Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

You Trumpists are whistling past the graveyard.

 

It won't work. Trump will get the boot. Well deserved.

 

Bill

Keep dreaming you POS traitor

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If tens of thousands can line up in the streets to burns and destroy, then they can walk into a polling station.

clearly we CAN NOT have mail in voting   holy shit folks...what is wrong with you   If you can protest,  you can vote in person    if you can  wait in line to see John Le

We do not have "national voting". We have simultaneous local voting supervised by state and county officials. No one has proposed that the entire country have nationally controlled mail in voting as T

33 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

You keep repeating things that are totally untrue.

 

I wanna see the President Trump Pee Tape the satanic ultraliberal agenda driven media talked about so much about...do you know when will it be released ?

 

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) said that "something close" to the long-rumored “pee tape” exists, saying ''it's likely Putin has something on President Trump."

 

 

spic-ket%2060_zpsuzuqxuty.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Skans said:

Nadler and Schiff lied in trying to build a case against Trump.  They got caught.  The Senate flushed out the truth.  It was a poorly executed Democrat political hack job.  Nadler and Schiff failed.  It's as simple as that.

when will you EVER understand that, even when you REALLY believe some opinion of yours is true, it doesn't change it from opinion to fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, maineman said:

when will you EVER understand that, even when you REALLY believe some opinion of yours is true, it doesn't change it from opinion to fact.

The fact is, is was a democrat hack job that failed.

 

That's not an opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SpyCar said:

 

You keep repeating things that are totally untrue. Did you even watch the hearings?

I did watch the hearings. There was no quid pro quo.  But, even if there was, that is not a crime. 

 

The House presented no evidence.  Just conjecture of non-impeachable nothing, most of which was not supported or substantiated.  The Senate listened to whatever Schiff and Nadler had to present and found that the impeachment was a complete farce. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, maineman said:

when will you EVER understand that, even when you REALLY believe some opinion of yours is true, it doesn't change it from opinion to fact.

There is no opinion here, Maineman.

 

Fact:  There was no quid pro quo.  I listened to the telephone call; so did others.  No quid pro quo.  This was even confirmed by Sonland's testimony in the House and Zelensky himself.  

Fact:  Even if there was quid pro quo, that is not a crime.  Not something you can toss a president out of office for. Not any crime that you can charge an politician for.  In fact, Joe Biden was one of the biggest users of Quid Pro Quo - but, that's another story. 

Fact.  The House simply did not make a case for removing the President from office.

Fact.  The Senate acquitted President Trump, which proves that the House failed to make any case against him.

 

The only "opinion" in this discussion is yours and Bills where you just don't like Donald Trump and believe he should be railroaded out of office on your dislike and misguided opinions you and other Democrats have of him. 

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

There is no opinion here, Maineman.

 

Fact:  There was no quid pro quo.  I listened to the telephone call; so did others.  No quid pro quo.  This was even confirmed by Sonland's testimony in the House and Zelensky himself.  

Fact:  Even if there was quid pro quo, that is not a crime.  Not something you can toss a president out of office for. Not any crime that you can charge an politician for.  In fact, Joe Biden was one of the biggest users of Quid Pro Quo - but, that's another story. 

Fact.  The House simply did not make a case for removing the President from office.

Fact.  The Senate acquitted President Trump, which proves that the House failed to make any case against him.

 

The only "opinion" in this discussion is yours and Bills where you just don't like Donald Trump and believe he should be railroaded out of office on your dislike and misguided opinions you and other Democrats have of him. 

those are not facts.  they are, as always, your firmly believed opinions.  I am just going to stop trying to converse with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

those are not facts. 

They are absolutely facts, Maineman.  Each and every one of them is a fact.  No opinion there, other than how you and Bill feel about Trump.  Look, Nadler and Schiff tried their best to create poo out of gold.  They failed, and miserably (now that word could be considered opinion) at that. 

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

There is no opinion here, Maineman.

 

1.  There was no quid pro quo.  I listened to the telephone call; so did others.  No quid pro quo.  This was even confirmed by Sonland's testimony in the House and Zelensky himself.  

2.  Even if there was quid pro quo, that is not a crime.  Not something you can toss a president out of office for. Not any crime that you can charge an politician for.  In fact, Joe Biden was one of the biggest users of Quid Pro Quo - but, that's another story. 

3.  The House simply did not make a case for removing the President from office.

4.  The Senate acquitted President Trump, which proves that the House failed to make any case against him.

 

 

1.  The quid pro quo was clearly implied.  when "Dad", who gives you your allowance, merely pats his hip pocket where his wallet is as he says, "son.... I'd really like it if you cleaned out the garage today", he doesn't need to add, "or you won't get your allowance"...the son gets the message.  It was a drug deal.  Bolton said as much.

2.  Holding up congressionally allocated funds to accomplish a personal political purpose when that purpose puts the ally  for whom the funds were congressionally allocated at greater risk is, in the opinion of myself and many others, reckless and illegal behavior, and certainly conduct unbecoming of our CinC.

3. Of course they made their case.... but impeachment is not about law or even right or wrong, it's about politics.  Democrats believed that the president had misused the powers of his office for personal gain and at the expense of our foreign policy.  Republicans in the Senate didn't care about that because they really wanted the president to keep doing what he was doing regarding dismantling Obama-era regulations and appointing hard core conservative judges so that they could eventually overturn Roe v. Wade.  Turtle kept his eye on the prize and kept all of his gang in line.... with the exception of the GOP's PREVIOUS Presidential candidate, of course.... who will go down in history as the ONLY one with a spine.

4.  See #3 above.... the Senate's actions were completely unrelated to the veracity or effectiveness of the articles of impeachment.  The Senate voted in their own self interest as they always do.

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

 The quid pro quo was clearly implied.  when "Dad", who gives you your allowance, merely pats his hip pocket where his wallet is as he says, "son.... I'd really like it if you cleaned out the garage today", he doesn't need to add, "or you won't get your allowance".

 

 

We give  countries aid so we can  hold it back to  get what we want...   and  investigating corruption is  required by  law.

 

13 minutes ago, maineman said:

 It was a drug deal.  Bolton said as much.

 

 

what drugs were involved?

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

 

 

1.  We give  countries aid so we can  hold it back to  get what we want...   and  investigating corruption is  required by  law.

 

 

 

2.  what drugs were involved?

1. When congress approves foreign aid to an ally, the president cannot withhold it in order to accomplish his political agenda, especially when doing so puts that ally at great risk.

 

2.    Gosh... I was unaware that they'd quit teaching about IDIOMS in the ESL classes folks take for their GED.  Who knew?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maineman said:

1. When congress approves foreign aid to an ally, the president cannot withhold it in order to accomplish his political agenda, especially when doing so puts that ally at great risk.

 

2.    Gosh... I was unaware that they'd quit teaching about IDIOMS in the ESL classes folks take for their GED.  Who knew?

it was held for routine corruption review according to the opm. White House didn't freeze aid. Requesting a criminal investigation of actions by Americans overseas isn't political. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, maineman said:

1.  The quid pro quo was clearly implied.

Right there, you lose.  I presented facts.  Now, you are presenting opinion.  Nothing "implied" is ever clear.  He either engaged in quid pro quo, or he didn't.  Once you have to rely on "implied' you lose - it simply didn't happen. 

 

You lose on your point 2 also, because  the funds were not withheld, but paid.  The funds were not embezzled.  They were not diverted.  They were paid 100% to the ear-marked recipient.  And, Congress did not place any requirement that the funds be paid within a specified amount of time.  Therefore, no wrong doing here either.  The President carefully and skillfully acted within the legal bounds of what he had control over. There simply was no wrong doing by Trump. 

 

The rest of what you say is nothing but unsupported opinion on your part.  No need to rehash  your opinion in light of the actual facts I have previously presented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skans said:

Right there, you lose.  I presented facts.  Now, you are presenting opinion.  Nothing "implied" is ever clear.  He either engaged in quid pro quo, or he didn't.  Once you have to rely on "implied' you lose - it simply didn't happen. 

 

You lose on your point 2 also, because  the funds were not withheld, but paid.  The funds were not embezzled.  They were not diverted.  They were paid 100% to the ear-marked recipient.  And, Congress did not place any requirement that the funds be paid within a specified amount of time.  Therefore, no wrong doing here either.  The President carefully and skillfully acted within the legal bounds of what he had control over. There simply was no wrong doing by Trump. 

 

The rest of what you say is nothing but unsupported opinion on your part.  No need to rehash  your opinion in light of the actual facts I have previously presented.

yawn.... this is boring.  I feel like B'rer Rabbit punching the tarbaby.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, maineman said:

When congress approves foreign aid to an ally, the president cannot withhold it in order to accomplish his political agenda,

 

 

He was investigating corruption of a previous  administration,  as required by  law

 

25 minutes ago, maineman said:

, especially when doing so puts that ally at great risk.

 

 

Trump did far more  for   Ukraine's  defense than  Obama, so  you can  STFU  about the risk.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, maineman said:

 Gosh... I was unaware that they'd quit teaching about IDIOMS in the ESL classes folks take for their GED.  Who knew?

 

 

He said it was a drug deal...   that  usually means  drugs 

 

This time it didn't mean   drugs?  

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

I did watch the hearings. There was no quid pro quo.  But, even if there was, that is not a crime. 

 

The House presented no evidence.  Just conjecture of non-impeachable nothing, most of which was not supported or substantiated.  The Senate listened to whatever Schiff and Nadler had to present and found that the impeachment was a complete farce. 

 

LOL. Even Trump's acting chief of staff admitted there was a quid pro quo. 

 

You already admitted in this thread that you would not care if Trump committed murder, so why would you care if he betrayed our national interests for self gain?

 

He is as guilty as hell. The voters will have the final say.

 

Bill 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SpyCar said:

 

LOL. Even Trump's acting chief of staff admitted there was a quid pro quo. 

 

You already admitted in this thread that you would not care if Trump committed murder, so why would you care if he betrayed our national interests for self gain?

 

He is as guilty as hell. The voters will have the final say.

 

Bill 

good lord, basic fucking commerce is quid pro quo. I will trade you this handful of berries for access to my pussy. I will give you claim to this land in exchange for beads. I will buy your oil in exchange for trust based pieces of paper. Quid pro quo is fucking standard trade and barter. Trying to demonize it seems corky level retarded. 

 

Trump is guilty of offering what in exchange for looking into the Bidens unholy relationship with bursa? A press conference? A photo op? This was a dead story from the start.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

He said it was a drug deal...   that  usually means  drugs 

 

This time it didn't mean   drugs?  

Idioms.  who knew they were that difficult?

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

good lord, basic fucking commerce is quid pro quo. I will trade you this handful of berries for access to my pussy. I will give you claim to this land in exchange for beads. I will buy your oil in exchange for trust based pieces of paper. Quid pro quo is fucking standard trade and barter. Trying to demonize it seems corky level retarded. 

 

Trump is guilty of offering what in exchange for looking into the Bidens unholy relationship with bursa? A press conference? A photo op? This was a dead story from the start.

 

 

LOL. The difference is the President of the United States swears an out to faithfully execute his duties as president. Working against the national interest by blackmailing an ally in need for personal political gain violates the oath of office.

 

Trump is fundamentally dishonest, a traitor, and his presidency is a stain on American history.

 

Bill

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SpyCar said:

 

 

LOL. The difference is the President of the United States swears an out to faithfully execute his duties as president. Working against the national interest by blackmailing an ally in need for personal political gain violates the oath of office.

 

Trump is fundamentally dishonest, a traitor, and his presidency is a stain on American history.

 

Bill

 

 

Disagree. Ever since seeing Mr Smith goes to Washington in black and white I have long been curious about what would happen if a pragmatic citizen with no real history in politics was elected. The Trump election has answered those questions and in a fashion that should concern all Americans. Politically unaffiliated citizens are not welcome. A left leaning private citizen would have gotten the same treatment as Trump. That should bother you but, for partisan loyalty reasons, it likely won't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...