Trump now in hospital

[gregory-samba]

Welp, Trump got into his helo and is flying back to the White House. That's the first time I've seen someone leave the hospital in a helicopter as usually they are landing for emergency services. Trump still isn't out of the woods yet, but like I've keep stating his odds of getting seriously ill let alone die from the covid are really low.

 

[daifunai]

He was actually released on Monday (today).

He's going to go far - way better than ol' Sleepy Joe. Dude can't keep his speech fluent, can't stay awake... The idiot actually took an interview from CARDI B! Aka the most degenerate hoebag in pop music today. Why? She's not even relevant!

 

[LumInvader]

There's nothing stopping a President to renegotiate a trade deal and yes some are indeed initiated with promises from Presidents. Obama set the terms and conditions on the large cash payment to Iran and that's probably not the only trade deal he had his hands in. What Trump did wasn't illegal and it wasn't close to quid pro quo. The Senate acquitted him because the case against him was utter bullshit. We do however have Joe on record bragging about quid pro quo and since it's now customary to impeach a President simply for winning the election I would support an early effort to impeach Biden, because you know, guilty isn't necessary and all.

The Senate acquitted Trump because the GOP had more votes. Had this case been made against Obama, we'd have the same script, only flipped. The impeachment process is nothing more than an exercise in polarity.

 

[Deleted User]

He's going to go far - way better than ol' Sleepy Joe. Dude can't keep his speech fluent, can't stay awake... The idiot actually took an interview from CARDI B! Aka the most degenerate hoebag in pop music today. Why? She's not even relevant!

I guess young people like her? I don't know.

It reminds me that I read MTV was targeting young girls. I could not believe it, the channel that used to show Headbangers Ball. But whatever I haven't watched it since the 90's so nothing is lost in my book.

 

[LumInvader]

He was actually released on Monday (today).

He's going to go far - way better than ol' Sleepy Joe. Dude can't keep his speech fluent, can't stay awake... The idiot actually took an interview from CARDI B! Aka the most degenerate hoebag in pop music today. Why? She's not even relevant!

Indeed, Biden's meeting with Cardi B was nowhere near as elegant as Kanye taking a leave of absence from the Mensa society to visit Trump. And of course there was also this whopper of a meeting:

Kanye West met with Kushner as rapper eyes 2020 election spot
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-rapper-eyes-2020-election-spot-idUSKCN2582KM

Can anyone guess why Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner coordinated a black rapper's run for President instead of someone like, say, a Ted Nugent or a Garth Brooks?

 

[gregory-samba]

The Senate acquitted Trump because the GOP had more votes. Had this case been made against Obama, we'd have the same script, only flipped. The impeachment process is nothing more than an exercise in polarity.

I don't believe they would have even tried to impeach Obama over made up bullshit. Both Trump and the Ukraine President, the only two people that were on the phone together regarding the deal both claimed no quid pro quo. I read the transcripts and there was none. The Democrats swore to impeach Trump regardless of guilt and that's exactly what they did. I don't think the Senate gave Trump a pass because he's a Republican now. I think they like mostly every other person saw right through the partisan bullshit.

What Trump did wasn't illegal and he was in his right to renegotiate a trade deal with another country. He's the President. If he wants to deal directly with another President then that's his right. By nature "trade" deals go like this; both sides exchange (trade) something with each other. Did you expect we'd just give out all sorts of money and assets and get nothing in return? If you do then I encourage you to go look up the definition for "trading" and get back to me.

 

[Viri]

He'll be a-okay!

 

[UltraSUPRA]

 

[LumInvader]

I don't believe they would have even tried to impeach Obama over made up bullshit. Both Trump and the Ukraine President, the only two people that were on the phone together regarding the deal both claimed no quid pro quo. I read the transcripts and there was none. The Democrats swore to impeach Trump regardless of guilt and that's exactly what they did. I don't think the Senate gave Trump a pass because he's a Republican now. I think they like mostly every other person saw right through the partisan bullshit.

What Trump did wasn't illegal and he was in his right to renegotiate a trade deal with another country. He's the President. If he wants to deal directly with another President then that's his right. By nature "trade" deals go like this; both sides exchange (trade) something with each other. Did you expect we'd just give out all sorts of money and assets and get nothing in return? If you do then I encourage you to go look up the definition for "trading" and get back to me.

This higher standard you speak of -- it doesn't exist. Both parties play dirty and use up their political capital as soon as they get it.

The Trump–Ukraine Transcript Contains Evidence of a Quid Pro Quo
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...anscript-contains-evidence-of-a-quid-pro-quo/

I find this article useful due to a couple reasons:

- It's a conservative website
- The author tweeted a paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown of the quid pro quo, here:

https://twitter.com/davidafrench/status/1176869185009459200?s=21

David French
@DavidAFrench

The sequence is plain. Trump wants Ukraine to be "reciprocal." Zelensky raises his nation's defense needs, and Trump raises his investigation demands, including the request that Ukraine look into Joe and Hunter Biden. This is completely unacceptable. /end

I agree with David French. Mick Mulvaney does, too!

 

[KingVamp]

He is having a hard time breathing. Even if he beats the virus, I'd be surprised if there's no issues afterwards.

 

[gregory-samba]

This higher standard you speak of -- it doesn't exist. Both parties play dirty and use up their political capital as soon as they get it.

The Trump–Ukraine Transcript Contains Evidence of a Quid Pro Quo
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...anscript-contains-evidence-of-a-quid-pro-quo/

I find this article useful due to a couple reasons:

- It's a conservative website
- The author tweeted a paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown of the quid pro quo, here:

I agree with David French. Mick Mulvaney does, too!

I'm going to take the word of the two people involved in the phone call over some 3rd party. They do happen to be two men who are Presidents of entire countries and all. I also read the transcript and there's no quid pro quo and even if there was I don't see why it should be illegal for someone to want something in return in a trade deal.

 

[LumInvader]

I'm going to take the word of the two people involved in the phone call over some 3rd party. They do happen to be two men who are Presidents of entire countries and all. I also read the transcript and there's no quid pro quo and even if there was I don't see why it should be illegal for someone to want something in return in a trade deal.

Taking the word of Donald Trump? Well there's your problem right there. No matter how Trump and his allies spin it, the proof is in the pudding.

So, this is the key statement near the start of the transcript. Note the Trump says Ukraine hasn't been "reciprocal" -- which is fine for presidents to say -- yet then the rest of the transcript lays out Trump's requests. /1 pic.twitter.com/23eaeSaqo8

— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 25, 2019

Trump's next two paragraphs are two distinct requests -- first, to look into 2016 and Crowdstrike: /3 pic.twitter.com/b9f1iRH0HG

— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 25, 2019

The sequence is plain. Trump wants Ukraine to be "reciprocal." Zelensky raises his nation's defense needs, and Trump raises his investigation demands, including the request that Ukraine look into Joe and Hunter Biden. This is completely unacceptable. /end

— David French (@DavidAFrench) September 25, 2019

GAO: Trump administration violated the law by withholding approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine
https://www.gao.gov/about/press-center/press-releases/press-statement-b-331564-omb-ukraine.htm

In summary:

- Trump wants Ukraine to be "reciprocal"
- Zelensky raises his nation's defense needs
- Trump raises his investigation demands, including the request that Ukraine look into political opponent Joe Biden and son Hunter
- Trump administration withholds $214 million earmarked to Ukraine by congress -- illegally

The most transparent case of quid pro quo in recent memory.

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

Kudos to Rudy Giuliani for doing everything in his power to highlight the quid pro quo:

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was trying to ‘dig up political dirt’ on Trump political opponent, Trump appointee Kent testifies


Lev Parnas' Full Video of Trump Telling Associates To "Get Rid Of" Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch (Sound byte @ 42:08 mark)


"I needed Yovanovitch out of the way": Rudy Giuliani made admission about his role in ousting a former US ambassador
https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-i-needed-yovanovitch-out-of-the-way-2019-12

New fraud charges against Lev Parnas might involve Trump's lawyer Giuliani
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/rudy-guiliani-lev-parnas-fraud-guarantee/

 

[gregory-samba]

Taking the word of Donald Trump? Well there's your problem right there. No matter how Trump and his allies spin it, the proof is in the pudding.
https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1176869185009459200
https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1176869192437571585
https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1176869198053724160

GAO: Trump administration violated the law by withholding approximately $214 million appropriated to DOD for security assistance to Ukraine
https://www.gao.gov/about/press-center/press-releases/press-statement-b-331564-omb-ukraine.htm

In summary:

- Trump wants Ukraine to be "reciprocal"
- Zelensky raises his nation's defense needs
- Trump raises his investigation demands, including the request that Ukraine look into political opponent Joe Biden and son Hunter
- Trump administration withholds $214 million earmarked to Ukraine by congress -- illegally

The most transparent case of quid pro quo in recent memory.

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

Kudos to Rudy Giuliani for doing everything in his power to highlight the quid pro quo:

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani was trying to ‘dig up political dirt’ on Trump political opponent, Trump appointee Kent testifies


Lev Parnas' Full Video of Trump Telling Associates To "Get Rid Of" Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch (Sound byte @ 42:08 mark)


"I needed Yovanovitch out of the way": Rudy Giuliani made admission about his role in ousting a former US ambassador
https://www.businessinsider.com/rudy-giuliani-i-needed-yovanovitch-out-of-the-way-2019-12

New fraud charges against Lev Parnas might involve Trump's lawyer Giuliani
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/rudy-guiliani-lev-parnas-fraud-guarantee/

I was heavily involved in reading about and watching the debate/trail in Congress. I painfully watched the testimony. There's nothing you can say or show me to convince me Trump was guilty of quid pro quo and even if he was I wouldn't care. When I negotiate with someone over a trade, like swapping a phone for whatever I always want something in return. I just don't go around giving people free phones that I paid for.

Yes, I'll take the word of the two President's involved in the phone call over bits and pieces of the conversation thrown together to paint a picture of something that never happened. The context and the rest of what said is important. Sure, you can pick out a couple things someone said out of pages of material and tie them together to form something they never said, but that's fabrication ... nothing more than made up lies.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read your links or sources, there's nothing new to be learned. I mean, when the Democrats main witness claims he doesn't have access to his records so he has to assume most of what he says and then after the fact you learn he had access to those records you'll see how thin and lousy a case the Democrats had against Trump.

There's nothing wrong with Trump renegotiation a trade deal or wanting something in return in a trade deal. That's sort of how a trade deal works, you give something and get something.

 

[LumInvader]

I was heavily involved in reading about and watching the debate/trail in Congress. I painfully watched the testimony. There's nothing you can say or show me to convince me Trump was guilty of quid pro quo and even if he was I wouldn't care. When I negotiate with someone over a trade, like swapping a phone for whatever I always want something in return. I just don't go around giving people free phones that I paid for.

Yes, I'll take the word of the two President's involved in the phone call over bits and pieces of the conversation thrown together to paint a picture of something that never happened. The context and the rest of what said is important. Sure, you can pick out a couple things someone said out of pages of material and tie them together to form something they never said, but that's fabrication ... nothing more than made up lies.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to read your links or sources, there's nothing new to be learned. I mean, when the Democrats main witness claims he doesn't have access to his records so he has to assume most of what he says and then after the fact you learn he had access to those records you'll see how thin and lousy a case the Democrats had against Trump.

There's nothing wrong with Trump renegotiation a trade deal or wanting something in return in a trade deal. That's sort of how a trade deal works, you give something and get something.

Was the illegal withholding of the $214 million earmarked to Ukraine taken out of context too? Most conservatives on this website would've called for Obama's impeachment had he done the same thing.

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with negotiating a trade deal, but when money is withheld as leverage to investigate a political rival, that's not just wrong, but illegal.

 

[gregory-samba]

Was the illegal withholding of the $214 million earmarked to Ukraine taken out of context too? Most conservatives on this website would've called for Obama's impeachment had he done the same thing.

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with negotiating a trade deal, but when money is withheld as leverage to investigate a political rival, that's not just wrong, but illegal.

Obama had the FBI spy on Trump who was the RNC candidate while you accuse Trump of holding up funds to get dirt on Biden, who wasn't even the candidate, but a potential one at the time. The answer to your statement I would have not supported impeaching Obama due to the fact he won the election and my side couldn't take the loss and move on. The plan was to impeach regardless of guilt.

I also wouldn't have not supported impeaching Obama over a trade deal. I wasn't the sorts to be suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome either. I respect whomever may be the President of the USA because they earned that title and it's one of the most important positions on Earth and I do so regardless of what their political affiliation is. Obama did good things and bad things and so has Trump.

 

[LumInvader]

Obama had the FBI spy on Trump who was the RNC candidate while you accuse Trump of holding up funds to get dirt on Biden, who wasn't even the candidate, but a potential one at the time. The answer to your statement I would have not supported impeaching Obama due to the fact he won the election and my side couldn't take the loss and move on. The plan was to impeach regardless of guilt.

I also wouldn't have not supported impeaching Obama over a trade deal. I wasn't the sorts to be suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome either. I respect whomever may be the President of the USA because they earned that title and it's one of the most important positions on Earth and I do so regardless of what their political affiliation is. Obama did good things and bad things and so has Trump.

Where do you get your news from? You're claiming Obama had the FBI spy on Trump (ala Spygate), but this is a widely debunked conspiracy theory:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-spying-trump-campaign/
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-trump-repeats-false-claim-obama-spied-his-c/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...ntial-debate-trump-biden-n1241282/ncrd1241514

Regarding Biden's candidacy:

- Biden announced his 2020 presidential campaign on April 25th, 2019.
- Trump discussed the Bidens in a phone call with Zelensky on July 25, 2019 -- exactly 3 months later to the day.

Thus, Biden was a candidate. If you meant that Biden wasn't THE candidate as a nod toward Sanders, then you may want to check this out:

During the week leading up to the infamous phone call (Sept. 17-24), polling showed that Biden was Trump's strongest Democratic rival, with an aggregate polling average 8+ points higher than Trump:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio..._the_2020_United_States_presidential_election

This explains why Trump and his lawyer were so obsessed with Joe Biden in 2019. Biden was destroying him in head-to-head polls, and now that he's the Democratic nominee in 2020, is still destroying him by the same 8+ points just 4 weeks before the election.

 

[Sizednochi]

This explains why Trump and his lawyer were so obsessed with Joe Biden in 2019. Biden was destroying him in head-to-head polls, and now that he's the Democratic nominee in 2020, is still destroying him by the same 8+ points just 4 weeks before the election.

We all know that polls lost all the credit they had in 2016 when "Hillary had upwards of 90% chance of winning".

Republicans had internal polling that showed the actual outcome of the election months ahead of election day.

 

[x65943]

We all know that polls lost all the credit they had in 2016 when "Hillary had upwards of 90% chance of winning".

Republicans had internal polling that showed the actual outcome of the election months ahead of election day.

538 put Trump at around 1/3 chance of winning in 2016 - polls that go into projections with good statistical modeling are still good

 

[LumInvader]

We all know that polls lost all the credit they had in 2016 when "Hillary had upwards of 90% chance of winning".

Republicans had internal polling that showed the actual outcome of the election months ahead of election day.

According to fivethirtyeight.com, Hillary had an aggregate 3.6 point lead in the final polling ahead of the 2016 election. She ultimately lost the election, but still carried the popular vote by 2.1 points -- 1.5 points lower than predicted, but well within the margin of error.

The problem is that Hillary's 3.6 points lead wasn't as insurmountable as some members of the media may have conveyed. A 3.6 point lead gave her a 71.4% probability to win, whereas a drop to 2.1 would've actually favored Trump, which proved to be true since he won.

With regard to the 2020 election, Trump is facing a candidate who now holds a 9 point aggregate lead across hundreds of polls.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

Trump might want to lower that by, say, 5-6 points over the next 4 weeks if he wants to be competitive come election day. As it stands right now, even if we were to double the 1.5 points Trump gained back on election day 2016, Biden would have a 98% chance to win. If we tripled them to 4.5, Biden would still have an 89% chance to win. Hillary's lead was small -- Biden's is currently gargantuan.

My previous discussion on this topic can be found here:

https://gbatemp.net/threads/trump-the-tax-fraudster.574624/page-3#post-9216989

 

[Viri]

View attachment 227271

My dip shit Mayor/Gov did the same thing. Our old people's home got wiped by Cov19. When I check the stats on cases to deaths, my state has less cases but way more deaths, because my dumb ass Mayor/Gov couldn't protect the elderly. I think it's like 8 out of 10 of the old people's home got infected.