Trump Leading Witness Revenge Acts

#651
#651
NCFisher said:
Good Lord...how do you completely avoid the point - which is pure fact - and attack the messenger? You discredit yourself with a display of intellectual void.

--Did Obama deny lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine, even as they begged for them while Russia was actually attacking & invading them, just as he'd denied Poland and CZ Russian-facing missile defense systems because Putin wouldn't like it?

--Did Trump (and Republicans) ensure Ukraine received these lethal weapons in 2017, 2018, and 2019?
Click to expand...
A poster discredited himself with the choice of a quackery level source for information. Nothing from "News Target" deserves to be dignified with responses.
 
#652
#652
NCFisher said:
Is it an "assumption" or "well-informed and probable conclusion" when Sondland says Trump never stated what he (Sondland) presumed, but in fact declared the opposite?

Your bolding it doesn't impact the statement as factual. In fact, you avoid it by stating Vindman was on the call (which we all know), but don't acknowledge no one else on the call shared Vindman's concern or usurping hubris.

So? L. Graham - also a senator - disagrees entirely with Alexander. Those are opinions regarding policy or powers disagreement, not actionable grounds for removing a president.

No; Biden's conflict of interest is obviously in the national interest. We know this because NOW it is being investigated by Congress, Giuliani is turning over whatever he has to DOJ, and media is forced to take an interest. We further know it because THEN, it was a helluva concern to WH officials all the way up to State Dept, and reported on sporadically.

Biden being a presidential candidate does not grant him immunity from scrutiny; the investigation of Trump by Dems using foreign agents and Russian propaganda tell us this. By the same token, If OVERTLY threatening to withhold aid is fine when a Democrat president does it, it is fine when a Republican president does it, correct?

WaPo had just released a piece on Biden's COI days before Trump spoke with Zelensky. His legal team finely detailed the numerous concerns it raised within government and outside it, even causing friend and business partner Chris Heinz to distance himself and Rosemont Seneca from Biden and Archer's joining Burisma. Either presidents may concern themselves with Ukrainian corruption in the exercise of releasing aid, or they may not; which is it?
Click to expand...
Sen. Lindsey Graham has not publicly disavowed Sen. Lamar Alexander's statement and whether or not Trump's actions were grounds for impeachment and removal from office, depends on who you ask. Laurence Tribe, a Constitutional Scholar, believes that they did.

I never said that Joe Biden is above scrutiny. President Donald Trump should not be the one to initiate an investigation into Biden because Trump has too much to gain from the outcome of such an investigation, while Biden is running for President. Trump soliciting the President of Ukraine for assistance with investigating Biden was a very clear conflict of interest. If Biden or his son, have engaged in criminal activity, the FBI should conduct the investigation under the purview of Director Christopher Wray and the Attorney General, William Barr. Trump should not have ever made himself a figure in any such investigation... but he did.
 
#656
#656
BowlBrother85 said:
The only thing that is nonsense is your wordy psychobabble. The point of the relevant investigation I was speaking of, was to establish who hacked the DNC... and it was Russia. Trump publicly sided with Putin's denial but then backtracked when Fox News and his fellow Republicans wouldn't cover him for it. Once again, if Trump was confident in siding with Putin's denial in Helsinki, why did he backtrack just 24 hours later? You will never respond to that question. This whole mess of a post, it just an attempt to change the subject to the investigation of collusion, which if you are capable of reading comprehension, is not what I was talking about.

Do you think you sound articulate? You sound pretentious as hell.
Click to expand...

By July 2018, Trump has a 2-year history of being under assault by media, Dems, FBI, DOJ, and intel officials. You sound dumb "as hell" to not understand the prior rebuttal explaining this. And dumber to not understand why he'd doubt them as they try to hang all things Russiaaaaah! around his neck, and remove him from office.

Also, you stated "The intelligence collected by our intelligence community regarding the hacking of the Democratic National Committee was completely unrelated to the Steele Dossier or to the question of collusion." It's simply not so and is the very basis of collusion claims. It was used to dirty up Trump in the later part of the campaign and to infer that Trump was elected because Russia made it happen, and if they wanted Trump he must be an asset. That his presidency was invalid. It was the origin, as Brennan has stated, of Crossfire Hurricane.

I trust you understand the rebuttal this time.

I don't know why Trump says or does some things. I respond to Resistance! wipes who reflexively assign nefarious motive, and who ignore the loaf of conflicting evidence in order to brandish the crumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and StarRaider
#658
#658
BowlBrother85 said:
A poster discredited himself with the choice of a quackery level source for information. Nothing from "News Target" deserves to be dignified with responses.
Click to expand...

Obama denied lethal defensive weaponry to Ukraine.
Now, where's the "quackery"? The statement is true or it isn't, regardless of who publishes it.

You chose to yell the equivalent of "racist!" to shutdown or avoid a point rather than address it. If you can't challenge the assertion factually, best to just not reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#659
#659
Purple Tiger said:
Did you miss the post where I said the Whistleblower law covers people who testify in a such a case? Vindman would be covered, but we now know Trump was lying when he said Vindman was fired.
Click to expand...
Would that pertain to Snowden too? He’s protected right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#660
#660
lawgator1 said:
The only disgrace bigger than Trump is the failure of the GOP Senate to remove him given the overwhelming evidence of misconduct and abuse of office.
Click to expand...
Losing an election to Trump, Russian collusion, a failed impeachment for completely political reasons , screwing up their own primary in Iowa, attacking people over a hat....I'm sorry, but the Dems currently have him beat. The best I can give you is he's running second, but I'm not entirely sure that's true.

Honestly, if I were you, or luther, or Mick, or EL, or any other poster that sides with the Dems, I'd be concerned about the state of my chosen party. Your leaders are failing you, and none of your candidates for the 2020 Presidential election stand out as strong. Your party is in disarray, and they continue to display behavior that they attribute to Trump. And no one with common sense buys luther's idea that it's okay to sink to a level of behavior you condemn because Trump. It still displays a hypocritical behavior that people clearly see.

I've gotten to the point where it doesn't really matter what party controls the WH, because Congress is more likely to stymy them than not. But if you want a Dem President, you need to hope your party comes to its senses at some point. I'm not sure how you guys don't see they're off the rails at this point. I'm guessing you just choose not to see. But the first step to fixing a problem is admitting there's a problem, and the Dems have yet to do that. You need to stop believing the hype machine and take a closer look at reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, VolStrom and NCFisher
#661
#661
Weezer said:
Losing an election to Trump, Russian collusion, a failed impeachment for completely political reasons , screwing up their own primary in Iowa, attacking people over a hat....I'm sorry, but the Dems currently have him beat. The best I can give you is he's running second, but I'm not entirely sure that's true.

Honestly, if I were you, or luther, or Mick, or EL, or any other poster that sides with the Dems, I'd be concerned about the state of my chosen party. Your leaders are failing you, and none of your candidates for the 2020 Presidential election stand out as strong. Your party is in disarray, and they continue to display behavior that they attribute to Trump. And no one with common sense buys luther's idea that it's okay to sink to a level of behavior you condemn because Trump. It still displays a hypocritical behavior that people clearly see.

I've gotten to the point where it doesn't really matter what party controls the WH, because Congress is more likely to stymy them than not. But if you want a Dem President, you need to hope your party comes to its senses at some point. I'm not sure how you guys don't see they're off the rails at this point. I'm guessing you just choose not to see. But the first step to fixing a problem is admitting there's a problem, and the Dems have yet to do that. You need to stop believing the hype machine and take a closer look at reality.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree as to the state of the Dem party. The leadership has failed, and I think there are a number of reasons for that:

1) I think the party itself bent over backwards not to mold the process this time for fear of relitigating Sanders' complaints from 2016.

2) I think a lot of level headed moderates made the decision to stay out this time out of concern that the economic numbers are too good for Trump to lose, history being their guide on that, and have chosen to wait a turn.

3) Too much deference to it being Biden's turn.

I do believe that Trump is vulnerable, but it would take someone who can stand on stage and not be polite to him. Someone who aftger Trump answers is willing to say "I counted five lies in that answer alone, and here they are." Not be afraid to say Trump is a pathological liar. Fire must be fought with fire, at this point. That's why I'm intrigued right now by Bloomberg. He seems willing to call Trump out and not retreat when Trump's childish antics begin.
 
#662
#662
BowlBrother85 said:
Sen. Lindsey Graham has not publicly disavowed Sen. Lamar Alexander's statement and whether or not Trump's actions were grounds for impeachment and removal from office, depends on who you ask. Laurence Tribe, a Constitutional Scholar, believes that they did.

I never said that Joe Biden is above scrutiny. President Donald Trump should not be the one to initiate an investigation into Biden because Trump has too much to gain from the outcome of such an investigation, while Biden is running for President. Trump soliciting the President of Ukraine for assistance with investigating Biden was a very clear conflict of interest. If Biden or his son, have engaged in criminal activity, the FBI should conduct the investigation under the purview of Director Christopher Wray and the Attorney General, William Barr. Trump should not have ever made himself a figure in any such investigation... but he did.
Click to expand...

First, you post Alexander out of context for obvious reasons, as another poster noted.
Next, Graham does not agree with Alexander:
"It would have been wrong for President Trump to have NOT been worried about the Biden's business dealings in Ukraine after the information we heard this afternoon from the President's defense team." Graham tweeted.

"Compelling, damning presentations that the Bidens have not been investigated and the allegations against them have not been debunked," Graham continued. "They most definitely should not be swept under the rug."

"If one can find a scintilla of evidence about Biden corruption in Ukraine, the House case falls apart," Graham added. "Today we have heard a tsunami."

If media and congress haven't taken up the mantle of actually investigating Biden, and Trump shouldn't do it because it might benefit him politically, then yes - you are saying Biden has immunity. You're essentially saying anyone can blow a whistle, except the person our constitution tasks that he "...shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...."

*Now* that no one can evade the problem, FBI, DOJ, and congress can certainly investigate without any input from Trump, just as you'd like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and AM64
#663
#663
lawgator1 said:
I don't disagree as to the state of the Dem party. The leadership has failed, and I think there are a number of reasons for that:

1) I think the party itself bent over backwards not to mold the process this time for fear of relitigating Sanders' complaints from 2016.

2) I think a lot of level headed moderates made the decision to stay out this time out of concern that the economic numbers are too good for Trump to lose, history being their guide on that, and have chosen to wait a turn.

3) Too much deference to it being Biden's turn.

I do believe that Trump is vulnerable, but it would take someone who can stand on stage and not be polite to him. Someone who aftger Trump answers is willing to say "I counted five lies in that answer alone, and here they are." Not be afraid to say Trump is a pathological liar. Fire must be fought with fire, at this point. That's why I'm intrigued right now by Bloomberg. He seems willing to call Trump out and not retreat when Trump's childish antics begin.
Click to expand...
Point 3, the Dems really need to stop with this idea of it being someone's "turn". Personally, I think that hurt them in 2016 with it being Hillary's "turn".

The problem with Bloomberg is he didn't jump in at the beginning. If he were to somehow get the Dem nom now, it absolutely looks like he bought his way in. I think that would disillusion a lot of people.

JMO, but the Dems need to put work in finding an actual viable candidate for 2024. I think by focusing on an impeachment that was always doomed to fail, they hurt themselves by not finding such a candidate for 2020. And who knows, the economy may have prevented anyone from beating Trump, but the Dema have done themselves no favors with the strategy they chose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40, AM64, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
#669
#669
Weezer said:
Point 3, the Dems really need to stop with this idea of it being someone's "turn". Personally, I think that hurt them in 2016 with it being Hillary's "turn".

Hillary did seem to me to be the best Dem candidate, though, and by a far margin. I did not personally like her, at all. I could not stand to listen to her at campaignb events, for example. (I thought she was fine in one on one interviews, but her voice became shrill and strained on stage, a real handicap.)


The problem with Bloomberg is he didn't jump in at the beginning. If he were to somehow get the Dem nom now, it absolutely looks like he bought his way in. I think that would disillusion a lot of people.

It might, for a time. Especially the Bernie folks who are more actual Sanders fans than they are about just beating Trump. But I have to think anyone that motivated is going to vote, for sure, and they are never voting for Trump. So while it might crater his numbers for a bit, I do think it would ramp up fairly quickly.

I can tell you that here in Florida, among those I talk to, he is getting a serious look, and primarily for two reasons. First, he seems willing to take on the NRA. Long overdue, imo. Second, he is willing to flat out say it when Trump lies, and not politely. No cutesy roll of the eyes, ah he's at it again. No. He will say Trump is a liar, sternly and with warning. Which is needed.


JMO, but the Dems need to put work in finding an actual viable candidate for 2024. I think by focusing on an impeachment that was always doomed to fail, they hurt themselves by not finding such a candidate for 2020. And who knows, the economy may have prevented anyone from beating Trump, but the Dema have done themselves no favors with the strategy they chose.

The campaign began long before impeachment. I don't think impeachment altered who would run at all. And I do not buy that it will hurt them in November. The only people really offended by it are Trump cult members who will vote for him no matter what, anyway. I do agree that the ineptitude of Iowa hurt a bit, but I think that will fade in time.

Key for any Dem nominee is get out the vote. Get volunteers picking up people and taking them to the polls. My gosh, such a mobilization effort in South Florida could easily flip the state, and its sizeable electoral votes.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
#670
#670
lawgator1 said:
See above.
Click to expand...
I think you have to be careful with the "never going to vote for Trump" talk because I think some did vote for Trump in 2016. Or they could choose not to vote all together if they feel the nomination was bought.

And I think the failed impeachment could possible have an effect to a degree. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see how it plays out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#671
#671
vols40 said:
FACT CHECK: It was Obama who denied foreign aid to Ukraine, not Trump, causing the nation to be threatened by Russia

Obama withheld lethal aid and Russia took Crimea so he should be impeached?
Click to expand...

Hey. be nice. Obama sent Ukraine stuff like food and blankets - just not any pointy stuff ... he wanted to keep them snug and warms and didn't want them hurting anybody. Freedom is a negotiable thing when have more flexibility after an election. Besides who is to say that Burisma wasn't a part of Putin's gas deal to the Germans and other Europeans ... a sole source supplier - that can really be leveraged for better prices when the recipient has closed off all other sources.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL69
#673
#673
Weezer said:
I think you have to be careful with the "never going to vote for Trump" talk because I think some did vote for Trump in 2016. Or they could choose not to vote all together if they feel the nomination was bought.

And I think the failed impeachment could possible have an effect to a degree. Maybe I'm wrong, but we'll see how it plays out.
Click to expand...


I cannot image that someone who really identifies with Sanders is going to sit at home in November just because he is not the nominee. The number of such people has got to be tiny.
 
#674
#674
lawgator1 said:
I cannot image that someone who really identifies with Sanders is going to sit at home in November just because he is not the nominee. The number of such people has got to be tiny.
Click to expand...

Elect Bloomberg at the convention and shaft Bernie . I want to find out just how tiny that number is . Lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and AM64
#675
#675
lawgator1 said:
I cannot image that someone who really identifies with Sanders is going to sit at home in November just because he is not the nominee. The number of such people has got to be tiny.
Click to expand...
A lot of Dems "cannot imagine" and that's been part of their problem. They fail to see the whole picture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLVOL69 and AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top