themselves and people in need are left to their own demise because "it's not my problem". It would be a hell.



It would be a wonderful world. For one we wouldn't have Liberals, because they're too stupid to think for themselves or get off their lazy asses to work so they all would be dead. For two we'd be back to the way things were when the country first started where the best win and the weak die (again, more dead Liberals, so good). Hey, I might end up dead, but at least I'd be allowed to fail. I don't need anyone telling me what to think and how to act. I understand Liberals are too stupid to think or act by themselves, but without hate there's no love, without losers there's no winners and a world without Liberals would be a wonderful place.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Yes, let's just ignore the fact that the US also has prison camps where ICE officers regularly abuse and rape detainees.  Also that some exclusively imprison toddlers and children.  Also that China is an oligarchy, with inequality second only to the US, that Trump has repeatedly praised on Twitter.



Camps created by Obama .... There's no regular rapes (far less than than illegal aliens commit themselves). Oh, "the poor children". At least they're alive and not being sucked out of their mothers womb and then being ground up because you simply don't want them. Anyway, you can't address the points I brought up so I'm not going to get distracted by your Liberal gibberish.



> Wow, talk about a low bar. He does use the office of president to attempt to smear his critics, which is traditionally below the dignity of the position. Respect is earned or lost from one's actions, not from their title.



There's a big diffrence between standing up for yourself and pointing about Liberal hypocrisy then ruining the lives of people who don't agree with you or having them put to death. With destroying peoples lives being done by the LBTQAxzy123 community and killings done in communist countries. You should be glad that Trump isn't a bi-sexual socialism supporting President, otherwise you would be financially ruined, jailed or put to death for speaking out against him.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 31, 2019)

billapong said:


> Trump boasting by putting up people in his properties makes him so little revenue that's it's asinine to say it's a crime. Oh shit, his business makes a little bit of money off of people staying at his hotels. So what. It's not like a few thousand dollars in profit means much to a billionaire. Every single President in my lifetime has used tax payers money for all sorts of personal interests. I don't have a problem with them staying in his hotels, which in turn shows the foreign leaders how powerful he is (leaves a good impression) when these guests or events could have been hosted at another place. Would that other place not also profit from that? Would you rather they stay at a Liberal owned establishment?
> 
> Other then the Ukraine issue, which is being used as an excuse in a premeditated attack (like I said) the rest of your "impeachable offenses" are horse shit. I don't think any #metoo women would appreciate you comparing a women being abused in the White House's Oval Office to someone simply staying the night at a hotel.



He made over 40 million on the hotel alone. Either way, thats just one example for valid impeachment.

You also forget that their relationship was consensual.


billapong said:


> I don't have anything backwards. Throughout the entire world's history socialism has lead to communism. Yet, fools like you think it could work. It'll never work when you involve human instinct into the equation. It's a flawed system that has failed time and time again. It's like these kids telling older folks "okay boomer" because they think the older generation isn't listening to them. It's not that we aren't listening, we hear you loud and clear. It's that we've already been where you are at and grew the fuck up. We've gone through the same behavioral and thought patterns you have and realized what works and what doesn't. Socialism doesn't work. Once you realize that then maybe you can get your head out of your ass and contribute something positive to society. There's a reason most older people are Conservatives, it's because they survived Liberalism and realize it's the creations of devils spawn. You'll find most Conservatives were Democrats or Liberals at one point in time, mostly because that's how the education system produced them. They aren't given a choice. They are produced to not think for themselves and embrace a negative life system that ruins everything around them (including themselves). It's not only until they get older or start to question things and take up moral values that they realize that Liberals and Democrats in general are horrible people.


The world is older than 200 years, which is when socialism became a thing. You forget we went though periods of monarchy and a previously failed capitalist empire? So, when did socialism become communism? You say things, but it just comes out of your head without any real basis. "In all of world history". lol actually read about the history of socialism and capitalism then get back to me.

I'm not quoting the rest of your post. It's just paranoid lunatic ramblings. A lot of hate and no actual fact. It doesnt even make sense. You should grab a glass of wine, kick back, relax, take a breath, and crack open a history book.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 31, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Trump has done a lot worse than getting a blowjob, which we impeached a liberal for.




Clinton was impeached for perjury wrt: Paula Jones, and obstruction of justice. Although the blowjob, having been received from a WH intern, obviously also qualified as sexual harassment in the workplace. Clinton lost his license to practice law, both in Arkansas and before SCOTUS, for perjury.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 31, 2019)

So...y'all thought things were polarized before? Well...brace yourself, because it's going one step further:

Alexander Vindman claims the phone transcript was edited before it was released.

According to him, key parts about Hunter or Burisma holdings were discussed in the phone call but not (or no longer) in the transcript. So Trump's "perfect phone call" isn't just fishy by anyone not himself: it's also plain fake news.

I can't say I'm very surprised. It was already known that before it was released the transcript was first put in a higher-security part, even though nothing of state safety was discussed in the call. And since the transcript is released by the white house, it's not exactly the most clear of evidence (we've only got the word of the white house that this is the real transcript of the call...but the word of the white house is exactly what's on the line).

Of course I can't blame others for not believing Vindman. I mean...he's only a war hero, right? Purple heart? Pffff...I can get a dozen of 'em if I wasn't too chicken to go to war! Why would _he _be credible enough to tell a story? "oooh...his "narrative" is in line with what other testifications said before him...how CONVENIENT for him!" And so what that he works at the white house...it's not like he leads the place. Naah...I'll side with that old fart who defies his own weather service. Now THAT is credibility!


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 31, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Clinton was impeached for perjury wrt: Paula Jones, and obstruction of justice. Although the blowjob, having been received from a WH intern, obviously also qualified as sexual harassment in the workplace. Clinton lost his license to practice law, both in Arkansas and before SCOTUS, for perjury.


His perjury was lying about his affair. I'm not saying he didnt deserve to be impeached. I full heartedly agree he did. What I'm saying is look at the comparisons between what even Democrats themselves thought was unacceptable behavior and what trump has done. Telling the american people outright on national tv that he fired the lead of an organization because they were investigating him is undeniably obstruction of justice. It wasnt even kinda questionable like Clinton. But yet they let it go, along with several other arguably impeachable offenses. This impeachment preceding isn't necessarily just about the phone call. It's for everything hes done, and the things he might do should he continue go unchallenged.

There are things trump has done right. And I know a lot of people love him. But you cant look at him objectively and not admit that his actions thus far have been outright criminal. To do so would be an insult to your own intelligence, as well as everyone else's. There needs to be a moral standard that is upheld, and luckily we have that with the constitution.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 31, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> What I'm saying is look at the comparisons between what even Democrats themselves thought was unacceptable behavior and what trump has done.



Democrats voted unanimously to acquit Clinton. It is worth noting that some Republicans did too. But it's inaccurate to claim the Democrats thought his lies under oath were unacceptable.




> There are things trump has done right. And I know a lot of people love him. But you cant look at him objectively and not admit that his actions thus far have been outright criminal. To do so would be an insult to your own intelligence, as well as everyone else's. There needs to be a moral standard that is upheld, and luckily we have that with the constitution.



Disagree. Just because you type the words out doesn't make it so. Every Democrat claim of a crime by the President is arguable, at best. Crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And whatcha got? Everything that Trump ever did _before_ the Ukraine phone call came up in previous votes in the House to start impeachment (there have been THREE House votes on impeachment resolutions since Dec 2017) failed, and failed hard.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 31, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Democrats voted unanimously to acquit Clinton. It is worth noting that some Republicans did too. But it's inaccurate to claim the Democrats thought his lies under oath were unacceptable.
> 
> 
> Disagree. Just because you type the words out doesn't make it so. Every Democrat claim of a crime by the President is arguable, at best. Crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And whatcha got? Everything that Trump ever did _before_ the Ukraine phone call came up in previous votes in the House to start impeachment (there have been THREE House votes on impeachment resolutions since Dec 2017) failed, and failed hard.



I've decided to no longer comment in serious nature on this inquiry process until I see Vindman and Taylor's testimony. If the current leaks of both of their testimony are true I'd argue that true criminal action and a knowingly cover-up of that action beyond a shadow of a doubt occurred. Also, Trump is incapable of testifying without committing perjury by admission of his former lawyer John Dowd. If he is ever put on a stand and cross-examined, he will be doomed. He's far too detached from reality to handle himself in a courtroom of any kind. If we end up adding perjury to the list of charges, will people like Graham move to acquit. God the irony republicans would face. It's true theater that the likes of Shakespeare couldn't reach.


----------



## WeedZ (Oct 31, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Democrats voted unanimously to acquit Clinton. It is worth noting that some Republicans did too. But it's inaccurate to claim the Democrats thought his lies under oath were unacceptable.


That's not true at all. Its public record. Dems voted against just as Republicans voted for him.



Hanafuda said:


> Disagree. Just because you type the words out doesn't make it so. Every Democrat claim of a crime by the President is arguable, at best. Crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And whatcha got? Everything that Trump ever did _before_ the Ukraine phone call came up in previous votes in the House to start impeachment (there have been THREE House votes on impeachment resolutions since Dec 2017) failed, and failed hard.


He admitted obstruction on his own. Those were his words. 

You were right about previous votes for impeachment inquiries. But I still disagree that these claims are arguable. Murder convictions have been made without an admittance of guilt. In the case of Comey we have admittance, a body, and a gun. I'm baffled something didnt happen then.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 31, 2019)

billapong said:


> If I were a billionaire I'd personally hire investigators to find some of the members on this board and ruin their lives for pushing socialism on others. If the LGBTQ community can "cancel" people for simply not addressing them as "he", "she" or "it" then I'll be God damned if I can't fucking ruin people who support killing babies and taking my money to give to illegal aliens who in turn rape and kill our citizens. Sadly, I'm not rich, but if I ever do run into a lump sum some of this sites users will go down and HARD.





billapong said:


> It would be a wonderful world. For one we wouldn't have Liberals, because they're too stupid to think for themselves or get off their lazy asses to work so they all would be dead. For two we'd be back to the way things were when the country first started where the best win and the weak die (again, more dead Liberals, so good). Hey, I might end up dead, but at least I'd be allowed to fail. I don't need anyone telling me what to think and how to act. I understand Liberals are too stupid to think or act by themselves, but without hate there's no love, without losers there's no winners and a world without Liberals would be a wonderful place.



If it's every man for himself, pure capitalist nation, how many children will die in poverty once we yank social programs that feed them, cloth them, educate them? Places across america have food-bank shortages as it is. It's not the child's fault that their parents have no affluence or means to support them, let's say even if they were capable and refused to get a job. Do you still ignore feeding the child? You are so blinded by hatred that you can't even properly conceive of cause and effect. I never quite understood anti-abortionists who are against supporting welfare and social programs for the poor (socialism). 

What about social security and medicare. The government forced people to pay for it for their whole life to guarantee some semblance of retiring with dignity. Its better to let people make their own choices and decisions right? Even if they were incapable of managing their own retirement or suffered a hardship/recession where they lost their savings/investments. Those people will just need to be on the street and die out if they can't work anymore. -- I've met those who believe that, are you one of them?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 31, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> That's not true at all. Its public record. Dems voted against just as Republicans voted for him.



Maybe you mean the vote on the articles on impeachment in the House, in which case yeah there were a five Democrats who voted against it to some extent. But I said the Democrats voted unanimously to acquit him, which is in reference to the judgment vote in the Senate after the trial.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 31, 2019)

An almost complete partisan vote


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 31, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> An almost complete partisan vote




You can expect this to drag on now for many months right up to the election. That’s all this is about anyway. It’s not about proving anything, they just want the daily mud-dragging for their election campaign. It’s exactly what Alexander Hamilton warned about re: the impeachment process, i.e. _using_ _the process.
_
I don’t really expect the House to vote this over to the Senate until just before the election. That way they get the most  political damage.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Oct 31, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Trump has done a lot worse than getting a blowjob, which we impeached a liberal for. So far trump has bought an international hotel for making money off of foreign diplomats, rented space at trump tower for foreign entities, fired an fbi director for investigating crimes against him, and most recently tried to bribe a foreign government to investigate american citizens. So stop with the "misuse of impeachment"
> 
> Also, communism =/ socialism. You have it backwards. Socialism is for the individual, communism is for the state. We are already a socialist country. You benefit from socialism. The only "right" that socialism takes from anyone, is the right to take advantage of the impoverished.
> 
> ...


While I agree, you should point out he wasn't impeached for getting a blowjob. It was for perjury.


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 31, 2019)

Democrats 231 2 1
Republicans 0 194 3
Independents 1 0 0
Total 232 196 4

194 people who have no regard at all for the rule of law. Corruption in broad daylight


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Oct 31, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> An almost complete partisan vote



That independent is someone who disavowed the republican party. Just putting that into perspective. I'm not surprised this is a partisan vote. Most saw this as a support for or against impeachment while others who support the inquiry (talking about republicans) disagreed with the minority not having independent subpoena without the majority approval among other contentions. Or at least they could use that as their excuse for voting no as it isn't specifically addressing Trump's conduct. That is the vote we will have to use to make any determination and that vote is not anytime soon as we haven't allowed the rest of congress to view the current testimony until the process matures.

"The only non-Democrat to vote for the resolution was Representative Justin Amash of Michigan, the former Republican who abandoned his party earlier this year. (Two Democrats voted against it: Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Collin Peterson of Minnesota, both of whom represent districts that backed Trump in 2016.)"


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 31, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You can expect this to drag on now for many months right up to the election. That’s all this is about anyway. It’s not about proving anything, they just want the daily mud-dragging for their election campaign. It’s exactly what Alexander Hamilton warned about re: the impeachment process, i.e. _using_ _the process.
> _
> I don’t really expect the House to vote this over to the Senate until just before the election. That way they get the most  political damage.


Bingo, and that's exactly why we're getting a televised inquiry.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 31, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> 194 people who have no regard at all for the rule of law. Corruption in broad daylight




I’d honestly be surprised if you even know what “the rule of law” even means. But you’re right about corruption in broad daylight.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 31, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> 194 people who have no regard at all for the rule of law. Corruption in broad daylight


196 people*


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 31, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I've decided to no longer comment in serious nature on this inquiry process until I see Vindman and Taylor's testimony. If the current leaks of both of their testimony are true I'd argue that true criminal action and a knowingly cover-up of that action beyond a shadow of a doubt occurred. ...



Then again, what if other witnesses say something else?


----------



## morvoran (Oct 31, 2019)

It appears that the House Democrats just do not understand the concept of what "fair" means.  I guess this also explains why Pres. Bill "Raper" Clinton didn't know what the definition of "is" was during his impeachment.  (Democrats are not very educated)  It's a shame that Trump, who has not committed any "high crimes" or any action that would warrant an "impeachment" is being treated as if he's already guilty and is being given less rights than somebody on trial for murder or in court over a traffic ticket.

*The impeachment inquiry resolution put forth by House Democrats includes a “loophole” that would give the majority party, or Democrats, on the Judiciary Committee the power to reject witnesses requested by the White House, Roll Call reports.*
Democrats released the text of the inquiry resolution on Tuesday, which Republicans say does little to nothing to address their concerns moving forward.

According to Roll Call, a provision in the resolution gives Democrats the ability to block key witnesses requested by the White House as the process moves to the House Judiciary Committee, led by chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY).

Per Roll Call:

Under the House Judiciary procedures, Trump and his counsel will be invited to attend all panel proceedings and ask questions. They can also request additional evidence or witness testimony, but the “committee shall determine whether the suggested evidence is necessary or desirable.”


----------



## SG854 (Nov 1, 2019)

I finally decided to take a look at this case and guess what.
This whole thing is a sham by the Democrats. It's a Political hit job.

They reveled the whistle blowers identity and he's connected to the Democrats and to the Russia Collusion investigation. This isn't Russia 2.0. It's literally Russia Continued. 1 whistle blower guy comes out and says there is a quid pro quo. But many others says there is not, yet they believe this 1 whistle blower that they kept his identity secret for all this time.

The name is Eric Ciaramella
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/brons...t-trumps-call-to-ukrainian-president-n2555644



Old 2017 Article and the name Chalupa was mentioned.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446



The top 1st article I linked talks about how Eric Ciaramella and hired an Ukrainian operative named Chalupa supported by Hillary Clinton to link the Republican campaign to the Russian Government. Literally the same people from Russia gate are in this Ukraine thing too.


Its a hit job on Trump. There are trying to get enough people to hate Trump so that he wont be voted into office for 2020.
God You know fuck this case I'm glad I avoided it for this long up until now, its the same stupid Russia Gate bullshit. I'm not even going to waste my time to debate this, its going to be the same ol' same ol' and nothing will come of it.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This whole thing is a sham by the Democrats. It's a Political hit job.





SG854 said:


> Its a hit job on Trump. There are trying to get enough people to hate Trump so that he wont be voted into office for 2020.



Where have you been the past 3 years?  

Of course, this is all a sham and a hit job against Trump.  The Demonrats have been trying to impeach Trump since the day after the 2016 election.  Trump could have sneezed wrong and the dems would say that is an impeachable offense.  This whole impeachment fiasco is a politically motivated with no substance.  Trump can't be impeached for what the dems are saying and is only their tactic to keep him from empowering the US to becoming even greater than it already is.  That's why they wanted to keep the inquiry in the basement (not just because pure light burns the skin of demonrats) because they wanted to only leak out the things that made the president look bad.  I'm sure these hearings in the next coming weeks will all be closed door and only the demonrats can leak stuff to the public that fits their narrative.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Where have you been the past 3 years?
> 
> Of course, this is all a sham and a hit job against Trump.  The Demonrats have been trying to impeach Trump since the day after the 2016 election.  Trump could have sneezed wrong and the dems would say that is an impeachable offense.  This whole impeachment fiasco is a politically motivated with no substance.  Trump can't be impeached for what the dems are saying and is only their tactic to keep him from empowering the US to becoming even greater than it already is.  That's why they wanted to keep the inquiry in the basement (not just because pure light burns the skin of demonrats) because they wanted to only leak out the things that made the president look bad.  I'm sure these hearings in the next coming weeks will all be closed door and only the demonrats can leak stuff to the public that fits their narrative.


I was here calling out that stupid Russia case. Saying that nothing was going to come out of it even many months before the Muller Report came out. There was just too much evidence against that case.

And now this is 2nd time they've done this, with the Ukraine thing, the 2nd big one. And the same people involved in the Russia case is involved in this one too. What the fuck. After this 2nd time how can you even support impeachment or even trust them. I'm starting to think they themselves don't even believe that their own policies are good enough that they have to pull off crap like this, again. Why should I have faith in them if they don't even have faith in their own policies. Win the election like the normal way, without this retarded crap.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

SG854 said:


> After this 2nd time how can you even support impeachment or even trust them. I'm starting to think they themselves don't even believe that their own policies are good enough that they have to pull off crap like this, again.


 I'm sure you already know this, but liberals need leaders to tell them how to think and feel.  If Pelosi and Schiff say Trump needs to be impeached, the sheeple on the left will follow them over the cliff.
In the end, it doesn't matter if Trump is impeached as he will be re-elected next year and have both a Republican majority House and Senate meaning a full 4 years of unrestricted policy passing.  It just sucks as I would have liked to see lower medical costs, even higher wages, and less wasteful spending these past 3 years, but unfortunately, the liberal dems would rather only work on impeaching an innocent president than to help their constituents.  Hopefully, Pelosi and Schiff will be voted out as well. (We got rid of King Elijah, but I don't feel we need to get rid of the rest that same way.)

If you pay attention to the liberals on this site, you'll see that no matter how many broken promises, lies, and corrupt acts their demonrats leaders perform, they still ask why a great President like Trump still has supporters.  They would rather be lied to in order to have hope rather than to have good policies passed to make their lives better in reality.


----------



## landysmods (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So you openly support murder of those who you disagree with. You openly support death of children due to starvation if their parents are too poor (weak) to feed them. But abortion is something different? What chance in your 'perfect world' does a poor child grown in a poor family who can't feed themselves have to live? Other conservatives here, do they agree with you? Bless your heart and 'sole' (soul) lol. What an immature child you are. Go trick or treat and get to bed. When you actually grow up and have children yourself, I hope you learn to empathize. Children require modeling of virtues you so obviously lack - temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness & humility. You don't have the mental fortitude or capacity to be here discussing politics in a serious fashion. You just are a child screaming for attention you so obviously are deprived of and at this point and time, you've convinced yourself that any attention, even negative, is better than none. I've lost any interest in responding further, it just isn't worth my time.



 Agreed. Pretty evil comments ('an eye for an eye') for someone who claims to have Jesus in their heart.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> So you openly support murder of those who you disagree with. You openly support death of children due to starvation if their parents are too poor (weak) to feed them. But abortion is something different? What chance in your 'perfect world' does a poor child grown in a poor family who can't feed themselves have to live? Other conservatives here, do they agree with you?


 Even though, for somebody who like to call out people for going off topic, you are going way off topic here.  I will add something about impeachment in to show you how it's done.  

I guess in your heart, it's better to just kill the child in the womb rather than give them a chance to live?  If a parent can't feel their kids, there are a lot of ways to get food for them.  They can either go to a shelter, a food drive, beg for food, etc.  Maybe if the government wasn't so caught up with trying to impeach an innocent President, they could use that time and effort to prevent kids from starving to death in the US.  Heck, we have a very generous charity system that includes very generous 1%'ers that could take care of all the children around the world.  There is no need to use taxes to take care of everybody when we have charity.  Too bad the socialist dems want rich people and corps to pay both taxes and still give charity.
Even with a semi-perfect system in place, we will still have kids dying of starvation due to mentally ill parents, just plain a-hole parents that would rather buy beer and drugs than food, or just out right neglect from uncaring liberal parents who think meat is murder and plants can give you enough nutrition.

I guess in your world, we can just keep killing these burdens on our society (underdeveloped fetuses).


----------



## SG854 (Nov 1, 2019)

The actual transcript of the conversation was released like a month ago and there is nothing about an illegal quid pro quo, Trump pressuring to investigate Biden's son or Trump withholding money. Why is there still even threads talking about impeachment. The whistle blowers identity and this transcript. The conversation is over, its been over.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...transcript-between-trump-and-ukraine-n2553621


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The actual transcript of the conversation was released like a month ago and there is nothing about a quid pro quo or Trump withholding money. Why is there still even threads talking about impeachment. The whistle blowers identity and this transcript. The conversation is over, its been over.


  SHHHHHH!!!  You might trigger a liberal and they'll make a blog about how you need to be impeached from this site.

Seriously though, all Republicans here in the US have been asking this for months.  The demonrats know there is no "quid pro joe"... sorry, "quid pro quo", but that doesn't fit their narrative, so they have to keep questioning witnesses until they have enough people who interpret the call in a way that looks bad on Trump.  This is similar to how people misinterpret the bible like @IncredulousP does.


----------



## IncredulousP (Nov 1, 2019)

Remember the parts in the bible where Jesus sped up the process of killing the weak and letting the starving die? After all, it wasn't his fault they were going to die painfully and miserably.



> 13 When Jesus heard what had happened, he withdrew by boat privately to a solitary place. Hearing of this, the crowds followed him on foot from the towns. 14 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick.
> 
> 15 As evening approached, the disciples came to him and said, “This is a remote place, and it’s already getting late. Send the crowds away, so they can go to the villages and buy themselves some food.”
> 
> ...


*Matthew 14:13-21
*


> 2 A man with a serious skin disease came and bowed down in front of him. The man said to Jesus, “Sir, if you’re willing, you can make me clean.”
> 
> 3 Jesus reached out, touched him, and said, “I’m willing. So be clean!” Immediately, his skin disease went away, and he was clean.


*Matthew 8:2-3
*


> 5 When Jesus went to Capernaum, a Roman army officer came to beg him for help. 6 The officer said, “Sir, my servant is lying at home paralyzed and in terrible pain.”
> 
> 7 Jesus said to him, “I’ll come to heal him.”
> 
> ...


*Matthew 8:5-13
*

*https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+8&version=GW
*


----------



## billapong (Nov 1, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The actual transcript of the conversation was released like a month ago and there is nothing about a quid pro quo or Trump withholding money. Why is there still even threads talking about impeachment. The whistle blowers identity and this transcript. The conversation is over, its been over.
> 
> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...transcript-between-trump-and-ukraine-n2553621



Politically correct political theatre. I can say one thing about the Democrats, they are using peoples ignorance and hatred for Trump to get them involved in the political process, which is going to benefit the Conservatives in the long run, because the smart ones will end up seeing the truth and turn Conservative and one smart Conservative is worth more than 1,000 stupid liberals.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> Politically correct political theatre. I can say one thing about the Democrats, they are using peoples ignorance and hatred for Trump to get them involved in the political process, which is going to benefit the Conservatives in the long run, because the smart ones will end up seeing the truth and turn Conservative and one smart Conservative is worth more than 1,000 stupid liberals.


God Fuckin' dammit, this is Russia Gate all over again and the mental gymnastics on that one was crazy. I wasted too much time on those threads.


----------



## billapong (Nov 1, 2019)

SG854 said:


> God Fuckin' dammit, this is Russia Gate all over again and the mental gymnastics on that one was crazy.



If they had a case to begin with they vote have voted to impeach already. They've delayed the vote and their prior two votes related to other issues they tried to impeach Trump with this entire premeditated mess have previously failed. They need to just impeach him already, but that's not looking like what they want to do. Seems they want to drag it out a bit because they know damned well if they do impeach him in the house it'll get nowhere in the senate. They're going to lose no matter what they do - so why not try to use losing to their advantage in a desperate attempt to further destroy Trump's image to get more votes.

Hey, it's Halloween and my nephew asked me to tell him a ghost story. I told him that every four years in our Presidential elections dead people come to life and vote democrat. He got really scared. I think it was a very profound and true ghost story.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

SG854 said:


> God Fuckin' dammit, this is Russia Gate all over again and the mental gymnastics on that one was crazy.


  Oh, Russia Gate is not over, yet.  The liberal media still brings it up while a ton of liberals still believe Trump colluded with Russia.  
On top of that, it might fire back up in reverse after the FISA abuse report is released.  I feel that a lot of democrats involved in that scandal will be very sad after it is out.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> If they had a case to begin with they vote have voted to impeach already. They've delayed the vote and their prior two votes related to other issues they tried to impeach Trump with this entire premeditated mess have previously failed. They need to just impeach him already, but that's not looking like what they want to do. Seems they want to drag it out a bit because they know damned well if they do impeach him in the house it'll get nowhere in the senate. They're going to lose no matter what they do - so why not try to use losing to their advantage in a desperate attempt to further destroy Trump's image to get more votes.
> 
> Hey, it's Halloween and my nephew asked me to tell him a ghost story. I told him that every four years in our Presidential elections dead people come to life and vote democrat. He got really scared. I think it was a very profound and true ghost story.


All of this impeachment was on this 1 unnamed whistle blower, this one guy. That's their evidence? What about all the people the denied it, so just ignore them?


----------



## billapong (Nov 1, 2019)

SG854 said:


> All of this impeachment was on this 1 unnamed whistle blower, this one guy. That's their evidence?



Who happened to overhear two people talking about something that they overheard ...

Reminds of that one time this random kid at school overheard two girls saying that they heard that one of their friends was into me and then run right to me to tell me "all about it".


----------



## SG854 (Nov 1, 2019)

billapong said:


> Who happened to overhear two people talking about something that they overheard ...
> 
> Reminds of that one time this random kid at school overheard two girls saying that they heard that one of their friends was into me and then run right to me to tell me "all about it".


It's the same thing they did with Russia gate. The whole telephone game thing, with anonymous source. I pointed pointed out what was wrong with that the first time around, you would think they learned by now.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 1, 2019)

Love how everyone so far that is in favor of not impeaching trump is using obscure sources that really lack any evidence.


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/ here's a nice resource.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/
oh and just incase people thought that the daily wire is credible. Have fun with snopes.
https://www.snopes.com/tag/daily-wire/


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 1, 2019)

Can I please run this site for a day, so I can just flat out ban the small handful of complete _*explative*_ here? I don't know why I even bother commenting on this nonsense. Some of the stuff I read is the biggest crock of delusional _*explative*_ I've seen. Let the piece of shit win again, I really don't care because it will be 4 more years, then he's gone. C'ya. Buh-bye now. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. And there's nothing the _*explatives*_ will be able to do about it.

Such an impressive moral compass this administration has - we should all be so proud. All these new loopholes, rules, and power grabs will one day benefit a Democrat president - and the outcry from conservatives will be so enjoyable. Leave it to Trump to need to find a loophole in order to get cabinet members. Yup. So much winning.


----------



## notimp (Nov 1, 2019)

Dont let others lie to you.

Just a friendly word of advice.

Correlation isnt causation.


You know, like the hitjob they did with the past 55 presidents. Oh wait they didnt. Right. To have a president under impeachment inquiry isnt something 'regular'.

Its the fourth case in history total:
https://www.latimes.com/world-natio...chment-comparison-johnson-nixon-clinton-trump

Trump is special. As we all know.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 1, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You can expect this to drag on now for many months right up to the election. That’s all this is about anyway. It’s not about proving anything, they just want the daily mud-dragging for their election campaign.


Democrats want public hearings to start this month (now that we're in November).  Ultimately it'll be up to McConnell to decide how long he wants to delay before he holds trial in the Senate.



SG854 said:


> The actual transcript of the conversation was released like a month ago and there is nothing about an illegal quid pro quo, Trump pressuring to investigate Biden's son or Trump withholding money. Why is there still even threads talking about impeachment.


Several people (at least four not counting the initial whistleblower) have testified that there very clearly was quid pro quo in the language used before and during the phone call, including at least one person who was listening in on the call live.  Additionally, there has been testimony that the transcript released by the White House has some inaccuracies/omissions.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 1, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You can expect this to drag on now for many months right up to the election. That’s all this is about anyway. It’s not about proving anything, they just want the daily mud-dragging for their election campaign. It’s exactly what Alexander Hamilton warned about re: the impeachment process, i.e. _using_ _the process.
> _
> I don’t really expect the House to vote this over to the Senate until just before the election. That way they get the most  political damage.


Dude... Earlier you were saying that it's scandalous that they're doing the testification behind closed doors. Now that it's out in the open you're complaining that it's not behind closed doors anymore. 

The scary thing is that it's not just you but seems to be the entire republican party. Last week we got a bunch of Republicans bathing in doors and demanding things to be out in the open, and now it comes to the vote exactly zero Republicans voted for that. 

... But I've got a confession to make as well. Earlier, I suggested that it could very well be Republicans leaking what's been said behind closed doors. I no longer believe that. The reason : Republicans don't give a damn about their president getting impeached or not. 

Check out this link : 
It's a republican making all sorts of allegations on Vindman but didn't even bother to question him even though he had the chance. Fucker didn't even bother to attend. So no... That "were acting like the 300" was a shameful display of hypocrisy because the truth is they just want to delay and spin. If things weren't leaked they would have acted surprised about what was said causing further delays... And act as if that delay wasn't their fault.

I wish that was surreal enough, but I've got two more insane things :
1) Republicans comparing the process layed out in the constitution with Soviet Russia. Can we at least agree that that was a move made by someone who doesn't give a damn about the founding fathers?
2) Tim Morrison's suggesting that the entire deal was an act of Sondland acting alone. By itself it doesn't surprise me one bit (some Trump fans probably believe that Cohen wanted to build his own Trump tower in Russia). But there are already too many holes in that story to make sense. The transcript, Mulvany 's on air admitting, Giuliany' s involvement,... It's not So nl and acting on his own. It's a start of a defense, I'll give you that. But it's a conspiracy theory, that's all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Love how everyone so far that is in favor of not impeaching trump is using obscure sources that really lack any evidence.
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/townhall/ here's a nice resource.
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/
> ...


Not to sound rude, but your own source is hardly credible.


> The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as *an amateur attempt* at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an *"armchair media analyst."* Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an *arm chair researcher* on media bias and its role in political influence." The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that *its method is in no way scientific*."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check


Just because a source is often quoted doesn't necessarily make it good. As for The Daily Wire, the fact that it's a biased source is not exactly a secret - Shapiro himself often mentions that him and his outlet have a conservative bias - Snopes didn't crack the code on this one.


D34DL1N3R said:


> *Charming post that is tolerant of opposing points of view.*



I would also like to underline that discussions in this section are supposed to be civil. If users in this thread are unable to participate in a discussion without resorting to the use of explatives and threats, perhaps it's time to step back for a moment, take a breath of fresh air and re-evaluate things before clicking the Reply button.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

*Snip!*



Xzi said:


> Democrats want public hearings to start this month (now that we're in November).


  Democrats do not want "public hearings".  They only agreed to this because they wanted to appease the public due to the major outcry.  They don't want any of the testimonies from the people going against their agenda from getting out.  That's why they put a gag order on all the republicans during their basement witch trials.



Xzi said:


> Several people (at least four not counting the initial whistleblower) have testified that there very clearly was quid pro quo in the language used before and during the phone call, including at least one person who was listening in on the call live.


  You do only get your information from Radical Russia Hoax Rachel Maddow, I knew it!  I guess you didn't read the actual transcript yourself or hear about the many other people who claimed there was nothing "illegal" about that call.
Even the boss of that "one person" you mentioned said, after the call itself, that he didn't hear anything illegal in the call and even had the call analyzed by the dept that looks at all foreign conversations that didn't find anything wrong in the entire call themselves.
I guess you can just keep listening to the liberal media only if you enjoy being lied to and left in the dark.  "Ignorance is bliss" as they say.
*Edit: "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed," Morrison said, according to his opening statement.  He also said he was not aware of any meaningful material being left out of the White House’s memo on the call.*



Xzi said:


> Additionally, there has been testimony that the transcript released by the White House has some inaccuracies/omissions.


  This has been known since day one.  They had to take out the "classified" portions that the public doesn't need to know.  Again, the people who listened into the call didn't see anything wrong with anything said on that call.  Only the people with second hand knowledge seem to have any problems with it.



Taleweaver said:


> Last week we got a bunch of Republicans bathing in doors and demanding things to be out in the open


  Would you prefer they bathe outdoors?  I would rather they keep that inside.



Taleweaver said:


> That "were acting like the 300" was a shameful display of hypocrisy because the truth is they just want to delay and spin.


  This sounds like a Liberal News talking point.  Do you and @Xzi have CNN watch parties?  Please don't invite me.
I guess you don't remember or know about when the House democrats had their little "sit in" during the first 2 years of this admin in order to get a vote on gun control when they were the minority.  They were like little babies refusing to leave until they got their bottles and took a nap.



Taleweaver said:


> If things weren't leaked they would have acted surprised about what was said causing further delays... And act as if that delay wasn't their fault.


 If things were leaked, they would know more of what they already knew....  that there was nothing wrong or illegal about that phone call.  We all have access to the transcript so just read it for yourself.   No quid pro quo, no bribery, no forcing Ukraine to do anything, no asking to look into Joe Biden to influence the upcoming election. 
Liberals just make my head spin with how they just take nonsense and lies from their leaders and spew that fecal matter out in the public.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 1, 2019)

Funny how the pro-Trump goalposts have shifted in this thread.

First it is "well, the House needs to vote". Then it is "look, the vote was partisan, it was crap".

Just observing how intellectually dishonest this entire argument is.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Funny how the pro-Trump goalposts have shifted in this thread.
> 
> First it is "well, the House needs to vote". Then it is "look, the vote was partisan, it was crap".
> 
> Just observing how intellectually dishonest this entire argument is.



The pro-Trumpers here and Republicans are just calling out the Democrats and their hypocrisy.  Multiple times in the past year or so, Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler claimed they wouldn't push for impeachment if it was a partisan matter.  Now that it is proven to be a partisan matter, the demonrats are doubling down on impeachment.  Now that is completely dishonest, and not just intellectually. 

It's also hypocritical that these same people pushing for impeachment now were fanatically against impeaching a president when it was Bill Clinton.  They said things like impeachment is un-american, impeachment divides the country, blah, blah, blah.....  Yet, it is just fine and dandy now.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's also hypocritical that these same people pushing for impeachment now were fanatically against impeaching a president when it was Bill Clinton. They said things like impeachment is un-american, impeachment divides the country, blah, blah, blah..... Yet, it is just fine and dandy now.


As someone who was _born_ around the time the Clinton investigation took place, I have hindsight to look at it and honestly, he was impeached over a fucking blowjob. 

That's on quite a different level than impeaching over an international scandal (Trump), Watergate (Nixon) or overusing your power as president (Johnson).

One is serious issues within regards to high treason and the like. The other is a goddamn sex act in the white house. Like, disgusting, maybe. But it's really silly to impeach over.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> As someone who was _born_ around the time the Clinton investigation took place, I have hindsight to look at it and honestly, he was impeached over a fucking blowjob.
> 
> That's on quite a different level than impeaching over an international scandal (Trump), Watergate (Nixon) or overusing your power as president (Johnson).
> 
> One is serious issues within regards to high treason and the like. The other is a goddamn sex act in the white house. Like, disgusting, maybe. But it's really silly to impeach over.


Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, he lied before the Grand Jury because he valued his personal reputation above his oath. He was also less than transparent throughout the impeachment process and encouraged witnesses to give false testimony, this is pretty well-documented.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> That's on quite a different level than impeaching over an international scandal (Trump)


 Nobody, especially the Dems, knows why Trump is being impeached other than the Dems didn't like the results of the 2016 election.  First, it was because he won, then it was Russian collusion, then it was obstruction, then it was the Ukraine call, then obstruction again. Now, who knows what's going on with the impeachment other than pelosi, Schiff, and nadler. 
Trump committed no "high crime or misdemeanor" to warrant impeachment.  Nobody wants impeachment other than the House Dems.  Trump is not involved with Russian collusion, election tampering, quid pro quo, etc that the Dems are accusing him of.  They just want to hinder his presidency because they don't like him and find any little reason to stop him.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Even though, for somebody who like to call out people for going off topic, you are going way off topic here.  I will add something about impeachment in to show you how it's done.
> 
> I guess in your heart, it's better to just kill the child in the womb rather than give them a chance to live?  If a parent can't feel their kids, there are a lot of ways to get food for them.  They can either go to a shelter, a food drive, beg for food, etc.  Maybe if the government wasn't so caught up with trying to impeach an innocent President, they could use that time and effort to prevent kids from starving to death in the US.  Heck, we have a very generous charity system that includes very generous 1%'ers that could take care of all the children around the world.  There is no need to use taxes to take care of everybody when we have charity.  Too bad the socialist dems want rich people and corps to pay both taxes and still give charity.
> Even with a semi-perfect system in place, we will still have kids dying of starvation due to mentally ill parents, just plain a-hole parents that would rather buy beer and drugs than food, or just out right neglect from uncaring liberal parents who think meat is murder and plants can give you enough nutrition.
> ...


I'll agree. This is why off-topic discussion is best to be ignored. The only thing it serves is to show one of your fellow thinkers is far to immature in their political rational to discuss with, best not to put your feet in the pool as its nothing but tar, your logic is wrong but if you start another thread I'll gladly dismantle it.

Innocent President? If by the fact that he hasn't seen a trial, then yes I presume innocence, just be mindful this is a political trial not a criminal one. I have enough information brought forth to expect a diligent and thorough inquiry. If the concerns the whistle-blower had are valid and corroborated (even if his/her identity result in a left-leaning individual), then we should expect the house to do it's constitutional duty and serve articles of impeachment. You can try to distract and attempt to discredit the person who followed a legal process to bring this before our nation, but the rest of us desire to see that our country still retains proper checks and balances. Thus far I haven't seen anything of note that the whistle-blower didn't have corroborated, much less contradicted, by the opening statements of those who have testified thus far. Perhaps in your 'great and unmatched wisdom' you could... enlighten me.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Nobody, especially the Dems, knows why Trump is being impeached other than the Dems didn't like the results of the 2016 election. First, it was because he won, then it was Russian collusion, then it was obstruction, then it was the Ukraine call, then obstruction again. Now, who knows what's going on with the impeachment other than pelosi, Schiff, and nadler.


Um its pretty straightforward.

Trump asked in a phone call to the Ukrainian president made in late July if he could dig up dirt on Biden. 

That is using your status as a president to dig up dirt on a political opponent, which is an impeachable offense.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Um its pretty straightforward.
> 
> Trump asked in a phone call to the Ukrainian president made in late July if he could dig up dirt on Biden.
> 
> That is using your status as a president to dig up dirt on a political opponent, which is an impeachable offense.


You're stripping important context from the conversation. The call was about corruption in Ukraine in general, with which the Biden family was tangentially connected. The main concern expressed in the call relates to the 2016 election hacking, and the cooperation in investigating the issue. Trump is significantly more concerned about the stigma of 2016 than Biden as a rival in 2020 - sleepy Joe is way below his league.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 1, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The actual transcript of the conversation was released like a month ago and there is nothing about an illegal quid pro quo, Trump pressuring to investigate Biden's son or Trump withholding money. Why is there still even threads talking about impeachment. The whistle blowers identity and this transcript. The conversation is over, its been over.
> 
> https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...transcript-between-trump-and-ukraine-n2553621


You have a leaked testimony of Vindman who was on the july 25th call saying different. Now I haven't mentioned that as I was planning to wait until I actually read his testimony but it does concern me. The 'transcript' (actually a memorandum) is not a word for word document. It states that in the actual document if you care to actually read it in it's entirety. I expect if Vindman's testimony does reveal what the supposed leaked testimony insinuates, and that is corroborated by another official present on the July 25th call we will be seeing a subpoena for the actual transcript on the server before this is all over.

Again I'm not holding my breath, nor should I suggest anyone else do so, until Vindman's actual testimony becomes public.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Then again, what if other witnesses say something else?
> 
> View attachment 184636


Morrison isn't the only one who is on that call. We also don't know the line of questioning that brought forth that response. Its part in why discussing this without the testimony being public is really futile. Finally, if I could only have information of two people morrison or vindman. I would take vindman's word higher, not because it 'serves my purpose' but because he takes detailed notes on each call and one of his duties is to assist in editing and reconstructing the memorandum itself into an actual transcript. Morrison does not serve in that capacity to my knowledge. I'm going to drop this line of discussion though as it is really on the fringe. That leak could be fake for all we know. I'm not betting on it's veracity. I'm just being a bit cautious about what is to come until we have public record of the testimonies that have been given thus far.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You have a leaked testimony of Vindman who was on the july 25th call saying different. Now I haven't mentioned that as I was planning to wait until I actually read his testimony but it does concern me. The 'transcript' (actually a memorandum) is not a word for word document. It states that in the actual document if you care to actually read it in it's entirety. I expect if Vindman's testimony does reveal what the supposed leaked testimony insinuates, and that is corroborated by another official present on the July 25th call we will be seeing a subpoena for the actual transcript on the server before this is all over.
> 
> Again I'm not holding my breath, nor should I suggest anyone else do so, until Vindman's actual testimony becomes public.


Speaking of holding breath, I have a lulzy question since you're in the know and on the level, judging by our previous exchanges. Let's put on our imagination land hats and assume that the impeachment inquiry morphs into an actual impeachment proceeding and that somehow, through some stroke of luck, Trump is impeached *and* removed from office before his 4-year term is concluded. Since being impeached is technically not a criminal matter, Trump would not be a felon in the criminal justice system sense of the word, and thus he would not be disqualified from running for office. Would that nullify his original term, thus allowing him to theoretically run for another two terms, as if he was never President? I'm imagining America's first and only 12-year presidency, that would be peak lulz. Keep in mind, this is just a fun thought experiment, seeing that the Constitution does not seem to account for such a possibility.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Speaking of holding breath, I have a lulzy question since you're in the know and on the level, judging by our previous exchanges. Let's put on our imagination land hats and assume that the impeachment inquiry morphs into an actual impeachment proceeding and that somehow, through some stroke of luck, Trump is impeached *and* removed from office before his 4-year term is concluded. Since being impeached is technically not a criminal matter, Trump would not be a felon in the criminal justice system sense of the word. Would that nullify his original term, thus allowing him to theoretically run for another two terms, as if he was never President? I'm imagining America's first and only 12-year presidency, that would be peak lulz. Keep in mind, this is just a fun thought experiment, seeing that the Constitution does not seem to account for such a possibility.


I know this seems bizarre to imagine, but if he won a re-election after being convicted and removed and the american public, through electoral college still votes him in and re-elects him in 2024. Then he is our president and I hope that he would do his best to serve the american public first as I expect from every president. I would demand that each branch of the government still hold it's oversight as needed but that's all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I know this seems bizarre to imagine, but if he won a re-election after being convicted and removed and the american public, through electoral college still votes him in and re-elects him in 2024. Then he is our president and I hope that he would do his best to serve the american public first as I expect from every president. I would demand that each branch of the government still hold it's oversight as needed but that's all.


Oh, you misunderstand. If he is removed from office, altogether, before 2020, could he run for 2020-2024 *and* 2024-2028? Theoretically he would've never concluded his first term as President, the maximum is two terms. It would stand to reason that this would be allowed, I was wondering if there was a legal contingency against this. Because y'know, if there isn't, I might shift my position to Impeach As Soon As Possible in order to achieve Trump in Perpetuity in the long run.


----------



## WeedZ (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> *America's first and only 12-year presidency*.


Except for roosevelt.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Innocent President? If by the fact that he hasn't seen a trial, then yes I presume innocence,


 Are you a libertarian or closet Republican?  This is not something a dem is supposed to say, and you will be shunned by your party.  Just saying.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> just be mindful this is a political trial not a criminal one.


. Still a trial.  There should be a crime in order to have a trial.  If a crime has been proven to be a hoax, you don't keep trying to convict someone of a different crime just because you don't like them.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> You can try to distract and attempt to discredit the person who followed a legal process to bring this before our nation, but the rest of us desire to see that our country still retains proper checks and balances


 If there was a "legal process" to discredit someone, then I would agree with you.  I find it quite discomforting that "checks and balances" only apply during a Republican administration.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Thus far I haven't seen anything of note that the whistle-blower didn't have corroborated, much less contradicted, by the opening statements of those who have testified thus far. Perhaps in your 'great and unmatched wisdom' you could... enlighten me.


 You know the transcript of the call has been released, right?  You can read it yourself and see that no crime or any impeachable offense was committed.  You could also stay informed on all that has been happening other than just what Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo tell you.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Um its pretty straightforward.
> 
> Trump asked in a phone call to the Ukrainian president made in late July if he could dig up dirt on Biden.
> 
> That is using your status as a president to dig up dirt on a political opponent, which is an impeachable offense.


 foxi4 covered this already, but I would like to add that just because someone runs for president does not protect them from being investigated for past crimes.  
As I've said so many times before, the call transcript is out in the public to read.  Don't just go on what others tell you about how they interpret it.  Read it yourself to see for yourself that nothing was said that was wrong or impeachable.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> Except for roosevelt.


It would have to be EVEN LONGER, the biggest Presidency, very smart. We just have to impeach him 5 minutes to midnight every single time, forever.


----------



## WeedZ (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It would have to be EVEN LONGER, the biggest Presidency, very smart. We just have to impeach him 5 minutes to midnight every single time, forever.


But does the impeachment nullifying a term break the consecutive running? Would it be the longest running president, or the most reelected?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, you misunderstand. If he is removed from office, altogether, before 2020, could he run for 2020-2024 *and* 2024-2028? Theoretically he would've never concluded his first term as President, the maximum is two terms. It would stand to reason that this would be allowed, I was wondering if there was a legal contingency against this. Because y'know, if there isn't, I might shift my position to Impeach As Soon As Possible in order to achieve Trump in Perpetuity in the long run.


I should have been more clear but I understand what you were discussing,

"I know this seems bizarre to imagine, but if he won a re-election after being convicted and removed and the american public, through electoral college still votes him in and re-elects him in 2024."

I should have changed that to 'elects him in 2020 and re-elects him in 2024'. But yes what I stated I stand by. Now the perpetual presidency thing. I mean you still have to get congress on board to impeach and convict and still have to get the american public on board with re-election but I suppose unless a law is made we do have a loophole in our presidential term limits.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> If there was a "legal process" to discredit someone, then I would agree with you. I find it quite discomforting that "checks and balances" only apply during a Republican administration.



Checks and balances applied to democratic ones too. I'm not sure if it was publicized as witch-hunts, maybe on far left sites that I don't frequent. But the Benghazi and Email scandal are two of the most recent that come to mind. I'm not sure if President Obama had a scandal in which the house used direct investigation for, I think they were more concerned with Clinton as she made significant blunders that were easier to gain public support for inquiry.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I should have been more clear but I understand what you were discussing,
> 
> "I know this seems bizarre to imagine, but if he won a re-election after being convicted and removed and the american public, through electoral college still votes him in and re-elects him in 2024."
> 
> I should have changed that to 'elects him in 2020 and re-elects him in 2024'. But yes what I stated I stand by. Now the perpetual presidency thing. I mean you still have to get congress on board to impeach and convict and still have to get the american public on board with re-election but I suppose unless a law is made we do have a loophole in our presidential term limits.


Amazing. Thank you for clarifying, I thought you implied a 4-year break. That's all I needed to hear. 

I don't know why I find that concept so funny. I wonder if the same would apply if a sitting President resigned a week before the election, just to bypass the Congress shenanigans altogether and refresh his Presidency timer. I can't see why that wouldn't work, given the People's consent. It would, in practice, nullify term limits. Pretty risky gamble, but I like to think outside the box.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> You know the transcript of the call has been released, right? You can read it yourself and see that no crime or any impeachable offense was committed. You could also stay informed on all that has been happening other than just what Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo tell you.


I'll keep that in mind. I never thought to read and think for myself until now. It's like the clouds are parting. /s

But seriously I read it, I have concerns, I respect that there are some who don't and truly believe this is all about Ukraine corruption. I have a hard time being convinced of that because there wasn't any mention in the memorandum of any other forms of corruption that weren't politically beneficial to President Trump. If he mentioned just one, I mean one other unrelated thing that wouldn't be able to be construed as politically motivated I would have actually been on the other side of the fence. (this is not taking anything else into account, just the memorandum that was released.)

EDIT: Failed grammer were no -> wasn't any


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> But the Benghazi and Email scandal are two of the most recent that come to mind.


 Hillary was actually guilty of getting our citizens killed in benghazi and who deletes 30,000 emails about weddings and other non government matters before turning over hard drives?  She was not harassed anywhere near what Trump is now over nothing (granted she is not the president), so this can't be used as a comparison.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm not sure if President Obama had a scandal in which the house used direct investigation for,


 Oh, Obama had plenty of scandals but was given free passes on each for some reason.  Biden alone was a big enough scandal to impeach Obama.  Don't forget "fast and furious" when he sold guns to Mexican cartels that caused a lot of Mexican citizens as well as US citizens to be killed.  He was caught on video discussing with a Russian about how he had more leniency during his second term and to let Vladimir know for who knows what reasons.  
Other than those things, Obama didn't do much during his 2 terms anyways other than give our money to countries that hate us and making the racial divide even worse.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> But seriously I read it, I have concerns, I respect that there are some who don't and truly believe this is all about Ukraine corruption.


 The call transcript is like the Yanny/Laurel audio file where one person hears no quid pro quo while another hears impeachable offenses.  The only problem here is that the audio file only says "Yanny" and people want to hear "Laurel" and force themselves to hear it even if it's not there.
Trump did not withhold funds for dirt on the 2020 election. Ukraine didn't know about the funds were being withheld, which were held until it was certain Ukraine wasn't still as corrupt as they were before Zelensky.  Zelensky himself said there was no pressure on the call.  The call itself was scrutinized afterwards to make sure nothing wrong was in it.  It only became an issue because someone with 4th hand knowledge went to Schiff who made him file a report through a lawfirm.
Even if Trump had committed a quid pro quo, that is not an impeachable offense.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Hillary was actually guilty of getting our citizens killed in benghazi and who deletes 30,000 emails about weddings and other non government matters before turning over hard drives?  She was not harassed anywhere near what Trump is now over nothing (granted she is not the president), so this can't be used as a comparison.
> 
> Oh, Obama had plenty of scandals but was given free passes on each for some reason.  Biden alone was a big enough scandal to impeach Obama.  Don't forget "fast and furious" when he sold guns to Mexican cartels that caused a lot of Mexican citizens as well as US citizens to be killed.  He was caught on video discussing with a Russian about how he had more leniency during his second term and to let Vladimir know for who knows what reasons.
> Other than those things, Obama didn't do much during his 2 terms anyways other than give our money to countries that hate us and making the racial divide even worse.


The republicans had ability to launch inquires on all of those instances. They chose not to on some and did on others. I support oversight. If it's purely politically motivated then the public will see to it that the party is punished for it come next election cycle. If it is warranted and produces fruit that justified the inquiry then they are rewarded for it next election cycle. 

It might be overly simplistic but it's the best way I can explain my stance that I have on oversight of our government. The biggest fear I have isn't that someone is elected in a position of power. If the people speak that's what they want then I accept it. My biggest fear is we give power to people with no oversight. I'm starting to derail so I'm going to stop.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> The republicans had ability to launch inquires on all of those instances. They chose not to on some and did on others. I support oversight. If it's purely politically motivated then the public will see to it that the party is punished for it come next election cycle. If it is warranted and produces fruit that justified the inquiry then they are rewarded for it next election cycle.
> 
> It might be overly simplistic but it's the best way I can explain my stance that I have on oversight of our government. The biggest fear I have isn't that someone is elected in a position of power. If the people speak that's what they want then I accept it. My biggest fear is we give power to people with no oversight. I'm starting to derail so I'm going to stop.


 All this is why you should be supportive of Trump.  There was so much corruption in the capital that was one reason why people were getting away with murder.  Trump ran on "draining the swamp" and has been draining it since he came into office by firing corrupt folks like Comey.  He  was able to get rid of the "do nothing" Republicans in the house like Boehner and Ryan.  Now the "deep state" is trying to impeach him for beating their queen Hillary and for cleaning up the government.  
Of course, we have people on the left who refuse to see this and go along with their leaders yanking in their leashes.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The call transcript is like the Yanny/Laurel audio file where one person hears no quid pro quo while another hears impeachable offenses.  The only problem here is that the audio file only says "Yanny" and people want to hear "Laurel" and force themselves to hear it even if it's not there.
> Trump did not withhold funds for dirt on the 2020 election. Ukraine didn't know about the funds were being withheld, which were held until it was certain Ukraine wasn't still as corrupt as they were before Zelensky.  Zelensky himself said there was no pressure on the call.  The call itself was scrutinized afterwards to make sure nothing wrong was in it.  It only became an issue because someone with 4th hand knowledge went to Schiff who made him file a report through a lawfirm.
> Even if Trump had committed a quid pro quo, that is not an impeachable offense.



"which were held until it was certain Ukraine wasn't still as corrupt as they were before Zelensky"

I stand by what I stated previously. If the call had something pertaining to corruption that didn't politically benefit Trump in the upcoming election I would have relented and said this is probably taken out of context. The problem is there is a clear line as to how each of Trump's requests would benefit his reelection and those were the only two instances he raised to Zelensky during that call. Zelensky himself did not raise any other situation about addressing corruption (like yes Mr. President we have begun to root out corruption by targeting money laundering to criminal mob organizations like X)

This is why it seems suspicious and out of place. Trump hasn't publicly spoken of one other facet of Ukrainian corruption that didn't directly involve him in some fashion. It's really hard to digest that defense.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> "which were held until it was certain Ukraine wasn't still as corrupt as they were before Zelensky"
> 
> I stand by what I stated previously. If the call had something pertaining to corruption that didn't politically benefit Trump in the upcoming election I would have relented and said this is probably taken out of context. The problem is there is a clear line as to how each of Trump's requests would benefit his reelection and those were the only two instances he raised to Zelensky during that call. Zelensky himself did not raise any other situation about addressing corruption (like yes Mr. President we have begun to root out corruption by targeting money laundering to criminal mob organizations like X)
> 
> This is why it seems suspicious and out of place. Trump hasn't publicly spoken of one other facet of Ukrainian corruption that didn't directly involve him in some fashion. It's really hard to digest that defense.


 I'm curious to know what part you feel is "corrupt" and benefits Trump in the upcoming election.  Was it where he said, "do me a favor though"?  It can't be about looking into Biden as he is in no way "competition" against Trump.  Biden is his own worst opponent.  
On top of that, what part of the transcript merits that he be impeached?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> All this is why you should be supportive of Trump.  There was so much corruption in the capital that was one reason why people were getting away with murder.  Trump ran on "draining the swamp" and has been draining it since he came into office by firing corrupt folks like Comey.  He  was able to get rid of the "do nothing" Republicans in the house like Boehner and Ryan.  Now the "deep state" is trying to impeach him for beating their queen Hillary and for cleaning up the government.
> Of course, we have people on the left who refuse to see this and go along with their leaders yanking in their leashes.


I'm not sure if he drained the swamp. I would argue he exposed it to broad daylight by being completely out in the open with a lot of decisions that didn't receive the proper public awareness/scrutiny in prior years. His administration is plagued with people who donated enough money to have a voice and ignores sound judgement on many issues and the american public is more political involved on both sides in recent years than they have been in a few generations. Many of our prior presidents were no saints. They just were able to hide, obfuscate, and distract much better. At least this is how I see it.

I believe in Occam's razor which doesn't allow a narrative of deep state to be the most likely scenario of Trump's woes. If you swing a pendulum all the way to the right it starts to naturally meet resistance.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



morvoran said:


> I'm curious to know what part you feel is "corrupt" and benefits Trump in the upcoming election.  Was it where he said, "do me a favor though"?  It can't be about looking into Biden as he is in no way "competition" against Trump.  Biden is his own worst opponent.
> On top of that, what part of the transcript merits that he be impeached?


He won't be impeached just on the evidence of the memorandum of the July 25th call. He will have an impeachment inquiry that will continue and collect evidence to serve different articles of impeachment. Extortion, Bribery, Solicitation of a foreign government to interfere with an election (both china and Ukraine) will all be considered. The ones that have sufficient evidence will be served. The senate will motion to acquit or convict based on these articles of impeachment after a trial is conducted. I don't know if they will attempt to pursue articles of impeachment based on obstruction of justice but I wouldn't discount it as well. 

Nadler seems intent on obtaining the entire unredacted Mueller report from the DOJ and currently has the courts in his favor. If there is sufficient testimony within the Grand Jury to charge obstruction of justice then that will be added. Mueller didn't make a determination and intended to leave it to congress to decide which is what I believe he should have done as well as it should be up to congress to pursue a charge against a sitting president, not the DOJ. People don't talk about this and I'm sure people on both sides will disagree with that stance but never the less that's where I stand.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I know this seems bizarre to imagine, but if he won a re-election after being convicted and removed and the american public, through electoral college still votes him in and re-elects him in 2024. Then he is our president and I hope that he would do his best to serve the american public first as I expect from every president. I would demand that each branch of the government still hold it's oversight as needed but that's all.



Not all that bizarre. Rep. Alcee Hastings(D) is #2 in the House Rules Committee that drew up the inquiry procedures they voted on yesterday, and while a federal judge he was impeached and convicted of taking bribes. But people keep voting for him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> He won't be impeached just on the evidence of the memorandum of the July 25th call. He will have an impeachment inquiry that will continue and collect evidence to serve different articles of impeachment. .... Nadler seems intent on obtaining the entire unredacted Mueller report from the DOJ and currently has the courts in his favor.




Sounds more like an Inquisition. We know you're guilty, we just need to keep looking until we find it.

But I think you're right. The Democrats didn't include any scope of the investigation in their rules, as they would have had to do if they had appointed an independent counsel. The Ukraine phone call & whistleblower might have only been a means to getting the door cracked open. That's why I suggested before that I don't think this "inquiry" will wrap up anytime soon. I might be wrong, but there's really no political benefit to the Democrats voting this over to the Senate. They get more points scored keeping it on their side, where they run the show by their rules. Orange Man Bad every night on the news right up until the election.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury, he lied before the Grand Jury because he valued his personal reputation above his oath. He was also less than transparent throughout the impeachment process and encouraged witnesses to give false testimony, this is pretty well-documented.



Oh come on now. His perjury was directly related to lying about the damn blowjob. You're trying to compare apples to apples here.

And are you going to edit the rest of the name calling & trolling in this thread? Or just my previous post? Seems there is a different set of rules going on for those you share viewpoints with. Just like Trump and his entire administration.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> His perjury was directly related to lying about the damn blowjob.




His perjury had nothing to do with what happened with Lewinsky. The perjury was regarding his responses (lies) to a series of questions involving him having a tendency/pattern of such behavior, i.e. fucking the hired help. Specifically he lied about ever having a sexual relationship with Paula Jones, when it was already a proven fact in another case. He was a serial sexual harassment in the workplace offender.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 1, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> His perjury had nothing to do with what happened with Lewinsky. The perjury was regarding his responses (lies) to a series of questions involving him having a tendency/pattern of such behavior, i.e. fucking the hired help. He was a serial sexual harassment in the workplace offender.



If you honestly believe it had NOTHING to do with it, there's nothing I can do to help you. But I most certainly hope you aren't trying to clear Trump of any sexual harassment and his tendency/pattern of such behavior.


----------



## Bonehead (Nov 1, 2019)

Trump pays his whores real good, tho


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> If you honestly believe it had NOTHING to do with it, there's nothing I can do to help you. But I most certainly hope you aren't trying to clear *Trump* of any sexual harassment and his tendency/pattern of such behavior.



I have no idea what the fuck you’re even talking about. My post was about Bill Clinton. Only about Bill Clinton, and the perjury he was impeached for. He was also impeached for obstruction. 
You’ve let Trump move inside your skull and he ain’t even paying rent.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 1, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I have no idea what the fuck you’re even talking about. My post was about Bill Clinton. Only about Bill Clinton, and the perjury he was impeached for. He was also impeached for obstruction.
> You’ve let Trump move inside your skull and he ain’t even paying rent.



Do you know what the thread topic is? You're the one off topic here. You brought up Clintons sexual harassment, and played the innocent card with Trump on the same exact subject that YOU brought up. Not me buddy. Get your facts straight.

@Foxi4 I'll just assume you'll be sending a warning to Hanafuda and cleaning up their post. Thanks.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> because he valued his personal reputation above his oath.



And Donald Trump will be impeached because he valued his own re-election above his oath. Is that of any concern to you? Of course it isn't


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2019)

The Clinton whataboutism is this thread is irrelevant, and its use, as well as criticisms of the impeachment process, only demonstrate that Trump's actions themselves are indefensible.


----------



## IncredulousP (Nov 1, 2019)

Bonehead said:


> Trump pays his whores real good, tho


With bigly IOUs. Yuuuge IOUs. The best IOUs. You ask anyone, they'll tell you, that they are the biggest, that they are the best IOUs--try to look for bigger, you won't find any, they'll say.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> @Foxi4 I'll just assume you'll be sending a warning to Hanafuda and cleaning up their post. Thanks.



Don't tell me how to do my job, you do so at your own peril and tempt fate.
@Hanafuda is not calling *you* names, he said that Trump lives in your head rent-free. Your post was altered because it contained invectives, the message itself was not removed. I also sent you a 0-point warning, so don't mislead people into thinking you were punished - you got a citation.



seany1990 said:


> And Donald Trump will be impeached because he valued his own re-election above his oath. Is that of any concern to you? Of course it isn't


I've explained my position on this earlier in the thread, the phone call was more concerned about 2016 than it was about 2020. It comes across as standard diplomatic exchange no different than what Biden himself did, or from the threatening letter the Ukrainian government has received in regards to their cooperation with the on-going Mueller investigation. Is *that* coercing a foreign government to "find dirt" on a political opponent on the part of the DNC, or is it a standard request to cooperate with an investigation? If it is the latter, it would appear to me that you're using two different measuring sticks for two different investigations for reasons that come across as partisan.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I've explained my position on this earlier in the thread, the phone call was more concerned about 2016 than it was about 2020. It comes across as standard diplomatic exchange no different than what Biden himself did, or from the threatening letter the Ukrainian government has received in regards to their cooperation with the on-going Mueller investigation. Is *that* coercing a foreign government to "find dirt" on a political opponent on the part of the DNC, or is it a standard request to cooperate with an investigation? If it is the latter, it would appear to me that you're using two different measuring sticks for two different investigations for reasons that come across as partisan.



No it was definitely Quid Pro Quo - US Military Aid, Javelin Missles and a white house meeting all contingent on a public declaration about an investigation into Hunter Biden + Burisma and that dumb 4chan troll post about a DNC server being located in Ukraine. Calling me partisan is pretty ridiculous considering I'm not even American, I can just easily see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

seany1990 said:


> No it was definitely Quid Pro Quo - US Military Aid, Javelin Missles and a white house meeting all contingent on a public declaration about an investigation into Hunter Biden + Burisma and that dumb 4chan troll post about a DNC server being located in Ukraine. Calling me partisan is pretty ridiculous considering I'm not even American, I can just easily see the forest for the trees.


The transcript is public. The subject, from the very beginning, is investigating corruption in Ukraine as well as the 2016 election hacking. Biden is mentioned in passing as a small part in a much bigger picture. You're welcome to interpret it differently though, I can see how it could be construed that way as well, hence this whole debacle.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Do you know what the thread topic is? You're the one off topic here. You brought up Clintons sexual harassment, and played the innocent card with Trump on the same exact subject that YOU brought up. Not me buddy. Get your facts straight.
> 
> @Foxi4 I'll just assume you'll be sending a warning to Hanafuda and cleaning up their post. Thanks.





Lacius said:


> The Clinton whataboutism is this thread is irrelevant, and its use, as well as criticisms of the impeachment process, only demonstrate that Trump's actions themselves are indefensible.




The Clinton fork of the discussion actually originated with an @WeedZ post  here  where he said we impeached a President for getting a blowjob. That isn’t accurate. I replied with the correction that the impeachment was for perjury and obstruction. Then later @D34DL1N3R posted  here  that the perjury was lying about the blowjob. That isn’t accurate. I replied with the correction that that the perjury involved Clinton denying any sexual contact with Paula Jones.
https://gbatemp.net/goto/post?id=8843402#post-8843402
I couldn’t care less about Bill Clinton or how his offenses relate to Trump (they don’t). The _procedures_ that were followed in Clinton’s impeachment are relevant for comparison now because there are only a few precedents to look to. But the facts of that case aren’t relevant to now. But if someone uses a false statement to make their point, I’m gonna reply with a correction if I see it. I don’t care which side they’re on.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The Clinton fork of the discussion actually originated with an @WeedZ post  here  where he said we impeached a President for getting a blowjob. That isn’t accurate. I replied with the correction that the impeachment was for perjury and obstruction. Then later @D34DL1N3R posted  here  that the perjury was lying about the blowjob. That isn’t accurate. I replied with the correction that that the perjury involved Clinton denying any sexual contact with Paula Jones.
> 
> I couldn’t care less about Bill Clinton or how his offenses relate to Trump (they don’t). The _procedures_ that were followed in Clinton’s impeachment are relevant for comparison now because there are only a few precedents to look to. But the facts of that case aren’t relevant to now. But if someone uses a false statement to make their point, I’m gonna reply with a correction if I see it. I don’t care which side they’re on.


I think that's enough off-topic nonsense now, let's stop getting lost in the weeds of Clinton's impeachment and focus on the topic at hand, the current inquiry. The further we stray away the more agitated this discussion seems to get, which is not the goal here.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Not to sound rude, but your own source is hardly credible.


May I request which sources are "hardly credible" that I have used?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> May I request which sources are "hardly credible" that I have used?


I already have. I even provided a quote with my reasoning.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I already have. I even provided a quote with my reasoning.


Technically this would be a strawman. Even if you claim that media fact check is inaccurate because of being a amutur. My Claim/arguement still remains that the people who are defending trump are using known to be innacurate sources, or politicaly skewed ones.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Technically this would be a strawman. Even if you claim that media fact check is inaccurate. Claim still remains that the people who are defending trump are using known to be innacurate sources, or politicaly skewed ones.


No, it wouldn't be. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which one party in a discussions argues against a proposition that the other party never even stated, often by means of exaggerating their original proposition past its scope or wholly replacing it. What I'm doing is pointing out hypocrisy - you're accusing others of using "inaccurate sources" while you yourself quote a source that's ran by "an armchair researcher" and using methodology that has "no scientific basis". Not that it really matters, but if you're going to construct your argument as explicitly hinging on the accuracy of your own source, which is inaccurate, it's not a very good argument. Frankly, if we're going to play the logical fallacy game, I could call it argumentum ad verecundiam, meaning argument from authority. Do note that I haven't disagreed with your conclusion that The Daily Wire is biased - they admit that they are, openly so. I disagreed with the path you chose to arrive at that conclusion. I also don't disagree that people often use inaccurate sources, I'm merely pointing out that you're one of those people.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 1, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> No, it wouldn't be. A strawman is a logical fallacy in which one party in a discussions argues against a proposition that the other party never even stated, often by means of exaggerating their original proposition past its scope or wholly replacing it. What I'm doing is pointing out hypocrisy - you're accusing others of using "inaccurate sources" while you yourself quote a source that's ran by "an armchair researcher" and using methodology that has "no scientific basis". Not that it really matters, but if you're going to construct your argument as explicitly hinging on the accuracy of your own source, which is inaccurate, it's not a very good argument. Frankly, if we're going to play the logical fallacy game, I could call it argumentum ad verecundiam, meaning argument from authority. Do note that I haven't disagreed with your conclusion that The Daily Wire is biased - they admit that they are, openly so. I disagreed with the path you chose to arrive at that conclusion.


Alright fine, we can disagree on that my sources are wrong and I am a hypcroite for using that specifc source. It still does not change my initial arugment however. Morvan and billpong have used multiple right or far right biased sources and not all of them are openly tell their bias.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 1, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Democrats do not want "public hearings".


Of course they do, that was always going to be the next step.  Likewise, initial impeachment investigations/testimony have always occurred behind closed doors.  The DOJ had the opportunity to conduct the initial investigation in the same manner, and they declined.



morvoran said:


> I guess you didn't read the actual transcript yourself


The transcript was sufficiently damning by itself, but we're way past that.  Apparently you've chosen not to read the opening statements from any of the witnesses who have given their testimony to Congress.  Soon they'll be giving the same testimony in front of cameras, so hopefully that's spectacle enough to hold your short attention span.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Alright fine, we can disagree on that my sources are wrong. It still does not change my initial arugment however. Morvan and billpong have used multiple right or far right biased sources and not all of them are openly tell their bias.


I'm sure they do. I never questioned that, in fact, I openly put it front and center, at least in the case of TDW. I'm simply poking you, gently, to point out that if you expect other people to only ever use the Holy Cows of sources, you should probably ensure that your own source is up to snuff and not a collection of opinion pieces without any basis is scientific analysis. 

This brings me to my broader point - the bias argument is not productive. You can call their sources biased all day long, then they can accuse you of the same and all of a sudden you're arguing about your sources instead of arguing about the issue. If you see a claim that is untrue, you're supposed to demonstrate that it's untrue - that way we're exchanging information instead of exchanging nothing.

As far as I'm concerned, all sources of information are biased since they're all written by people who are, by their nature, biased. We all try to be objective, but these efforts can only go so far, so accusing someone of having an unfair bias is, to me, less biting than demonstrating that what they're saying is wrong.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

So I looked into a lawyer break down all the events that happened. 


This whole thing started because Trump wanted Ukraine to find information about what kick started Russia Gate,
Because of a conspiracy theory Trump believed that Ukraine was conspiring with Democrats to remove him from office. Ha Ha Ha Ha

Hi, I'm President Trump and I got impeached and removed from office because of a conspiracy theory I was obsessed with. lol


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So I looked into a lawyer break down all the events that happened.
> 
> This whole thing started because Trump wanted Ukraine to find information about what kick started Russia Gate,
> Because of a conspiracy theory Trump believed that Ukraine was conspiring with Democrats to remove him from office. Ha Ha Ha Ha
> ...


This is correct, one of the major things Trump inquired about was CrowdStrike. Silly, for sure.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> This is correct, one of the major things Trump inquired about was CrowdStrike. Silly, for sure.


This whole Russia Gate went into his head. Democrats unintentionally were able to find of way to get him to do something stupid to impeach him. They've been wanting to remove him even before he stepped into office. And Trump is not all that there either on what's legal and illegal activity he can do. That was the whole Russia Gate controversy whether Trump did things knowing they were illegal and his ignorance saved him.


This is where the conservative conspiracy theory backfired on Trump. Now they got Trump obsessed with it.
All that Fake News talk went to his head.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This whole Russia Gate went into his head. Democrats unintentionally were able to find of way to get him to do something stupid to impeach him. They've been wanting to remove him even before he stepped into office. And Trump is not all that there either on what's legal and illegal activity he can do. That was the whole Russia Gate controversy whether Trump did things knowing they were illegal and his ignorance saved him.
> 
> 
> This is where the conservative conspiracy theory backfired on Trump. Now they got Trump obsessed with it.
> All that Fake News talk went to his head.


It's debatable whether this is impeachable or not. I don't understand why the White House is pushing a narrative of no Quid Pro Quo, there was obviously a request made, it just wasn't one that's unusual or beyond the pale, at least in my estimation. As for Trump's embrace of conspiracy theories, it's not the first time - let's not forget all the Birther nonsense. It would do him a world of good to just fire Giuliani - he's giving him terrible advice. Whenever Trump does something silly, Rudy is not far behind. Trump should distance himself from that idiot, for his own sake, and stop relying on his private attorney in matters concerning the state. The problem is that Trump, rightfully, doesn't exactly trust the state, in spite of being the head of it, which is quite peculiar.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's debatable whether this is impeachable or not. I don't understand why the White House is pushing a narrative of no Quid Pro Quo, there was obviously a request made, it just wasn't one that's unusual or beyond the pale, at least in my estimation. As for Trump's embrace of conspiracy theories, it's not the first time - let's not forget all the Birther nonsense. It would do him a world of good to just fire Giuliani - he's giving him terrible advice. Whenever Trump does something silly, Rudy is not far behind. Trump should distance himself from that idiot, for his own sake, and stop relying on his private attorney in matters concerning the state. The problem is that Trump, rightfully, doesn't exactly trust the state, in spite of being the head of it, which is quite peculiar.


It's impeachable. Impeachement is to prevent power from being abused. And in this case it is. Trump is using a quid pro quo for his own personal interest. Not the Unitied States interest. That's my aruguement.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's debatable whether this is impeachable or not. I don't understand why the White House is pushing a narrative of no Quid Pro Quo, there was obviously a request made, it just wasn't one that's unusual or beyond the pale, at least in my estimation. As for Trump's embrace of conspiracy theories, it's not the first time - let's not forget all the Birther nonsense. It would do him a world of good to just fire Giuliani - he's giving him terrible advice. Whenever Trump does something silly, Rudy is not far behind. Trump should distance himself from that idiot, for his own sake, and stop relying on his private attorney in matters concerning the state. The problem is that Trump, rightfully, doesn't exactly trust the state, in spite of being the head of it, which is quite peculiar.


If they get him on this he would be considered the dumbest President ever. 

The state rightfully shouldn't be trusted, but the birther nonsense, that should be telling how ridiculous Trump is and that ridiculousness is going to cost him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> It's impeachable. Impeachement is to prevent power from being abused. And in this case it is. Trump is using a quid pro quo for his own personal interest. Not the Unitied States interest.


You would have to prove that. Going forward with the 2016 election hacking investigation, which is still on-going, and eliciting help from the Ukrainian government in said investigation, which was the subject of the phone call, is well-within the category of national security and not Trump's personal interest. In fact, the same was done before by Senate Democrats in regards to Mueller's investigation - they too threatened the Ukrainian government with sanctions if they failed to cooperate with the probe. Things are not as black and white as you paint them to be - one of two theories is correct, either Trump was soliciting help in the on-going investigation in the interest of national security *or* he was soliciting help in the upcoming election. To me it is clear he was doing the former, to you the latter. One of those is impeachable, the other one is not.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You would have to prove that. Going forward with the 2016 election hacking investigation, which is still on-going, and eliciting help from the Ukrainian government in said investigation, which was the subject of the phone call, is well-within the category of national security and not Trump's personal interest. In fact, the same was done before by Senate Democrats in regards to Mueller's investigation - they too threatened the Ukrainian government with sanctions if they failed to cooperate with the probe. Things are not as black and white as you paint them to be - one of two theories is correct, either Trump was soliciting help in the on-going investigation in the interest of national security *or* he was soliciting help in the upcoming election. To me it is clear he was doing the former, to you the latter. One of those is impeachable, the other one is not.


Thinking about this, all this wouldn't have happened if Democrats didn't kick start that retarded Russia Gate conspiracy theory. If they just accepted their defeat then none of this wouldn't have happened.

I would say punish the Democrats also if they are going to get Trump. Its only fair right. They are just a bunch of hypocrites going after Trump for this.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Now that I think about it, both political parties are retarded conspiracy theorists. This is our country guys. Nothing but conspiracy theorist politicians, and conspiracy theorist people that vote. Were all conspiracy theorists, hey now.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Thinking about this, all this wouldn't have happened if Democrats didn't kick start that retarded Russia Gate conspiracy theory. If they just accepted their defeat then none of this wouldn't have happened.
> 
> I would say punish the Democrats also if they are going to get Trump. Its only fair right. They are just a bunch of hypocrites going after Trump for this.
> 
> ...


Both Republicans and Democrats have been pretty disappointing as far as policy and conduct are concerned, which is why I don't personally align with either - I'm libertarian. Sadly, the Libertarian party is full of clowns who are more concerned about arguing over whether it is legally justifiable to sell meth to kids if the invisible hand of the free market ordains there's a demand for it instead of being serious for five seconds and tackling realistic issues. As such, I represent no one and I'm represented by no one.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

What do the Trump supporters think would happen if Trump himself were to testify and take all questions asked, like that smart mouthed Doug Collins challenged Schiff to do? Get them BOTH up there and see what happens.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Thinking about this, all this wouldn't have happened if Democrats didn't kick start that retarded Russia Gate conspiracy theory.


Republicans created the conspiracy theories because they didn't like the conclusions drawn by the Mueller report, or that people in connection with the Trump campaign were jailed over it.  You can't blame Democrats for the fact that Trump believes every conspiracy theory from 4chan is legit.  If anything, that's just more evidence of gross incompetence (and tech illiteracy) on his part.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> What do the Trump supporters think would happen if Trump himself were to testify and take all questions asked, like that smart mouthed Doug Collins challenged Schiff to do? Get them BOTH up there and see what happens.


If Trump testifies he will be impeached, 100%. Those hearings are perjury traps by design, we've seen it in the past, this would be no different. He should not testify under any circumstances, and if he is forced to testify, he should play the Clinton routine of "I don't recall" throughout the process, or plead the fifth so as to not implicate himself, but I don't know if the man is physically capable of just not saying anything for more than 5 minutes. It would be damaging to his image either way, so ideally he should distance himself as much as possible if he intends to keep his office. It's not even a matter of being guilty or not guilty - as Admiral Akhbar says, it's a trap.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Republicans created the conspiracy theories because they didn't like the conclusions drawn by the Mueller report, or that people in connection with the Trump campaign were jailed over it.  You can't blame Democrats for the fact that Trump believes every conspiracy theory from 4chan is legit.  If anything, that's just more evidence of gross incompetence (and tech illiteracy) on his part.


uh huh, ok


----------



## Xzi (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> If Trump testifies he will be impeached, 100%. Those hearings are perjury traps by design


You can't perjure yourself if you don't lie.  We're obviously in agreement that Trump can't speak on any topic for more than ten seconds without lying, however.  Which is why his lawyers would never let him testify in person.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> If Trump testifies he will be impeached, 100%. Those hearings are perjury traps by design, we've seen it in the past, this would be no different. He should not testify under any circumstances, and if he is forced to testify, he should play the Clinton routine of "I don't recall" throughout the process, or plead the fifth, so as to not implicate himself. It would be damaging to his image either way, so ideally he should distance himself as much as possible if he intends to keep his office. It's not even a matter of being guilty or not guilty - as Admiral Akhbar says, it's a trap.



100% spot on he'd be nailed to the cross. Although if you don't lie, you don't have to worry about yourself and your entire administration keeping their stories straight, and thus no need to worry about perjury.  Get him up there. He's the one facing possible (but unlikely) perjury. Should he not be the one testifying? And for anyone else caught in perjury, including any Democrat, then they should face the consequences as well. But saying Trump would be found guilty of perjury, means he lied about things to begin with.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You can't perjure yourself if you don't lie.  We're obviously in agreement that Trump can't speak on any topic for more than ten seconds without lying, however.  Which is why his lawyers would never let him testify in person.


That's not necessarily true, but whatever you say. This thread has already visited the blowjob territory, it was discussed ad nauseaum, so we won't go there. If you're not familiar with the term "loaded question", you should familiarise yourself. There are questions you can ask that are damaging regardless of what answer you're going to give, a truthful one or a lie.


D34DL1N3R said:


> 100% spot on he'd be nailed to the cross. Although if you don't lie, you don't have to worry about yourself and your entire administration keeping their stories straight, and thus no need to worry about perjury.  Get him up there. He's the one facing possible (but unlikely) perjury. Should he not be the one testifying? And for anyone else caught in perjury, including any Democrat, then they should face the consequences as well. But saying Trump would be found guilty of perjury, means he lied about things to begin with.


The reason why the fifth exists is specifically to curb this kind of mentality - "if you don't do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" is what tyrants say when they want to justify blatantly evil acts. In a free country you have a right to speak and an equally important right to stay silent.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Of course they do, that was always going to be the next step.


 Uh, no, it wasn't.  Not sure where you get your news from.... oh, wait, yes i do. From MSDNC and CNN.



Xzi said:


> The DOJ had the opportunity to conduct the initial investigation in the same manner, and they declined.


 The DOJ will hold hearings in public once the FISA abuse report is finalized and released. We'll see who colluded with foreign countries then (hint: it was the democrats)



Xzi said:


> The transcript was sufficiently damning by itself, but we're way past that.


 Wrong!  The transcript proved there was no quid pro quo or any impeachable offenses.  Rachel Maddow is a crazy lady.



Xzi said:


> Apparently you've chosen not to read the opening statements from any of the witnesses who have given their testimony to Congress.


 Uh, yes, I have and even posted one from a top official that you must have conveniently skipped over.  Here it is again: *"I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed," Morrison said, according to his opening statement. He also said he was not aware of any meaningful material being left out of the White House’s memo on the call.*



Xzi said:


> Republicans created the conspiracy theories because they didn't like the conclusions drawn by the Mueller report, or that people in connection with the Trump campaign were jailed over it. You can't blame Democrats for the fact that Trump believes every conspiracy theory from 4chan is legit. If anything, that's just more evidence of gross incompetence on his part.


 Wow, I would hate to see this alternative dimension you come from.  Everybody must be poor and starving in the Socialist States of Sanders where you come from.  No wonder why you're always here.
You need to step away from the Young Turks and Voxnews and pay attention to reality for a change.  The demonrats had the "insurance policy" in case Killary Clinton lost.  They came up with the whole Russian hoax that Shifty Schiff had concrete evidence of Trumps collusion (what ever happened with that?)  They misinterpreted the phone call due to some 6nd hand whistleblower's account of what their father's mother's sister's cousin's next door neighbor's dog heard on that phone call.
Plus, one of those people arrested, Flynn, will soon be released as evidence has surfaced proving the FBI entrapped him into committing perjury with those involved on the left being the ones convicted.

Nice try (not), but you can't fool me as I actually pay attention to what's been going on.


----------



## IncredulousP (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The reason why the fifth exists is specifically to prevent this kind of mentality


----------



## Xzi (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> If you're not familiar with the term "loaded question", you should familiarise yourself. There are questions you can ask that are damaging regardless of what answer you're going to give, a truthful one or a lie.





Foxi4 said:


> The reason why the fifth exists is specifically to curb this kind of mentality


For every problem a solution, eh?  The bottom line is that Trump simply isn't intelligent enough to understand basic legal concepts or think through questions before responding to them.  His mouth and his ego do the leading, which is precisely how he ended up breaking federal election laws in the first place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


>


Putting someone on the stand is perpetuity until they finally say something that implicates them in some way so that you can burn them at the stake is the definition of a witch trial. That's not justice, that's a circus. When in doubt, plead the fifth. Also, love Chappelle, good taste in comedy there.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> For every problem a solution, eh?  The bottom line is that Trump simply isn't intelligent enough to understand basic legal concepts or think through questions before responding to them.  His mouth and his ego do the leading, which is precisely how he ended up breaking federal election laws in the first place.


That is the most correct thing you said so far. Trump is a dumb dumb. His ignorance and ego is going to cost him. Its what got him elected in the first place because he said things without filters and people loved it, ones that were tired of political talk and double speak, but its a double edged sword and its gunna cost him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> For every problem a solution, eh?  The bottom line is that Trump simply isn't intelligent enough to understand basic legal concepts or think through questions before responding to them.  His mouth and his ego do the leading, which is precisely how he ended up breaking federal election laws in the first place.


That is the problem. I love when he speaks, but sometimes I would love if he could just shut up, and perhaps fire some unsavoury characters that are around him and do him no favours, particularly Rudy.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The reason why the fifth exists is specifically to curb this kind of mentality - "if you don't do anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" is what tyrants say when they want to justify blatantly evil acts. In a free country you have a right to speak and an equally important right to stay silent.



I could write a great deal of things Trump has said that would paint himself in that exact picture, but no one here is changing anyone else's mind, on anything. Period. It's all rather pointless really. Anyway. The right to free speech does not equate freedom from consequence when enacting upon said freedom. If you say something you shouldn't say, there will more than likely be consequences for it.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The bottom line is that Trump simply isn't intelligent enough to understand basic legal concepts or think through questions before responding to them. His mouth and his ego do the leading, which is precisely how he ended up breaking federal election laws in the first place.


 It's precisely why he is the POTUS.  Not sure where you liberals get that he broke any laws.  I guess if your leaders feed you enough lies, you eventually believe them to be true.  Such a shame...



SG854 said:


> Trump is a dumb dumb. His ignorance and ego is going to cost him.


  His "ignorance" and "ego" is what made him as rich as he is now as well as the POTUS.  I wouldn't call that being a "dumb dumb".  Where's your tower with your last name on it?


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> His "ignorance" and "ego" is what made him as rich as he is now as well as the POTUS.  I wouldn't call that being a "dumb dumb".  Where's your tower with your last name on it?


Damn, you sure got me on that one. My face is red now, shit.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's precisely why he is the POTUS.  Not sure where you liberals get that he broke any laws.  I guess if your leaders feed you enough lies, you eventually believe them to be true.  Such a shame...
> 
> His "ignorance" and "ego" is what made him as rich as he is now as well as the POTUS.  I wouldn't call that being a "dumb dumb".  Where's your tower with your last name on it?



Can you do me a favor and fact check how many bankruptcies Trump has filed? Have you seen his taxes to know exactly how rich he is? His father made him rich, and the electoral is precisely why he is POTUS, not his mouth or ego, nor the people of the USA.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That is the problem. I love when he speaks, but sometimes I would love of he could just shut up. And perhaps fire some unsavoury characters that are around him and do him no favours, particularly Rudy.


If he listened to people who are more intelligent than him, he wouldn't be Donald Trump.  Instead he started by packing his administration with bottom-of-the-barrel appointees, and he's fired several rounds of those, so now he's dug about twenty feet under the barrel to people like Giuliani.  Eventually he'll run out of yes men to take the fall for him.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> It's precisely why he is the POTUS.  Not sure where you liberals get that he broke any laws.  I guess if your leaders feed you enough lies, you eventually believe them to be true.  Such a shame...
> 
> His "ignorance" and "ego" is what made him as rich as he is now as well as the POTUS.  I wouldn't call that being a "dumb dumb".  Where's your tower with your last name on it?


I think all reviewers should stop reviewing video games talking about why they think a game sucks. I don't see them making millions making video games. Where's their millions? EA games is prohibited from being reviewed until you become a million dollar game designer yourself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I could write a great deal of things Trump has said that would paint himself in that exact picture, but no one here is changing anyone else's mind, on anything. Period. It's all rather pointless really. Anyway. The right to free speech does not equate freedom from consequence when enacting upon said freedom. If you say something you shouldn't say, there will more than likely be consequences for it.


"Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is a fallacy parroted by people who do not understand the principle. In the spirit of freedom of speech the state should not penalise you for *words*, it should only penalise *actions*. Of course we apply a degree of common sense to the base principle, otherwise threats, libel and defamation would be legal, which they're not, but this is beyond the scope of this conversation. What's within the scope of the conversation is the fact that witnesses should not be coerced to speak as they have a constitutional right to stay silent if they so choose, and with the constitution being the equivalent of the Bible as far as law is concerned it could hardly be considered "obstruction", before someone draws that obvious connection. Trump is under no obligation to help an investigation into himself - quite the opposite, he has the right not to be involved at all so long as he doesn't take any action that deliberately impedes it. Inaction doesn't count.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Damn, you sure got me on that one. My face is red now, shit.


As long as you learned your lesson, I'll forgive you.




D34DL1N3R said:


> Can you do me a favor and fact check how many bankruptcies Trump has filed? Have you seen his taxes to know exactly how rich he is? His father made him rich, and the electoral is precisely why he is POTUS, not his mouth or ego, nor the people of the USA.


  He's still rich, his father's dead, and the electoral voted him in because he isn't a corrupt evil doer like Killary "arkancide" Clinton. 
His mouth and ego is exactly why he will win in 2020, also.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> I think all reviewers should stop reviewing video games talking about why they think a game sucks. I don't see them making millions making video games. Where's their millions? EA games is prohibited from being reviewed until you become a million dollar game designer yourself.


If they want to make money, stop saying a game sucks because of some "underlying motive" or that it lacks "diversity".  Plenty of game reviewers are broke because the company they work for doesn't pay them enough money, so they should freelance or start their own companies. 
Are you making any money putting Trump down?  I'm not making any money supporting him (other than all the policies that take less taxes from me, increase my earnings, etc.) and am far from a millionaire (half way there, but I don't consider that close).  
I am not like the liberals here who would rather impeach a president that I don't like rather than support him to make the US better that it already is.  The economy is booming (better than it has in over 50 years), unemployment is the lowest its been in decades, and even the lower class of people are earning more on their paychecks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Can you do me a favor and fact check how many bankruptcies Trump has filed? Have you seen his taxes to know exactly how rich he is? His father made him rich, and the electoral is precisely why he is POTUS, not his mouth or ego, nor the people of the USA.


Trump owns approximately 500 businesses under The Trump Organisation umbrella, out of which 6 businesses went through corporate bankruptcy. This means his business ventures are 98.8% successful, which is a phenomenal result considering the fact that 20% of businesses fail within the first year, 30% in their second, 50% within the first five and finally 70% within 10 years. Attacking Trump on the grounds of his business sense is a fool's errand, he's high up on the list of the wealthiest Americans and he's still a billionaire, in spite of some financial difficulties in the past. Although the exact size of his fortune is undetermined, his net worth is in the whereabouts of $3 billion - a sizable sum.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> the electoral voted him in because he isn't a corrupt evil doer like Killary "arkancide" Clinton.
> His mouth and ego is exactly why he will win in 2020, also.



Which is it? First you said his mouth and ego were PRECISELY why he is POTUS. Now you're agreeing it was the electoral. And why does it matter if his father is dead? He still became rich from his father. The evil doer business we will never agree on so we may as well not go there further. You never did the fact checking I requested.



Foxi4 said:


> "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is a fallacy parroted by people who do not understand the principle.



Untrue. Take earlier for example. People were 100% free to say as they wanted. Freedom of speech, correct? Yet people had consequences for what they said, despite that freedom. Warnings were issued, comments altered, someone suspended. Or how about someone go tell their boss what a complete piece of shit they think he/she is? Freedom of speech, but consequences. I don't think it's a matter of not understanding the principle whatsoever. I laid it out quite clearly and accurately. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom of consequence. Period. I'm not sure how it can be misunderstood by anyone. Shrug.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Untrue. Take earlier for example. People were 100% free to say as they wanted. Freedom of speech, correct? Yet people had consequences for what they said, despite that freedom. Warnings were issued, comments altered, someone suspended. Or how about someone go tell their boss what a complete piece of shit they think he/she is? Freedom of speech, but consequences. I don't think it's a matter of not understanding the principle whatsoever. I laid it out quite clearly and accurately. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom of consequence. Period. I'm not sure how it can be misunderstood by anyone. Shrug.


You misunderstand. GBAtemp is a private organisation - we're in charge of the forum and we get to decide what discussions are allowed and what level of decorum is required to participate. If you said what you've said in the middle of the street, I would have no issues with you having your say. However, because you're saying it on this turf, I do have a say, and a part of my job is enforcing the rules of the board, which is what I did. There's a bit of a difference between a private forum and a public forum, or a private entity and the state. What you do in your own time on your own lawn, or in public, is none of my concern - that's not my jurisdiction and thus none of my business. I hope that illuminates it a little bit.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> If they want to make money, stop saying a game sucks because of some "underlying motive" or that it lacks "diversity".


I wasn't talking about lack of diversity but thanks for that eye roll sentence you gave that seemingly came out of nowhere, Completely purposefully missing the point of my original post just so you can defend yourself. You are now reaching.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Which is it? First you said his mouth and ego were PRECISELY why he is POTUS. Now you're agreeing it was the electoral.


 you must not know how the electoral college works.  People in a state vote for who they want to be president, then the electoral college votes for that person giving them their electoral votes.  Those people voted for Trump because they liked his message (that came out if his mouth) and his ego (they liked how he said what he wanted and didn't back down or apologize).  In my opinion, this isn't really that hard to understand, but I guess opinions differ from one to another.

Now, we have Democrats that didn't like the fact that Trump won on his platform and message, so they are doing everything they can to impeach him for doing nothing wrong.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> I wasn't talking about lack of diversity but thanks for that eye roll sentence you gave that seemingly came out of nowhere, Completely purposefully missing the point of my original post just so you can defend yourself. You are now reaching.


 No, I was explaining why video game reviewers aren't rich to go along with what you said that had nothing to do with what I said prior to someone else.  Just handing back what I was given.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You misunderstand. GBAtemp is a private organisation - we're in charge of the forum and we get to decide what discussions are allowed and what level of decorum is required to participate. If you said what you've said in the middle of the street, I would have no issues with you having your say. However, because you're saying it on this turf, I do have a say, and a part of my job is enforcing the rules of the board, which is what I did. There's a bit of a difference between a private forum and a public forum, or a private entity and the state. What you do in your own time on your own lawn, or in public, is none of my concern - that's not my jurisdiction and thus none of my business. I hope that illuminates it a little bit.



I still disagree. I could say anything I wanted in the middle of the street, or anywhere for that matter, and still have consequences for my own actions/speech. Agree to disagree on this one.



morvoran said:


> you must not know how the electoral college works.  People in a state vote for who they want to be president, then the electoral college votes for that person giving them their electoral votes.  Those people voted for Trump because they liked his message (that came out if his mouth) and his ego (they liked how he said what he wanted and didn't back down or apologize).  In my opinion, this isn't really that hard to understand, but I guess opinions differ from one to another.



You must not understand how 3 million more votes by the people of the USA works. And for the record, I did not vote for Hillary. I can't stand her. Or Pelosi. Or several other Dems. Trump also spoke out against the electoral, saying it is unfair and should be done away with. That is, until he won because of it.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You must not understand how 3 million more votes by the people of the USA works. And for the record, I did not vote for Hillary. I can't stand her. Or Pelosi. Or several other Dems. Trump also spoke out against the electoral, saying it is unfair and should be done away with. That is, until he won because of it.


I understand how mob rule works as did our founding fathers which is why they created the electoral college.  
Besides Google gave Hillary those 3 millions votes through voter persuasion.  A Democrat doctor investigated Google's influence and found they gave Hillary a minimum of 2.6 million to 15 million extra votes that should have gone to Trump.
Trump would have won both the electoral and popular votes if it wasn't for big tech and the deep state.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I understand how mob rule works as did our founding fathers which is why they created the electoral college.
> Besides Google gave Hillary those 3 millions votes through voter persuasion.  A Democrat doctor investigated Google's influence and found they gave Hillary a minimum of 2.6 million to 15 million extra votes that should have gone to Trump.
> Trump would have won both the electoral and popular votes if it wasn't for big tech and the deep state.



That's not why the Electoral College was created.
Google didn't give Hillary 3 million votes.
I'm pretty sure you're satirizing conservatives, but I had to interject.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> you must not know how the electoral college works.  People in a state vote for who they want to be president, then the electoral college votes for that person giving them their electoral votes.  Those people voted for Trump because they liked his message (that came out if his mouth) and his ego (they liked how he said what he wanted and didn't back down or apologize).  In my opinion, this isn't really that hard to understand, but I guess opinions differ from one to another.
> 
> Now, we have Democrats that didn't like the fact that Trump won on his platform and message, so they are doing everything they can to impeach him for doing nothing wrong.
> 
> ...


Putting Trump down is a booming industry. People are making lots of money talking about Trump.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Putting Trump down is a booming industry. People are making lots of money talking about Trump.


And here I've been talking shit about him for free long before he decided to run for president.  Where can I sign up for this salaried position?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I still disagree. I could say anything I wanted in the middle of the street, or anywhere for that matter, and still have consequences for my own actions/speech. Agree to disagree on this one.


In the private sphere, yes. You might face ridicule from your peers for acting like a crazy preacher. Perhaps a police officer would perform a wellness check on you to verify that you're not a crazy  person and this is just your hobby, but unless you were disturbing the peace in some weird manner, you'd be in the clear as far as the state is concerned. I'm not sure how to better illustrate this for you.

To put it into perspective, *you* as an individual can penalise someone for saying something you don't like, for instance by refusing to associate with them - that's well-within your freedom of association. You can stop talking them, you can stop going to their store, you can even organise a boycott if you want.

The government can't do that - the 1st prohibits Congress from enacting any law that restricts freedom of speech and expression. We make *small exceptions* from that rule by treating certain specific forms of speech as actionable or otherwise harmful - this includes threats of physical violence, calls to violence, defamation, libel etc., but those are few exceptions from a broad and overarching rule.

You can see it in motion if you've ever seen any "Change my Mind" memes - it would be illegal for the state to arrest Stephen Crowder just for sitting at a table and talking in public, but it is not illegal for you to not watch his show or associate with him based on something he's said.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And here I've been talking shit about him for free long before he decided to run for president.  Where can I sign up for this salaried position?


CNN, Youtube, MSNBC

You're missing out on your cut. You need to be compensated for your contribution to the Trump shit talking show.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Putting Trump down is a booming industry. People are making lots of money talking about Trump.


They were making lots of money and people are getting tired of it more and more each day.  Look at CNN and msdnc's ratings.  They're plummeting.  
Same thing with this whole impeachment fiasco.  The public is getting tired of the do nothing Democrats.  That's why Trump is going to win again (on top of his awesome policies making America great) and will have a republican majority in both the house and senate.  I would like to see any other "dumb dumb" do that.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> They were making lots of money and people are getting tired of it more and more each day.  Look at CNN and msdnc's ratings.  They're plummeting.
> Same thing with this whole impeachment fiasco.  The public is getting tired of the do nothing Democrats.  That's why Trump is going to win again (on top of his awesome policies making America great) and will have a republican majority in both the house and senate.  I would like to see any other "dumb dumb" do that.



Their ratings are not plummeting.
A majority of the public supports impeachment.
The Democrats in the House have passed many substantive bills. The Republicans are the ones who aren't doing anything.
While a lot can happen between now and the election, things don't currently look good for Trump.
"Dumb dumb" had a Republican majority in the House and lost it by a landslide.
Trump's policies have done little to nothing to improve the United States.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2019)

The whistleblower, whoever that is and whether it is this Ciamarella guy or not, is now unwilling to testify and wants no part of it anymore.

Huh.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And here I've been talking shit about him for free long before he decided to run for president.  Where can I sign up for this salaried position?


. You would be perfect as a co-host with Rachel Maddow on MSDNC.  You come up with some of the most far fetched things about Trump and Republicans that would put her own crazy ideas to shame.  You would be their next big star.  You should see if they have any openings.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The whistleblower, whoever that is and whether it is this Ciamarella guy or not, is now unwilling to testify and wants no part of it anymore.
> 
> Huh.



What?
Who cares?


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The whistleblower, whoever that is and whether it is this Ciamarella guy or not, is now unwilling to testify and wants no part of it anymore.
> 
> Huh.


. I guess good old shifty Schiff and Nonsense Nancy were pressuring him to lie against Trump and commit perjury, so he got scared and backed off.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> CNN, Youtube, MSNBC
> 
> You're missing out on your cut. You need to be compensated for your contribution to the Trump shit talking show.


Oh, I was hoping for something a little more low-effort.  You gotta have some journalism and/or political experience for CNN and MSNBC, not to mention they wouldn't like a pro-Sanders pundit.  I've heard Youtube pays shit and has only gotten worse over time for content creators.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> And here I've been talking shit about him for free long before he decided to run for president.  Where can I sign up for this salaried position?


Socialists in general have difficulty in monetising things other people have great success with. On the flip side, they're good at other things. I quote:


> "Socialism is a system which heroically faces difficulties unheard of in any other economic system" - Stefan Kisielewski


There - my daily dose of humorous snark. Sometimes I can't help myself when a prime opportunity rears its head.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh, I was hoping for something a little more low-effort.  You gotta have some journalism and/or political experience for CNN and MSNBC, not to mention they wouldn't like a pro-Sanders pundit.  I've heard Youtube pays shit and has only gotten worse over time for content creators.


I hear Fox News has some openings after journalists with shreds of integrity left.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I understand how mob rule works as did our founding fathers which is why they created the electoral college.
> Besides Google gave Hillary those 3 millions votes through voter persuasion.  A Democrat doctor investigated Google's influence and found they gave Hillary a minimum of 2.6 million to 15 million extra votes that should have gone to Trump.
> Trump would have won both the electoral and popular votes if it wasn't for big tech and the deep state.



I'm done with you. I'm not responding to any more of your complete nonsense. You avoid direct questions. You flip flop opinions. You pull fallacy out of thin air as if it were fact. You excessively deflect. You continue non-stop with the name calling. You've been called out and proven wrong many times over by several people. You flat out lie. I'm just done with you. Period. Blocked. Enjoy. I know I will.



Foxi4 said:


> ...



We're both talking completely different things here. You're talking about legalities, politics, arrests, and actual charges. I'm talking basic consequences for ones own actions and words. Again. Freedom of speech does not equate freedom of consequence & I stand by that statement. But I'm done with that. Neither of us are going to budge.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh, I was hoping for something a little more low-effort.


That's just you being lazy now. Now incoming comment from morvoran how you're a typical lazy liberal who doesn't want to work and wants government to pay for your existence.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 2, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I hear Fox News has some openings after journalists with shreds of integrity left.


That would result in negative monies after I kick Tucker Carlson's teeth in and have to pay for the damages.  Probably still be worth it, though.



SG854 said:


> That's just you being lazy now. Now incoming comment from morvoran how you're a typical lazy liberal who doesn't want to work and wants government to pay for your existence.


With your original comment I falsely assumed you meant talking shit on the internet could get me paid.  Not really interested in making a career out of being in front of a camera.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I'm done with you. I'm not responding to any more of your complete nonsense. You avoid direct questions. You flip flop opinions. You pull fallacy out of thin air as if it were fact. You excessively deflect. You continue non-stop with the name calling. You've been called out and proven wrong many times over by several people. You flat out lie. I'm just done with you. Period. Blocked. Enjoy. I know I will.


 sorry for proving you wrong.  I won't try so hard next time.  Maybe instead of going off and say that I'm lying, you could look into what I said or ask that I back it up, but whatever.  Go ahead and impeach me from your sensitivity by hitting that ignore button.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2019)

Lacius said:


> What?
> Who cares?




Who cares? If a human being doesn't sit in a seat and testify as the originator of the complaint, I'm just going to assume the whole 'whistleblower' scheme was a sham and there never was any such person in the first place. So will a lot of people. I've had that suspicion since this all started since the whistleblower's knowledge of the phone call was second-hand, meaning nobody who actually took part in the call would know the list of possible persons it could be. How convenient. Even contrived from the start, perhaps.

And the Senate can subpoena the whistleblower anyway, if it ever gets that far. Either no such person will ever appear, or if someone does watch him plead the 5th to every question.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 2, 2019)

I don't think that all democrats are innocent either. I'm going to come more center on this, politicians have a job, to get re-elected.


Foxi4 said:


> If Trump testifies he will be impeached, 100%. Those hearings are perjury traps by design, we've seen it in the past, this would be no different. He should not testify under any circumstances, and if he is forced to testify, he should play the Clinton routine of "I don't recall" throughout the process, or plead the fifth so as to not implicate himself, but I don't know if the man is physically capable of just not saying anything for more than 5 minutes. It would be damaging to his image either way, so ideally he should distance himself as much as possible if he intends to keep his office. It's not even a matter of being guilty or not guilty - as Admiral Akhbar says, it's a trap.


I love the starwars reference, I'm a sucker for it. I was following along reading up on this thread and it's refreshing. I agree, every person in his legal team will try to restrain him from committing to testifying. I just don't know if he will persist and continue anyways. 

He will likely look at it as a challenge and I'm sure democrats will attempt to bait/lure him to defend himself in a public hearing. He's impulsive, I'm not sure if he will just stick with a script as it's just not his style. But we've never observed him in a courtroom before, or at least I haven't. I've seen Trump discuss areas of his expertise in congress in the past - he was focused, lucid, and charming. If he can tap into that and stay on message then he would greatly assist his defense. If he goes in with anger and defiance he's likely to slip.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Who cares? If a human being doesn't sit in a seat and testify as the originator of the complaint, I'm just going to assume the whole 'whistleblower' scheme was a sham and there never was any such person in the first place. So will a lot of people. I've had that suspicion since this all started since the whistleblower's knowledge of the phone call was second-hand, meaning nobody who actually took part in the call would know the list of possible persons it could be. How convenient. Even contrived from the start, perhaps.
> 
> And the Senate can subpoena the whistleblower anyway, if it ever gets that far. Either no such person will ever appear, or if someone does watch him plead the 5th to every question.


Hey hey hey... can I ask a question? Who is your source?


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Hey hey hey... can I ask a question? Who is your source?




ZeroHedge

I will say though ... even assuming it's true that the law firm representing the whistleblower has broken off communication with the House and issued a statement that their client is "out," this is the kind of thing that can change overnight. If someone has dirt on someone, someone gets their arm twisted, or someone gets a little more incentive than previously offered ... minds can be changed. Who knows what will come of this?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Who cares? If a human being doesn't sit in a seat and testify as the originator of the complaint, I'm just going to assume the whole 'whistleblower' scheme was a sham and there never was any such person in the first place. So will a lot of people. I've had that suspicion since this all started since the whistleblower's knowledge of the phone call was second-hand, meaning nobody who actually took part in the actual call would know the list of possible persons it could be. How convenient. Even contrived from the start, perhaps.
> 
> And the Senate can subpoena the whistleblower anyway, if it ever gets that far. Watch him plead the 5th to every question.


I approve pleading the fifth, whoever does it and for whatever reason. It's an underutilised tool that *should* be mainstream given its immense power, I'm surprised people don't plead the fifth all the time. There's a reason why the Founding Fathers have enshrined it in the constitution - the right to remain silent is as important, if not more, than the right to speak. Theoretically a witness could be granted "use immunity" in order to be coerced to speak, but that nullifies much of the punch a testimony could deliver.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 2, 2019)

This is the Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory 2.0, after that was shown to be a complete nothing-burger, Trump's opponents are latching onto another fake news lie. 

This is a common strategy of accusing your opponents of what you yourself are doing, i.e. Hillary colluding with Russia (selling them a large amount of America's uranium), and Joe Biden using political pressure to stop the crooked company his son worked with from being investigated.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I approve pleading the fifth, whoever does it and for whatever reason. It's an underutilised tool that *should* be mainstream given its immense power, I'm surprised people don't plead the fifth all the time. There's a reason why the Founding Fathers have enshrined it in the constitution - the right to remain silent is as important, if not more, than the right to speak. Theoretically a witness could be granted "use immunity" in order to be coerced to speak, but that nullifies much of the punch a testimony could deliver.




Pleading the fifth is fine. It's a Constitutional right. It's also everyone else's right to assume whatever they want when someone does it.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> This is a common strategy of accusing your opponents of what you yourself are doing



I agree. Trump is king of this very thing.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 2, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> This is the Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory 2.0, after that was shown to be a complete nothing-burger, Trump's opponents are latching onto another fake news lie.
> 
> This is a common strategy of accusing your opponents of what you yourself are doing, i.e. Hillary colluding with Russia (selling them a large amount of America's uranium), and Joe Biden using political pressure to stop the crooked company his son worked with from being investigated.


Interesting take, but just to humor me, could a republican do the same to a democrat? Do you know of an example of that happening?


----------



## SG854 (Nov 2, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I don't think that all democrats are innocent either. I'm going to come more center on this, politicians have a job, to get re-elected.
> 
> I love the starwars reference, I'm a sucker for it. I was following along reading up on this thread and it's refreshing. I agree, every person in his legal team will try to restrain him from committing to testifying. I just don't know if he will persist and continue anyways.
> 
> He will likely look at it as a challenge and I'm sure democrats will attempt to bait/lure him to defend himself in a public hearing. He's impulsive, I'm not sure if he will just stick with a script as it's just not his style. But we've never observed him in a courtroom before, or at least I haven't. I've seen Trump discuss areas of his expertise in congress in the past - he was focused, lucid, and charming. If he can tap into that and stay on message then he would greatly assist his defense. If he goes in with anger and defiance he's likely to slip.


It was something they did even with the Mueller case. Didn't let Trump talk so he wont fall into that trap. I think its lawyer advice to just shut up and let them do the talking so you wont screw up your chances even if you're innocent, especially when your political opponents want to end you. Look at the ICE case and the Dems were throwing all kinds of accusations calling people that work at the facilities racist straight up front, instead of asking questions in a professional calm and collected way.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It was something they did even with the Mueller case. Didn't let Trump talk so he wont fall into that trap. I think its lawyer advice to just shut up and let them do the talking so you wont screw up your chances even if you're innocent, especially when your political opponents want to end you. Look at the ICE case and the Dems were throwing all kinds of accusations calling people that work at the facilities racist straight up front, instead of asking questions in a professional calm and collected way.


The whole ICE debacle is a part of a concentrated effort to relax immigration law through a set of 957 complicated and convoluted hoops. This is a fairly recent development as Democrats were rather fond of border security in the past, including physical barriers. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 comes to mind, it passed through Congress with the blessing and approval of many Democrats. They only started opposing the idea when Trump proposed a more effective, albeit more expensive barrier - a wall. They've been meddling with the wall ever since, and now that the originally proposed concrete slabs were replaced with steel bars, they're complaining that it's too easy to climb or saw through - yeah, we know, that's not what was originally proposed, of course it doesn't perform as expected. The more advice Trump gets the more changes need to be implemented. It's a typical case of a horse built by committee - it's no good. With the process of building the wall temporarily halted they can happily proceed to the next step, namely tarnishing the reputation of ICE by demonising its officers. It's not going to stop anytime soon either as their electorate fancies the ridiculous idea of an open borders state, which of course is an extreme they'll never actually sink to, but they must keep up appearances to rally the base. Naturally the resulting attacks against ICE officers by crazed sycophants are completely out of their control and not at all the fault of the heated rhetoric they're generating.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Who cares? If a human being doesn't sit in a seat and testify as the originator of the complaint, I'm just going to assume the whole 'whistleblower' scheme was a sham and there never was any such person in the first place. So will a lot of people. I've had that suspicion since this all started since the whistleblower's knowledge of the phone call was second-hand, meaning nobody who actually took part in the call would know the list of possible persons it could be. How convenient. Even contrived from the start, perhaps.
> 
> And the Senate can subpoena the whistleblower anyway, if it ever gets that far. Either no such person will ever appear, or if someone does watch him plead the 5th to every question.


Trump's actions speak for themselves.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I agree. Trump is king of this very thing.


Post an example instead of asserting it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Interesting take, but just to humor me, could a republican do the same to a democrat? Do you know of an example of that happening?


Sure, anyone could do this to anyone else, but this specifically is a tactic from Saul Alinsky (Hillary Clinton's mentor), satanist and author of "rules for radicals", one of which is "accuse your opponents of what you yourself are doing".

So you are going to find leftists doing this more often.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> Post an example instead of asserting it.



There are examples that are extremely easy to find. Near instantly. All over the place. Did you even try? I'm not holding your hand, someone else can if they choose to. But I really wish most Trump supporters would learn how to fact check on their own. It's a great skill to have.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> There are examples that are extremely easy to find. Near instantly. All over the place. Did you even try? I'm not holding your hand, someone else can if they choose to. But I really wish most Trump supporters would learn how to fact check on their own. It's a great skill to have.


"do you actually expect me to post my own sources? no, you find them yourself!" -you.
got it


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> "do you actually expect me to post my own sources? no, you find them yourself!" -you.
> got it



"Do you actually expect me to investigate claims and look up information all on my own? No, you do it for me!" -you.
got it

Have a great weekend!


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> "Do you actually expect me to investigate claims and look up information all on my own? No, you do it for me!" -you.
> got it
> 
> Have a great weekend!


You too! I look forward to your future assertions without evidence :^)


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> "Do you actually expect me to investigate claims and look up information all on my own? No, you do it for me!" -you.
> got it
> 
> Have a great weekend!


I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but this is the politics forum. Being able to back up claims with proof is kinda needed .

Burden of proof does lie on you.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 2, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> Post an example instead of asserting it.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Wow, Billapong is that you? I'm glad you found a way to rejoin our conversation. Your post history is suspicious for someone who never associated in this political thread and then jumped in to this one the day after the aforementioned user's suspension. /s

I figured if we were going to lob conspiracy theories around instead of addressing factual evidence or at least something pertaining to our topic of discussion with sources then we can't take you seriously.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but this is the politics forum. Being able to back up claims with proof is kinda needed .
> 
> Burden of proof does lie on you.



This is the internet. Not a courtroom. I don't need to prove anything to anyone, simply because they all but demand I do so. And I'm not going to. Tough cookies.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 2, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Wow, Billapong is that you? I'm glad you found a way to rejoin our conversation. Your post history is suspicious for someone who never associated in political threads and then jumped in to this one the day after the aforementioned user's suspension. /s
> 
> I figured if we were going to lob conspiracy theories around instead of addressing factual evidence or at least something pertaining to our topic of discussion with sources then we can't take you seriously.


Let's see, you've been a member here for a couple months, I've been a member here for 10 years, but sure, I'm the one with the fake account.

Here's Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html Saul dedicated the book to Lucifer.
Here's Hillary's thesis where she calls Saul Alinsky her mentor https://archive.ph/qp2O7

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge you're wrong.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> This is the internet. Not a courtroom. I don't need to prove anything to anyone, simply because they all but demand I do so. And I'm not going to. Tough cookies.


I mean, this is the politics board. Your statements don't hold much worth if you can't back them up with evidence.

If it were any other thread on any other board, you'd be right, but if I'm going by the assumption you take the claim seriously, you should post evidence to that claim since that's the entire bloody point of this board (to have a discussion.)

Of course, you're not required to do so, but at that point your opinion becomes meaningless white noise to those that don't agree with you.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 2, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> Let's see, you've been a member here for a couple months, I've been a member here for 10 years, but sure, I'm the one with the fake account.
> 
> Here's Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html Saul dedicated the book to Lucifer.
> Here's Hillary's thesis where she calls Saul Alinsky her mentor https://archive.ph/qp2O7
> ...


What does this have to do with this topic of discussion though? I was trying to steer you back on track in discussing the aspect of impeachment. Hillary's Clinton alleged mentor doesn't really pertain to this discussion. Again I was referring to impeachment inquiry, and you dodged my initial question just to be clear. Let's get back on topic Billapong. If you want to follow up on our discussion in earnest I won't deny you the pleasure and invite you in.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 2, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> Here's Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html Saul dedicated the book to Lucifer.
> Here's Hillary's thesis where she calls Saul Alinsky her mentor https://archive.ph/qp2O7


Did you even read the second article or did you reurgitate it from somewhere else?

The Post concludes that Clinton did _not_ necessarily look up to Alinsky as a "mentor". She had contact with him, but her eventual thesis picked apart his work, disagreeing with his assessment of the situation.

Secondly "dedicating his work to Lucifer" is one of those tactics that is pretty much firing cheap shots at religious nutters who will complain to no end about it. It means about as much as me swearing myself in using the Satanist Bible when asked to testify (which is legal in the US, you can be sworn in there using anything you deem relevant). It's a tactic designed to get certain people angry about what you're saying, which sometimes may be the point.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> I mean, this is the politics board. Your statements don't hold much worth if you can't back them up with evidence.
> 
> If it were any other thread on any other board, you'd be right, but if I'm going by the assumption you take the claim seriously, you should post evidence to that claim since that's the entire bloody point of this board (to have a discussion.)
> 
> Of course, you're not required to do so, but at that point your opinion becomes meaningless white noise to those that don't agree with you.



I don't care what those that don't agree with me think. They are capable of looking for themselves to see if I'm full of crap or not. Which is what people should be doing anyway. Why take my word for it, or not? See for yourselves. Because anytime someone posts sources here, it's always "non credible" from the opposing side. What difference would it even make?


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 2, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Did you even read the second article or did you reurgitate it from somewhere else?
> 
> The Post concludes that Clinton did _not_ necessarily look up to Alinsky as a "mentor". She had contact with him, but her eventual thesis picked apart his work, disagreeing with his assessment of the situation.
> 
> Secondly "dedicating his work to Lucifer" is one of those tactics that is pretty much firing cheap shots at religious nutters who will complain to no end about it. It means about as much as me swearing myself in using the Satanist Bible when asked to testify (which is legal in the US, you can be sworn in there using anything you deem relevant). It's a tactic designed to get certain people angry about what you're saying, which sometimes may be the point.


Hillary wrote her senior thesis, and largely agreed with him, but she doesn't "look up to him"? Is this really what you're claiming?

Secondly, "lol he was just trolling bro" isn't an argument. Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer & admired him. He further said he'd rather be in hell & would continue organizing people there.

If you have to make up elaborate excuses to defend people that share your beliefs, maybe you have the wrong beliefs.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I don't care what those that don't agree with me think. They are capable of looking for themselves to see if I'm full of crap or not. Which is what people should be doing anyway. Why take my word for it, or not? See for yourselves. Because anytime someone posts sources here, it's always "non credible" from the opposing side. What difference would it even make?


If you are making an argument/claim and want to be taken seriously by both sides then sources will only serve to assist. If you found information that is worth bringing here then why not. If the information is credible and corroborated then it will just make someone look foolish by attacking it.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 2, 2019)

Haloman800 said:


> Hillary wrote her senior thesis, and largely agreed with him, but she doesn't "look up to him"? Is this really what you're claiming?
> 
> Secondly, "lol he was just trolling bro" isn't an argument. Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer & admired him. He further said he'd rather be in hell & would continue organizing people there.


Okay, so you didn't read the article. Gotcha.

Fine, I guess I'll cite your own source back at you.

For your claim on her looking up to him (implied):


> But there's little evidence that Clinton was particularly close to the man. And indeed, her decision to write a thesis involving Alinsky wasn't her idea, her thesis adviser recently told The Washington Post.



For your claim on her agreeing with him:



> He [Alan Schechter] said Clinton approached it pragmatically and not from a pro-Alinsky perspective. "The thesis was entirely pragmatic," Schechter said. "Its conclusions were extremely pragmatic -- 'This doesn't work,' 'that doesn't work,' 'this has the only hope of partial benefit.'"



Probably something stronger:



> He recalled her telling him the following spring that Alinsky had offered her a job, but she had concluded, he said, that his method wouldn’t have a major impact on poverty and that it would lose its impact on the political leaders of the community.
> 
> She had come to see Alinsky as a well-meaning rabble-rouser, Schechter argued.



For your claim on "lol he was just trolling bro", let me back up the claim:



> Alinsky was a self-described radical, and this is indeed a provocative statement. It also appears to be something of a one-off; while Alinsky's book is all about "Rules for Radicals," he does not go on to further discuss this particular radical — Lucifer — and the example he might provide for other radicals.



For the claim on "admiring him" and "he'd rather be in hell":



> Alinsky did offer other provocative comments that have led to of accusations of sympathy for the devil, so to speak. In a 1972 Playboy interview, he said that while he identifies as Jewish, he would choose to go to Hell. "Hell would be heaven for me," because it was full of "have-nots," he said. "They're my kind of people."



This is literally "lol im trolling". You have to be dense not to get that.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 2, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> If you are making an argument/claim and want to be taken seriously by both sides then sources will only serve to assist. If you found information that is worth bringing here then why not. If the information is credible and corroborated then it will just make someone look foolish by attacking it.



Everyone knows Trump is Mr. Projectionist. I don't need to post any proof or sources for ANYone. Someone calls him racist, he Tweets that the other person is racist. Someone calls him mentally unstable, he comes out and says the other person is mentally unstable. Someone says corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. He comes back instantly with that person is corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. Just go to his Twitter account. There's your proof. From Trumps own mouth/fingers. Not mine. Having to provide some source of proof to anyone about this shouldn't have even been needed. But there ya go. There's plenty more, but let's just go with Trumps very own Twitter account for all the proof anyone needs.

Edit: Need a bit more? How about Mr. Fake News himself posting fake news? Or him whining about "anonymous sources", when he himself is CONSTANTLY using phrases like "People tell me" and "Everyone says" nearly every time he opens his mouth.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 2, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Everyone knows Trump is Mr. Projectionist. I don't need to post any proof or sources for ANYone. Someone calls him racist, he Tweets that the other person is racist. Someone calls him mentally unstable, he comes out and says the other person is mentally unstable. Someone says corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. He comes back instantly with that person is corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. Just go to his Twitter account.


Probably not a surprise to anyone, but there's a whole subreddit dedicated to cataloging examples of this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 4, 2019)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michae...-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates-2019-11-04/

I'm currently 40/156 of McKinley and decided to post this her in case others are interested.

I'm not prioritizing Yovanovitch as I believe her testimony was leaked aggressively. I'll probably read her testimony tonight. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marie-...-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates-2019-11-04/


----------



## chaosblade02 (Nov 5, 2019)

They're only trying to impeach him because they know they can't beat him in an election.  It's desperation.  Trump is going to win in 2020, and I'm going to bathe in all the salt generated, just like I did back in 2016.  We're going to see Trump totally unleashed if he gets re-elected.  And I'm gonna love every second of it.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2019)

chaosblade02 said:


> They're only trying to impeach him because they know they can't beat him in an election.  It's desperation.  Trump is going to win in 2020, and I'm going to bathe in all the salt generated, just like I did back in 2016.  We're going to see Trump totally unleashed if he gets re-elected.  And I'm gonna love every second of it.


Impeachment is done for cases of abuses of power. Using said power for your own self gain and not the interest of the country should be considered abuse of power. Which in this case, is 100% for self gain. There is no other beneficiary other than trump in this situation.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2019)

chaosblade02 said:


> They're only trying to impeach him because they know they can't beat him in an election.  It's desperation.


No, they do to him what he did to others in the last election. Just at professional scale. 

Coward Donald. The corrupt president is so scared of Biden, he jeopardized the national security just to get some dirt on his opponent.

Its part of the public game. To win the next election.

Also - they cant impeach him, without the votes of the republicans. Cant. They need a 2/3s majority in senate. So they either try to convince republicans (which doesnt seem to be happening) or the public - just how much of a corrupt coward the currently acting president is (lets hold the next G7 summit in Mar-a-Largo!) - but they cant impeach without numbers.

Also no one forced Trump to be a corrupt coward. He managed that on his own.

Also if you have so much feels for that orange haired bloke, that you turn into a professional mourning women ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_mourning ), first get out of idol worshiping, second, try to understand what politics is (especially concerning the importance of public leadership figures), and then try not to get so attached to a face anymore. Third - with your powers of foresignt (they know they cant beat him, so they impeach him), have you ever thought about becoming a bad fortune teller? Because you have all the qualifications.

One party alone cant impeach the president, if they don't have a 2/3 majority, which in democracies never happens. Seems someone designed a system that makes sense there, no?

If a single party could impeach a president unilaterally, like you seem to believe - it would end presidencies all the time. Right? So you make sure, that this isnt how this works.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 5, 2019)

One of the more recent curious developments now that republicans got their way (no more "hiding" in "secret rooms" where only _some _republicans were allowed and only democrats could chose to examine, cross-examine or even be present in hearings in the first place...there'll be open hearings coming pretty soon)...is that they don't have a defense.

No, this isn't some trash talk. It's coming right to it: it's the same childish behavior from the Mueller investigation, but more of it. At least in the Mueller case they pointed out that there was no direct evidence of a crime or that he didn't had his 500 page report completely memorized. I wouldn't call those points exactly fair, but at least it was a defense. Which you certainly could say about this sort of shenanigans.


...but thus far it seems it's all going to be that kind of stabs from now on. The tenor in the debates involving conversative news anchors seems to be in the lines of "okay, so he used his power to get his way. That's why he's the president.". Erm...how do you even respond to that? Trump certainly wasn't kidding when he said that he could shoot down someone in the middle of the street and get away with it: as long as these sorts of 'news anchors'(1) have his back on him when supporting crimes, he just might.

Then again...Trump's far less nice to them nowadays. The media machine cares about viewers foremost, and as such take great interest in what polls objectively say (as opposed to Trump, who only cares what popular polls about him say). Those public hearings could really seal the deal for him (or as Scaramucci recently stated: a ten to fifteen point shift in the polls and he's finished).


(1): okay, I'm using the term very loose here. As a non-American, it's pretty hard to distinguish news anchors from opinion makers, political influencers or just plain out nutcases the channel brings in (whenever I watch youtube-snippets of fox, I ca often only tell the anchor from the host by who talks the most...that's the anchor  ).



chaosblade02 said:


> They're only trying to impeach him because they know they can't beat him in an election.  It's desperation.  Trump is going to win in 2020, and I'm going to bathe in all the salt generated, just like I did back in 2016.  We're going to see Trump totally unleashed if he gets re-elected.  And I'm gonna love every second of it.


Nice going. Your first post in a year and a half, and you devote it to...posting this? 


But ey...you just keep on believing that, kiddo. It's clear that facts won't convince you, so having faith might be a good substitute.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2019)

The 'shooting' comment was made to rectify that he was 'a men of the people'. It was symbolic - nothing more.

On the rest of it - legally, pressuring another country, in the interest of the nation, in the same way he did - isnt even illegal, it probably is something that happens frequently between 'not allies', although probably not at the highest level (potential deniability). So the act in itself isn't that problematic.

Whats problematic is the misuse of power. Because he didn't do it in the interest of the country, he did do it to an ally - and he did it to get a leg up in the next election.

And even that - isn't illegal, but its highly amoral. Which is why now a jury of his peers (senate members) will decide, if this offense was gruesome enough to 'hurt the reknown of your country'. And therefore is enough of an offense to remove the guy from his post, prematurely.

And even though it definitely is -- all of that is pretext, and it comes down to 'do republicans have someone with better chances to get elected in their backpocket'? And 'how much will this scandal hurt us for years to come, if we don't combat it with PR'?

And the sum of those questions likely comes down to - stick with Trump. And as long as they do - he will not get impeached.

But Dems know that, and push on impeachement anyhow, because it will do huge reputation damage to Trump personally. But thats fair game, because if it wouldnt, you couldnt campaign on those grounds ever, unless you were sure you had the numbers in senate. Which is stupid.

The thing to understand here is, that senate party candidates will vote party line on that question. They'll not make a moral judgement decision, like they'll swear they'll do. They - in numbers - will vote according to whats good for their careers.

But thats ok, because eveyone knows, and its also kind of how thats supposed to work.


So 'accusers' in that matter compete for public opinion in the next election, and for opinion on the republicans side, that they shift towards 'that guy is a liability for us'. And for that, you need campaigning. Thats the entire thing.

Because in the end, there isn't a judge that decides, but a few guys that will vote along their parties lines.


So everything is a little more 'conniving' than your three word explanation on FOX, but at the same time, also calculatedly so - on part of how that 'system' works.

On the negative side, if Dems could be proven to 'just be instigators' this would mean negative reputation damage to them. But they already have won that front, because Reps have already admitted, that the POTUS used the power of the american state for his own gains. Refused military aid to an ally - hurting americas stance at the world stage - just to get dirt on a political opponent.

Thats already out of question. Because the president himself has admitted doing that, in front of cameras.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 5, 2019)

notimp said:


> The 'shooting' comment was made to rectify that he was 'a men of the people'. It was symbolic - nothing more.


You'd think so, but my read of that comment is a completely different one. Namely in that it serves a multiple purposes:

Republicans can use it to portray him as a 'man of the people' as you say.
Neo-nazis, KKKers and the ilk read it as "this guy will stand for my ideals, he'll make it so that _I_ can shoot a man in the streets"
Non-Trump supporters have legitimate reason to be concerned over those kinds of comments because it's a classic dogwhistle (although a bad one, given how obvious it is).
I'm probably ascribing too much intelligence to Trump, it's much more likely that someone on his campaign team used the term at one point to refer to how gullible Trump voters are and he repeated it on the campaign (a lot of what Trump says is a lot like a literal parrot: It will repeat what you say without a real understanding of what you said.)



notimp said:


> Whats problematic is the misuse of power. Because he didn't do it in the interest of the country, he did do it to an ally - and he did it to get a leg up in the next election.
> 
> And even that - isn't illegal, but its highly amoral. Which is why now a jury of his peers (senate members) will decide, if this offense was gruesome enough to 'hurt the reknown of your country'. And therefore is enough of an offense to remove the guy from his post, prematurely.


"isn't illegal, but its highly amoral"



			
				USC 30121 said:
			
		

> *(a) Prohibition*
> 
> It shall be unlawful for-
> 
> ...


source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52 section:30121 edition:prelim)



notimp said:


> And 'how much will this scandal hurt us for years to come, if we don't combat it with PR'?


Expecting much from Republicans in terms of smart diplomatic moves is... tenuous, but keep in mind that Trump has managed to turn several major allies, both diplomatically and military, against the US. (Europe has been trying to strengthen the EU since they can't rely on any support from the US anymore since Trump is such a massive wild card, and the Kurds situation is worthy for another thread but is a millitary example). I don't think it's infeasible to see Republicans use this as an attempt to legitimize getting rid of him in a way that still allows them to complain about the Democrats, purely because the current scandals they can't throw enough propaganda over to smooth it out.

--

I have no comment on the rest (you're probably somewhat right although some senate republicans _are_ turning on the party line from what I have heard, whether it is enough to cause a change in the line is to be seen however.)


----------



## morvoran (Nov 5, 2019)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Everyone knows Trump is Mr. Projectionist. I don't need to post any proof or sources for ANYone. Someone calls him racist, he Tweets that the other person is racist. Someone calls him mentally unstable, he comes out and says the other person is mentally unstable. Someone says corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. He comes back instantly with that person is corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. Just go to his Twitter account. There's your proof. From Trumps own mouth/fingers. Not mine. Having to provide some source of proof to anyone about this shouldn't have even been needed. But there ya go. There's plenty more, but let's just go with Trumps very own Twitter account for all the proof anyone needs.
> 
> Edit: Need a bit more? How about Mr. Fake News himself posting fake news? Or him whining about "anonymous sources", when he himself is CONSTANTLY using phrases like "People tell me" and "Everyone says" nearly every time he opens his mouth.


Trump just calls out the hypocrisy of those that have their heads so far up their asses that they can't see the truth of their own actions.  They call Trump racist but want to push identity politics and separate the races and treat them as if they're not equal while convincing them that they're not.  He calls out people calling him crazy when they are the insane ones that believe socialism is good, abortion is not murder, and crime should not be punished ( but think a president should be impeached for nothing but winning an election). 
You say you don't need to provide sources for the things you say, but I believe you have no sources but your very own imagination which you can't share on here as you're the only one who can see the insane world that is in your mind.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 5, 2019)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/imp...-testimony-by-two-of-trumps-three-amigos.html

"Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, revised his original testimony in the House impeachment probe into President Donald Trump to add that he conveyed to a Ukrainian counterpart that Trump would not release nearly $400 million in foreign aid until the country agreed to launch specific investigations sought by Trump."

"Sondland says he recalls telling the Ukrainian that the country’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, would need to deliver a public statement in person announcing the launch of the investigations intended to benefit Trump politically."

I'm going to start reading through the transcript of Sondland's testimony to see if those revisions are present in the released document and, if they are present, how they were framed.

Under oath testimony saying the president desired a public statement of an investigation into a political adversary is really a kick in the teeth to the Trump defense team and a nail in the coffin of the President's beloved 'no quid pro quo' defense.

Goal post on the Republican side, please prepare to move once again. Our game must endure. Fall back to Mulvaney's defense "We do it all the time, get over it" or "It might be an abuse of power, but does not rise to the standard of impeachment". Ready, Set, Match!


----------



## morvoran (Nov 5, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Nice going. Your first post in a year and a half, and you devote it to...posting this?
> 
> 
> But ey...you just keep on believing that, kiddo. It's clear that facts won't convince you, so having faith might be a good substitute.


 their first post has more substance and truth than most posts from any liberals sheep here the past months.  At least they make conclusions from their own mind rather than going along with what their leaders tell them to think.



Taleweaver said:


> One of the more recent curious developments now that republicans got their way (no more "hiding" in "secret rooms" where only _some _republicans were allowed and only democrats could chose to examine, cross-examine or even be present in hearings in the first place...there'll be open hearings coming pretty soon)...is that they don't have a defense


 the Republicans do have a defense. It's called the transcript of the phone call which proves Trump did not bring up any quid pro quo.  If you want to see a quid pro quo, look up the video of quid pro Joe Biden forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company using American tax dollars.  I'm sure you won't look it up as that would destroy your nonsense claims.
If you kept up with the recently released transcripts, you'd know that all these witnesses that said damaging things about Trump actually supported his claim that the call was completely innocent with no wrong doing.  The Demonrats have been lying to you all while you just suck it all up.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Expecting much from Republicans in terms of smart diplomatic moves is... tenuous, but keep in mind that Trump has managed to turn several major allies, both diplomatically and military, against the US. (Europe has been trying to strengthen the EU since they can't rely on any support from the US anymore since Trump is such a massive wild card, and the Kurds situation is worthy for another thread but is a millitary example). I don't think it's infeasible to see Republicans use this as an attempt to legitimize getting rid of him in a way that still allows them to complain about the Democrats, purely because the current scandals they can't throw enough propaganda over to smooth it out.


Oh boy, I guess giving money to corrupt governments, paying terrorist supporting countries that hate us to not build nuclear weapons while providing them the funds to develop those weapons, and using tax dollars to persuade countries to do your nefarious wishes are examples of good diplomatic moves?  The EU has done nothing but depend on the US to provide most (if not all) the assistance to the world while trying to fix their own issues and mistakes.
Where you are talking about the Republicans "trying to remove Trump themselves", this is only because he is draining the swamp and changing the status quo they're used to which you can agree that would make anybody against Trump.  He has a lot more supporters than those against him, but I'm sure you wouldn't know that as you only get your news from MSDNC.  97% of Republicans support trump, but of course, the defectors go on CNN and attack Trump which means if you only watch liberals news, you'd think 100% of Republicans are against him.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Trump just calls out the hypocrisy of those that have their heads so far up their asses that they can't see the truth of their own actions.


No, he's just the so maniest rich billionaire claiming to be the savior of the average person whilst in reality screwing them over for his own gain (see: Any tax plan he's implemented overfavoring the rich whilst the poor barely see an increase.) The difference is that Trumps pretension is less convincing than a paper cutout. Trump might just be one of the few people to actually _fail the damn Turing test._



> They call Trump racist but want to push identity politics


I don't think you know what that word means in the way you're applying it. Calling Trump a racist for racist actions isn't incompatible with wanting to improve the social status of repressed minorities.



> and separate the taxes and treat them as if they're not equal while convincing them that they're not.


"separate the taxes" what the fuck does that mean. You mean a progressive tax system? The United States already has that. Also, you probably don't know what it means if you think it's a bad thing. The progressive tax system means that if you have an income that is above a certain amount, you pay a larger percentage of taxes on the part that is _over that amount_ (so let's say you earn 5.000$ -hypothetical values used for this example- each month. Over the first 1.000$ you'd pay a very low tax rate... let's say 5%. Then, the second block is 1.000$-3.000$ for which the tax is 10%. You'd _only be paying the 10% tax for 2.000$ at most here_. And finally let's say that 3.000$-7.000$ block is a block over which the tax is 30%. Again, _you'd only be paying 30% over the 2.000$ that makes up this block here for that amount of money_.

What is being advocated for is increasing the amount for the _highest possible block_ in taxes (the only people who realistically go under this are billionaires like Jeff Bezos) to something bigger than it currently is. Which is a very sensible move.



> He calls out people calling him crazy when they are the insane ones that believe socialism is good,


Because workers rights are bad? If you think the Democrats are socialists, I'm sorry but go read up on political ideologies. Bernie Sanders isn't even a socialist (his policies are that of a Social Democrat, which is different) and he's the most left wing candidate out there.



> abortion is not murder,


It isn't, and even if you think it is, consider the situation from a pragmatic case: If you forbid abortion, more kids are going to grow up in abusive environments because their parents didn't want them. Do you want to bring more abused kids in the world? Because that's a partial result of what forbidding abortion would entail (and that's without digging into any scientific parts of it).



> and crime should not be punished ( but think a president should be impeached for nothing but winning an election).


Crime should be punished, I think everyone on the political spectrum agrees on that. Also "a president should be impeached for nothing but winning an election". Do you... do you know what this impeachment is about? Because it sure as hell isn't the 2016 election. It's about a phone call Donald Trump (the President of the United States) made towards the Ukranian president (Ukraine is a foreign country), in which he asked the president to "do him a favor" which was coded language (coded language is you saying one thing but meaning another, see also any mobster movie) for witholding military aid (which was money for military purposes that Congress and the House both approved) unless the Ukranian president would start investigations into Joe Biden (a Democrat and effectively Trumps rival for the 2020 elections at the time the call was made) and his son Hunter Biden.

Several members of Trumps administration (the people in the White House) have produced evidence they knew this was illegal and at the time did everything they could to prevent this story from getting out (such as moving the recording of the phone call to a secure server so nobody investigating it could access it anymore unless it gets declassified which is a hassle).

I tried to keep this simple so you would understand it and explained stuff that might be hard to parse for you.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> the Republicans do have a defense. It's called the transcript of the phone call which proves Trump did not bring up any quid pro quo. If you want to see a quid pro quo, look up the video of quid pro Joe Biden forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company using American tax dollars. I'm sure you won't look it up as that would destroy your nonsense claims.



Penalty on the play, using Quid Pro Quo defense when it is no longer admissible. 10 yard penalty.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> the Republicans do have a defense. It's called the transcript of the phone call which proves Trump did not bring up any quid pro quo. If you want to see a quid pro quo, look up the video of quid pro Joe Biden forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company using American tax dollars. I'm sure you won't look it up as that would destroy your nonsense claims.


Watch literally any mobster movie. Hell, watch the Godfather (and if you watched it already, rewatch it). If you don't think it's a quid pro quo, you need to get your facts straight. Trump has historically had ties to the mob and he sure as hell knows how to do a quid pro quo whilst providing a flimsy defense.



morvoran said:


> Oh boy, I guess giving money to corrupt governments, paying terrorist supporting countries that hate us to not build nuclear weapons while providing them the funds to develop those weapons, and using tax dollars to persuade countries to do your nefarious wishes are examples of good diplomatic moves? The EU has done nothing but depend on the US to provide most (if not all) the assistance to the world while trying to fix their own issues and mistakes.


You clearly don't understand how basic diplomacy works. Diplomacy means working together. It might not be something you're aware of, but the wars you've been fighting? We've been taking all the asylum seekers your wars cause. There's also the fact that we do help out each other by improving each others trade (this is a mutual thing) and are capable of standing as a united block against international foreign threats such as Russia (which keep in mind wants to destabilize the Western world).

Trumps actions and constant international gaffes are causing those things to be destabilized, which can seriously damage the US and the West on a larger scale.



morvoran said:


> Where you are talking about the Republicans "trying to remove Trump themselves", this is only because he is draining the swamp and changing the status quo they're used to which you can agree that would make anybody against Trump.


Trump isn't draining the swamp. Trump _is_ the swamp. He fucking brought the swamp in the White House. Half his administration is grifters from corporations and the other half has no real opinion of their own but just likes the attention, which makes them just as much a part of "the swamp" (Trump manages to go in both of those categories).



> He has a lot more supporters than those against him, but I'm sure you wouldn't know that as you only get your news from MSDNC. 97% of Republicans support trump, but of course, the defectors go on CNN and attack Trump which means if you only watch liberals news, you'd think 100% of Republicans are against him.


Oh, I'm not naieve. Trump is the Republican partyline right now. Of course the majority supports him. But uh... let me clue you in on something, pal: The political system isn't just Republicans. You don't need to have the majority of Republicans supporting him to keep him in office. You just need enough to not support him that their combined vote with the Democrats will cause him to be kicked out.

Also, I don't watch US news stations. I'm not an American. You could be forgiven though, I must imagine seeing that flag below my name that says I'm fucking *DUTCH* must be hard to see and you can also be forgiven since I think this is the second time I pointed this out to you so I can be sure information must get to your brain a bit slowly.


----------



## morvoran (Nov 5, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Any tax plan he's implemented overfavoring the rich whilst the poor barely see an increase.


 Wrong!!  Maybe you should look up information yourself other then going along with Rachel Maddow and your own "feelings" about how things are going.  Trumps tax plans have benefited everyone.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Trump might just be one of the few people to actually _fail the damn Turing test._


 Ok, if you say so.  Trump's intelligence is actual intelligence, not artificial like liberals.  Artificial intelligence is based on the information fed into a computer, just like the liberal media is feeding into the lefts' minds making them come up with the craziest of conclusions.



Ev1l0rd said:


> I don't think you know what that word means in the way you're applying it. Calling Trump a racist for racist actions isn't incompatible with wanting to improve the social status of repressed minorities.


  Why call someone a racist when they haven't done anything racist?  Oh, that's right, because your leaders said he is one, so you go "beep boop, Orange man bad.  He's a racist".



Ev1l0rd said:


> "separate the taxes" what the fuck does that mean.


  It should have read "separate the races".  My phone's auto correct is messed up.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Because workers rights are bad? If you think the Democrats are socialists, I'm sorry but go read up on political ideologies. Bernie Sanders isn't even a socialist (his policies are that of a Social Democrat, which is different) and he's the most left wing candidate out there.


  What does socialism have to do with worker's rights?  The rights to work your ass off and then give most of it to the government to spend on themselves and other people that refuse to work?  I don't think so.  
Socialism is socialism no matter how many different words you put in front or behind it.  If you take money from those who have to give to those who have not, for whatever reason, is socialism. 



Ev1l0rd said:


> It isn't, and even if you think it is, consider the situation from a pragmatic case: If you forbid abortion, more kids are going to grow up in abusive environments because their parents didn't want them. Do you want to bring more abused kids in the world? Because that's a partial result of what forbidding abortion would entail (and that's without digging into any scientific parts of it).


  If you have a human, even a potential human, and you end it's life without good cause, that is murder plain and simple.  Funny, about the "unwanted kids" theory, I remember hearing about a certain Chinese emperor who thought the same about poor people.  Maybe, we should just kill anybody who is a burden on society?  There was a member on this site who was suspended for "promoting murder", do you want to be next?  Shame on you.  
Personally, I would rather people use protection during sex or abstain all together if they're not responsible enough to not get pregnant or to take care of their "little accidents" rather then resort to murder.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Crime should be punished, I think everyone on the political spectrum agrees on that.


 Maybe, you should look into what's been going on in California with the whole "shoplifting" issues where groups of people are going on sprees to rob shop owners while they, and the police, are helpless to stop them because of the liberal laws making small crimes potentially legal.  Also, AOC just recently promoted the idea that we get rid of jails.  Where are we going to hold our criminals?  In daycares?



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Penalty on the play, using Quid Pro Quo defense when it is no longer admissible. 10 yard penalty.


 Be sure to let Pelosi and Schiff know, unless they just decided in the past 30 minutes to move onto obstruction of Congress.  Then I haven't been caught up yet.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Be sure to let Pelosi and Schiff know, unless they just decided in the past 30 minutes to move onto obstruction of Congress. Then I haven't been caught up yet.



I'm poking fun at the situation, but don't take the ribbing too seriously, as this is breaking news so it's not something everyone has digested. Sure leaks of testimony from Taylor and Morrison have alluded to this information but Sondland's released testimony corroborated it.

I found his (Sondland's) revision notes to his testimony, they are at the bottom of the released transcript.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Nov 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> -snip-


I read my sources.

I know what I'm saying.

I don't appreciate your constant suggestion of where I lie politically because I'm pretty sure I never explicitly stated it, nor do I appreciate the assumption that I'm American.

You constantly rely on a series of Gish Gallops and quite frankly it's tiring to keep disproving them. You clearly seem to be out of touch with reality. You accuse me of parroting others, but can you examine yourself for a moment? Your entire arguments rely on easily disproven points, often simply by using _Google_ or actually reading and going through to the original sources for the claims yourself.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Also, AOC just recently promoted the idea that we get rid of jails. Where are we going to hold our criminals? In daycares?



While this is offtopic:

EDIT for clarity:  ___This Quote is from AOC___
"
I know the term “prison abolition” is breaking some people’s brains. The right is already freaking out. Yet the US incarcerates more than anywhere in the world. We have more than enough room to close many of our prisons and explore just alternatives to incarceration.

First of all, many people in jailed or in prison don’t belong there at all. Whether it’s punitive sentencing for marijuana possession or jailing people for their poverty & letting the rich free through systems like cash bail, we wrongly incarcerate far, far too many people.

Secondly, our prison & jail system is so large bc we use them as de facto mental hospitals, homeless shelters, & detox centers instead of *actually* investing in... mental health, housing, edu, & rehab. If we invested meaningfully, what do you think would happen to crime?

Lastly, people tend to say “what do you do with all the violent people?” as a defense for incarcerating millions. Our lawmaking process means we come to solutions together, & either way we should work to an end where our prison system is dramatically smaller than it is today.
"

I just thought that would help others who weren't sure what you were alluding when providing that snippet. If it is cheaper to rehab someone or provide adequate mental health resources rather than continuing to jail them for a non-violent drug offense then I'd like to do what is cheaper for my wallet as I do pay enough in taxes and, while I think it's my civic duty to pay for taxation since I get representation, would prefer my tax dollars to be used productively with evidence-based approaches when given the opportunity.

Ok, back on topic, Sondland's testimony is over 350+ pages. I'm not going to try to start that until later tonight. I'm curious if Volker's testimony had any pending revisions. I don't see any by looking at them. Just that there is a statement at the end that is redacted when discussing potentially sensitive information that was disclosed in an email chain discussed during the deposition.

EDIT: grammar fix
EDIT 2: For clarity the quote above is from AOC


----------



## morvoran (Nov 5, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Hell, watch the Godfather


 Are you basing your judgement on the "do me a favor" line from the trascript with the "I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse" line from the movie?  You must have believed Shifty Schiff's made up version of the call transcript he read.

Edit: since you are bringing up movies, you should watch "A Few Good Men" (the movie, not the pron).  There's a line in that movie that fits for most liberals that goes "You can't handle the truth!!!"  The truth of what is really going on in the democrat party would blow your liberal minds.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Diplomacy means working together.


 Exactly my point.  It's not right that the US has to cover the expenses of the "do-nothing" EU.  They need to work with the US to make the worlds a better place, not just sit on their asses and wait for the US to do all the work.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Trumps actions and constant international gaffes are causing those things to be destabilized, which can seriously damage the US and the West on a larger scale.


 Only way he is destabilizing things is changing the status quo for the EU by refusing to cover the check on everything going on.  That's why Trump got us out of the Paris ordeal that had the US destroying its economy while China and India flourished.



Ev1l0rd said:


> Trump isn't draining the swamp. Trump _is_ the swamp. He fucking brought the swamp in the White House. Half his administration is grifters from corporations and the other half has no real opinion of their own but just likes the attention, which makes them just as much a part of "the swamp" (Trump manages to go in both of those categories).


  Wow, you must know nothing or very little about our political system here.   Funny that you have a lot of opinions to share about it, though.  Trump is draining the swamp by bringing in top executive types that have run big business in the past and know how to lower spending while making profits.  The old style politicians that are against Trump don't like that he is putting a lock on their old piggy back called the American people's tax dollars.



Ev1l0rd said:


> You don't need to have the majority of Republicans supporting him to keep him in office.


  Sure you do, that's how he gets re-elected.  Also, since the Demonrats aren't playing fair with how Trump has not committed any impeachable offenses, yet, they are trying to impeach him anyways, the republican majority in the Senate will keep him in office.



Ev1l0rd said:


> I must imagine seeing that flag below my name that says I'm fucking *DUTCH* must be hard to see and you can also be forgiven since I think this is the second time I pointed this out to you so I can be sure information must get to your brain a bit slowly.


  Yeah, and everybody on this site uses the flag of the country they're from.  How do I know you aren't a Mexican with a Dutch flag or an US citizen with a dutch family history honoring their heritage?



Ev1l0rd said:


> You constantly rely on a series of Gish Gallops and quite frankly it's tiring to keep disproving them.


  No, I'm bashing people with truths that tear down the lies that they have been fed by their democratic leaders.  None of what I say is untrue.



Ev1l0rd said:


> nor do I appreciate the assumption that I'm American.


  Again, I don't trust everything I see on the internet.  I can't confirm your dutch flag represents your location or that is even the dutch flag.



Ev1l0rd said:


> You accuse me of parroting others, but can you examine yourself for a moment? Your entire arguments rely on easily disproven points, often simply by using _Google_ or actually reading and going through to the original sources for the claims yourself.


 I use Google and read through articles and other informative sites before responding to most people on here to make sure my claims are true/proven/accurate.  I don't go with the first biased opinion news site that fits my narrative.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Sure leaks of testimony from Taylor and Morrison have alluded to this information


  Don't forget about Yovanovitch whose testimony also supported Trump.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Sondland's released testimony corroborated it.


 Sondland will get his due when he is charged with perjury.  I don't see how that testimony could be against Trump when Sondland admitted that he was then one who instigated a "quid pro quo".  Sounds like he should be the one being "impeached".

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I just thought that would help others who weren't sure what you were alluding when providing that snippet. If it is cheaper to rehab someone or provide adequate mental health resources rather than continuing to jail them for a non-violent drug offense then I'd like to do what is cheaper for my wallet as I do pay enough in taxes and, while I think it's my civic duty to pay for taxation since I get representation, would prefer my tax dollars to be used productively with evidence-based approaches when given the opportunity.


Wow, I would like to see a valid and peer reviewed study on this "full of nonsense" thesis.  To put this back on topic, this is another issue that the Demonrats in the House could be working on instead of trying to impeach an innocent president.  I guess working against your constituents is all the left thinks about these days.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 5, 2019)

Just me maybe* but when a witness gives sworn testimony once, then comes back to give sworn testimony a second time and changes their story ... I stop paying attention to that witness and don’t consider anything they say to be credible. 


* not really. “Prior inconsistent statements” is a cornerstone of witness impeachment.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 5, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/imp...-testimony-by-two-of-trumps-three-amigos.html
> 
> "Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, revised his original testimony in the House impeachment probe into President Donald Trump to add that he conveyed to a Ukrainian counterpart that Trump would not release nearly $400 million in foreign aid until the country agreed to launch specific investigations sought by Trump."
> 
> ...


Rats... I've been ninja'd. I just read it and wanted to add this.

Yovanovic's testimony is also interesting to read. Certainly not as explosive as this, but it clearly shows the inner workings of the government as portrayed by Lewis in the book 'the fifth risk' (basically : a general confusion, cluelessness and a kafkaian style of bureaucracy (1)). Not a crime in and of itself in the short term, but it basically spells out sabotage in terms of diplomacy. 




(1) even more off-topic, but still... Lewis' book basically laid the groundwork for a reality where the president  tries to correct the weather service (which was a couple months in the future when this book came out)


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Wow, I would like to see a valid and peer reviewed study on this "full of nonsense" thesis. To put this back on topic, this is another issue that the Demonrats in the House could be working on instead of trying to impeach an innocent president. I guess working against your constituents is all the left thinks about these days.


The 'full of nonsense thesis isn't mine', I may have not presented the information well enough, but that was a direct quote from AOC. I was just presenting that since you felt the need to lob an outlandish claim to further detract the conversation. I felt it would serve others who desired to know the context of what you were referencing.I'd encourage you to actually search for it before concluding that one side is inherently right. I'm sure if you were interested you would be able to discover peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the situation.



morvoran said:


> Sondland will get his due when he is charged with perjury. I don't see how that testimony could be against Trump when Sondland admitted that he was then one who instigated a "quid pro quo". Sounds like he should be the one being "impeached".


Sondland went from Trump supporter, donated a million dollars to Trump, to non-credible witness pretty quickly in the eyes of other Trump supporters. 

Did anyone even read his admissions? Please take a moment and come back when you do so. He didn't outright lie, just omitted facts by saying he doesn't recall. When multiple testimonies started to detail his involvement he clarified that involvement with his revisions and corroborated their testimony.

I find it hard to believe he completely acted on his own accord as you have claimed. He relayed information he claimed he received from Volker and Rudy Giuliani. All three work for the President and implement foreign policy he wants. 

What's more plausible, Occam's Razor if you will, that Trump had no involvement whatsoever, or that Trump directed that decision requiring the public statement would need to come directly from President of Ukraine himself?


----------



## morvoran (Nov 5, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm sure if you were interested you would be able to discover peer-reviewed medical journal articles on the situation.


  I'm not a democrat, so I have no desire to look up unscrupulous matters based on nonsense.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Sondland went from Trump supporter, donated a million dollars to Trump, to non-credible witness pretty quickly in the eyes of other Trump supporters.


  Sounds like an unsatisfied customer to me who wasn't happy with the results of his "purchase".  He thought he was paying for a corrupt business man and got a great and honorable president.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I find it hard to believe he completely acted on his own accord as you have claimed. He relayed information he claimed he received from Volker and Rudy Giuliani. All three work for the President and implement foreign policy he wants.


  The president is supposed to implement foreign policies he wants.  I don't see the problem here.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> that Trump directed that decision requiring the public statement would need to come directly from President of Ukraine himself?


 What public statement?  That Trump didn't threaten or force anything from Zelensky?


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 5, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I'm not a democrat, so I have no desire to look up unscrupulous matters based on nonsense.



I'm going to quote you to answer you. 



morvoran said:


> Wow, I would like to see a valid and peer reviewed study on this "full of nonsense" thesis.



It appears you would have a desire if such a valid and peer reviewed study existed. To the scientific community of medicine it does. Do you have anything to disprove their results, are they in favor or against? In order to make such a determination, you would need to educate yourself in what the current literature states. That's just reality.



morvoran said:


> Sounds like an unsatisfied customer to me who wasn't happy with the results of his "purchase". He thought he was paying for a corrupt business man and got a great and honorable president.



Awe, that's so cute. Any evidence to back up that he's held this dissatisfaction? 



morvoran said:


> The president is supposed to implement foreign policies he wants. I don't see the problem here.



Another weak deflect, the problem is when foreign policy involves the context of soliciting foreign nationals to conduct politically motivated investigations to benefit a sitting president under the guise of anti-corruption. Unfortunately, we only have those two examples from Trump and his administration and nothing else being discussed. We've discussed this point at length, numerous times, no new defense that holds here.



morvoran said:


> What public statement? That Trump didn't threaten or force anything from Zelensky?



That would have been lovely for you if in fact that was true, but if you read his corrections you would already know the answer to that to be a resounding no. 

I'll provide this last bit of assistance. The resumption of US aid would not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we have been discussing for many weeks. 
That anti-corruption statement Sondland alludes to is the pronouncement of the reopening of an investigation into Burisma. If we include other testimonies with Trump's memorandum and Trump's public statements (with reporters on live televised statement), it's quite clear we have an issue here worth further investigation whether or not you want to acknowledge it.

The rest of our discussion will contain goal post moves that I'd love to continue, but I encourage you to actually read the testimonies thus far. I've provided enough without having to spoon feed you news just to keep you informed enough to carry any semblance of a discussion. I myself have some reading on my plate now that two more testimonies have been released. I'll entertain some discussion later.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 5, 2019)

Sondland - The thin thread holding back the no quid-pro-quo argument has on-record reversed that position


----------



## morvoran (Nov 6, 2019)

RationalityIsLost101 said:


> I'm going to quote you to answer you.


 I had an idea that you weren't a dem since you actually provide some substance to your responses other than just say that I'm a lying twat, you're going to block me, I need to be banned from the site, and then never respond to me. 



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Any evidence to back up that he's held this dissatisfaction?


 The fact that he "supported" Trump and is now stabbing him in the back.  Why else would he do that?



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> Another weak deflect, the problem is when foreign policy involves the context of soliciting foreign nationals to conduct politically motivated investigations to benefit a sitting president under the guise of anti-corruption. Unfortunately, we only have those two examples from Trump and his administration and nothing else being discussed. We've discussed this point at length, numerous times, no new defense that holds here.


 Not a deflection.  President's set the foreign policies that they want and feel would be in the best interest of their country.  How is this deflecting from "All three work for the President and implement foreign policy he wants."?  
You must not be aware of the agreement the US made with Ukraine about how we can ask them to investigate corruption if our leaders deem it as warranted.  I don't know where you get that asking Ukraine to investigate the corruption of Biden and his son is "politically motivated".  Is it because quid pro Joe decided to run for president after the call was made?  Funny how these coincidences happen.



RationalityIsLost101 said:


> The resumption of US aid would not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we have been discussing for many weeks.


 You are assuming guilt before (and, seemingly, without) presuming innocence.  You assume that Trump must be guilty of something that has been proven to be false as well as most people that hate just Trump for winning the election.  
Ukraine was not made aware of the aid being withheld until months after the call.  This means Trump did not commit a quid pro quo or any impeachable offense before, during, or after that call.  The transcript proves this as well as Zelensky backing up this claim.  The call is what the House dems are basing the recent closed door impeachment on meaning they are wasting their time, our tax dollars, and not helping anybody with this impeachment nonsense.

Trump has been proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt.  This whole impeachment matter is complete bovine fecal matter. Case closed.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Not a deflection.  President's set the foreign policies that they want and feel would be in the best interest of their country.  How is this deflecting from "All three work for the President and implement foreign policy he wants."?
> You must not be aware of the agreement the US made with Ukraine about how we can ask them to investigate corruption if our leaders deem it as warranted.  I don't know where you get that asking Ukraine to investigate the corruption of Biden and his son is "politically motivated".  Is it because quid pro Joe decided to run for president after the call was made?  Funny how these coincidences happen.



I am aware of it. I wasn't at first until I started posting in this thread back on page 6-7. But the document you refer to is really specific to how our two countries are supposed to conduct such an exchange. Our respective attorney generals are supposed to mediate any investigation. No mention of personal lawyers to the President. I am aware Barr was mentioned in the memorandum as well. It's because of questioning his involvement that the agreement you refer to was brought into the discussion, granted that was about 30 pages ago. 



morvoran said:


> You are assuming guilt before (and, seemingly, without) presuming innocence.  You assume that Trump must be guilty of something that has been proven to be false as well as most people that hate just Trump for winning the election.
> Ukraine was not made aware of the aid being withheld until months after the call.  This means Trump did not commit a quid pro quo or any impeachable offense before, during, or after that call.  The transcript proves this as well as Zelensky backing up this claim.  The call is what the House dems are basing the recent closed door impeachment on meaning they are wasting their time, our tax dollars, and not helping anybody with this impeachment nonsense.
> 
> Trump has been proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt.  This whole impeachment matter is complete bovine fecal matter. Case closed.



I actually don't presume guilt. Trump should have a fair process where he can object to evidence and have legal counsel present at the time of the political trial in the senate if impeachment is passed in the house. If he's acquitted then he's our President for the remainder of his term until we decide who America wants for 2020. However, I have enough suspicion based on the evidence collected thus far that we need to investigate further before having an impeachment vote because I have plenty of unanswered questions. I don't think Democrats will wait for the courts to force people to answer subpoenas before they try to serve articles of impeachment because they want to have a clear case for obstruction and because of a restricted timeline.

Off topic:
Most are ready to make a decision one way or another but I want to actually see the real transcript. If I was a senator, I wouldn't desire to vote without seeing the full document. My reason is allegedly it's not complete. This assertion is from Vindman's leaked testimony, and it's not something that has corroboration to my knowledge. I'm on a hypothetical, I'm aware we need to see the full testimony of Vindman before drawing such a conclusion, but the thought has festered over the past week within me. 

Trump has been a very... unconventional president, there is alot of division over his methods but Vindman's assertion would be beyond for what I would conceive as realistic. This isn't me disparaging Vindman, just that I find it hard to digest that Trump would be that bold in directly asking for tapes on Biden on a call. It makes me doubt some of his leaked testimony but at the same time it's a political car crash that you stare at and wonder is that even possible to be real? Ok, I drifted off, I'm needing sleep as I've begun to rant.

Back on topic: You talk about months after the call... Just to reiterate the time-line: 
Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to freeze the aid back in mid-July.
The decision had reportedly been communicated by the US Office of Management and Budget to State and Defense department officials on July 18 — a week before the phone call with Zelensky, and around a month before the Ukrainians eventually found out. So you are partially correct that during the July 25th call Zelensky had no idea aid was actively being withheld (at least with all the facts presented thus far).

Ultimately, it was bipartisan pressure in Washington that forced Trump to unlock the aid in mid-September, September 11th to be exact.

The issue is there is a gap when Sondland made a specific point of contact with Mr. Yermak in Warsaw on September 1st. Sondland states the withholding of the aid was leaked days before and that during the Warsaw meeting is when he relayed his message that was provided to him by Volker and Giuliani. Pence was also in Warsaw at that time but I'm not going to make many assertions regarding his involvement without some hard facts.

Finally, I mean this in no disrespect to Ukrainians but Zelensky's denial is akin to a worker telling their HR that their boss is fair in order to ensure employment and continue to receive a paycheck without fear of retaliation. The power dynamic between the two is so imbalanced that anything Zelensky says or does, I will take as something he does for the good of his people. Not because it necessarily is true. That might be unfair but I don't see any other country willing to hand over 400million in foreign aid. I expect he will do whatever is requested by any american administration.

On October 4th, Ukraine's top prosecutor said Friday his office is reviewing several cases related to the owner of a gas company where the son of former Vice President Joe Biden sat on the board, but he added that he wasn't aware of any evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. I don't know what the conclusion of this review stated. I can't say if this decision was made due to the promise for the aid or due to the overwhelming political pressure Zelensky was under to project the appearance his country is not corrupt and they are moving in the right direction under his administration.


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 6, 2019)

morvoran said:


> The fact that he "supported" Trump and is now stabbing him in the back. Why else would he do that?


To avoid a potential perjury charge. I'm not sure if it would be pursued but he was likely advised to clarify his statement by his legal team.


----------



## notimp (Nov 6, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Neo-nazis, KKKers and the ilk read it as "this guy will stand for my ideals, he'll make it so that _I_ can shoot a man in the streets"
> 
> Non-Trump supporters have legitimate reason to be concerned over those kinds of comments because it's a classic dogwhistle (although a bad one, given how obvious it is).


Maybe. Still, you are talking about maybe 15% of the population. If at all, because shooting someone in the mainstreet isnt something that would register positively with even 15% of people I have to imagine. (So its not a classic dogwhistle.)

But yes, Trump also caters to one demographic no other mainstream politician catered to in the past.


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 6, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Just me maybe* but when a witness gives sworn testimony once, then comes back to give sworn testimony a second time and changes their story ... I stop paying attention to that witness and don’t consider anything they say to be credible.
> 
> 
> * not really. “Prior inconsistent statements” is a cornerstone of witness impeachment.


From what I understand, Sondland didn't exactly lie, but claimed he completely forgot about some very important conversations until his memory was refreshed by later testifications. I would also remind you that the summary of what Sondland testified the first time came from Donald Trump. And we both know that Trump likes to pretend to speak on behalf of others and claim they say things these persons never said or implied (Mueller never exonerated Trump, but Trump never even apologized from misreading drawing made conclusions). 

... But I can see why Sondland 's testification isn't going to win you over, and I don't blame you. However... That first testification was about the only thing in Trump' s favor. Now that that is gone, all that remains is a "yeah, we broke the law. So what?" 

So my question to you is : do you think the president is above the law? Because that's where the current goal post has moved to in the last couple days.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> From what I understand, Sondland didn't exactly lie, but claimed he completely forgot about some very important conversations until his memory was refreshed ...




Yeah. Sure.




Taleweaver said:


> ... But I can see why Sondland 's testification isn't going to win you over, and I don't blame you. However... That first testification was about the only thing in Trump' s favor. Now that that is gone, all that remains is a* "yeah, we broke the law. So what?"
> 
> So my question to you is : do you think the president is above the law?* Because that's where the current goal post has moved to in the last couple days.




First cite the law you think was broken, then ask that question. I'm not aware of what law is supposed to have been broken. The most I've heard alleged is maybe some ethically questionable insinuation which was never acted upon, or perhaps a vague 'violation of public trust' thing which hasn't been shown anywhere near 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' I _have_ seen enough to be pretty satisfied that the Clinton campaign engaged in corrupt efforts to bring down the Trump campaign in 2016, with the help of foreign agents and friends in the Obama administration.

And there's no way in hell I would weigh the credibility of witness testimony based on cherry-picked excerpts that have been leaked by a partisan source. When/if they testify in public, with cross-examination, then it will be worth listening to what is said.

As things are, if they prove that Trump actually withheld the funding from Ukraine only because it was conditioned upon an investigation of Biden, and Ukraine knew this was the condition and it was Trump's order (not staff, not Sondland who AFAIK only testified that _he_ told a Ukrainian that) it's something to consider for the next election but I still don't think it rises to "high crimes and misdemeanors." We're three months into this boondoggle and I still haven't heard a Democrat yet say what law is supposed to have been broken.


Finally, here's the purported "smoking gun" quote from Sondland's revised testimony. Does this prove there was a 'quid pro quo' for the funding?

He "presumed"







And Yovanovitch's purported testimony, which is also being sold as bad for the President. It made her wonder.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 6, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Just me maybe* but when a witness gives sworn testimony once, then comes back to give sworn testimony a second time and changes their story ... I stop paying attention to that witness and don’t consider anything they say to be credible.
> 
> 
> * not really. “Prior inconsistent statements” is a cornerstone of witness impeachment.



So what's your excuse for burying your head in the sand for the other 3 corroborating witnesses?
ThEy ArE dEeP StAtErS


----------



## RationalityIsLost101 (Nov 6, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Yeah. Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd direct to testimony of text messages provided by Volker that have been released thus far to answer that question. 

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/Volkertextmessages.pdf

First, Despite Sondland's attempt to claim he doesn't recall when or by whom the aid was suspended, Taylor informed Sondland of Mick Mulvaney via Trump's direction was blocking the aid.

[7/18/19 10:19:54AM] Bill Taylor: OMB on a SVTS just said that all security assistance to Ukraine is frozen, per a conversation with Mulvaney and POTUS. Over to you.

[7/18/19 11:07:08AM] Gordon Sondland: All over it.

Second, There was another condition for the White House meeting for public statement of investigation into Burisma and 2016 election interference.

Page 20 - 8/12/19, 8:31:25PM - Translated Russian from Andrey Yermak - "Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future."

The following day with Andrey/Gordon/Kurt
Page 23 - 8/13/19 
10:11:50AM - Kurt Volker - Hi Andrey - we spoke with Rudy. When is good to call you?

-snip conversation- feel free to read page 23 -

Something that stood out from Volker's testimony page 119:

"Rudy says: 'Well, if it doesn't say Burisma and if it doesn't say 2016, what does it mean? You know, it's not credible. You know, they're hiding something,'" Volker said.

This is only to affirm that Volker was in discussion with Rudy who he claims laid the requirement that was presented in the text above.
-ok continuing on-

12:11:15PM - Kurt - "Hi Andrey - good talking - following is text with insert at the end for the 2 key items. We will work on official request."

Context from reading this entire document: This official request is the White House meeting Zelensky is desiring with Trump. It would be easier to just read page 19 in it's entirety rather than me type out entire conversation. It's texts so it's fairly brief.

12:11:19PM - Kurt - "Special attention should be paid to the problem of interference in the political processes of the United States, especially with the alleged involvement of some Ukrainian politicians. I want to declare that this is unacceptable. We intend to initiate and complete a transparent and unbiased investigation of all available facts and episodes, *including those involving Burisma and the 2016 U.S. elections*, which in turn will prevent the recurrence of this problem in the future."

They formally requested a public statement from the president to say specifically he was launching an investigation into those 2 key items. These are items that would specifically benefit Trump politically. This clarified request seems to come from Giuliani as noted above. It is completely obnoxious to type out this information as the pdf formats don't allow me to copy paste without me downloading and modifying the pdf.

I'd request you separate all texts chronologically and then follow it for full comprehension. I'm sure someone will eventually create and publish such a thing in due time. I ended up reading it in a straight pass-through and then ear-marked 10-12 pages that I then reread to solidify chronological order of events. 

Ok moving on - Page 42-43 has conversation over investigation request to Ukraine between Sondland and Volker that coincides discussion at the time between Volker and Andrey. 

The main takeaway is that Sondland was fully aware what was going on and has obscured as much as possible due to 'memory loss' without subjecting himself to perjury. Anyone who thinks he's an enemy of Trump is sadly mistaken. Whether or not he's obscuring to protect himself or the President? I feel like his correction says he values clearing himself from perjury higher than Trump's presidency. I guess it's subjective whether or not that makes him a 'traitor'.

Wow... Apparently Taylor's testimony is now released. I sincerely enjoy this but a fun hobby is starting to go a bit overboard. I'm not promising myself to review that tonight. Although he's supposedly a meticulous note-taker and a 50yr Public servant who was called out of retirement by Pompeo. I also read that public testimonies are next week starting Wednesday.


----------

