Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

America under President Trump

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Really?  So what if it comes out of NBC, ABC, BBC, fox, etc....

 

By that logic they are all bandwagoners?  :blink:

 

Sounds like your maga hat is on a bit too tight. 

Your faith in the media is hilariously misguided. They are all Deranged Trump Haters, FOX is the only pro-Trump media of the group, and they don't even like him that much.

Bandwagoners indeed, they grasp at any straw and assume that this time the football won't get pulled away, this time they will finally kick it. They are Charlie Brown and Trump is Lucy with the football, the media is so easily trolled into making themselves look like fools.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


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

FYI Obama wouldn't even give the Ukraine Javelins, and Trump had already given them a shipment prior to the shipment that you're talking about.

Again, you're completely disregarding Biden's obvious transgressions. You need to reprogram your mind so that you can think for yourself.

If Trump was in the business of cleaning up Ukraine, and his kid got hired at one of the most corrupt companies in the land for over $50K/month, and then there was an investigation into that company that somehow got quashed, and then Trump withheld $1B in loan guarantees until the prosector was fired, an had his own "solid" guy appointed, would CNN say "It's all legit, no investigation required"? Would you agree?

If they said that, for certain you would blindly agree (despite their .000 batting avg), but they would never say that.

Who cares what Obama did. Trump withheld Congressionally approved funds for a Quid Pro Quo. Mulvaney admitted it. That's a crime. 

You have no evidence Biden required a Quid Pro Quo to have Viktor Shokin fired. You assume it's because of his son, but the evidence is that he actually had no active investigations into Burisma. 

Share this post


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

Wow up until midnight to get the election results.  Thought he'd go for the troll option instead.  

He's a cuck! His wife and daughter love JT.  

Edited by Boges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Boges said:

Who cares what Obama did. Trump withheld Congressionally approved funds for a Quid Pro Quo. Mulvaney admitted it. That's a crime. 

You have no evidence Biden required a Quid Pro Quo to have Viktor Shokin fired. You assume it's because of his son, but the evidence is that he actually had no active investigations into Burisma. 

You have no evidence that Trump required a Quid Pro Quo to investigate Biden. You assume it's because he asked them to investigate Ukranian corruption which includes Burisma, because Joe Biden's son worked for them, but the evidence is actually that there are many reasons to want to investigate Ukranian corruption and Burisma, not just Biden.

You're accusing WestCanMan of the very thing you are guilty of from the other partisan angle, and you can't see the obvious double standard and hypocrisy.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

You have no evidence that Trump required a Quid Pro Quo to investigate Biden. You assume it's because he asked them to investigate Ukranian corruption which includes Burisma, because Joe Biden's son worked for them, but the evidence is actually that there are many reasons to want to investigate Ukranian corruption and Burisma, not just Biden.

Then why are the only two we know about Crowdstrike and the Biden's? What are other pressing issues Trump is concerned about? 

Mulvaney said, specifically it had to do with Crowdstrike. Now if you want to separate the Biden issue out of it. Fine. 

But in the July 25th call both issues were mentioned. And leveraging funding to investigate the location of a DNC Server is still using Taxpayer dollars to leverage a country to help Trump politically. 

BTW can we concede how batshit crazy it is that Trump is fixated on this Crowdstrike conspiracy theory? He's basically trying to get Ukraine to come to a different conclusion of his own intelligence services. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Boges said:

Then why are the only two we know about Crowdstrike and the Biden's? What are other pressing issues Trump is concerned about? 

Mulvaney said, specifically it had to do with Crowdstrike. Now if you want to separate the Biden issue out of it. Fine. 

But in the July 25th call both issues were mentioned. And leveraging funding to investigate the location of a DNC Server is still using Taxpayer dollars to leverage a country to help Trump politically. 

BTW can we concede how batshit crazy it is that Trump is fixated on this Crowdstrike conspiracy theory? He's basically trying to get Ukraine to come to a different conclusion of his own intelligence services. 

They aren't the only two, there are many, including insuring the aid wouldn't be squandered through corruption. Mulvaney did not say it had to do with Crowdstrike, some reporter said that, and he is being taken out of context, when his reply never mentioned Biden or Crowdstrike.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They aren't the only two, there are many, including insuring the aid wouldn't be squandered through corruption. Mulvaney did not say it had to do with Crowdstrike, some reporter said that, and he is being taken out of context, when his reply never mentioned Biden or Crowdstrike.

So what does "back in 2016" mean exactly? 

Quote

The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

He admitted there's political influence in foreign policy. 

Quote

And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy.

 

BTW it's not Trump's call to hold up this money. So at the very least this is misappropriation. 

 

Share this post


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

So what does "back in 2016" mean exactly? 

He admitted there's political influence in foreign policy. 

 

BTW it's not Trump's call to hold up this money. So at the very least this is misappropriation. 

 

You not knowing what "back in 2016" means does not constitute proof of a Quid Pro Quo only being about Biden.

Political influence in foreign policy is par for the course, Trump is simply doing what all President's do, and you simply were unaware of that fact and think Trump is the only one who ever did it and should thus be impeached over it when it is just how diplomacy is done.

Trump can hold up the aid, not permanently, and he didn't, delaying funds is well within his purview as POTUS, he is in charge of foreign policy, not congress. Trump is the one pushing the aid with the support of congress, congress under the Obama admin was the one holding it back. Trying to twist it into Trump being anti-Ukraine by delaying funding the Obama admin never supported, and Trump is more pro-Ukraine than his predecessor by several orders of magnitude, is just further evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. 

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You not knowing what "back in 2016" means does not constitute proof of a Quid Pro Quo only being about Biden.

I know exactly what it means. You're just obfuscating because he didn't say precisely what he could have said to make it crystal clear. There's no secret that Trump wants to investigate the findings of his own intelligence community that Russia helped him win in 2016. 

 

Quote

Political influence in foreign policy is par for the course, Trump is simply doing what all President's do, and you simply were unaware of that fact and think Trump is the only one who ever did it and should thus be impeached over it when it is just how diplomacy is done.

So Obama did this? Clinton? Either Bush? Reagan? Can you cite? 

 

Quote

Trump can hold up the aid, not permanently, and he didn't, delaying funds is well within his purview as POTUS, he is in charge of foreign policy, not congress. Trump is the one pushing the aid with the support of congress, congress under the Obama admin was the one holding it back. Trying to twist it into Trump being anti-Ukraine by delaying funding the Obama admin never supported, and Trump is more pro-Ukraine than his predecessor by several orders of magnitude, is just further evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. 

I'm not saying he's Anti-Ukraine. He's pro using the funding for political leverage. Illegal. 

Share this post


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

I know exactly what it means. You're just obfuscating because he didn't say precisely what he could have said to make it crystal clear. There's no secret that Trump wants to investigate the findings of his own intelligence community that Russia helped him win in 2016. 
No you don't, you're mind reading skills are terrible, and do not constitute proof of anything, other than you buy into all mainstream media Trump bashing, hook, line and sinker.

 

So Obama did this? Clinton? Either Bush? Reagan? Can you cite? 
Any deal negotiated with any foreign nation involves Quid Pro Quo's, that's how it works, otherwise no deal would ever get signed. Nations exchange favors to sweeten deals, that's diplomacy.

I'm not saying he's Anti-Ukraine. He's pro using the funding for political leverage. Illegal. 
Using the funding as leverage is not illegal. All President's do this, all the time.

 

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No you don't, you're mind reading skills are terrible, and do not constitute proof of anything, other than you buy into all mainstream media Trump bashing, hook, line and sinker.

The Reporter asked if he was withholding the funds in order to investigate the Democrats. He said, "We do it all the time". 

 

Quote

Any deal negotiated with any foreign nation involves Quid Pro Quo's, that's how it works, otherwise no deal would ever get signed. Nations exchange favors to sweeten deals, that's diplomacy.

Political sweeteners. For example if Obama looked for another country to dig up dirt on Romney in exchange for taxpayer funding. 

 

Quote

Using the funding as leverage is not illegal. All President's do this, all the time.

It is for political purposes. 

Share this post


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

The Reporter asked if he was withholding the funds in order to investigate the Democrats. He said, "We do it all the time". 
He clearly meant that quid pro quo's is how negotiations work and wasn't responding to that question directly. He ignored the question to expound on previous statements, since the line of questioning was similar to previous questions anyway. Always grasping at straws if you think holding that straw will hurt Trump.

Political sweeteners. For example if Obama looked for another country to dig up dirt on Romney in exchange for taxpayer funding. 
Again, can't prove that it was all about Biden. Also, again, opposition research is not illegal.

It is for political purposes.
When any country negotiates with foreign nations, they don't ask for things that politically hurt them unless they get concessions in return, at least intentionally, that would be stupid. Everything is for political purposes in politics, but that doesn't mean other purposes aren't in play.

 

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

He clearly meant that quid pro quo's is how negotiations work and wasn't responding to that question directly. 

Ahhh so you can make definitive declarations of what he meant, but I can't. :rolleyes:

Quote

Again, can't prove that it was all about Biden. Also, again, opposition research is not illegal.

Again around the circle we go. The only corruption ever mentioned was Biden and Crowdstrike. You're free to provide citations of other forms of corruption that warranted that the money be withheld. 

Quote

When any country negotiates with foreign nations, they don't ask for things that politically hurt them unless they get concessions in return, at least intentionally, that would be stupid. Everything is for political purposes in politics, but that doesn't mean other purposes aren't in play.

Concessions for the good of the country, not for the good of the politician/party

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Clay Davis Knows.

Look who else he donated to;

Hillary Clinton in 2015, Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham in 2014, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris in 2015, and Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opps, another Leftist Deep-State Operative has come out and said that this Military funding was most certainly used as leverage for an investigation against the Democrats and Joe Biden. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-testimony/index.html

Quote

The top US diplomat in Ukraine notified House investigators that he was told that the release of military aid to Kiev would depend on a pledge to probe the 2016 election and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, who, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, leads Trump by 10 points in a hypothetical 2020 general election matchup.

The deposition by Bill Taylor on Tuesday appears to directly refute the President's claim that there was no quid pro quo in his dealings with the former Soviet state.

 

Share this post


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

Opps, another Leftist Deep-State Operative has come out and said that this Military funding was most certainly used as leverage for an investigation against the Democrats and Joe Biden. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-testimony/index.html

There's no direct accusation by Bill Taylor. The best that he has is a text message that asks if there is a quid pro quo. 

Swing and a miss.

End result: Trump supported the Ukraine by sending them Javelin missiles, Obama just sent his VP there to make some money and set up a puppet prosecutor.

Next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There's no direct accusation by Bill Taylor. The best that he has is a text message that asks if there is a quid pro quo. 

Swing and a miss.

End result: Trump supported the Ukraine by sending them Javelin missiles, Obama just sent his VP there to make some money and set up a puppet prosecutor.

Next.

So his testimony is useless? 

He sent those Javelins only after this Whisleblower complaint came to light. 

The Coverup is worse than the crime. 

Share this post


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

So his testimony is useless?

Pretty useless in the grand scheme of things when there is zero chance the Senate is going to remove the President from office.

The end game is decided by the election either way.

Share this post


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

So his testimony is useless? 

He sent those Javelins only after this Whisleblower complaint came to light. 

The Coverup is worse than the crime. 

Wrong. He sent a second shipment of Javelins after the whistleblower complaint came to light. Obama refused to send them any Javelins.

Trump was clear that he was pressuring other NATO countries to step up. He has been saying ever since he was elected that the US doesn't always have to foot the entire bill for everything.

Trump has saved the US billions in overseas wars. Wars in the ME are costing ME'ers their own lives and their own money. That's the way it should be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Pretty useless in the grand scheme of things when there is zero chance the Senate is going to remove the President from office.

The end game is decided by the election either way.

Like I've said from the beginning, this isn't about actual impeachment.

It's another smear campaign disguised as an investigation, just like the Russian collusion smear that helped the Dems get the majority in congress even though it was completely bogus right from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...