Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's acceptable behavior for an American president as long as the president isn't Donald Trump.

---

Bill Clinton couldn't even have a tawdry affair without getting impeached, Sam.

Your ability to ignore Trump's criminal behavior is only topped by your ability to ignore/defend/claim-irrelevant sexual abuse of children and women by priests. There's a pattern; if the authority is the one you choose (for all of us), then they're inerrant.

---

Sexual abuse by priests is highly relevant to some issues, and not to others. It's not relevant to the soundness of Catholic moral teaching, as much as you might wish it to be.

---

If those entrusted with preserving Catholic moral teachings and passing them along feel no compunction to follow those teachings themselves--especially by abusing children and women whose faith might be lost along with their innocence and ability to trust--then it's highly relevant.

If the Church wants people to follow a strict moral code, those entrusted with protecting and defending that moral code, up to and including excommunication of people whose sins are deemed so egregious the Church will not allow them to remain among the fellowship, then those priests had better be exemplars of that code. And be held accountable by their fellows and superiors and Church membership when they aren't.

Just as when the president, who is entrusted with protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States, feels no compunction to follow that constitution and, instead, abusing the power of his office for his own personal gain, that's highly relevant.

It means he violated his oath of office. In this case, I don't think Trump is even capable of understanding it. And, like many faithful Catholics, his followers and the GOP as a party hasn't and won't hold him accountable. Republicans either deny his behavior or acknowledge it and say that his agenda justifies it. "The end justifies the means" may work politically, but not constitutionally.

So the rest of us must, since the GOP has now almost completely crossed over to become the party of Trump--rather than defending and protecting the constitution, Republicans are protecting and defending Trump.

The Church is facing lawsuits in several states re: abuse and its coverup.

Trump will face impeachment.

Whether it was politically expedient--and I think the jury is out on that--the Democrats had absolutely no choice but to bring charges when this whistleblower complaint came out.

---

To what extent would you be willing to "protect and defend" the Constitution when you believe the SCOTUS has ruled incorrectly? Serious question, BTW. I don't have a good answer.

---

Courts make mistakes all the time. Judges acquit people who are guilty. They convict people who are innocent. Our government executes some of thse people, and even if they're proven innocent, some prosecutors won't back off and still try to enforce the death penalty.

People who shouldn't be are indicted and tried. People who should be get off scott free.

Judges are often baffled by evidence in complex trials and rule the wrong way for the wrong reasons (I work with a copyright law scholar who thinks courts are particularly bad at music copyright cases.) That's why we have appellate courts and a Supreme Court--because we know courts aren't always going to get it right.

I think the judges on the Supreme Court try as hard as they can to get it right, but that's a hard job.

Just because the rule of law is imperfect, because the people who sit in judgment are imperfect, doesn't mean we should reject the system altogether.

Either we have a constitutional democracy or we don't.

Last I checked, we still do.

Are you seriously prepared to chuck the whole constitution and our democratic system of government because you don't like one or two SCOTUS decisions? To the extent of enabling our president to use aid granted to foreign governments by Congress as leverage to gain personal favors from foreign leaders (who are otherwise afraid Trump won't release their aid dollars) like a crime boss threatening to kill your wife and your kids if you don't do an unsavory "favor" for him?

Even when you don't like the decisoin and think it was really wrong--Citizens United is one of those decisions for me--you HAVE to respect the system and the rule of law.

Or we're a dictatorship--which is the way Trump has behaved from the start, when his office issued a bunch of unconstitutional executive orders that courts smacked down, to using tactics like withholding Ukraine's U.S. aid until they investigate his political rival (can you imagine the stink Trump would have raised had Biden urged, say, Israel, to investigate Jared's business dealings with. say, the Saudis, to gain his support for more aid to Israel? And it's amusing to hear Republicans tut-tutting about Hunter when Jared's dealings with the Saudis have compromised our foreign policy there, Don Jr. and Eric have dealings all over the world, Ivanka has copyrights, Elaine Chao is busily selling us out to the Chinese to help her family while her husband busily obstructs democracy, etc etc etc--people in glass houses stupidly throwing rocks.

Although this impeachment hearing may be the death knell if Republicans obstruct justice and oversight--which White House staff and some congressman and senators have been doing since the start of theTrump administration.

I think that, right now, Republicans are looking at short-term gains--we can stack SCOTUS and overturn Roe v. Wade--at the expense of the long-term survival of the GOP. Public policy is a pendelum that establishes an uncomfortable balance. We have swung so far to the right that when the pendelum starts moving the other way, it's going to swing hard and fast.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Democratic senators interfered with Ukrainian prosecutors, too. Not really. Three Democratic senators sent a letter urging Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. government rather than to succumb to any pressure from Trump to withhold cooperation. There was no threat of U.S. policy changes adversely affecting Ukraine, either. So no quo, and a less problematic quid.

---

This may have been true when the three senators wrote that letter in 2018. It's no longer true today:

Quote:

---

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear by his own account that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden's family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's "most important asset" and it would be viewed as election meddling and "disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations" to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

---

---

First, the main meddling is going the other way and we need to just GTFO of Ukraine and a few other places.

Second, this is quite similar to what Trump did, only there is no favor being requested to benefit Murphy's re-election campaign. Did he ask for a future meeting with his campaign lawyer, as Trump did with Giuliani?

---

Seriously. Is the point that Democrats are wrong? If so, the President's actions were MUCH worse. If it's that this was fine, then -once again- no quid. No quo.

---

The quid pro quo is fairly explicit: "Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's 'most important asset' and it would be viewed as election meddling and 'disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations' to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani."

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. It's the kind of thing politicians do all the time.

---

That is one tenth as explicit as the quid pro quo conservatives are saying didn't happen.

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways. We know the concept is bankrupt, but now we're just beginning to judge the level to which your tribalism has risen.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Democratic senators interfered with Ukrainian prosecutors, too. Not really. Three Democratic senators sent a letter urging Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. government rather than to succumb to any pressure from Trump to withhold cooperation. There was no threat of U.S. policy changes adversely affecting Ukraine, either. So no quo, and a less problematic quid.

---

This may have been true when the three senators wrote that letter in 2018. It's no longer true today:

Quote:

---

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear by his own account that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden's family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's "most important asset" and it would be viewed as election meddling and "disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations" to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

---

---

First, the main meddling is going the other way and we need to just GTFO of Ukraine and a few other places.

Second, this is quite similar to what Trump did, only there is no favor being requested to benefit Murphy's re-election campaign. Did he ask for a future meeting with his campaign lawyer, as Trump did with Giuliani?

---

Seriously. Is the point that Democrats are wrong? If so, the President's actions were MUCH worse. If it's that this was fine, then -once again- no quid. No quo.

---

The quid pro quo is fairly explicit: "Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's 'most important asset' and it would be viewed as election meddling and 'disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations' to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani."

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. It's the kind of thing politicians do all the time.

---

That is one tenth as explicit as the quid pro quo conservatives are saying didn't happen.

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways. We know the concept is bankrupt, but now we're just beginning to judge the level to which your tribalism has risen.

---

Ok, cinque

---

Yeah, I'd want to change the subject, too if I was getting owned like this.

Face it. Your boy Donny is a verifiable piece of ****, and you're carrying water for him. Enjoy your legacy!

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Democratic senators interfered with Ukrainian prosecutors, too. Not really. Three Democratic senators sent a letter urging Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. government rather than to succumb to any pressure from Trump to withhold cooperation. There was no threat of U.S. policy changes adversely affecting Ukraine, either. So no quo, and a less problematic quid.

---

This may have been true when the three senators wrote that letter in 2018. It's no longer true today:

Quote:

---

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear by his own account that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden's family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's "most important asset" and it would be viewed as election meddling and "disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations" to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

---

---

First, the main meddling is going the other way and we need to just GTFO of Ukraine and a few other places.

Second, this is quite similar to what Trump did, only there is no favor being requested to benefit Murphy's re-election campaign. Did he ask for a future meeting with his campaign lawyer, as Trump did with Giuliani?

---

Seriously. Is the point that Democrats are wrong? If so, the President's actions were MUCH worse. If it's that this was fine, then -once again- no quid. No quo.

---

The quid pro quo is fairly explicit: "Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's 'most important asset' and it would be viewed as election meddling and 'disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations' to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani."

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. It's the kind of thing politicians do all the time.

---

That is one tenth as explicit as the quid pro quo conservatives are saying didn't happen.

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways. We know the concept is bankrupt, but now we're just beginning to judge the level to which your tribalism has risen.

---

Ok, cinque

---

Yeah, I'd want to change the subject, too if I was getting owned like this.

Face it. Your boy Donny is a verifiable piece of ****, and you're carrying water for him. Enjoy your legacy!

---

Whatever cinque....I have no regrets voting for Trump. Maybe if Dems would nominate a decent candidate, but that's not happening so it's Trump 2020 for me.

I am enjoying the legacy,,,lower taxes!

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

The baby killing collectivists of the left will never occupy the moral high ground regardless of the President's actions.

---

Trump can do anything because abortion.

---

Pretty sure you're capable of understanding that's not the point.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Democratic senators interfered with Ukrainian prosecutors, too. Not really. Three Democratic senators sent a letter urging Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. government rather than to succumb to any pressure from Trump to withhold cooperation. There was no threat of U.S. policy changes adversely affecting Ukraine, either. So no quo, and a less problematic quid.

---

This may have been true when the three senators wrote that letter in 2018. It's no longer true today:

Quote:

---

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear by his own account that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden's family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's "most important asset" and it would be viewed as election meddling and "disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations" to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

---

---

First, the main meddling is going the other way and we need to just GTFO of Ukraine and a few other places.

Second, this is quite similar to what Trump did, only there is no favor being requested to benefit Murphy's re-election campaign. Did he ask for a future meeting with his campaign lawyer, as Trump did with Giuliani?

---

Seriously. Is the point that Democrats are wrong? If so, the President's actions were MUCH worse. If it's that this was fine, then -once again- no quid. No quo.

---

The quid pro quo is fairly explicit: "Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's 'most important asset' and it would be viewed as election meddling and 'disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations' to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani."

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. It's the kind of thing politicians do all the time.

---

That is one tenth as explicit as the quid pro quo conservatives are saying didn't happen.

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways. We know the concept is bankrupt, but now we're just beginning to judge the level to which your tribalism has risen.

---

Ok, cinque

---

Yeah, I'd want to change the subject, too if I was getting owned like this.

Face it. Your boy Donny is a verifiable piece of ****, and you're carrying water for him. Enjoy your legacy!

---

Whatever cinque....I have no regrets voting for Trump. Maybe if Dems would nominate a decent candidate, but that's not happening so it's Trump 2020 for me.

I am enjoying the legacy,,,lower taxes!

---

I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
"I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

curtpenn said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

To what extent would you be willing to "protect and defend" the Constitution when you believe the SCOTUS has ruled incorrectly? Serious question, BTW. I don't have a good answer.

---

Courts make mistakes all the time. Judges acquit people who are guilty. They convict people who are innocent. Our government executes some of thse people, and even if they're proven innocent, some prosecutors won't back off and still try to enforce the death penalty.

People who shouldn't be are indicted and tried. People who should be get off scott free.

Judges are often baffled by evidence in complex trials and rule the wrong way for the wrong reasons (I work with a copyright law scholar who thinks courts are particularly bad at music copyright cases.) That's why we have appellate courts and a Supreme Court--because we know courts aren't always going to get it right.

I think the judges on the Supreme Court try as hard as they can to get it right, but that's a hard job.

Just because the rule of law is imperfect, because the people who sit in judgment are imperfect, doesn't mean we should reject the system altogether.

Either we have a constitutional democracy or we don't.

Last I checked, we still do.

Are you seriously prepared to chuck the whole constitution and our democratic system of government because you don't like one or two SCOTUS decisions? To the extent of enabling our president to use aid granted to foreign governments by Congress as leverage to gain personal favors from foreign leaders (who are otherwise afraid Trump won't release their aid dollars) like a crime boss threatening to kill your wife and your kids if you don't do an unsavory "favor" for him?

Even when you don't like the decisoin and think it was really wrong--Citizens United is one of those decisions for me--you HAVE to respect the system and the rule of law.

Or we're a dictatorship--which is the way Trump has behaved from the start, when his office issued a bunch of unconstitutional executive orders that courts smacked down, to using tactics like withholding Ukraine's U.S. aid until they investigate his political rival (can you imagine the stink Trump would have raised had Biden urged, say, Israel, to investigate Jared's business dealings with. say, the Saudis, to gain his support for more aid to Israel? And it's amusing to hear Republicans tut-tutting about Hunter when Jared's dealings with the Saudis have compromised our foreign policy there, Don Jr. and Eric have dealings all over the world, Ivanka has copyrights, Elaine Chao is busily selling us out to the Chinese to help her family while her husband busily obstructs democracy, etc etc etc--people in glass houses stupidly throwing rocks.

Although this impeachment hearing may be the death knell if Republicans obstruct justice and oversight--which White House staff and some congressman and senators have been doing since the start of theTrump administration.

I think that, right now, Republicans are looking at short-term gains--we can stack SCOTUS and overturn Roe v. Wade--at the expense of the long-term survival of the GOP. Public policy is a pendelum that establishes an uncomfortable balance. We have swung so far to the right that when the pendelum starts moving the other way, it's going to swing hard and fast.

---

As I mentioned, I don't have an answer re good solutions to a judiciary in error. Whatever is going on with the Ukraine, I don't see how anyone can see that as anything other than politics as usual since the dawn of time. I also don't see how anyone can claim the pendulum has "swung so far to the right". Guess it depends on where you're standing.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

You might have Mike Pompeo for company. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that he was on that phone call. So he either thought that criminal behavior was OK or he helped cover it up.

Mike Pompeo either didn't or participated in covering it up, because he was on the phone call

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Democratic senators interfered with Ukrainian prosecutors, too. Not really. Three Democratic senators sent a letter urging Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. government rather than to succumb to any pressure from Trump to withhold cooperation. There was no threat of U.S. policy changes adversely affecting Ukraine, either. So no quo, and a less problematic quid.

---

This may have been true when the three senators wrote that letter in 2018. It's no longer true today:

Quote:

---

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear by his own account that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden's family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's "most important asset" and it would be viewed as election meddling and "disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations" to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

---

---

First, the main meddling is going the other way and we need to just GTFO of Ukraine and a few other places.

Second, this is quite similar to what Trump did, only there is no favor being requested to benefit Murphy's re-election campaign. Did he ask for a future meeting with his campaign lawyer, as Trump did with Giuliani?

---

Seriously. Is the point that Democrats are wrong? If so, the President's actions were MUCH worse. If it's that this was fine, then -once again- no quid. No quo.

---

The quid pro quo is fairly explicit: "Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's 'most important asset' and it would be viewed as election meddling and 'disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations' to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani."

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. It's the kind of thing politicians do all the time.

---

That is one tenth as explicit as the quid pro quo conservatives are saying didn't happen.

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways. We know the concept is bankrupt, but now we're just beginning to judge the level to which your tribalism has risen.

---

Ok, cinque

---

Yeah, I'd want to change the subject, too if I was getting owned like this.

Face it. Your boy Donny is a verifiable piece of ****, and you're carrying water for him. Enjoy your legacy!

---

Whatever cinque....I have no regrets voting for Trump. Maybe if Dems would nominate a decent candidate, but that's not happening so it's Trump 2020 for me.

I am enjoying the legacy,,,lower taxes!

---

I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?

---

Deficits have been exploding for several presidents, but blame this one
The economy is doing great! unemployment numbers are fantastic! Especially for minorities!
Our government bails out everyone...Obama bailed out banks..yet blame Trump
Constant scandals? Yes, created by Dems.
Babies in cages? You're kidding with this one right?
Stealing Money? You're crazy.

Looks like no one else is really getting fcked, like YOU say...except people who want to come here illegally and those who want socialism.

Again, I feel great. and judging by your all caps cinque, you're off your meds again.

---

quash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Democratic senators interfered with Ukrainian prosecutors, too. Not really. Three Democratic senators sent a letter urging Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. government rather than to succumb to any pressure from Trump to withhold cooperation. There was no threat of U.S. policy changes adversely affecting Ukraine, either. So no quo, and a less problematic quid.

---

This may have been true when the three senators wrote that letter in 2018. It's no longer true today:

Quote:

---

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear by his own account that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden's family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's "most important asset" and it would be viewed as election meddling and "disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations" to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

---

---

First, the main meddling is going the other way and we need to just GTFO of Ukraine and a few other places.

Second, this is quite similar to what Trump did, only there is no favor being requested to benefit Murphy's re-election campaign. Did he ask for a future meeting with his campaign lawyer, as Trump did with Giuliani?

---

Seriously. Is the point that Democrats are wrong? If so, the President's actions were MUCH worse. If it's that this was fine, then -once again- no quid. No quo.

---

The quid pro quo is fairly explicit: "Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's 'most important asset' and it would be viewed as election meddling and 'disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations' to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani."

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. It's the kind of thing politicians do all the time.

---

That is one tenth as explicit as the quid pro quo conservatives are saying didn't happen.

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways. We know the concept is bankrupt, but now we're just beginning to judge the level to which your tribalism has risen.

---

Ok, cinque

---

Yeah, I'd want to change the subject, too if I was getting owned like this.

Face it. Your boy Donny is a verifiable piece of ****, and you're carrying water for him. Enjoy your legacy!

---

Whatever cinque....I have no regrets voting for Trump. Maybe if Dems would nominate a decent candidate, but that's not happening so it's Trump 2020 for me.

I am enjoying the legacy,,,lower taxes!

---

I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?

---

Deficits have been exploding for several presidents, but blame this one
The economy is doing great! unemployment numbers are fantastic! Especially for minorities!
Our government bails out everyone...Obama bailed out banks..yet blame Trump
Constant scandals? Yes, created by Dems.
Babies in cages? You're kidding with this one right?
Stealing Money? You're crazy.

Looks like no one else is really getting fcked, like YOU say...except people who want to come here illegally and those who want socialism.

Again, I feel great. and judging by your all caps cinque, you're off your meds again.

---

The economy is doing great because, in part, federal spending is goosing the gas. If you make $75k next year and spend an additional $25k on fun and games you'll declare it a great year. But about that $25k in credit card debt...

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

To what extent would you be willing to "protect and defend" the Constitution when you believe the SCOTUS has ruled incorrectly? Serious question, BTW. I don't have a good answer.

---

Courts make mistakes all the time. Judges acquit people who are guilty. They convict people who are innocent. Our government executes some of thse people, and even if they're proven innocent, some prosecutors won't back off and still try to enforce the death penalty.

People who shouldn't be are indicted and tried. People who should be get off scott free.

Judges are often baffled by evidence in complex trials and rule the wrong way for the wrong reasons (I work with a copyright law scholar who thinks courts are particularly bad at music copyright cases.) That's why we have appellate courts and a Supreme Court--because we know courts aren't always going to get it right.

I think the judges on the Supreme Court try as hard as they can to get it right, but that's a hard job.

Just because the rule of law is imperfect, because the people who sit in judgment are imperfect, doesn't mean we should reject the system altogether.

Either we have a constitutional democracy or we don't.

Last I checked, we still do.

Are you seriously prepared to chuck the whole constitution and our democratic system of government because you don't like one or two SCOTUS decisions? To the extent of enabling our president to use aid granted to foreign governments by Congress as leverage to gain personal favors from foreign leaders (who are otherwise afraid Trump won't release their aid dollars) like a crime boss threatening to kill your wife and your kids if you don't do an unsavory "favor" for him?

Even when you don't like the decisoin and think it was really wrong--Citizens United is one of those decisions for me--you HAVE to respect the system and the rule of law.

Or we're a dictatorship--which is the way Trump has behaved from the start, when his office issued a bunch of unconstitutional executive orders that courts smacked down, to using tactics like withholding Ukraine's U.S. aid until they investigate his political rival (can you imagine the stink Trump would have raised had Biden urged, say, Israel, to investigate Jared's business dealings with. say, the Saudis, to gain his support for more aid to Israel? And it's amusing to hear Republicans tut-tutting about Hunter when Jared's dealings with the Saudis have compromised our foreign policy there, Don Jr. and Eric have dealings all over the world, Ivanka has copyrights, Elaine Chao is busily selling us out to the Chinese to help her family while her husband busily obstructs democracy, etc etc etc--people in glass houses stupidly throwing rocks.

Although this impeachment hearing may be the death knell if Republicans obstruct justice and oversight--which White House staff and some congressman and senators have been doing since the start of theTrump administration.

I think that, right now, Republicans are looking at short-term gains--we can stack SCOTUS and overturn Roe v. Wade--at the expense of the long-term survival of the GOP. Public policy is a pendelum that establishes an uncomfortable balance. We have swung so far to the right that when the pendelum starts moving the other way, it's going to swing hard and fast.

---

As I mentioned, I don't have an answer re good solutions to a judiciary in error. Whatever is going on with the Ukraine, I don't see how anyone can see that as anything other than politics as usual since the dawn of time. I also don't see how anyone can claim the pendulum has "swung so far to the right". Guess it depends on where you're standing.

---

Other presidents have not withheld U.S. aid to foreign countries so they could attempt to use it to get a foreign government to hurt a political opponent.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

---

fadskier said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Does BBL get paid to post like Cinque

---

I received a PM saying that they are the same person.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Does BBL get paid to post like Cinque

---

I received a PM saying that they are the same person.

---

Welp. It's good to know your bad takes aren't limited to politics.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

quash said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

quash said:

---

Democratic senators interfered with Ukrainian prosecutors, too. Not really. Three Democratic senators sent a letter urging Ukraine to cooperate with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. government rather than to succumb to any pressure from Trump to withhold cooperation. There was no threat of U.S. policy changes adversely affecting Ukraine, either. So no quo, and a less problematic quid.

---

This may have been true when the three senators wrote that letter in 2018. It's no longer true today:

Quote:

---

Earlier this month, during a bipartisan meeting in Kiev, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) delivered a pointed message to Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

While choosing his words carefully, Murphy made clear by his own account that Ukraine currently enjoyed bipartisan support for its U.S. aid but that could be jeopardized if the new president acquiesced to requests by President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani to investigate past corruption allegations involving Americans, including former Vice President Joe Biden's family.

Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's "most important asset" and it would be viewed as election meddling and "disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations" to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani.

"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American politics. I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them," Murphy told me today, confirming what he told Ukraine's leader.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/462658-lets-get-real-democrats-were-first-to-enlist-ukraine-in-us-elections

---

---

First, the main meddling is going the other way and we need to just GTFO of Ukraine and a few other places.

Second, this is quite similar to what Trump did, only there is no favor being requested to benefit Murphy's re-election campaign. Did he ask for a future meeting with his campaign lawyer, as Trump did with Giuliani?

---

Seriously. Is the point that Democrats are wrong? If so, the President's actions were MUCH worse. If it's that this was fine, then -once again- no quid. No quo.

---

The quid pro quo is fairly explicit: "Murphy boasted after the meeting that he told the new Ukrainian leader that U.S. aid was his country's 'most important asset' and it would be viewed as election meddling and 'disastrous for long-term U.S.-Ukraine relations' to bend to the wishes of Trump and Giuliani."

Of course there's nothing wrong with it. It's the kind of thing politicians do all the time.

---

That is one tenth as explicit as the quid pro quo conservatives are saying didn't happen.

Once again, you're trying to have it both ways. We know the concept is bankrupt, but now we're just beginning to judge the level to which your tribalism has risen.

---

Ok, cinque

---

Yeah, I'd want to change the subject, too if I was getting owned like this.

Face it. Your boy Donny is a verifiable piece of ****, and you're carrying water for him. Enjoy your legacy!

---

Whatever cinque....I have no regrets voting for Trump. Maybe if Dems would nominate a decent candidate, but that's not happening so it's Trump 2020 for me.

I am enjoying the legacy,,,lower taxes!

---

I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
BBL : "I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
BBL : "I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

You might have Mike Pompeo for company. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that he was on that phone call. So he either thought that criminal behavior was OK or he helped cover it up.

Mike Pompeo either didn't or participated in covering it up, because he was on the phone call

---

Or Pompeo didn't think it was criminal behavior that needed to be covered up

---

SOMEBODY tried to cover it up. And other self-serving Trump manuvers. If Pompeo viewed this as business as usual working for Trump, that's not comforting.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
BBL : "I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

You need other people's money to supplement your mediocrity.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
BBL : "I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

You need other people's money to supplement your mediocrity.

---

What? As opposed to someone like you, who is mediocre with his own money?

Weird flex.

Also, you're deflecting because the piece of **** you're supporting is turning out to be verifiably corrupt. And you're not man enough to admit it.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
BBL : "I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

You need other people's money to supplement your mediocrity.

---

What? As opposed to someone like you, who is mediocre with his own money?

Weird flex.

Also, you're deflecting because the piece of **** you're supporting is turning out to be verifiably corrupt. And you're not man enough to admit it.

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
BBL : "I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

You need other people's money to supplement your mediocrity.

---

What? As opposed to someone like you, who is mediocre with his own money?

Weird flex.

Also, you're deflecting because the piece of **** you're supporting is turning out to be verifiably corrupt. And you're not man enough to admit it.

---

And you're too stupid to understand many of us don't care how corrupt he may allegedly be given the alternatives. Rant all you like. Don't care. Hurl all the invective you like. Don't care. Use whatever ad hominem you like. Don't care. Whatever his shortcomings, your team is infinitely worse. And you're not man enough to admit it.

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

To what extent would you be willing to "protect and defend" the Constitution when you believe the SCOTUS has ruled incorrectly? Serious question, BTW. I don't have a good answer.

---

Courts make mistakes all the time. Judges acquit people who are guilty. They convict people who are innocent. Our government executes some of thse people, and even if they're proven innocent, some prosecutors won't back off and still try to enforce the death penalty.

People who shouldn't be are indicted and tried. People who should be get off scott free.

Judges are often baffled by evidence in complex trials and rule the wrong way for the wrong reasons (I work with a copyright law scholar who thinks courts are particularly bad at music copyright cases.) That's why we have appellate courts and a Supreme Court--because we know courts aren't always going to get it right.

I think the judges on the Supreme Court try as hard as they can to get it right, but that's a hard job.

Just because the rule of law is imperfect, because the people who sit in judgment are imperfect, doesn't mean we should reject the system altogether.

Either we have a constitutional democracy or we don't.

Last I checked, we still do.

Are you seriously prepared to chuck the whole constitution and our democratic system of government because you don't like one or two SCOTUS decisions? To the extent of enabling our president to use aid granted to foreign governments by Congress as leverage to gain personal favors from foreign leaders (who are otherwise afraid Trump won't release their aid dollars) like a crime boss threatening to kill your wife and your kids if you don't do an unsavory "favor" for him?

Even when you don't like the decisoin and think it was really wrong--Citizens United is one of those decisions for me--you HAVE to respect the system and the rule of law.

Or we're a dictatorship--which is the way Trump has behaved from the start, when his office issued a bunch of unconstitutional executive orders that courts smacked down, to using tactics like withholding Ukraine's U.S. aid until they investigate his political rival (can you imagine the stink Trump would have raised had Biden urged, say, Israel, to investigate Jared's business dealings with. say, the Saudis, to gain his support for more aid to Israel? And it's amusing to hear Republicans tut-tutting about Hunter when Jared's dealings with the Saudis have compromised our foreign policy there, Don Jr. and Eric have dealings all over the world, Ivanka has copyrights, Elaine Chao is busily selling us out to the Chinese to help her family while her husband busily obstructs democracy, etc etc etc--people in glass houses stupidly throwing rocks.

Although this impeachment hearing may be the death knell if Republicans obstruct justice and oversight--which White House staff and some congressman and senators have been doing since the start of theTrump administration.

I think that, right now, Republicans are looking at short-term gains--we can stack SCOTUS and overturn Roe v. Wade--at the expense of the long-term survival of the GOP. Public policy is a pendelum that establishes an uncomfortable balance. We have swung so far to the right that when the pendelum starts moving the other way, it's going to swing hard and fast.

---

As I mentioned, I don't have an answer re good solutions to a judiciary in error. Whatever is going on with the Ukraine, I don't see how anyone can see that as anything other than politics as usual since the dawn of time. I also don't see how anyone can claim the pendulum has "swung so far to the right". Guess it depends on where you're standing.

---

Other presidents have not withheld U.S. aid to foreign countries so they could attempt to use it to get a foreign government to hurt a political opponent.

If you don't see exactly how bad that is, especially being as how the U.S. supposed led the U.N. coalition to help set up an accountable government in Iraq after we toppled Saddam, then I can't help you.

You might have Mike Pompeo for company. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that he was on that phone call. So he either thought that criminal behavior was OK or he helped cover it up.

Mike Pompeo either didn't or participated in covering it up, because he was on the phone call

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
BBL : "I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

You need other people's money to supplement your mediocrity.

---

What? As opposed to someone like you, who is mediocre with his own money?

Weird flex.

Also, you're deflecting because the piece of **** you're supporting is turning out to be verifiably corrupt. And you're not man enough to admit it.

---

And you're too stupid to understand many of us don't care how corrupt he may allegedly be given the alternatives. Rant all you like. Don't care. Hurl all the invective you like. Don't care. Use whatever ad hominem you like. Don't care. Whatever his shortcomings, your team is infinitely worse. And you're not man enough to admit it.

---

It's almost refreshing to see you openly admit you have no principles.

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And now it's come out that lawyers for the House may have proof Trump lied to mueller about his campaign's contact with Wikileaks.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

And now it's come out that lawyers for the House may have proof Trump lied to mueller about his campaign's contact with Wikileaks.

---

Don't think that word means what you think it means. Wanting to be updated about Wikileaks' activities is hardly the same thing as communicating with Wikileaks. Millions of people have followed Wikileaks' activities.

---

Canada2017 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

"Do me a favor... l and re-read bbl 's post
BBL : "I'm not surprised you have "no regrets" voting for Trump. The ability for someone to feel shame is required, first.

EXPLODING DEFICITS! KILLING THE ECONOMY! MASSIVE BAILOUTS FOR FARMERS BECAUSE OF STUPID TRADE WARS! CONSTANT SCANDALS! BABIES IN CAGES! STEALING MONEY FROM CHILDREN OF MILITARY PERSONNEL TO BUY A WALL MEXICO WAS SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR!

You get your money, **** everyone else, right?"

---

You need other people's money to supplement your mediocrity.

---

What? As opposed to someone like you, who is mediocre with his own money?

Weird flex.

Also, you're deflecting because the piece of **** you're supporting is turning out to be verifiably corrupt. And you're not man enough to admit it.

---

If a stable 40 year marriage to a brilliant woman , with 3 wonderful adult offspring, 2 fantastic grandsons, one awesome son in law, a good relationship with my forgiving Lord and enough money to do whatever I want .........is mediocrity...... guilty as charged .


Granted it's not as impressive as being a 30 something year old still hiding from in the graduate department of a private university.......


But one does the best one can.


And YES living off your own money is far superior to sponging off others......even if one claims to be a 'minister '.

And I'm 'man enough ' to see Trumps flaws......and smart enough to know that leftists like you are far more corrupt.

As well as morally bankrupt.

Have a great day !

---