US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

If this were to go viral what would it do to Bloomberg's run?

 

[calitennis127]

This video is for all the misinformed people on this thread who are being influenced by the international New York Times-mimicking media, starting with Federberg:

 

[Federberg]

This video is for all the misinformed people on this thread who are being influenced by the international New York Times-mimicking media, starting with Federberg:

We've all read the transcript you daft git. Furthermore his Chief of Staff admitted it. Jeepers!

 

[tented]

Kamala Harris has dropped out of the Presidential race.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Kamala Harris has dropped out of the Presidential race.

I disliked her less than Warren but that is not saying much.
In the link you provided, here is a quote:

“No matter your candidate, you have to recognize that going from the most diverse field ever in January to a potentially all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic,” wrote Leah Greenberg.

I do not understand this at all...Why do progressives have this huge issue with competency? They want the best plumber when they have an issue at home, they want the best doctor, no matter what race, gender , etc, when it comes to their own sick child, but they just love shoving diversity down other's throats. Listen, diversity is great, I live in probably the most diverse place in the world but I do not play or understand the identity politics game. Nobody wins that way. If the 5 remaining democratic candidates are all Gay/Caribbean origin/ 6 feet tall green eyed males identifying as unicorns, I am cool with it , as long as they are the most competent/qualified for the job ! Same as if they happen to be all white, straight, etc...Competency. That is the word. Rest is political mambo jambo.

 

[tented]

I disliked her less than Warren but that is not saying much.
In the link you provided, here is a quote:

“No matter your candidate, you have to recognize that going from the most diverse field ever in January to a potentially all-white debate stage in December is catastrophic,” wrote Leah Greenberg.

I do not understand this at all...Why do progressives have this huge issue with competency? They want the best plumber when they have an issue at home, they want the best doctor, no matter what race, gender , etc, when it comes to their own sick child, but they just love shoving diversity down other's throats. Listen, diversity is great, I live in probably the most diverse place in the world but I do not play or understand the identity politics game. Nobody wins that way. If the 5 remaining democratic candidates are all Gay/Caribbean origin/ 6 feet tall green eyed males identifying as unicorns, I am cool with it , as long as they are the most competent/qualified for the job ! Same as if they happen to be all white, straight, etc...Competency. That is the word. Rest is political mambo jambo.

I agree, however that’s not the way it is. In the US, in order for a Democrat to win, they need the black vote. They waited in line for 2-3 hours or more in Florida, for example, to vote for Obama, but not for Hillary. Obama won Florida twice. Since the 1970s, other than Obama, a Democrat has won Florida only two times (1976,1996). The concern is that if the election comes down to an old white guy, such as Sanders, too many people will stay home.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I agree, however that’s not the way it is. In the US, in order for a Democrat to win, they need the black vote. They waited in line for 2-3 hours or more in Florida, for example, to vote for Obama, but not for Hillary. Obama won Florida twice. Since the 1970s, other than Obama, a Democrat has won Florida only two times (1976,1996). The concern is that if the election comes down to an old white guy, such as Sanders, too many people will stay home.

That I guess is the sad reality. But it is a classic you reap what you sow situation. You play the identity politics game all the way and then when you are left with an old white dude, there is nothing you can say accept eat your own words and at that point the black vote is way past voting for that old white guy because you convinced them that he was a part of the privileged white elite and the patriarchy...Now it is too late.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

melanomia and her wanky husband met ye olde queen today...

she was wearing a cape that was blue n yellow wasnt she ?.

did the "bananaman" superhero cartoon bloke from the 80s fly around in a similar colour cape ?.

 

[calitennis127]

We've all read the transcript you daft git. Furthermore his Chief of Staff admitted it. Jeepers!

I doubt you followed the hearings closely (and I know that Moxie didn't, because she is too lazy to look something like that up). The Democrats were able to produce zero evidence of a quid pro quo except Sondland saying that he presumed there was one.

You and Moxie simply want to see Trump impeached at all costs, and neither of you can follow a logical argument. None of the "witnesses" that the Democrats brought out were able to provide any evidence of bribery or a quid pro quo, but they know that their voting base consists of clueless people like Moxie so they can just ram this through without having to worry about making any sense or being logical or providing a fair process. There is strength in numbers, and the Democrats have A LOT of stupid voters behind them. A LOT.

 

[calitennis127]

I agree, however that’s not the way it is. In the US, in order for a Democrat to win, they need the black vote. They waited in line for 2-3 hours or more in Florida, for example, to vote for Obama, but not for Hillary. Obama won Florida twice. Since the 1970s, other than Obama, a Democrat has won Florida only two times (1976,1996). The concern is that if the election comes down to an old white guy, such as Sanders, too many people will stay home.

How dare you generalize about a group of people and say something so racist. Are you saying that "black" people have tribal tendencies or display certain voting patterns? That's racist. Remember some of Moxie's pearls of wisdom: race is just a social construct, and saying that any minority group has a certain general tendency is "racist."

I mean.....don't you remember when Trump said the same kind of thing about a Mexican judge possibly having a tribal bias? Trump was blasted for being racist.

So if Trump is "racist" for suggesting that, so are you.

 

[Federberg]

I doubt you followed the hearings closely (and I know that Moxie didn't, because she is too lazy to look something like that up). The Democrats were able to produce zero evidence of a quid pro quo except Sondland saying that he presumed there was one.

You and Moxie simply want to see Trump impeached at all costs, and neither of you can follow a logical argument. None of the "witnesses" that the Democrats brought out were able to provide any evidence of bribery or a quid pro quo, but they know that their voting base consists of clueless people like Moxie so they can just ram this through without having to worry about making any sense or being logical or providing a fair process. There is strength in numbers, and the Democrats have A LOT of stupid voters behind them. A LOT.

Lol! I followed the hearings closely thank you very much. One would have to be a moron... case in point you! To believe there wasn't a quid pro quo. But even that is not determinative. He withheld Congressionally mandated funds for his own personal gain. The transcripts show it. Testimony shows it. The fucking Chief of Staff admitted it. You have to be monumentally retarded not understand that. If Clinton could be impeached for lying about a blowjob, if Nixon could resign before impeachment for directing the CIA to intervene against the FBI. If Trump could direct employees of the Executive Branch to refuse Congressional subpoenas. If Trump could subvert the national security of the United States then the orange buffoon needs to be impeached. It's simple really but I don't expect a constitutionally stupid ass like yourself to get it. That's ok. The rest of us get it, and that's enough

 

[calitennis127]

Lol! I followed the hearings closely thank you very much.

That does not show at all from your comments below. It is funny how much of a slave you are to the mainstream media.....there is nothing that they say which you don't jump on and start repeating like a 9th grade female on the student council. Do you think that makes you sound cool, or independent-minded? All it does is reveal you to be the mental slave that you are.

One would have to be a moron... case in point you! To believe there wasn't a quid pro quo.

Federturd, I assure you that everyone recognizes your intellectual limitations. At best you're a jumpy adolescent female. Greta Thunderbird has more capacity for reasoned analysis than you.

That said, how you could have watched the hearings and then said there was a quid pro quo shows either that a) you're lying, or b) you're really dumb and/or biased. Witness after witness said they had no knowledge of a direct quid pro quo. Most importantly, the Ukrainians did not know the aid was being withheld. A quid pro quo cannot occur if one of the parties does not even know that a negotiation is taking place.

But you are obviously too stupid to understand that.

But even that is not determinative. He withheld Congressionally mandated funds for his own personal gain.

How? By asking for an investigation into Burisma when he is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States and the prior vice president clearly engaged in bribery to save his son? Why is that not a legitimate case to investigate?

The transcripts show it.

Where? Because he said "I want you to do a favor"? Lol....if you think that by itself is incriminating you are a fool.

Testimony shows it.

No it didn't. It showed the opposite.

 

[Moxie]

You're putting a pretty heavy strain on those metaphors.

 

[calitennis127]

You're putting a pretty heavy strain on those metaphors.

To your credit, Moxie, you do not sound like a female in 9th grade on the student council. Federberg does.

On another note.....given all the accusations that Democrats have hurled at Trump for acting like a "dictator," why is the silence on this board so deafening about the news that Adam Schiff acquired the phone records of Devin Nunes AND Nunes's aide and then sifted through them? Why are Moxie and Federturd not condemning Schiff for going through the phone records of journalist John Solomon and publishing them?

Aren't these the "dictatorial" practices that we should all be worried about?

It seems that Schiff likes spying on reporters as much as Obama did.

What is with Democrats and spying on people?

 

[Federberg]

That said, how you could have watched the hearings and then said there was a quid pro quo shows either that a) you're lying, or b) you're really dumb and/or biased. Witness after witness said they had no knowledge of a direct quid pro quo. Most importantly, the Ukrainians did not know the aid was being withheld. A quid pro quo cannot occur if one of the parties does not even know that a negotiation is taking place.

But you are obviously too stupid to understand that.

Sigh... Ukraine knew the aid was withheld dipshit. Perhaps you didn't watch Laura Cooper's testimony

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...stopped-ukraine-knew-what-it-was-expected-do/

 

[calitennis127]

Sigh... Ukraine knew the aid was withheld dipshit. Perhaps you didn't watch Laura Cooper's testimony

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...stopped-ukraine-knew-what-it-was-expected-do/

Federberg, you really need to try out some alternative sources of information besides the conspiracy theory-peddling nerd kids at the Washington Post and the BBC - in all seriousness. All they engage in when it comes to Trump is wishful thinking, conjecture, and innuendo. They treat Trump like they are in a perpetual court case against him - or a perpetual opposition campaign - so they weave together countless stories loaded with conjecture in order to create an illusion of corrupt behavior at every turn.

Now, as for the merits of what you are alleging. It was blown out of the water in November by the Ukrainian foreign minister Vadym Prystaiko:

Ukraine's foreign minister told reporters on Thursday that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland did not link investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son with military assistance.

"Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations," Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine.

"I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events," Prystaiko added.

https://thehill.com/policy/internat...icial-sondland-did-not-explicitly-link-aid-to

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, you really need to try out some alternative sources of information besides the conspiracy theory-peddling nerd kids at the Washington Post and the BBC - in all seriousness. All they engage in when it comes to Trump is wishful thinking, conjecture, and innuendo. They treat Trump like they are in a perpetual court case against him - or a perpetual opposition campaign - so they weave together countless stories loaded with conjecture in order to create an illusion of corrupt behavior at every turn.

Now, as for the merits of what you are alleging. It was blown out of the water in November by the Ukrainian foreign minister Vadym Prystaiko:

Ukraine's foreign minister told reporters on Thursday that U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland did not link investigations into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son with military assistance.

"Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations," Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine.

"I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance. Yes, investigations were mentioned, you know, in a presidential conversation. But there was no clear connection between these events," Prystaiko added.

https://thehill.com/policy/internat...icial-sondland-did-not-explicitly-link-aid-to

They train you well in Trumplandia. Every time your nonsense is disproved you move on to the next thing. Us mortals can't compete with your complete lack of shame. I almost envy you!

 

[calitennis127]

They train you well in Trumplandia. Every time your nonsense is disproved you move on to the next thing. Us mortals can't compete with your complete lack of shame. I almost envy you!

Federturd, how is the USA "Trumplandia" if it also has the most vehemently anti-Trump news outlets (starting with the New York Times and Washington Post) which set the international news cycle?

And your Washington Post article proved absolutely nothing.....it simply made the case that it's possible some Ukrainians may have surmised that the aid was being held up because Trump wanted investigations - nothing more, nothing less. Let me spell it out for you with specific quotes:

1) "On June 18, the Defense Department announced that Ukraine would receive $250 million in military aid. It had been approved by Congress and signed into law by Trump in September 2018. After a mandatory review that Ukraine was meeting corruption benchmarks, the aid was scheduled to move forward with a Sept. 30 deadline for disbursement by the Office of Management and Budget."

So what does this mean? The Trump administration was well within the timeframe for releasing the aid. There was no requirement that it be released on June 19th or July 10th or July 25th. Given how stingy the Obama administration was toward Ukraine, this slight delay shouldn't be making you so queasy.

2) "Later that day, administration officials got hints that Ukraine was aware of the hold on assistance. Cooper testified that her staff received two emails indicating that Ukraine was — to at least some extent — aware that aid had been put on hold. On Monday, the New York Times’s Andrew Kramer reported that top-level Ukrainian officials were aware of the hold at some point that month. Former Ukrainian deputy foreign minister Olena Zerkal told Kramer that “she read a diplomatic cable from Ukrainian officials in Washington about the hold and asked for a meeting with a senior aide to Mr. Zelensky to discuss it on July 30. The cable had been sent the previous week, she said, but she could not confirm the precise date it had been transmitted.”

So what does this mean? That some Ukrainians had suspicions there was a slight hold on the aid? That is by no means definitive, and even if it was, it does not link the hold on the aid to the investigations.

And here might be the best part, which refutes your own contention:

3) "During this period, Ukraine didn't reveal publicly that it knew aid was on hold. In her closed-door testimony, the State Department's Catherine Croft explained why.

“If this were public in Ukraine it would be seen as a reversal of our policy and would, just to say sort of candidly and colloquially, this would be a really big deal,” she testified. “It would be a really big deal in Ukraine, and an expression of declining U.S. support for Ukraine. … As long as they thought that in the end the hold would be lifted, they had no reason for this to want to come out.”"

In other words, the Ukrainians themselves - assuming they believed there was a hold on aid - thought the aid would ultimately be lifted by the September 30 deadline. So much for them feeling pressured in any way to meet conditions!

And finally.....

4) "It’s important to note that officials interviewed as part of the impeachment inquiry consistently indicated that they hadn’t received any information about why the aid was being held. An anonymous official told Politico that it was under review — but another anonymous official from the Defense Department told the reporters that the agency had completed its review and supported the aid.

In the absence of an explanation, Sondland testified that he assumed it, like the meeting, was predicated on the investigations."

Wow, what a vicious quid pro quo by Trump. It was so clear that no one in the U.S. government was even aware of it!

I just shredded your own article Federberg. You have to come with something better than that.

 

[Moxie]

'you do not sound like a female in 9th grade on the student council.

What does this even mean? And why does a girl in 9th grade sound different than a boy in 9th grade on the student council? As I said, strained metaphor. Also, I'm not really in this conversation, so stop telling me what I think or won't address. I have already told you that I have no interest in talking politics with you, so please stop referencing me in your posts here. Serious...stop.

 

[Federberg]

Federturd, how is the USA "Trumplandia" if it also has the most vehemently anti-Trump news outlets (starting with the New York Times and Washington Post) which set the international news cycle?

you're either a moron or monumentally arrogant. Trumplandia relates to your brainwashed state of mind, not your whole country. You might think you represent your country when you pontificate, but you don't mate. Sorry...