tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,167
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 23, 2020 14:36:49 GMT -5
On the bright side, that would make ballot-counting super fast and easy. a fraction of 1%, yes?
Best guess is a tiny fraction. Maybe .01%, which would mean about 33,000 people nationwide and maybe 20,000 eligible voters? The vast majority of precincts would have zero votes to count.
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,882
|
Post by Bob Ross on Jan 23, 2020 15:27:34 GMT -5
The big problem with popular vote is much of the populace is stupid, and those who get elected are often the ones who are the best at fooling the stupid. And with the current advanced technological propagation of media, their job is getting ever so much easier. Forget voter ID laws and all the back-and-forth about them. IQ over 160 to vote.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,542
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2020 12:50:03 GMT -5
'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador firedA recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York. The recording appears to contradict statements by President Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days. Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached. "Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be President Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it." Complete article here: 'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador fired
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,387
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Jan 24, 2020 13:05:25 GMT -5
Isn't Parnaz spilling his guts? Should be pretty easy to get this tape confirmed
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,542
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2020 13:12:48 GMT -5
Isn't Parnaz spilling his guts? Should be pretty easy to get this tape confirmed From the linked article: Reads to me Parnas has confirmed the dinner meeting and conversation.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,417
|
Post by thyme4change on Jan 24, 2020 14:17:34 GMT -5
'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador firedA recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York. The recording appears to contradict statements by President Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days. Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached. "Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be President Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it." Complete article here: 'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador fired I think the prrof is mounting every day. Trump could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and he wouldn't even suffer a dip in the polls, not lose an ounce of support from his sad party.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,542
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2020 15:58:27 GMT -5
'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador firedA recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York. The recording appears to contradict statements by President Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days. Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached. "Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be President Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it." Complete article here: 'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador fired I think the prrof is mounting every day. Trump could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and he wouldn't even suffer a dip in the polls, not lose an ounce of support from his sad party. Sadly, I am starting to believe that too. The explanation offered by some supporters for trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue would be the person murdered was trying to harm the country.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,542
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2020 16:34:20 GMT -5
How Trump fused his business empire to the presidencyAs Trump kicks off his fourth year as president with an impeachment trial tied to his actions involving Ukraine, critics say the president has yet to face accountability for blatant conflicts of interest tied to his private businesses. He has spent one out of every three days as president visiting one of his luxury resorts, hotels or golf courses. He has leveraged his powerful international platform to promote his developments dozens of times. And he has directed millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to his businesses around the globe. In three years in the White House, Donald Trump has accomplished something no president before him has done: fusing his private business interests with America’s highest public office. Trump’s early decision to maintain his grip on his sprawling real estate empire — despite his pledge to put his business aside while in the White House — has created a vast web of potential conflicts of interest, accusations about his policies being driven by his business interests and even possible violations of the law, according to documents and interviews. Even as Trump kicks off his fourth year as president this week facing the stain of an impeachment trial, he has managed to skirt accountability for widespread possible conflicts of interest that critics say represent a blatant abuse of power and create dangerous risks to the integrity of the presidency. The intersections between Trump Inc. and President Trump are everywhere: A Chinese state-owned company was awarded a multimillion dollar contract to help develop a Trump golf course in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, amid a U.S.-China trade war. T-Mobile executives stayed at Trump's Washington hotel while seeking a green light from the federal government for a merger. The IRS commissioner, who refused to release Trump’s tax returns to Congress, collects rent from a pair of Trump condos in Hawaii. Complete article here: How Trump fused his business empire to the presidency
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,542
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2020 16:46:44 GMT -5
Republican senators told their heads ‘will be on a pike’ if they vote against Trump: reportThe Trump administration is getting medieval in the impeachment trial, according to a CBS News report. As House Democrats continued to present their opening arguments in the impeachment trial accusing President Trump of abusing his power on Thursday, a Trump confidant told CBS News that Republican senators were warned about voting against the commander-in-chief. The White House did not immediately respond to a MarketWatch request for comment. That warning went viral, with #HeadOnAPike trending on Twitter TWTR, -2.07% on Friday morning. Some critics argued that this amounts to witness tampering, or compared them to “mob tactics” or something that “Game of Throne’s” fictional King Joffrey would say. Video within link: Republican senators told their heads ‘will be on a pike’ if they vote against Trump: report
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 24, 2020 16:52:07 GMT -5
I think the prrof is mounting every day. Trump could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and he wouldn't even suffer a dip in the polls, not lose an ounce of support from his sad party. Sadly, I am starting to believe that too. The explanation offered by some supporters for trump shooting someone on 5th Avenue would be the person murdered was trying to harm the country. Well they posed a national security risk by being in the middle of the street instead of on the sidewalk where they belonged.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,907
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 24, 2020 17:17:29 GMT -5
'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador firedA recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York. The recording appears to contradict statements by President Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days. Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached. "Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be President Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it." Complete article here: 'Take her out': Recording appears to capture Trump at private dinner saying he wants Ukraine ambassador fired Trumpettes have already stated that, as president, Trump can fire whoever he wants to fire, for any reason at all. Even if the reason is to get rid of a speed bump who is getting in the way of his attempts to coerce the Ukrainians into starting a fake investigation of his political rival.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,907
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 24, 2020 17:21:35 GMT -5
How Trump fused his business empire to the presidencyAs Trump kicks off his fourth year as president with an impeachment trial tied to his actions involving Ukraine, critics say the president has yet to face accountability for blatant conflicts of interest tied to his private businesses. He has spent one out of every three days as president visiting one of his luxury resorts, hotels or golf courses. He has leveraged his powerful international platform to promote his developments dozens of times. And he has directed millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to his businesses around the globe. In three years in the White House, Donald Trump has accomplished something no president before him has done: fusing his private business interests with America’s highest public office. Trump’s early decision to maintain his grip on his sprawling real estate empire — despite his pledge to put his business aside while in the White House — has created a vast web of potential conflicts of interest, accusations about his policies being driven by his business interests and even possible violations of the law, according to documents and interviews. Even as Trump kicks off his fourth year as president this week facing the stain of an impeachment trial, he has managed to skirt accountability for widespread possible conflicts of interest that critics say represent a blatant abuse of power and create dangerous risks to the integrity of the presidency. The intersections between Trump Inc. and President Trump are everywhere: A Chinese state-owned company was awarded a multimillion dollar contract to help develop a Trump golf course in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, amid a U.S.-China trade war. T-Mobile executives stayed at Trump's Washington hotel while seeking a green light from the federal government for a merger. The IRS commissioner, who refused to release Trump’s tax returns to Congress, collects rent from a pair of Trump condos in Hawaii. Complete article here: How Trump fused his business empire to the presidency Remember that big dog and pony show where he had the news people come in and film him behind those huge stacks of paper, supposedly signing over the paperwork to transfer control of his empire over to his children? I wonder what that paper was, actually. Blank? Or photocopies of a Chinese menu photocopied thousands of times? Surely wasn't signing over his business, that's for sure.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,542
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 24, 2020 18:09:36 GMT -5
How Trump fused his business empire to the presidencyAs Trump kicks off his fourth year as president with an impeachment trial tied to his actions involving Ukraine, critics say the president has yet to face accountability for blatant conflicts of interest tied to his private businesses. He has spent one out of every three days as president visiting one of his luxury resorts, hotels or golf courses. He has leveraged his powerful international platform to promote his developments dozens of times. And he has directed millions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to his businesses around the globe. In three years in the White House, Donald Trump has accomplished something no president before him has done: fusing his private business interests with America’s highest public office. Trump’s early decision to maintain his grip on his sprawling real estate empire — despite his pledge to put his business aside while in the White House — has created a vast web of potential conflicts of interest, accusations about his policies being driven by his business interests and even possible violations of the law, according to documents and interviews. Even as Trump kicks off his fourth year as president this week facing the stain of an impeachment trial, he has managed to skirt accountability for widespread possible conflicts of interest that critics say represent a blatant abuse of power and create dangerous risks to the integrity of the presidency. The intersections between Trump Inc. and President Trump are everywhere: A Chinese state-owned company was awarded a multimillion dollar contract to help develop a Trump golf course in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, amid a U.S.-China trade war. T-Mobile executives stayed at Trump's Washington hotel while seeking a green light from the federal government for a merger. The IRS commissioner, who refused to release Trump’s tax returns to Congress, collects rent from a pair of Trump condos in Hawaii. Complete article here: How Trump fused his business empire to the presidency Remember that big dog and pony show where he had the news people come in and film him behind those huge stacks of paper, supposedly signing over the paperwork to transfer control of his empire over to his children? I wonder what that paper was, actually. Blank? Or photocopies of a Chinese menu photocopied thousands of times? Surely wasn't signing over his business, that's for sure. Yea. No proof those papers were legit one way or another. But we have learned over the past three years he has lied to the American public over 16,000 times. So the papers are most likely blank. Trump Used Blank Sheets of Paper as Conflict-of-Interest Documents?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,907
|
Post by happyhoix on Jan 24, 2020 20:14:13 GMT -5
It's just one damn long carnival barker side show to him, isn't it.
Dazzle them with bullshit while scooping cash into your pockets.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 24, 2020 21:59:53 GMT -5
I finished watching the opening impeachment statements. Since I'm always yapping about looking at things as a juror i did that today. I kept my mind on being very impartial.
There was a lot of repetitive points for the past 3 days, I'd imagine to try to hammer their points home. I was actually impressed with Adam Shiff today. Laid out some very good points regarding past impeachments, and presidential abuse of power. Then he started making the point of obstruction of congress with Trump giving the order of non compliance to subpoena. That is where if I was on a jury or in this case a senator he lost.
1. He states that in all other impeachments the president complied with subpoenas except Nixon who executed exec privilege and that was turned ' down in court. ( at least they took the time and went to court) Well that doesn't matter what happened in other impeachments they are not law, or the standard.
2. He states that it would have taken too long to go thru the courts to make Trump release the documents they want. Well that is too bad that is why there is a judicial system. Instead when they did their investigating they cut it short because they could not get the documents they want and voted. He says use common sense 2=2=4 sorry that is not how it works you need evidence, even if you have to wait to get it.
3. Now they want the senate to Subpoena for the documents and witness and they say they are in no rush..huh...don't make sense, unless it is because they wanted to rush to get that impeachment vote now drag it out.
4. Shiff gave a long list of items that he said was proven, I would have to say no he had testimony of some, but on anything that would regard actual evidence there wasn't any. Nothing was proven and it shows with the partisan vote, maybe if they got some real evidence they would have had some republican votes in
I would have to say if they would have done it correctly in the impeachment hearings and the evidence would prove what they wanted then they would have a decent chance of removing Trump, but right now it shouldn't go any further they should vote to acquit.
They are coming to court and saying to the court we don't have any real evidence because the defendant would not let anyone release it, we did not use the judicial system at our disposal so please can the court now make him comply so there can be a fair trial for the people....well sorry the accused gets a fair trial he is the president to the people maybe next time come to court prepared
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 25, 2020 2:16:04 GMT -5
I finished watching the opening impeachment statements. Since I'm always yapping about looking at things as a juror i did that today. I kept my mind on being very impartial. There was a lot of repetitive points for the past 3 days, I'd imagine to try to hammer their points home. I was actually impressed with Adam Shiff today. Laid out some very good points regarding past impeachments, and presidential abuse of power. Then he started making the point of obstruction of congress with Trump giving the order of non compliance to subpoena. That is where if I was on a jury or in this case a senator he lost. 1. He states that in all other impeachments the president complied with subpoenas except Nixon who executed exec privilege and that was turned ' down in court. ( at least they took the time and went to court) Well that doesn't matter what happened in other impeachments they are not law, or the standard. 2. He states that it would have taken too long to go thru the courts to make Trump release the documents they want. Well that is too bad that is why there is a judicial system. Instead when they did their investigating they cut it short because they could not get the documents they want and voted. He says use common sense 2=2=4 sorry that is not how it works you need evidence, even if you have to wait to get it. 3. Now they want the senate to Subpoena for the documents and witness and they say they are in no rush..huh...don't make sense, unless it is because they wanted to rush to get that impeachment vote now drag it out. 4. Shiff gave a long list of items that he said was proven, I would have to say no he had testimony of some, but on anything that would regard actual evidence there wasn't any. Nothing was proven and it shows with the partisan vote, maybe if they got some real evidence they would have had some republican votes in I would have to say if they would have done it correctly in the impeachment hearings and the evidence would prove what they wanted then they would have a decent chance of removing Trump, but right now it shouldn't go any further they should vote to acquit. They are coming to court and saying to the court we don't have any real evidence because the defendant would not let anyone release it, we did not use the judicial system at our disposal so please can the court now make him comply so there can be a fair trial for the people....well sorry the accused gets a fair trial he is the president to the people maybe next time come to court prepared I think that falling back to Read the full transcript of the articles of impeachment against Donald Trump would be good.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,510
|
Post by tbop77 on Jan 25, 2020 7:31:26 GMT -5
I finished watching the opening impeachment statements. Since I'm always yapping about looking at things as a juror i did that today. I kept my mind on being very impartial. There was a lot of repetitive points for the past 3 days, I'd imagine to try to hammer their points home. I was actually impressed with Adam Shiff today. Laid out some very good points regarding past impeachments, and presidential abuse of power. Then he started making the point of obstruction of congress with Trump giving the order of non compliance to subpoena. That is where if I was on a jury or in this case a senator he lost. 1. He states that in all other impeachments the president complied with subpoenas except Nixon who executed exec privilege and that was turned ' down in court. ( at least they took the time and went to court) Well that doesn't matter what happened in other impeachments they are not law, or the standard. 2. He states that it would have taken too long to go thru the courts to make Trump release the documents they want. Well that is too bad that is why there is a judicial system. Instead when they did their investigating they cut it short because they could not get the documents they want and voted. He says use common sense 2=2=4 sorry that is not how it works you need evidence, even if you have to wait to get it. 3. Now they want the senate to Subpoena for the documents and witness and they say they are in no rush..huh...don't make sense, unless it is because they wanted to rush to get that impeachment vote now drag it out. 4. Shiff gave a long list of items that he said was proven, I would have to say no he had testimony of some, but on anything that would regard actual evidence there wasn't any. Nothing was proven and it shows with the partisan vote, maybe if they got some real evidence they would have had some republican votes in I would have to say if they would have done it correctly in the impeachment hearings and the evidence would prove what they wanted then they would have a decent chance of removing Trump, but right now it shouldn't go any further they should vote to acquit. They are coming to court and saying to the court we don't have any real evidence because the defendant would not let anyone release it, we did not use the judicial system at our disposal so please can the court now make him comply so there can be a fair trial for the people....well sorry the accused gets a fair trial he is the president to the people maybe next time come to court prepared And if they had, Trump would have exerted executive privilege and around and round we go to another episode of the Trump reality show. Close your eyes when you are watching and imagine it is a DEM president. You are ok with a president being above the law.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 25, 2020 8:14:57 GMT -5
I finished watching the opening impeachment statements. Since I'm always yapping about looking at things as a juror i did that today. I kept my mind on being very impartial. There was a lot of repetitive points for the past 3 days, I'd imagine to try to hammer their points home. I was actually impressed with Adam Shiff today. Laid out some very good points regarding past impeachments, and presidential abuse of power. Then he started making the point of obstruction of congress with Trump giving the order of non compliance to subpoena. That is where if I was on a jury or in this case a senator he lost. 1. He states that in all other impeachments the president complied with subpoenas except Nixon who executed exec privilege and that was turned ' down in court. ( at least they took the time and went to court) Well that doesn't matter what happened in other impeachments they are not law, or the standard. 2. He states that it would have taken too long to go thru the courts to make Trump release the documents they want. Well that is too bad that is why there is a judicial system. Instead when they did their investigating they cut it short because they could not get the documents they want and voted. He says use common sense 2=2=4 sorry that is not how it works you need evidence, even if you have to wait to get it. 3. Now they want the senate to Subpoena for the documents and witness and they say they are in no rush..huh...don't make sense, unless it is because they wanted to rush to get that impeachment vote now drag it out. 4. Shiff gave a long list of items that he said was proven, I would have to say no he had testimony of some, but on anything that would regard actual evidence there wasn't any. Nothing was proven and it shows with the partisan vote, maybe if they got some real evidence they would have had some republican votes in I would have to say if they would have done it correctly in the impeachment hearings and the evidence would prove what they wanted then they would have a decent chance of removing Trump, but right now it shouldn't go any further they should vote to acquit. They are coming to court and saying to the court we don't have any real evidence because the defendant would not let anyone release it, we did not use the judicial system at our disposal so please can the court now make him comply so there can be a fair trial for the people....well sorry the accused gets a fair trial he is the president to the people maybe next time come to court prepared And if they had, Trump would have exerted executive privilege and around and round we go to another episode of the Trump reality show. Close your eyes when you are watching and imagine it is a DEM president. You are ok with a president being above the law. For ed there was no evidence presented regarding the Donald attempt of blackmailing the Ukranian President to bow to his, the Donald, wishes...for me there was plenty of evidence presented...so how do u handle the differences...If I was the Donald I guess I could revert to the school yard and start calling "ed" playground names...diss her and her ancestors...but I don't do such things...leave that to our esteemed leader.. {gag, gag..cough...real sorry about that } So it's up to one who finds the Donald powerful and righteous and another the complete opposite...Hopefully the 2020 election, no matter the executive happening...but a change in the Senate, the House stays the same...time for a bit of payback. {Wonder if Mitch is back...if so, wouldn't be surprised to see him retire rather then work under a new head from the other party.. }
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 8:52:23 GMT -5
And if they had, Trump would have exerted executive privilege and around and round we go to another episode of the Trump reality show. Close your eyes when you are watching and imagine it is a DEM president. You are ok with a president being above the law. For ed there was no evidence presented regarding the Donald attempt of blackmailing the Ukranian President to bow to his, the Donald, wishes...for me there was plenty of evidence presented...so how do u handle the differences...If I was the Donald I guess I could revert to the school yard and start calling "ed" playground names...diss her and her ancestors...but I don't do such things...leave that to our esteemed leader.. {gag, gag..cough...real sorry about that } So it's up to one who finds the Donald powerful and righteous and another the complete opposite...Hopefully the 2020 election, no matter the executive happening...but a change in the Senate, the House stays the same...time for a bit of payback. {Wonder if Mitch is back...if so, wouldn't be surprised to see him retire rather then work under a new head from the other party.. } No you are wrong. I did listen impartially it was hard but I did. Listening to Shiff.. he made alot ot really good points on being above the law and democracy. In the end thou I still asked myself where is the proof to back up any of the talk. There wasn't any all hear say. At least with Nixon they took the time to go to court to override his executive decision. Ask your selves why did they not bother to go to court to have the subpoenas enforced? I would feel the same way about a dem president, you don't go and unseat the president just because you don't like the way he governs. Trump very may well have political intentions when asking Ukrain to investigate Biden. Without proof he gets the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what you did or do in your life but I sure hope it was nothing to do in law enforcement or a lawyer because your standard of proof is quite low. Like most dems you rather go with feeling than proof. There wasn't enough proof to impeach, I think there was enough to keep investigating but they stopped quite short. Actually if I was a democrat I would be pissed for having a the slightest possible chance of getting rid of Trump but screwing it all up by rushing it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,167
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 25, 2020 9:52:44 GMT -5
The problem here is that you are confirming his guilt under Article 2. Even if someone wants to disregard all the evidence and give Trump a pass on Ukraine, saying there is no proof tying him to it, the obstruction is blatant and right out in the open. Everybody sees it, Trump brags about it, and even you confirm it. Obstruction is also impeachable, and anyone not voting to convict on that article has abdicated their responsibility to the Constitution and the country.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,510
|
Post by tbop77 on Jan 25, 2020 10:29:12 GMT -5
For ed there was no evidence presented regarding the Donald attempt of blackmailing the Ukranian President to bow to his, the Donald, wishes...for me there was plenty of evidence presented...so how do u handle the differences...If I was the Donald I guess I could revert to the school yard and start calling "ed" playground names...diss her and her ancestors...but I don't do such things...leave that to our esteemed leader.. {gag, gag..cough...real sorry about that } So it's up to one who finds the Donald powerful and righteous and another the complete opposite...Hopefully the 2020 election, no matter the executive happening...but a change in the Senate, the House stays the same...time for a bit of payback. {Wonder if Mitch is back...if so, wouldn't be surprised to see him retire rather then work under a new head from the other party.. } No you are wrong. I did listen impartially it was hard but I did. Listening to Shiff.. he made alot ot really good points on being above the law and democracy. In the end thou I still asked myself where is the proof to back up any of the talk. There wasn't any all hear say. At least with Nixon they took the time to go to court to override his executive decision. Ask your selves why did they not bother to go to court to have the subpoenas enforced? I would feel the same way about a dem president, you don't go and unseat the president just because you don't like the way he governs. Trump very may well have political intentions when asking Ukrain to investigate Biden. Without proof he gets the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what you did or do in your life but I sure hope it was nothing to do in law enforcement or a lawyer because your standard of proof is quite low. Like most dems you rather go with feeling than proof. There wasn't enough proof to impeach, I think there was enough to keep investigating but they stopped quite short. Actually if I was a democrat I would be pissed for having a the slightest possible chance of getting rid of Trump but screwing it all up by rushing it. He was impeached and will have that stain on his name for the rest of his sorry life. I'm good with that. Really, with his obstructing justice at every turn, that is the best they could do. I will say to the party of Trump the old line from the movie A Few Good Men: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 25, 2020 10:58:37 GMT -5
... He was impeached and will have that stain on his name for the rest of his sorry life. I'm good with that. ... I am very much not "good with that." If the Ukraine incident was isolated behavior, he should have been censured for it. If it is part of a continuing pattern of abuse of power, he needs to be removed from office so that abuse ends.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 25, 2020 11:21:03 GMT -5
If the Senate were to call for documents and Executive Branch witnesses, it would provide an opportunity for President Trump to counter the Article of Impeachment II charge. Or strengthen the case for it. I would like to see them do it.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 16,944
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Jan 25, 2020 12:03:42 GMT -5
I listened to one of trumps lawyers for awhile this morning. Unless they have more then that they have nothing. But not going to matter to repubs, going to find him innocent anyway. A real blow for our democracy.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,542
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 25, 2020 12:22:21 GMT -5
Today's word salad:
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jan 25, 2020 12:28:19 GMT -5
Did he squeak his little red clown nose when he was done?
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Jan 25, 2020 13:05:57 GMT -5
For ed there was no evidence presented regarding the Donald attempt of blackmailing the Ukranian President to bow to his, the Donald, wishes...for me there was plenty of evidence presented...so how do u handle the differences...If I was the Donald I guess I could revert to the school yard and start calling "ed" playground names...diss her and her ancestors...but I don't do such things...leave that to our esteemed leader.. {gag, gag..cough...real sorry about that } So it's up to one who finds the Donald powerful and righteous and another the complete opposite...Hopefully the 2020 election, no matter the executive happening...but a change in the Senate, the House stays the same...time for a bit of payback. {Wonder if Mitch is back...if so, wouldn't be surprised to see him retire rather then work under a new head from the other party.. } No you are wrong. I did listen impartially it was hard but I did. Listening to Shiff.. he made alot ot really good points on being above the law and democracy. In the end thou I still asked myself where is the proof to back up any of the talk. There wasn't any all hear say. At least with Nixon they took the time to go to court to override his executive decision. Ask your selves why did they not bother to go to court to have the subpoenas enforced? I would feel the same way about a dem president, you don't go and unseat the president just because you don't like the way he governs. Trump very may well have political intentions when asking Ukrain to investigate Biden. Without proof he gets the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what you did or do in your life but I sure hope it was nothing to do in law enforcement or a lawyer because your standard of proof is quite low. Like most dems you rather go with feeling than proof. There wasn't enough proof to impeach, I think there was enough to keep investigating but they stopped quite short. Actually if I was a democrat I would be pissed for having a the slightest possible chance of getting rid of Trump but screwing it all up by rushing it. "Trump very may well have political intentions when asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. Without proof he gets the benefit of the doubt."As I stated...there was for me and so many others plenty of proof that he was attempting to blackmail the President of the Ukraine to put dirt on Biden to help the Donald in his reelection campaign...thus he gets no benefit of the doubt from me.. That u say u don't see it...u do see it , kind of admitting it in your copied post above, but it is information u don't want to see or accept because u are a Donald lover on all things, or at least, not comfortable accepting his many failings.. Your correct, I had nothing to do with law enforcement or being a lawyer beyond never having to personally deal with either of those two fields, beyond a semi friendly divorce.. What I did in my life was nothing beyond what most of us do...Work till I retired, raised two kids, both doing 50% better then I, saved a few bucks...some lucky good investments..got called to serve my country and did so...no bone spurs for me damn it..would have taken them in a GD minute. Saw action..even volunteered for the river patrols...extra $ paid plus some excitement, {young and going to live forever ,LOL} shed a bit of blood...got some decorations and got out almost 100% ok... Definitely have a seriouse dislike of the Donald...Man is a brute, a coward, dishonest, has a mental condition, Narsism}, raped a young prostitute when younger..{yes he did, numerouse times}.not a man to emulate. If not prejudiced himself, definitely caters to those who are and welcomes them into his supportive base...enjoys and promotes the divisions of the country..does everything he can to get different sides battling each other, no desire to heal or bring country together...concerns are to promote himself and family, not the welfare of the country.... I could continue and fill the page but it won't make any difference to you or other supporters of the man. I don't understand why to be honest, your undying support unless u are part of that group that is prejudiced and if so , then there is no reasoning with u...or they.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,495
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 25, 2020 14:15:02 GMT -5
If the Senate were to call for documents and Executive Branch witnesses, it would provide an opportunity for President Trump to counter the Article of Impeachment II charge. Or strengthen the case for it. I would like to see them do it. I took note of Philbin's part of the introduction. Mostly the part of Pelosi's directives to inquiry committees without the requisite House votes. Omissions galore from the prosecution as expected, no surprise there. A weak case that will go nowhere. My prediction so far is an easy acquittal. Not sure why you included my post here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 8, 2024 16:25:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2020 14:20:30 GMT -5
I took note of Philbin's part of the introduction. Mostly the part of Pelosi's directives to inquiry committees without the requisite House votes. Omissions galore from the prosecution as expected, no surprise there. A weak case that will go nowhere. My prediction so far is an easy acquittal. Was an accident billisonboard , reposted as a separate here. Original quote deleted.
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Jan 25, 2020 14:29:34 GMT -5
No you are wrong. I did listen impartially it was hard but I did. Listening to Shiff.. he made alot ot really good points on being above the law and democracy. In the end thou I still asked myself where is the proof to back up any of the talk. There wasn't any all hear say. At least with Nixon they took the time to go to court to override his executive decision. Ask your selves why did they not bother to go to court to have the subpoenas enforced? I would feel the same way about a dem president, you don't go and unseat the president just because you don't like the way he governs. Trump very may well have political intentions when asking Ukrain to investigate Biden. Without proof he gets the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what you did or do in your life but I sure hope it was nothing to do in law enforcement or a lawyer because your standard of proof is quite low. Like most dems you rather go with feeling than proof. There wasn't enough proof to impeach, I think there was enough to keep investigating but they stopped quite short. Actually if I was a democrat I would be pissed for having a the slightest possible chance of getting rid of Trump but screwing it all up by rushing it. "Trump very may well have political intentions when asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. Without proof he gets the benefit of the doubt."As I stated...there was for me and so many others plenty of proof that he was attempting to blackmail the President of the Ukraine to put dirt on Biden to help the Donald in his reelection campaign...thus he gets no benefit of the doubt from me.. That u say u don't see it...u do see it , kind of admitting it in your copied post above, but it is information u don't want to see or accept because u are a Donald lover on all things, or at least, not comfortable accepting his many failings.. Your correct, I had nothing to do with law enforcement or being a lawyer beyond never having to personally deal with either of those two fields, beyond a semi friendly divorce.. What I did in my life was nothing beyond what most of us do...Work till I retired, raised two kids, both doing 50% better then I, saved a few bucks...some lucky good investments..got called to serve my country and did so...no bone spurs for me damn it..would have taken them in a GD minute. Saw action..even volunteered for the river patrols...extra $ paid plus some excitement, {young and going to live forever ,LOL} shed a bit of blood...got some decorations and got out almost 100% ok... Definitely have a seriouse dislike of the Donald...Man is a brute, a coward, dishonest, has a mental condition, Narsism}, raped a young prostitute when younger..{yes he did, numerouse times}.not a man to emulate. If not prejudiced himself, definitely caters to those who are and welcomes them into his supportive base...enjoys and promotes the divisions of the country..does everything he can to get different sides battling each other, no desire to heal or bring country together...concerns are to promote himself and family, not the welfare of the country.... I could continue and fill the page but it won't make any difference to you or other supporters of the man. I don't understand why to be honest, your undying support unless u are part of that group that is prejudiced and if so , then there is no reasoning with u...or they. Well if you are ok with he said she said for proof, then fine for you my standards are much higher. I for one still hold onto innocent until proven guilty. As far as Trump being indicted yes that is a stain actually a stain for the whole country. The dems voted to impeach with no real proof. They couldn't get even 1 republican so they can say bi-partisan support. This impeachment weakened the whole impeachment process forever. When Shiff was talking about our allies and what they were thinking when we withheld aid from Ukraine i was thinking what are they thinking about our country as a whole where a political party hates their president so much they will try to remove him with no real evidence to do so and absolutely no support from the other political party. The dems did this not Trump. Contrary to what you may believe i have no problem with removing Trump if there was real evidence (a paper trail would be helpful), but the dems couldn't wait and enforce the subpoenas they had to rush it and in essence they blew it. Makes a person wonder why -- oh we know why it is all political nothing to do with breaking the law. They know none of the Dem candidates can beat Trump, Pence on the other hand they may have half a shot. You are the one that hates Trump so much that you want to see what is not there, you are will to say ok lets connect the dots, well we have to assume this is what he meant. That is not sufficient proof. Oh by the way no rape either. You might as well get over it he is going to be here for another 5 years. I also believe Biden is dirty as hell with this Ukraine thing, but there is no proof so I have no problem in saying he is innocent.
|
|