Over and over again these guys are destroying Adam Schiff and his petty crap.. the sad thing is a certain segment of the country is just closing their ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA TRUMP BAD LA LA LA LA LA whenever those pesky facts come up and challenge them.
In fact, I've never seen one democrat on this board say anything negative about Hunter Biden taking $3 Million Dollars or his daddy having the guy investigating it fired..... not one of you has even said that was a bad thing. It's PROVEN. HE DID THIS... and you still want to vote for him... why? Because he's not big meanie Donald Trump. Sigh
(01-28-2020, 02:01 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree with lots of posters on this board. You're not special. You're just dense.
I take issue with the way YOU argue. It's not intellectually honest. You don't have a consistent standard. You move the goal posts. You start with your conclusion, then twist all your premises to fit. It's a backwards way of thinking. I used to spend time showing you how you used faulty logic, but even that's a waste of time.
No, I start with things that I think are facts, but you don't accept because you're tuned in to a different narrative. You think I should have to prove those things. Maybe I should. But you can say, "I haven't heard about that. Tell me where you heard about that." Instead you say, "you're a liar!!"
Sometimes I decide to accept someone's premises, for the sake of argument, then ask questions that are meant to show that their logic was circular or their conclusion doesn't even follow from that premise. That's frustrating, I'm sure, because to some of you the conclusion follows so obviously from the premise that me accepting the premise must mean I'm giving up the argument. Then me asking another question from there must be moving the goal post. But it's not moving the goal post. If I had said, "I'll accept your point of view if you can show..." then you show it, and I still don't accept, that's moving the goal posts. But I never say things like that. I never offer to agree with any of you. Any of you could persuade me, but I'm not going to offer the terms in advance.
If we caught wind that there was a Russian troll on this message board, and we made a poll on which poster is most likely to be said troll, I bet you would win in a landslide.
(01-28-2020, 05:23 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]If we caught wind that there was a Russian troll on this message board, and we made a poll on which poster is most likely to be said troll, I bet you would win in a landslide.
See, there's a prize for everyone!
Something tells me that each night before bed, this dude checks underneath his bed and in the closet for Trump.
(01-28-2020, 06:07 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-28-2020, 09:00 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I'm interested, mainly, in hearing the testimony of those who were blocked by the WH from speaking - and I'd also like to hear what the Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons, etc. of the world have to say under oath. Those were who I was referring to in my question to you regarding who the democrats want to subpoena are the ones who have yet to testify but were told not to - even though supposedly what they have to say would otherwise exonerate the president. To me, this all looks, smells and feels like a smoking gun - blocking testimony and withholding documentation does nothing more than fan the flames of the general public's suspicion. The president has every right to invoke Executive Privilege with regard to just about everyone save for Bolton - since he talked about his conversations with him on Twitter. I'm just saying it's not a good look, in the eyes of the general public (not just those with OMB syndrome)
Going from your perspective, why have anyone testify under oath if there's a 10% chance they're not truthful? Are you also saying that you'd be in favor of witness testimony if the Kavanaugh situation never occurred?
The attempts to restrain documentation, to restrain witnesses from testifying under oath, and then complain that there's no new info as some kind of flaw with the prosecution, are (in my opinion) at the heart of why calls for witness testimony have increased in volume (quantity) and volume (dB) - as well as why several GOP senators are breaking with the partisan narrative (i.e. Collins, Romney, etc.) and tanking poll numbers. My gut feeling is that the results of this trial won't matter nearly as much to GOP senators' futures as what they say/do during the process.
Nobody was "blocked by the WH from speaking." Whether or not Trump advised, or even demanded, that they not give testimony, they could have always ignored him and testified. You and I both know that wasn't going to happen. Sondland's testimony was a bit of a surprise, but I'd be willing to bet that's solely because of the texts that were released and what he had previously held back during SCIF interviews.
Given the government screwing of Flynn and Libby, anyone who testifies before a hostile questioner without a judge requiring it is a fool. If the testimony was so important then Schiff could have taken the matter to court. I've read that WH legal counsel was fighting against this...but I can't confirm one way or the other. Instead the House voted that the evidence they collected without those witnesses was sufficient to impeach. If it was sufficient, why ask for more witnesses in the Senate? Clearly because they want to create a circus similar to what the did with Kavanaugh. Or because new information comes to light and this is a two-part process....
and....Trump stated to the press that he'd happily "allow" the sought-after witness testimony when it turned to the Senate, which he and others deemed to be more "fair" - which I can only interpret that to mean, more in his corner (a la GOP majority) or witnesses that have first-hand insight getting a fair shake in a trial.
and...GOP reps like Graham absolutely wanted witness testimony during Clinton's impeachment, but have flipped that script now. It's okay to have witnesses in the Senate and no evidence of crimes when it impacts a Dem president who got some oral satisfaction
and withheld information from congress, but not now?
You still didn't answer my question: You eloquently note that Dems screwed the pooch on the potential of requesting
any witness testimony after the Kavanaugh situation. If that didn't happen, are you honestly telling me that you'd be fine with allowing witnesses now? I'm panning through your approach here and it seems like that's the logical deduction, but forgive me if I'm skeptical.
(01-28-2020, 04:28 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Over and over again these guys are destroying Adam Schiff and his petty crap.. the sad thing is a certain segment of the country is just closing their ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA TRUMP BAD LA LA LA LA LA whenever those pesky facts come up and challenge them.
In fact, I've never seen one democrat on this board say anything negative about Hunter Biden taking $3 Million Dollars or his daddy having the guy investigating it fired..... not one of you has even said that was a bad thing. It's PROVEN. HE DID THIS... and you still want to vote for him... why? Because he's not big meanie Donald Trump. Sigh
If Biden's actions were so egregious, why didn't Republicans demand an investigation of the matter when they had control of both houses of Congress?
(01-29-2020, 11:00 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-28-2020, 04:28 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Over and over again these guys are destroying Adam Schiff and his petty crap.. the sad thing is a certain segment of the country is just closing their ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA TRUMP BAD LA LA LA LA LA whenever those pesky facts come up and challenge them.
In fact, I've never seen one democrat on this board say anything negative about Hunter Biden taking $3 Million Dollars or his daddy having the guy investigating it fired..... not one of you has even said that was a bad thing. It's PROVEN. HE DID THIS... and you still want to vote for him... why? Because he's not big meanie Donald Trump. Sigh
If Biden's actions were so egregious, why didn't Republicans demand an investigation of the matter when they had control of both houses of Congress?
Because they're all deep staters, bruh! That's the swamp that Trump is supposed to drain! But so long as they now do whatever Trump says, they aren't swamp creatures anymore.
...now excuse me while I take a shower.
(01-29-2020, 11:00 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (01-28-2020, 04:28 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Over and over again these guys are destroying Adam Schiff and his petty crap.. the sad thing is a certain segment of the country is just closing their ears and screaming LA LA LA LA LA TRUMP BAD LA LA LA LA LA whenever those pesky facts come up and challenge them.
In fact, I've never seen one democrat on this board say anything negative about Hunter Biden taking $3 Million Dollars or his daddy having the guy investigating it fired..... not one of you has even said that was a bad thing. It's PROVEN. HE DID THIS... and you still want to vote for him... why? Because he's not big meanie Donald Trump. Sigh
If Biden's actions were so egregious, why didn't Republicans demand an investigation of the matter when they had control of both houses of Congress?
So you admit he did it... and still would vote for him?
Yeeeea... you guys just vote along party lines.
(01-29-2020, 11:13 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:00 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]If Biden's actions were so egregious, why didn't Republicans demand an investigation of the matter when they had control of both houses of Congress?
So you admit he did it... and still would vote for him?
Yeeeea... you guys just vote along party lines.
He's admitting Biden did "it", but he's wondering if maybe "it" was not bad because Republicans didn't complain about "it" at the time.
(01-29-2020, 11:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:13 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]So you admit he did it... and still would vote for him?
Yeeeea... you guys just vote along party lines.
He's admitting Biden did "it", but he's wondering if maybe "it" was not bad because Republicans didn't complain about "it" at the time.
Probably because EVERY politician is a lying scumbag, regardless of what letter is next to their name. If you call for an investigation, maybe you'll get investigated too... which is what is happening to Donald Trump.. the only non-politician in that craphole of a city.
(01-29-2020, 11:13 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:00 AM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]If Biden's actions were so egregious, why didn't Republicans demand an investigation of the matter when they had control of both houses of Congress?
So you admit he did it... and still would vote for him?
Yeeeea... you guys just vote along party lines.
That's a nice side-step to answering the question. FWIW, I'm not on board with a Biden presidency.
Also (x2), what did U-Crane do to suddenly display that they've addressed their corruption issue for aid to be released? Has that been gleaned? It was withheld, supposedly so that corruption could be rooted out. Was it rooted out and then the aid was then released?
(01-29-2020, 11:34 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:13 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]So you admit he did it... and still would vote for him?
Yeeeea... you guys just vote along party lines.
That's a nice side-step to answering the question. FWIW, I'm not on board with a Biden presidency.
Also (x2), what did U-Crane do to suddenly display that they've addressed their corruption issue for aid to be released? Has that been gleaned? It was withheld, supposedly so that corruption could be rooted out. Was it rooted out and then the aid was then released?
I don't think that the aid was tied to immediate results, it delayed while Trump verified that the new President would be/was addressing it. Evidently Trump was satisfied with his response. Great big slab of Nothingburger cooked up by the lunatics of the left who know they cannot win the election in 9 months.
(01-29-2020, 11:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:34 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]That's a nice side-step to answering the question. FWIW, I'm not on board with a Biden presidency.
Also (x2), what did U-Crane do to suddenly display that they've addressed their corruption issue for aid to be released? Has that been gleaned? It was withheld, supposedly so that corruption could be rooted out. Was it rooted out and then the aid was then released?
I don't think that the aid was tied to immediate results, it delayed while Trump verified that the new President would be/was addressing it. Evidently Trump was satisfied with his response. Great big slab of Nothingburger cooked up by the lunatics of the left who know they cannot win the election in 9 months.
Given everything that's come to light since, it'd be nice to know what qualified said satisfaction other than 25+ "READ THE TRANSCRIPTS" tweets
In other words: documentation, witness testimony.
(01-29-2020, 11:56 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (01-29-2020, 11:44 AM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Given everything that's come to light since, it'd be nice to know what qualified said satisfaction other than 25+ "READ THE TRANSCRIPTS" tweets
In other words: documentation, witness testimony.
Here, I'll help.
"The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.
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.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people."
My god, the horror. It's almost like Trump is the President or something. 
Oh, I guess I should have just read that then, right? When did that call take place again? When was the aid withheld? When was the aid released?