US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

oh and by the way... all this writing you're doing... if you think I ever waste my time to read it all you're even more stupid than I already think. I repeat, your orange buffoon of a President released the transcript and he has damned himself by it. Furthermore the 2nd most powerful person in the Executive branch went on live tv and admitted, and even told us all to "get over it". So shut your pie-hole. There's no defence against an admission of guilt like that

 

[calitennis127]

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...

I absolutely don't think that, and that was actually my point. But I don't recall you chastising Broken when he repeatedly made general arguments about "America" (obviously in a negative sense). Why are you condemning me for generalizing but not him?

 

[calitennis127]

Furthermore the 2nd most powerful person in the Executive branch went on live tv and admitted, and even told us all to "get over it".

See, this shows how intellectually lazy you are. What Mulvaney said specifically was that concerns over the Ukrainian election interference in 2016 (which is well-documented) was PART (repeat PART) of why the aid was held up. He didn't say that was everything or the only thing, and even if it had been, there was nothing improper about that. Also, it is clear that even if in Trump's mind that was a reason for holding up the aid, that was never made clear to the Ukrainians. And a quid pro quo in the sense of extortion requires being EXPLICIT.

The Ukrainian election interference is well-documented, starting with Politico's January 2017 report on it.

Are you so poorly read that you don't even know about this story?

Really Federburg? With as much as you concern yourself with politics you don't even know about this story?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

 

[calitennis127]

What does this even mean?

It means that he sounds flippant, high-pitched, and completely conformist. As someone who was around climate change morons for too many years, I am well-aware of the sanctimonious high school/college female type who thinks that her shrillness and total group think in the supposed interests of humanity make her sound intelligent. Greta Thunderbird is case and point.

And why does a girl in 9th grade sound different than a boy in 9th grade on the student council?

Because biological differences between the sexes are a scientific reality.

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.

Oh okay, so when you like one of Federburg's posts, I'm not allowed to address that. I'm so sorry. Now why don't you address Schiff getting Nunes's and Solomon's phone records and sifting through them? We all know you would be screaming if Trump did anything remotely like that to a Democrat. So can't you stomach the strength to admit that what Schiff did was unethical?

 

[calitennis127]

Simply amazing - no one on this board who dislikes Trump has admitted that what Schiff did in obtaining phone records of his political opponent was unethical.

They can't even admit that. Unbelievable.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Simply amazing - no one on this board who dislikes Trump has admitted that what Schiff did in obtaining phone records of his political opponent was unethical.

They can't even admit that. Unbelievable.

You are completely out of your mind to defend the undefendable.

 

[calitennis127]

You are completely out of your mind to defend the undefendable.

Actually, Trump has called out the Bidens for what is completely "undefendable" and that's what has gotten him into trouble.

Let me ask you......

1) Was it "defendable" for Adam Schiff to claim that his panel had not spoken to the whistleblower when everyone knew they had? Even the viscerally anti-Trump Washington Post gave him 4 Pinocchios for that claim.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...ives-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-whistleblower

2) Was it "defendable" for Schiff to deny all of the Republican witness requests during the Intel Committee hearings?

3) Was it "defendable" for Adam Schiff to subpoena and then spy on the phone records of Trump's lawyer, Nunes, and John Solomon?

4) Was it "defendable" for Schiff to not even show up yesterday at the Judiciary Committee hearings to defend his own report?

5) Was it "defendable" for Nadler to not even allow for a minority hearing of the Judiciary Committee before drafting Articles of Impeachment, as required by the committee rules?

Please, go ahead and justify all of that. You have it all backwards.

And, btw, Trump is 100% right about the Bidens and Ukraine, and in time that will be definitively shown - just as the IG report yesterday showed that the dossier was pure nonsense (which is what Trump and others maintained all along). Nunes in his 2018 memo was absolutely right. At the time he was mocked but it turned out that he was the one who was right.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Actually, Trump has called out the Bidens for what is completely "undefendable" and that's what has gotten him into trouble.

Let me ask you......

1) Was it "defendable" for Adam Schiff to claim that his panel had not spoken to the whistleblower when everyone knew they had? Even the viscerally anti-Trump Washington Post gave him 4 Pinocchios for that claim.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...ives-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-whistleblower

2) Was it "defendable" for Schiff to deny all of the Republican witness requests during the Intel Committee hearings?

3) Was it "defendable" for Adam Schiff to subpoena and then spy on the phone records of Trump's lawyer, Nunes, and John Solomon?

4) Was it "defendable" for Schiff to not even show up yesterday at the Judiciary Committee hearings to defend his own report?

5) Was it "defendable" for Nadler to not even allow for a minority hearing of the Judiciary Committee before drafting Articles of Impeachment, as required by the committee rules?

Please, go ahead and justify all of that. You have it all backwards.

And, btw, Trump is 100% right about the Bidens and Ukraine, and in time that will be definitively shown - just as the IG report yesterday showed that the dossier was pure nonsense (which is what Trump and others maintained all along). Nunes in his 2018 memo was absolutely right. At the time he was mocked but it turned out that he was the one who was right.

Good Grief
I would rather have a debate that Nalbandian is more talented than Federer or Nadal.

 

[calitennis127]

Good Grief
I would rather have a debate that Nalbandian is more talented than Federer or Nadal.

Yes, because you have no good answers to any of those questions. Evidently you don't care how sleazy, dishonest, or unfair the process of impeaching Trump is as long as the job is done. The details and the means don't matter. All that matters is getting it done.

 

[calitennis127]

And now we know why Schiff has such a vendetta against Nunes.....Nunes completely owned him with their competing February 2018 memos.

Here is Vox in support of Schiff's memo in February 2018, being characteristically obtuse:

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/2/24/17048936/democrat-rebuttal-nunes-schiff-memo

And here is the truth, as just revealed by the IG report:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/10/devin-nunes-adam-schiff-memos-doj-ig-fisa-report/


Schiff was entirely and completely wrong about the FISA process. He is both sloppy with the facts and also an outright liar. Unfortunately there are so many stupid supporters of his who do not care simply because they want to advance a certain social agenda.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Actually, Trump has called out the Bidens for what is completely "undefendable" and that's what has gotten him into trouble.

Let me ask you......

1) Was it "defendable" for Adam Schiff to claim that his panel had not spoken to the whistleblower when everyone knew they had? Even the viscerally anti-Trump Washington Post gave him 4 Pinocchios for that claim.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...ives-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-whistleblower

2) Was it "defendable" for Schiff to deny all of the Republican witness requests during the Intel Committee hearings?

3) Was it "defendable" for Adam Schiff to subpoena and then spy on the phone records of Trump's lawyer, Nunes, and John Solomon?

4) Was it "defendable" for Schiff to not even show up yesterday at the Judiciary Committee hearings to defend his own report?

5) Was it "defendable" for Nadler to not even allow for a minority hearing of the Judiciary Committee before drafting Articles of Impeachment, as required by the committee rules?

Please, go ahead and justify all of that. You have it all backwards.

And, btw, Trump is 100% right about the Bidens and Ukraine, and in time that will be definitively shown - just as the IG report yesterday showed that the dossier was pure nonsense (which is what Trump and others maintained all along). Nunes in his 2018 memo was absolutely right. At the time he was mocked but it turned out that he was the one who was right.

Cali, after all you have seen? How can you disagree with article #1..High Crimes and misdemeanors. Do you still feel it’s a coexistence or it just is happenstance that almost everyone surrounded by Trump is in jail or soon will be convicted including Rudy G. The only reason Trump isn’t in jail is because he is a sitting(because he is full of shit) president. The only reason that he isn’t in jail in two years afterward removal from office is that he croaks or he cuts a deal with the Southern District of New York which I doubt that anyone wants to see a former president in jail. Trump is gonna have to have all of the latter included in his plea deal agreement when they convince him to resign. That’s the real Art of a Deal.

 

[Federberg]

Cali, after all you have seen? How can you disagree with article #1..High Crimes and misdemeanors. Do you still feel it’s a coexistence or it just is happenstance that almost everyone surrounded by Trump is in jail or soon will be convicted including Rudy G. The only reason Trump isn’t in jail is because he is a sitting(because he is full of shit) president. The only reason that he isn’t in jail in two years afterward removal from office is that he croaks or he cuts a deal with the Southern District of New York which I doubt that anyone wants to see a former president in jail. Trump is gonna have to have all of the latter included in his plea deal agreement when they convince him to resign. That’s the real Art of a Deal.

And it ain't Democrats putting his folk in jail. It's his own people!

 

[the AntiPusher]

And it ain't Democrats putting his folk in jail. It's his own people!

Agreed

 

[nehmeth]

Conservatives in Britain coasting to a solid majority. After the impeachment dies in the Senate, it may be a similar outcome here in 2020.

 

[Federberg]

Conservatives in Britain coasting to a solid majority. After the impeachment dies in the Senate, it may be a similar outcome here in 2020.

that was my first thought too. We shall see....

 

[calitennis127]

Ukraine Adviser Andriy Yermak Disputes Impeachment Testimony | Time

https://time.com/5746417/ukraine-andriy-yermak-impeachment-interview/

So add Yermak to the list of Ukrainian officials which already includes Zelensky (president) and Prystaiko (foreign minister) who say there was no demand for investigations in exchange for military aid.

When will Federberg and AntiPusher wake up and acknowledge the truth?

Or will they ever? How much evidence will it take for them to open their eyes?

First Zelensky, then Prystaiko, and now Yermak. All say there was no quid pro quo from Trump for military aid.

 

[britbox]

The Dems impeachment process dies in the Senate if it gets that far. It's a gift to Trump. I'd be very surprised if he didn't walk the 2020 Elections blindfolded given the shallow talent pool of Dem candidates.

 

[Moxie]

The Dems impeachment process dies in the Senate if it gets that far. It's a gift to Trump. I'd be very surprised if he didn't walk the 2020 Elections blindfolded given the shallow talent pool of Dem candidates.

This takes into account only one portion of our electorate. Nothing changes with impeachment. Trump's numbers remain as they have been. Those who support him remain loyal. Those who have are against remain vehemently committed to electing anyone over him next year. It'll come down to turnout and electoral college again, I suppose, if it doesn't get fiddled with.

 

[Federberg]

IF it isn’t fiddled with..

 

[calitennis127]

IF it isn’t fiddled with..

Yes, by the Democrats, who are known to win a lot of votes from dead people. After all, that's how Kennedy became president.

I would also remind you that in Wisconsin in 2016 the Democrats demanded a recount and it turned out that Trump got a few more votes than were originally credited to him. The Democrats were convinced that he won Wisconsin by fraud so they demanded a recount, and Trump ended up getting an extra 131 votes.

"The results in Wisconsin changed only slightly after election officials conducted a 10-day recount before reconfirming Trump as the official winner on Monday.

The head of the north-central state's elections commission announced the results, saying Trump won by 22,748 votes, which is 131 votes more than the original margin between him and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton."

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/12/wisconsin-recount-donald-trump-161213045408092.html