TRUMP for Prez

Originally Posted by markj

Like sewer rats, you and other libtards just scurry around looking for any morsels you can find.

really? He is like the 4th trump appointee who quit this week. Its unheard of for a president to bleed staff like this guy. UNHEARD of. as in NEVER happened before. Ever in the history of the USA. Why do you think this happens to him? You think it may because they want to jump off a sinking ship? Must be because of too much winning, right.

Perry has gone almost 3 years. Historically speaking my wild guess is that that’s at least average if not long for a cabinet secretary.

^^That sounds about right.
Also he is exiting amid another scandal, again at least average for the grift administration.

Originally Posted by 95sn

really? He is like the 4th trump appointee who quit this week. Its unheard of for a president to bleed staff like this guy. UNHEARD of. as in NEVER happened before. Ever in the history of the USA. Why do you think this happens to him? You think it may because they want to jump off a sinking ship? Must be because of too much winning, right.

Are you in a stupid contest? Please stop. You’ve already won. Ever think that draining the swamp might mean those in his own party as well, dipstick? Not saying that is the case with Perry at all. Point is I’m sure plenty of people leave or get fired because they’re part of the problem or just have philosophical differences and that’s it. Leftist as$holes like you can’t help, but try to make hay out of it. I actually have no problem with that because I know it keeps you focused on the wrong thing instead of winning in 2020. Trump is literally waving the proverbial watch in front of all your eyes and continues to hypnotize you dummies. Stay sleepy libtard!

Hey libbies, if you can find it in yourselves to temporarily strip the hate and TDS away, read/watch this and learn some of the reasons you’re so wrong and so out of touch on just about everything.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trum...fl-jack-brewer

Ah yes. More “love” from NY’ers in Cali. Another example of why you’re losing in the hearts of real Americans.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/senato...e-eating-lunch

This is a One Turd President, who ever thinks he is going to win in 2020 is being intellectually dishonest!
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/

Originally Posted by joeshmoe

This is a One Turd President, who ever thinks he is going to win in 2020 is being intellectually dishonest!
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...roval-ratings/

You keep dreamin, little buddy. Gotta love polls when it comes to Trump. Especially how virtually every one of them told us Hildabeast was gonna win in 2016. BTW, you’d do yourself a favor by never mentioning intellectual dishonesty. You libbies haven’t been able to face or accept truth about how or why Trump won or is still winning and will win again.

Originally Posted by markj

Who cares??? I hope he holds every single meeting and/or function possible at a Trump-owned property just so it pisses off libtards even more.

really surprised that he backed down on this. Can't really remember him backing down on anything before.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

really surprised that he backed down on this. Can't really remember him backing down on anything before.

Agreed. That was a shocker.

Originally Posted by markj

Are you in a stupid contest? Please stop. You’ve already won. Ever think that draining the swamp might mean those in his own party as well, dipstick? Not saying that is the case with Perry at all. Point is I’m sure plenty of people leave or get fired because they’re part of the problem or just have philosophical differences and that’s it. Leftist as$holes like you can’t help, but try to make hay out of it. I actually have no problem with that because I know it keeps you focused on the wrong thing instead of winning in 2020. Trump is literally waving the proverbial watch in front of all your eyes and continues to hypnotize you dummies. Stay sleepy libtard!

These are the "best people, only the best" that the con man placed into these positions (or they payed their way in, Sondland). For you to dismiss complete and total disfunction in the WH, well, talk about winning a stupid contest. Your dipstick is dry, your motor is about to implode. These are not philosophical differences, they are all caught up in scandals. One got caught installing a secret cone of silence like in Get Smart in his office. The only folks hypnotized are the cult members, the rest of the country is disgusted.

Originally Posted by 95sn

The only folks hypnotized are the cult members, the rest of the country is disgusted.

His ability to get folks to drink the koolaid is unrivaled tho. Do enough hate him to counterbalance those who love him? That's the 2020 question. We'll see in a year, I guess.

No Kool-aid needed. All ya gotta do is take a look around. Things are FAR better since he’s been in office. FAR better. You lefties can keep your fingers in your ears and deny reality all you want. It’s irrefutably better now. Oh, one other thing: you’re gonna lose a lot of the black vote in 2020 too if black unemployment numbers stay anywhere close to what they are now. And 95sn... nothing you said means a thing. It’s all worthless. You have no traction. Keep spinning your wheels, trying to get out of the mud hole you and your party is in while we continue to laugh and point. Understand this: YOU are the ant and WE have the magnifying glass. Mwahahahaha!!!

Originally Posted by markj

No Kool-aid needed. All ya gotta do is take a look around. Things are FAR better since he’s been in office. FAR better. You lefties can keep your fingers in your ears and deny reality all you want. It’s irrefutably better now. Oh, one other thing: you’re gonna lose a lot of the black vote in 2020 too if black unemployment numbers stay anywhere close to what they are now. And 95sn... nothing you said means a thing. It’s all worthless. You have no traction. Keep spinning your wheels, trying to get out of the mud hole you and your party is in while we continue to laugh and point. Understand this: YOU are the ant and WE have the magnifying glass. Mwahahahaha!!!

Under normal circumstances I would begrudgingly agree. It’s the level of us vs them that the President has cranked up to 11 — that is his super power and his Achilles heel. It makes some love him and others hate him. How many are on either side of that balance is definitely the question. I’m not sure that good economy necessarily wins the day.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Under normal circumstances I would begrudgingly agree. It’s the level of us vs them that the President has cranked up to 11 — that is his super power and his Achilles heel. It makes some love him and others hate him. How many are on either side of that balance is definitely the question. I’m not sure that good economy necessarily wins the day.

This is so primitively fundamental. What do people vote? Their pocket books. End of story. Game over. Don’t over think it any more. If things change economically to the point that people are getting laid off en mass, it’s over for Trump. There’s no pending war or economic crisis or good vs evil type of reason to deny a second Trump term despite whatever bullwake77 the media wants to beat us over the head with on a daily basis. Why is it such a problem for you libbies to be honest about most things and how can you remain in denial for so long?

As for “us vs them” Trump has been a great communicator by defining “us” as normal people who want to live the American dream without burdening others and has defined “them” as liberals who want to take conventions us normal people consider normal and turn it upside down. Examples of that would be the freaks with freak agendas like the LBTQCNDJSJSW alphabet creeps, green new deal freaks, socialist idiots etc etc etc...

Here’s a question or questions I wish I knew the answer to: Has there ever been a time in US history when a sitting prez has gotten the hook when the economy was doing as well as ours is now and there was relative peace like we have now? If so, when was that and what were the circumstances?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Under normal circumstances I would begrudgingly agree. It’s the level of us vs them that the President has cranked up to 11 — that is his super power and his Achilles heel. It makes some love him and others hate him. How many are on either side of that balance is definitely the question. I’m not sure that good economy necessarily wins the day.

Here’s another perspective to consider. First, you’re right that he’s got it cranked to 11 and I totally get the hate em part when it comes to his schtick. He has always personally repulsed me, but I still respect the cowboy part of him like Reagan and that’s why I voted for him. That said, once you get past his complete arrogance and douchebaggery, you look at your own situation and realize (if you’re honest) you’re doing better with him in office and it’s not just because of the cyclical nature of our economy.

Also, let’s be honest. Our selfish human nature won’t let us vote against our own best interests. Trump wins 2020. Take that to the bank.

Here’s a question or questions I wish I knew the answer to: Has there ever been a time in US history when a sitting prez has gotten the hook when the economy was doing as well as ours is now

Frankly, Nixon isn't a bad comparison, in any number of metrics -- political divisions / unrest at home, economic performance / personal insecurity. Economically, Nixon's performance was decent: http://politicsthatwork.com/economic...resident/nixon



Of course Nixon proves your thesis -- he WAS reelected.

Originally Posted by markj

... and there was relative peace like we have now?

Well, if Delta is to believed, we're just days away from an immigrant/lgbtq/antifa violent overthrow of the government. (glad to hear even an ardent trump supporter knows it ain't true).

Here’s another perspective to consider. First, you’re right that he’s got it cranked to 11 and I totally get the hate em part when it comes to his schtick. He has always personally repulsed me, but I still respect the cowboy part of him like Reagan and that’s why I voted for him. That said, once you get past his complete arrogance and douchebaggery, you look at your own situation and realize (if you’re honest) you’re doing better with him in office and it’s not just because of the cyclical nature of our economy.

He could literally coast in on autopilot if he were remotely competent or presidential. He seems to not be able to resist being the center of attention, though, and he seems to need to say and do outrageous things to stay there. There's also a pretty obvious personal insecurity that could lead to his undoing. But thus far he doesn't seem to be able to do much of anything that's repugnant enough to turn off his supporters.

As it stands right now, I agree that many many people will hold their noses and vote their 401k balances. If the economy falters next year? All bets are off. And I pity the fool who succeeds him once our "economy on crack" deficit spending catches up with us. Or maybe he and AOC are right about MMT after all.

Good job Republicans....

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-b...al-debt-2019-3

Originally Posted by fly135

Good job Republicans....

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-b...al-debt-2019-3

Just plop it on top of the $23T deficit. No biggie.

Originally Posted by markj

Here’s a question or questions I wish I knew the answer to: Has there ever been a time in US history when a sitting prez has gotten the hook when the economy was doing as well as ours is now and there was relative peace like we have now? If so, when was that and what were the circumstances?

Manufacturing has had 2 consecutive down qtrs.
Coal that he proposed to save is spiraling down
Farmers in Midwest, all under performing and collecting socialist $$
how many reductions in the Fed rate 2, 3? Trump wants zero or negative rate.
Economy is more than the stock market.
What about the real estate market, not going up anymore either.
The tariffs are affecting and will continue.
Most economic indicators are not looking good.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-eye...op-11571391003

Over a year til election, he may not even be able to stay out of jail that long.

You say people vote based on their wallet. Why don't you care he gave the tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations (of which he is one) NOT you. You are voting against your wallet. Its reality, not a reality tv show. wake up.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

So you are agruing that the US should stay in endless wars?

So turns out when Trump said I'm bringing our troops home what he actually meant was I'm leaving some in Syria to guard the oil fields and the rest I'm sending to Iraq. So none are actually coming home. So Trump isn't ending any endless war, he is just moving Americans from one hell hole to another. Must be getting tired of all that winning.

Originally Posted by ralph

So turns out when Trump said I'm bringing our troops home what he actually meant was I'm leaving some in Syria to guard the oil fields and the rest I'm sending to Iraq

How many times has Delta claimed it's not about oil? Trump: "We've secured the oil".

Originally Posted by 95sn

Manufacturing has had 2 consecutive down qtrs.
Coal that he proposed to save is spiraling down
Farmers in Midwest, all under performing and collecting socialist $$
how many reductions in the Fed rate 2, 3? Trump wants zero or negative rate.
Economy is more than the stock market.
What about the real estate market, not going up anymore either.
The tariffs are affecting and will continue.
Most economic indicators are not looking good.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-eye...op-11571391003

Over a year til election, he may not even be able to stay out of jail that long.

You say people vote based on their wallet. Why don't you care he gave the tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations (of which he is one) NOT you. You are voting against your wallet. Its reality, not a reality tv show. wake up.

The diminutive unemployment rate and wage growth trumps all of that.

Is saying that the democrats are lynching him really that bad from trump? Is it like using the 'N' word? We don't have this social taboo here if that's the case. I would have thought he has said and done much worse imo.

Originally Posted by ralph

Is saying that the democrats are lynching him really that bad from trump? Is it like using the 'N' word? We don't have this social taboo here if that's the case. I would have thought he has said and done much worse imo.

As bad has having his TV lawyer and his thug henchman run a crazy operation for dirt in Ukraine? Nope, not even close.

Really really insensitive? Yes. It'd be like saying the press was subjecting him to a holocaust of criticism. But on par with "good people on both sides" of the Charleston white pride march.

Originally Posted by 95sn

Manufacturing has had 2 consecutive down qtrs.
Coal that he proposed to save is spiraling down
Farmers in Midwest, all under performing and collecting socialist $$
how many reductions in the Fed rate 2, 3? Trump wants zero or negative rate.
Economy is more than the stock market.
What about the real estate market, not going up anymore either.
The tariffs are affecting and will continue.
Most economic indicators are not looking good.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-eye...op-11571391003

Over a year til election, he may not even be able to stay out of jail that long.

You say people vote based on their wallet. Why don't you care he gave the tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations (of which he is one) NOT you. You are voting against your wallet. Its reality, not a reality tv show. wake up.

- Democrats on the hook for Coal. They campaigned on putting them out of business. Trumps record will have no impact there

- Farmers in the Midwest have always got federal money. Matter of fact it was a lifelong democrat friend of mine from Wisconsin that told me about that program a couple decades ago. Trump already has a great and effective speech on that. Taking the Tariff money and giving it to the farmers. In the mean time, Trump supposedly got the Chinese to buy in for $50 billion of farm products from the US. Sounds like the historic democrat farmers will be continuing to support Trump as per the recent trends.

- Fed rate was raised 4 times I believe before the reductions. Sounds like they are just trying to get the control point. Trump should advocate for zero for the people. He and we know the truth has to end up somewhere else than zero, but if he is advocating for the public, getting money in our hands as cheap as possible is better for the little guy.

- Economy is only the stock market when you want to talk someone up or talk them down depending on how the Stock Market is going. I agree it is more than the stock market as the market is international and not just the American worker. In other news, the American worker is working and Trump is going to bat fighting the Chinese and the democrats to bring a better competative balance to our trade relationships. Workers are happy.

- Real Estate market is a scam. You do realize that changing the tax status with the Feds on State tax right offs was basically a poison pill against California and New York real estate right? You can't right off as much, so your total outgoing for a house just went up. Most people buy a house based on how much can they really spend so if total cost is more, prices will flatten.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

As bad has having his TV lawyer and his thug henchman run a crazy operation for dirt in Ukraine? Nope, not even close.

Really really insensitive? Yes. It'd be like saying the press was subjecting him to a holocaust of criticism. But on par with "good people on both sides" of the Charleston white pride march.

ON par with "good people on both sides" comment. Yes. I agree. That was a horrible talking point. There were ZERO good democrats there that day. Get rid of the few white supremests, there were good Republicans there. Everyone is tired of the democrat taliban trying to get rid of history.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Under normal circumstances I would begrudgingly agree. It’s the level of us vs them that the President has cranked up to 11 — that is his super power and his Achilles heel. It makes some love him and others hate him. How many are on either side of that balance is definitely the question. I’m not sure that good economy necessarily wins the day.

I would say the press has it cranked up to 11. Trump just fights back. The press and media had it cranked up against Bush too, but he did not fight back at all. Trump tells them to stick it and the bullies don't know what to do when the people they bully don't back down.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Well, if Delta is to believed, we're just days away from an immigrant/lgbtq/antifa violent overthrow of the government. (glad to hear even an ardent trump supporter knows it ain't true).

Not saying days away. They are not for over thowing the government. They want all the government. They just want to bully good people and let non citizens take over and open the borders. That is the democrat policy. not sure how many republicans have shut down highways, busted up buildings, beat up democrats at democrat speaker nights at colleges, beat up democrats at political rallies like they do at every Trump rally. Seems to be a good democrat past time.

I am also pretty sure Republicans are not into making gender neutral toy sections, men in womens bathrooms and men competing against women in sports. Pretty sure that is all democrats.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

- Democrats on the hook for Coal. They campaigned on putting them out of business. Trumps record will have no impact there

- Farmers in the Midwest have always got federal money. Matter of fact it was a lifelong democrat friend of mine from Wisconsin that told me about that program a couple decades ago. Trump already has a great and effective speech on that. Taking the Tariff money and giving it to the farmers. In the mean time, Trump supposedly got the Chinese to buy in for $50 billion of farm products from the US. Sounds like the historic democrat farmers will be continuing to support Trump as per the recent trends. More BS from you, trump added 16 Billion

- Fed rate was raised 4 times I believe before the reductions. Sounds like they are just trying to get the control point. Trump should advocate for zero for the people. He and we know the truth has to end up somewhere else than zero, but if he is advocating for the public, getting money in our hands as cheap as possible is better for the little guy. Fed does not raise rates in "Great" economies. Advocate for the people??? How happy are the people getting .0001 interest on their savings? More BS from you.

- Economy is only the stock market when you want to talk someone up or talk them down depending on how the Stock Market is going. I agree it is more than the stock market as the market is international and not just the American worker. In other news, the American worker is working and Trump is going to bat fighting the Chinese and the democrats to bring a better competative balance to our trade relationships. Workers are happy. Workers are happy, like when trump said the Kurds are happy? Another lie. A real president would not fight half or more of the country, a real president leads the entire country. A fake, Russian installed president divides, like this clown. We never had this issue until the grifter. He should be lynched.

Real Estate market is a scam. You do realize that changing the tax status with the Feds on State tax right offs was basically a poison pill against California and New York real estate right? You can't right off as much, so your total outgoing for a house just went up. Most people buy a house based on how much can they really spend so if total cost is more, prices will flatten.

That poison pill was planted by the R's because trump hates CA. It really only applies to those buying million dollar homes (up to $10K in SALT?) so im not too worried about those folks. You know how most base their house search? they buy what the wife likes, husband figures out how to pay for it.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I would say the press has it cranked up to 11. Trump just fights back. The press and media had it cranked up against Bush too, but he did not fight back at all. Trump tells them to stick it and the bullies don't know what to do when the people they bully don't back down.

You should watch one of his campaign rallies. Dude is straight up responsible. Don't blame others when trump brings it all on. Who said Lynching today? was that media or trump? Who sucked off putin in Helsinki? Press or trump? Who called the Ukraine pres and asked for a favor? Media again?

Your BS is getting old.

- Farmers in the Midwest have always got federal money. Matter of fact it was a lifelong democrat friend of mine from Wisconsin that told me about that program a couple decades ago. Trump already has a great and effective speech on that. Taking the Tariff money and giving it to the farmers. In the mean time, Trump supposedly got the Chinese to buy in for $50 billion of farm products from the US. Sounds like the historic democrat farmers will be continuing to support Trump as per the recent trends.

Tax one group (consumers) to give to another (farmers) for doing nothing. How is this not the very socialism you complain about constantly?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Tax one group (consumers) to give to another (farmers) for doing nothing. How is this not the very socialism you complain about constantly?

You don't understand how whataboutism works. If someone does something you don't like it complete justifies someone you do like doing it.

After Taylor’s testimony today expect Rod’s whataboutism to go into overdrive.

Originally Posted by 95sn

You should watch one of his campaign rallies. Dude is straight up responsible. Don't blame others when trump brings it all on. Who said Lynching today? was that media or trump? Who sucked off putin in Helsinki? Press or trump? Who called the Ukraine pres and asked for a favor? Media again?

Your BS is getting old.

Your BS was old last year so there’s that. I totally agree with Rod.

Originally Posted by 95sn

That poison pill was planted by the R's because trump hates CA. It really only applies to those buying million dollar homes (up to $10K in SALT?) so im not too worried about those folks. You know how most base their house search? they buy what the wife likes, husband figures out how to pay for it.

Actually, I got my tax return reduced by $3000 last year because of it. It is not for people with million dollar homes. That is how detached you are from reality. I barely squeezed in to buying my house. I wish it were a case of wife liked this or that. If I would have waited 3 months, I could not have gotten into my area at all. That is the exact same story for almost anyone in california. I would have had to move another hour away commute wise. I already have to drive 1 hour for a 26 mile commute. On my house, I pay around $8,000 a year in taxes. Turns out our little community has nearly a 2% tax on houses when you add up the standard 1.1% and the assesments. Oddly, enough the some houses on the same road I live on happen to be in the other town with lower taxes and their values are $100,000 more than my house. I then get hammered by the california state taxes. I get hammered by my car registration. Trust me, it is over $10,000 a year. People I know are now paying $1200 a year in car registration on a 2009 silverado. I pay over $600 for a midsize. Trust my you detached rich dude. It is just not the million dollar home owner that is getting hit.

Originally Posted by 95sn

You should watch one of his campaign rallies. Dude is straight up responsible. Don't blame others when trump brings it all on. Who said Lynching today? was that media or trump? Who sucked off putin in Helsinki? Press or trump? Who called the Ukraine pres and asked for a favor? Media again?

Your BS is getting old.

Interesting. Trump says do me a favor about 18 times a day. It is a communication style you twit. On no. He said the word lynch. grow a pair.

You are responible for the way you behave. Not Trump

Originally Posted by pesos

After Taylor’s testimony today expect Rod’s whataboutism to go into overdrive.

Not really. You did not hear the whole story about anything. Again, what Trump did was not illegal. He released the transcripts of the calls. There is nothing there so there is that. I am not worried about this stupid impeachment thing. It only makes me re-enforce my beliefs in and hate democrats more, but it wont do anything to Trump but bring in more money.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Tax one group (consumers) to give to another (farmers) for doing nothing. How is this not the very socialism you complain about constantly?

I never said it did not take 2 wings to fly. In this case, the US government is intentionally interjecting into the market to ultimately making a fair playing field. The farmers are impacted by this. They are getting money from the tariffs until that interjection is complete.

As far as the historic program. That needs to be evaluated. I know the intention is to stabilize food prices or we could collapse the market. However much of that is put into place because of unfair competition from California where they get free water and virtual slave labor to create a fake market.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Not really. You did not hear the whole story about anything. Again, what Trump did was not illegal.

good thing that's not the question being presented.

He released the transcripts of the calls.

no, he didn't. Prove me wrong, please, because I'd love to read an actual transcript.

Rod not sure if you're lying or ignorant, but no full transcripts of the call have been released.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

I never said it did not take 2 wings to fly. In this case, the US government is intentionally interjecting into the market to ultimately making a fair playing field. The farmers are impacted by this. They are getting money from the tariffs until that interjection is complete.

Sorry if I miss your metaphor, what are the two wings and what is the flight?

China is apparently able to meet its needs elsewhere. Assume for sake of argument a comprehensive trade deal is reached. Why will China buy from us when they have now better diversified their sources? Will soybean farmers be on the dole permanently if Chinese orders don't come back?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

good thing that's not the question being presented.



no, he didn't. Prove me wrong, please, because I'd love to read an actual transcript.

Then what the hell is being presented? You democrats are crooked as the day is long, so what is really going on? You have a party who created a fake russian investigation and calls to impeach. You have a party who brings up fake witnesses to a supreme court nomination. You have party members who have called for an impeachment from very early in his presidency. You know have a fake inquiry that is only being conducted by the democrats. The Republicans can not even take a copy of the proceedings. They have to only view it in a room with a democrat present. So you tell me what is going on?


Full Document: Trump's Call With the Ukrainian President ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/09/25 › politics › trump-ukraine-transcript

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Sorry if I miss your metaphor, what are the two wings and what is the flight?

China is apparently able to meet its needs elsewhere. Assume for sake of argument a comprehensive trade deal is reached. Why will China buy from us when they have now better diversified their sources? Will soybean farmers be on the dole permanently if Chinese orders don't come back?

You are the expert. You tell me. Sounds to me you are cornered again and going into obtuse mode.

Originally Posted by pesos

Rod not sure if you're lying or ignorant, but no full transcripts of the call have been released.

You are Fing lazy:

Full Document: Trump's Call With the Ukrainian President ...
https://www.nytimes.com › 2019/09/25 › politics › trump-ukraine-transcript
Sep 25, 2019 - Trump is accused of pressing Ukraine to investigate his political rivals. ... The document warned its contents were “not a verbatim transcript.
Doubts about the rough transcript of Trump's Ukraine call ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com › technology › 2019/10/03 › odd-marking...
Oct 2, 2019 - They said it was being released in a bid to bring transparency and clarity to a call at the heart of a consuming political scandal that has sparked ...
Ukraine transcript: Read the Trump - Ukraine president phone ...
https://www.cbsnews.com › news › ukraine-transcript-read-ukraine-preside...

Sep 26, 2019 - Trump call summary shows he pressed Ukrainian president to probe Biden ... The memorandum released by the Justice Department is not, ...
Trump: I Will Release Transcript of My Call With Ukraine ...
https://www.thedailybeast.com › trump-i-will-release-transcript-of-my-call-...

While the president said he would release the call's transcript, he did not say he would ... It has been reported that the whistleblower's complaint involved a “promise” ... Since then, Trump has admitted to asking Ukraine to investigate Vice ...
Read the Trump-Ukraine phone call transcript (full text & PDF ...
https://www.politico.com › story › 2019/09/25 › trump-ukraine-phone-call...

Sep 25, 2019 - The White House released a readout of President Donald Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. You can read the PDF ... This Is What a Legitimate Anti-Corruption Effort in Ukraine Would Look Like.
Trump authorizes release of transcript of Ukraine call
https://www.cnbc.com › 2019/09/24 › trump-says-he-authorized-the-release-...
Sep 24, 2019 - Shortly before his call with Ukraine's leader, Trump had ordered a hold on ... So simply to release the transcript is not gonna come close to ...
Trump's Ukraine call transcript: Read the document | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com › politics › trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the...
Sep 25, 2019 - The Trump administration has released an unclassified transcript of President Trump's July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr ...
Read: transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine's president - Vox
https://www.vox.com › transcript-trump-ukraine-president-impeachment

Sep 25, 2019 - Read the transcript of Trump's call with Ukraine's president. A summary of the conversation comes out as Trump is embroiled in an impeachment mess. ... The White House has just released a partial readout — which it admits ...

Originally Posted by 95sn

You should watch one of his campaign rallies. Dude is straight up responsible. Don't blame others when trump brings it all on. Who said Lynching today? was that media or trump? Who sucked off putin in Helsinki? Press or trump? Who called the Ukraine pres and asked for a favor? Media again?

Your BS is getting old.

So when you are out beating up Trump supporters and rioting when a Republican speaker is invited to speak at a college campus or when you democrats shut down a freeway, are you going to feel the same way when someone retaliates?

soooo, you are retracting? Not a transcript, rather a summary?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

You are the expert. You tell me. Sounds to me you are cornered again and going into obtuse mode.

I am the expert regarding your metaphors? What makes you say that? How do your metaphors "corner" people?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

I am the expert regarding your metaphors? What makes you say that? How do your metaphors "corner" people?

Yep. Grow up.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

soooo, you are retracting? Not a transcript, rather a summary?

You guys said there has been no transcript released. There it is. Links and everything. Did you even read what was released. These are reported to be the non classified transcripts. Can you show me a part where he did something illegal in those transcripts. Certainly if he were guilty of some crime, it would be transparent right? Feel free to make your case. outline the illegal parts of what this there and let's discuss.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Can you show me a part where he did something illegal in those transcripts. Certainly if he were guilty of some crime, it would be transparent right?

He's not being tried in court, where "guilty of some crime" is the standard.

He's being impeached, which is a political process. Is his conduct "treason," "bribery," a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

Is pressuring a foreign leader to participate in a fake investigation of a personal political rival in exchange for military aid and a meeting at the White House impeachable? Is running an off-the-books personal foreign policy through a TV lawyer and his henchmen for personal political gain impeachable? Is using the resources of the state department to do the bidding of said off the books foreign policy apparatus impeachable?

We'll know if 67 senators say it is.

To be clear though "broke the law" is the wrong yardstick to evaluate his conduct, because he's not being prosecuted, can't be thrown in jail, won't be civilly sanctioned, etc. as a result of impeachment. He'd just lose his job.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

He's not being tried in court, where "guilty of some crime" is the standard.

He's being impeached, which is a political process. Is his conduct "treason," "bribery," a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

Is pressuring a foreign leader to participate in a fake investigation of a personal political rival in exchange for military aid and a meeting at the White House impeachable? Is running an off-the-books personal foreign policy through a TV lawyer and his henchmen for personal political gain impeachable? Is using the resources of the state department to do the bidding of said off the books foreign policy apparatus impeachable?

We'll know if 67 senators say it is.

To be clear though "broke the law" is the wrong yardstick to evaluate his conduct, because he's not being prosecuted, can't be thrown in jail, won't be civilly sanctioned, etc. as a result of impeachment. He'd just lose his job.

That's quite the mountain you and your party are trying to build out of a mole hill. Problem is you guys are too stupid and dishonest to acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans are onto you and see right through you as well as the media. It's uncanny how you guys believe your own lies. It all ties in with how you all love smelling your own farts.

Originally Posted by markj

That's quite the mountain you and your party are trying to build out of a mole hill. Problem is you guys are too stupid and dishonest to acknowledge the fact that the majority of Americans are onto you and see right through you as well as the media. It's uncanny how you guys believe your own lies. It all ties in with how you all love smelling your own farts.

So which parts are the lies? I understand the position that politically an impeachment conviction is unlikely (need 2/3 of senate after all). I don’t understand the position that the facts aren’t the facts.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

He's not being tried in court, where "guilty of some crime" is the standard.

He's being impeached, which is a political process. Is his conduct "treason," "bribery," a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"?

Is pressuring a foreign leader to participate in a fake investigation of a personal political rival in exchange for military aid and a meeting at the White House impeachable? Is running an off-the-books personal foreign policy through a TV lawyer and his henchmen for personal political gain impeachable? Is using the resources of the state department to do the bidding of said off the books foreign policy apparatus impeachable?

We'll know if 67 senators say it is.

To be clear though "broke the law" is the wrong yardstick to evaluate his conduct, because he's not being prosecuted, can't be thrown in jail, won't be civilly sanctioned, etc. as a result of impeachment. He'd just lose his job.

Actually impeachment will do ZERO. IF the Senate actually took the house seriously and actually had a trial, then he would be convicted and removed. Impeachment itself does nothing. The democrats holding a zero vote for inquiry and holding one sided investigations will not be taken seriously. The Republicans will dismiss as soon as it comes across the Senates desk.

Funny how you democrats like to hold on to the false claim that Trump withheld aid if they did not investigate Biden. That portion of the call did not even happen at the same time and the leader of the Ukraine did not even know the money was withheld and said he did not feel like the 2 events were even together. So, there goes that.

Now you guys apparently saying the impeachment is about Trump's lawyer and a shaddow policy. Again, not illegal. Hard to commit high crimes when it is not illegal.

Of course this all started even before the democrat made up Russian hoax.

All I and the rest of the public hears is the democrats bitching and moaning about every single thing Trump does and wastes congresses time with these phoney investigations with only the goal to gain back the presidency. You really don't see an issue with this? The democrats (many of them) have said since nearly day one. They only way to beat Trump is to impeach him. Wow. Only way to win an election is to come up with phoney excuse after phoney excuse and drag people into a court of law (make no mistake, everyone who goes before congress is staking their freedoms on it), and question people for 12 hours at a time until they make a mistake. Jail them and run around and act like the democrats did the world a favor and got to the bottom of that evil ol Trump. The Soviets would be so proud.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

So which parts are the lies? I understand the position that politically an impeachment conviction is unlikely (need 2/3 of senate after all). I don’t understand the position that the facts aren’t the facts.

Russian hoax, supreme court fake witnesses, Ukraine, basically your whole political agenda. Shall we go on?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Russian hoax, supreme court fake witnesses, Ukraine, basically your whole political agenda. Shall we go on?

let's stick to the ukraine whistleblower complaint. You know, the basis for the investigation. What in that complaint has been shown to be false?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

He's not being tried in court, where "guilty of some crime" is the standard.


To be clear though "broke the law" is the wrong yardstick to evaluate his conduct, because he's not being prosecuted, can't be thrown in jail, won't be civilly sanctioned, etc. as a result of impeachment. He'd just lose his job.

Impeachment is reserved for:

In the United States, for example, impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

This is absolutely the yardstick. It is about criminality, not about how the democrats feel their agenda of throwing open the border, taking our second amendment rights, and according to a democrat presidential candidate force Christians to marry gays in their churches.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Actually impeachment will do ZERO. IF the Senate actually took the house seriously and actually had a trial, then he would be convicted and removed.

McConnell has confirmed that the Senate will conduct a trial promptly if the house votes to impeach.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...-senate-048599

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

let's stick to the ukraine whistleblower complaint. You know, the basis for the investigation. What in that complaint has been shown to be false?

Trump had a conversation with the Ukraine. The story you democrats are making up about it is completely false and now the democrats are dragging person after person before their little fact committee and questioning them. In some cases this questioning has lasted 12 hours. Now we have one democrat who is trying to go after a Trump official for what that democrat believes the person after the 12 hours of questioning misstated his relationship status with Trump and wants him jailed.

You really believe this is how your government should be working?

In this country, you are innocent. Can you show me where he is guilty of breaking the law. That is what impeachment is about.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Impeachment is reserved for:

In the United States, for example, impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed "Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors

This is absolutely the yardstick. It is about criminality, not about how the democrats feel their agenda of throwing open the border, taking our second amendment rights, and according to a democrat presidential candidate force Christians to marry gays in their churches.

don't forget about the faked moon landing and how 9/11 was an inside job.

Gerald Ford disagrees with you. “An impeachable offense,” he explained, “is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

McConnell has confirmed that the Senate will conduct a trial promptly if the house votes to impeach.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...-senate-048599

Graham to introduce resolution condemning House impeachment inquiry

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...chment-inquiry


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is planning to introduce a resolution condemning the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry process and argued that any articles should be dismissed in the Senate without a trial.

"This resolution puts the Senate on record condemning the House. ... Here's the point of the resolution: Any impeachment vote based on this process, to me, is illegitimate, is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed in the Senate without a trial," Graham

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

don't forget about the faked moon landing and how 9/11 was an inside job.

Gerald Ford disagrees with you. “An impeachable offense,” he explained, “is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Yep. And he was ran out of office quickly after that and the Republicans did not recover in congress for how many decades? The people disagree with Ford

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Trump had a conversation with the Ukraine. The story you democrats are making up about it is completely false and now the democrats are dragging person after person before their little fact committee and questioning them. In some cases this questioning has lasted 12 hours. Now we have one democrat who is trying to go after a Trump official for what that democrat believes the person after the 12 hours of questioning misstated his relationship status with Trump and wants him jailed.

You really believe this is how your government should be working?

In this country, you are innocent. Can you show me where he is guilty of breaking the law. That is what impeachment is about.

It is curious, though, that the president's chosen agents in this enterprise seem to be universally throwing him under the bus in their prepared opening statements. It's not like these are deep staters who have just been waiting for 40 years to be activated for their chance to take down Trump. Sondland is a huge donor and appointee. And he's the EU ambassador so would only be this far out of his charge (Ukraine not in EU) if directed to do so. Taylor was pulled out of retirement to go to Kiev at the administration's request after Trump ousted Yavonovich. What's in it for these guys to take Trump down, other than not to be diving on the granade for his scandal?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Graham to introduce resolution condemning House impeachment inquiry

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...chment-inquiry


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is planning to introduce a resolution condemning the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry process and argued that any articles should be dismissed in the Senate without a trial.

"This resolution puts the Senate on record condemning the House. ... Here's the point of the resolution: Any impeachment vote based on this process, to me, is illegitimate, is unconstitutional, and should be dismissed in the Senate without a trial," Graham

Big whoop. That will go nowhere.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Yep. And he was ran out of office quickly after that and the Republicans did not recover in congress for how many decades? The people disagree with Ford

Uh, no, he said that in 1970. Nixon later appointed him as his VP after Agnew resigned in scandal. And then he became president when Nixon resigned. Don't think it was a very quick running out of office.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

It is curious, though, that the president's chosen agents in this enterprise seem to be universally throwing him under the bus in their prepared opening statements. It's not like these are deep staters who have just been waiting for 40 years to be activated for their chance to take down Trump. Sondland is a huge donor and appointee. And he's the EU ambassador so would only be this far out of his charge (Ukraine not in EU) if directed to do so. Taylor was pulled out of retirement to go to Kiev at the administration's request after Trump ousted Yavonovich. What's in it for these guys to take Trump down, other than not to be diving on the granade for his scandal?

Funny part on your version of the democrats truth. The reports I am hearing is the democrats are getting shot down witness after witness and I believe the Trump official that the democrats want jailed is Sondland for not giving them what they wanted so they are going to use the excuse that he mis-characterized his relationship with Trump as the reason for it.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Uh, no, he said that in 1970. Nixon later appointed him as his VP after Agnew resigned in scandal. And then he became president when Nixon resigned. Don't think it was a very quick running out of office.

And how many decades before the Republicans had congress? I want to believe it was all the way until Clinton was well into office. What....2 decades?

Also, can you share with this audience what happened to the party who actually impeached after the impeachment?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Big whoop. That will go nowhere.

Will it? Like your impeachment lies will go anywhere? Only in your case, people will dragged through mock inquiries and some will go to jail for providing answers the democrats don't like. 1930's germany or the soviet union ring a bell?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

And how many decades before the Republicans had congress? I want to believe it was all the way until Clinton was well into office. What....2 decades?

Also, can you share with this audience what happened to the party who actually impeached after the impeachment?

So your counterargument to my argument that impeachment is a political process is that my argument is bad politics?

Nixon wasn't impeached. They were funsta, and he resigned before the house could vote.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Funny part on your version of the democrats truth. The reports I am hearing is the democrats are getting shot down witness after witness and I believe the Trump official that the democrats want jailed is Sondland for not giving them what they wanted so they are going to use the excuse that he mis-characterized his relationship with Trump as the reason for it.

Can you post a link to that reporting?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

Can you post a link to that reporting?

heard it last night on the drive home

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

So your counterargument to my argument that impeachment is a political process is that my argument is bad politics?

Nixon wasn't impeached. They were funsta, and he resigned before the house could vote.

We know Nixon was not impeached.

So you are agreeing that the democrats are playing politics and are not really after a criminal offense? Are you finally agreeing the sane people?

Just because Ford said it does not make it factually correct by the way.

He Schiff has already lied about the facts of Trumps phone call on the floor of congress. He literally read off a fake document about the call to congress. He said it, does not make it real.

Also, Schiff having contact with the fake "whistle blower" actually makes Schiff a witness in these proceedings. He should not be leading the inquiry. Another thing about whistle blowers. The law does not mean the whistle blowers identity is secret. It only means that they can not be retaliated against. The public will find out that this person is just yet another underhanded democrat trick and as you have pointed out, the whole impeachment deal is just politics and has nothing to do with the law. The public is going to be pretty pissed at this.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

Also, can you share with this audience what happened to the party who actually impeached after the impeachment?

This is an interesting one. The one modern impeachment of Bill Clinton happened during a lame duck session after the election in 1998. Rs lost a bunch of seats in the house and retained their senate majority BEFORE voting to impeach.

In the next election in 2000 Bush won. Democrats picked up a net of four seats in the Senate, falling one seat short of taking the majority. Democrats picked up a net of one seat in the House, but Republicans retained a narrow majority. In the gubernatorial elections, Democrats won a net gain of one seat. <- c&p from wiki.

So mildly bad for the party in house voting to impeach? Doesn’t seem like republicans have borne many lasting scars from impeaching Clinton.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

It is curious, though, that the president's chosen agents in this enterprise seem to be universally throwing him under the bus in their prepared opening statements. It's not like these are deep staters who have just been waiting for 40 years to be activated for their chance to take down Trump. Sondland is a huge donor and appointee. And he's the EU ambassador so would only be this far out of his charge (Ukraine not in EU) if directed to do so. Taylor was pulled out of retirement to go to Kiev at the administration's request after Trump ousted Yavonovich. What's in it for these guys to take Trump down, other than not to be diving on the granade for his scandal?

How can people jump on a "granade" for something that is not about a criminal proceeding? If it is just politics, then they can tell congress to get bent right?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

This is an interesting one. The one modern impeachment of Bill Clinton happened during a lame duck session after the election in 1998. Rs lost a bunch of seats in the house and retained their senate majority BEFORE voting to impeach.

In the next election in 2000 Bush won. Democrats picked up a net of four seats in the Senate, falling one seat short of taking the majority. Democrats picked up a net of one seat in the House, but Republicans retained a narrow majority. In the gubernatorial elections, Democrats won a net gain of one seat. <- c&p from wiki.

So mildly bad for the party in house voting to impeach? Doesn’t seem like republicans have borne many lasting scars from impeaching Clinton.

Not horribly. However Clinton did actually lie under oath during a sexual harrasment trial. Clinton was actually disbarred for the lies during his testamony. Maybe the public saw through that one.

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

So you are agreeing that the democrats are playing politics and are not really after a criminal offense? Are you finally agreeing the sane people?



Just because Ford said it does not make it factually correct by the way.

This is settled Delta. Your view is not the predominant one. One of the articles the Republicans brought against Clinton was for abuse of power (it lost, Clinton wasn’t impeached on that basis). But according to your understanding that would’ve been bogus because there is no crime of abuse of power?

Originally Posted by DeltaHoosier

How can people jump on a "granade" for something that is not about a criminal proceeding? If it is just politics, then they can tell congress to get bent right?

Congress can subpoena witnesses and lying under oath is a crime. I'm sure plenty of the witnesses have had lots of "I don't recall" moments, which is totally appropriate in the context of taking depositions. The interviews are wide ranging so that the investigators can get a handle on what's going on.

One thing I'll totally agree with you on -- I find it pretty distasteful that the Dems are conducting "secret" hearings but then running out and doing media appearances on their breaks to report on what happened. That feels icky. I have no problem with conducting the interviews themselves in secret, but what is conducted in secret should stay secret till the investigation is concluded and a report is generated. Once the universe of evidence is known, then conduct the public hearings and let these folks come back and defend (or refute) the positions described in the report. Then hold an impeachment vote, if the public hearings still indicate strong support.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

This is settled Delta. Your view is not the predominant one. One of the articles the Republicans brought against Clinton was for abuse of power (it lost, Clinton wasn’t impeached on that basis). But according to your understanding that would’ve been bogus because there is no crime of abuse of power?

Clinton was investigate by Janet Reno from the Department of Justice due to abuse of power during the whitewater affairs:

A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost money in the Whitewater Development Corporation.[1] The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.

Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From 1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.[2] Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995.

Seperately:

In 1994, Paula Jones filed a lawsuit accusing Clinton of sexual harassment when he was governor of Arkansas. Clinton attempted to delay a trial until after he left office, but in May 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously ordered the case to proceed and shortly thereafter the pre-trial discovery process commenced. Jones' attorneys wanted to prove that Clinton had engaged in a pattern of behavior with women that lent support to her claims. In late 1997, Linda Tripp began secretly recording conversations with her friend Monica Lewinsky, a former intern and Department of Defense employee, in which Lewinsky divulged that she had had a sexual relationship with the President. Tripp shared this information with Paula Jones' lawyers, who put Lewinsky on their witness list in December 1997. According to the Starr Report, after Lewinsky appeared on the witness list Clinton began taking steps to conceal their relationship, including suggesting she file a false affidavit, suggesting she use cover stories, concealing gifts he had given her, and helping her obtain a job to her liking.


Clinton was referenced to the Senate on 2 counts:


Impeachment of Bill Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...f_Bill_Clinton

The specific charges against the president were lying under oath and obstruction of justice, charges that stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones.

So the original inquiry stared with Clinton's AG wanting to look into the real estate issue and moved into a different issue when Clinton was sued for harrasement and asked the intern to lie under other for him.

Sounds somewhat legit for a inquiry. How about that inquiry. There was an open vote in the house. Both sides got to present witnesses. Each side got the testimony in their hands (in their offices).

All the Clinton stuff came about because of his own doing and private citizens taking him to court which was upheld by the Supreme Court to do.

How is any of this the same with Trump?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

This is settled Delta. Your view is not the predominant one. One of the articles the Republicans brought against Clinton was for abuse of power (it lost, Clinton wasn’t impeached on that basis). But according to your understanding that would’ve been bogus because there is no crime of abuse of power?

We will also see when it comes to election time. Moody's which has been correct in very election (except Trump where they projected a slim Clinton victory) since 1980. They have Trump winning getting at least 289 electoral votes and as many as 351. We will see. All I know, this has been a boon for Trump. Republicans are getting record money in fundraising. Turns out people don't like bullies. You turned Trump from a functional loud mouth to a victim. Haha. Nice work.


Trump is on his way to an easy win in 2020, according to Moody’s accurate election model
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/mood...-holds-up.html