BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Democracy is over rated because of its over dependence on the quality of the demos. Biden and Kerry are up to their eyeballs in corruption, but pay no attention to that. Those of you in thrall to the party of neo-serfdom just can't stand individual liberty and will use any pretext to destroy our republic.

---

"Democracy is over-rated"???

This from the same poster who claims the DEMOCRATS are fascists?

And this post got 5 approval stars on a forum where most people purport to be Christians and good, freedom loving Americans and huff and puff about unlimited gun rights? (I guess some freedoms have more value than others.)

I can understand that you oppose some or even all of the policy positions Democrats generally support.

But the idea that "democracy is overrated" because a majority of Americans might not vote for the candidates and policies you support, and that this therefore justifies the sort of behavior Trump enaged it--using federal aid dollars (and don't you guys generally oppose foreign aid?) as leverage to get a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen realted to a political opponent--is downright Soviet.

And YOU are accusing the DEMOCRATS of being socialists and fascists?

Would you also support the institution of a gulag into which Trump could disappear his political enemies?

You certainly supported the institution of a gular into which refugee kids were disappeared.

---

Democracy terrified the Founders. That's why we have an electoral college, a bicameral legislature, and lifetime appointments for judges.

---

Aaaand blacks were only 3/5 a person.

The founders were a little stupid, too. Let's not fetishize them too much.

---

All political systems have their perils. Let's not fetishize any of them too much.

---

I wasn't fetishizing any of them. But thanks for agreeing with me.

The genius of the founders was that they knew they didn't know it all. That's why they baked in the ability to change.

---

Adding to what I said earlier about Trump. It looks more and more like the phone call was part of a legitimate inquiry regarding not only Biden but the whole origin of the Russia investigation. Trump has every right to do this even if it does happen to benefit him politically. It also appears that Congress considered passing a law that would have required him to release the funds, implying that this was not the case before. So I'll go on record: as the facts now stand, Trump did nothing wrong.

---

No, Sam. It wasn't. You have to know that by now. Even his own party is struggling to defend him on this. It wasn't legitimate. It could not be when you look at it in context.

---

Facts say otherwise. Your TDS blinds you and y'all will do anything to stop a legitimately elected president.

---

I'm sorry, but that's verifiably false. Pelosi had to be dragged to this kicking and screaming. If Dems were just out to get him, why wait this long?

It's telling that at this point you're not even defending specific things. Not even defending him.

You're just attacking the Democrats who are actually doing their constitutionally mandates job.

He got caught using his office to pressure another country to help his election prospects. He should be working for the people.

Not himself.

---

Please quote specifically where in the call transcript that Trump pressured Ukraine to help his election prospects. Where's the quid pro quo? Be specific.

It isn't there and they know it. The entire point was to plant the impeachment seed and put Trump on the defensive. He turned the tables by releasing the entire transcript.

It is another manufactured crisis which explains why the whistleblower regulation was secretly changed.

quash said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

It isn't there and they know it. The entire point was to plant the impeachment seed and put Trump on the defensive. He turned the tables by releasing the entire transcript.

It is another manufactured crisis which explains why the whistleblower regulation was secretly changed.

---

Lulz. Secretly.

Just because it didn't make headlines doesn't mean it was secret.

And the regulation did not change, only the submission form. The regulation never required firsthand info.

---

Makes you wonder why the people with the actual knowledge did not feel the need to blow their whistles.

But the CIA guy with help from his friends and a newly edited form . . . Boom.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Democracy is over rated because of its over dependence on the quality of the demos. Biden and Kerry are up to their eyeballs in corruption, but pay no attention to that. Those of you in thrall to the party of neo-serfdom just can't stand individual liberty and will use any pretext to destroy our republic.

---

"Democracy is over-rated"???

This from the same poster who claims the DEMOCRATS are fascists?

And this post got 5 approval stars on a forum where most people purport to be Christians and good, freedom loving Americans and huff and puff about unlimited gun rights? (I guess some freedoms have more value than others.)

I can understand that you oppose some or even all of the policy positions Democrats generally support.

But the idea that "democracy is overrated" because a majority of Americans might not vote for the candidates and policies you support, and that this therefore justifies the sort of behavior Trump enaged it--using federal aid dollars (and don't you guys generally oppose foreign aid?) as leverage to get a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen realted to a political opponent--is downright Soviet.

And YOU are accusing the DEMOCRATS of being socialists and fascists?

Would you also support the institution of a gulag into which Trump could disappear his political enemies?

You certainly supported the institution of a gular into which refugee kids were disappeared.

---

Democracy terrified the Founders. That's why we have an electoral college, a bicameral legislature, and lifetime appointments for judges.

---

Aaaand blacks were only 3/5 a person.

The founders were a little stupid, too. Let's not fetishize them too much.

---

All political systems have their perils. Let's not fetishize any of them too much.

---

I wasn't fetishizing any of them. But thanks for agreeing with me.

The genius of the founders was that they knew they didn't know it all. That's why they baked in the ability to change.

---

Adding to what I said earlier about Trump. It looks more and more like the phone call was part of a legitimate inquiry regarding not only Biden but the whole origin of the Russia investigation. Trump has every right to do this even if it does happen to benefit him politically. It also appears that Congress considered passing a law that would have required him to release the funds, implying that this was not the case before. So I'll go on record: as the facts now stand, Trump did nothing wrong.

---

No, Sam. It wasn't. You have to know that by now. Even his own party is struggling to defend him on this. It wasn't legitimate. It could not be when you look at it in context.

---

Facts say otherwise. Your TDS blinds you and y'all will do anything to stop a legitimately elected president.

---

I'm sorry, but that's verifiably false. Pelosi had to be dragged to this kicking and screaming. If Dems were just out to get him, why wait this long?

It's telling that at this point you're not even defending specific things. Not even defending him.

You're just attacking the Democrats who are actually doing their constitutionally mandates job.

He got caught using his office to pressure another country to help his election prospects. He should be working for the people.

Not himself.

---

Please quote specifically where in the call transcript that Trump pressured Ukraine to help his election prospects. Where's the quid pro quo? Be specific.

---

"I want you to do me a favor though"

---

Perhaps translated into Ukrainian "I want you to do me a favor though" means the opposite of what the meaning is in English

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

TDS thread

---

It has been said TDS is believing Trump's conduct is acceptable behavior for an American president.

---

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

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

TDS thread

---

It has been said TDS is believing Trump's conduct is acceptable behavior for an American president.

---

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

---

What? Find me an example of any other president doing this and I'll condemn the **** out of it.

---

Okay:

Quote:

---

During the same early 2016 weeks when Chalupa was tapping her Ukrainian sources and giving Democrats a heads-up about a potential Manafort-Trump alliance, NABU investigators and Ukrainian prosecutors journeyed to Washington. There, the Obama administration arranged for them to huddle with the FBI, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the White House's National Security Council (agencies that coordinated frequently throughout the collusion caper). Andrii Telizhenko, a political officer at Ukraine's embassy in Washington, later told The Hill's John Solomon that the U.S. officials uniformly stressed "how important it was that all of our anti-corruption efforts be united." The officials also indicated to their Ukrainian counterparts that they were keen to revive the investigation of payments by Yanukovych's ousted Party of Regions government to an American political consultant i.e., the FBI's Paul Manafort probe. I know this may be hard to believe, but the Obama officials seem to have been less interested in Greg Craig than in Manafort.

Nazar Kholodnitskiy, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor, told Solomon that soon after the January 2016 Washington meetings, he found that Ukrainian officials were effectively meddling in the American presidential election. Another top Ukrainian lawman, Kostiantyn Kulyk, recalled that after the Kiev contingent's return home from the United States, there was lots of buzz about helping the Americans with the Party of Regions investigation.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-manafort-obama-clinton-ukraine

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

TDS thread

---

It has been said TDS is believing Trump's conduct is acceptable behavior for an American president.

---

^^^ Here's a great example of what democrats do

He tries to turn TDS from a democrat mental illness, that he and his cohorts here have, to pro Trumper disease

TS proving he's a trained dimcrat

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Democracy is over rated because of its over dependence on the quality of the demos. Biden and Kerry are up to their eyeballs in corruption, but pay no attention to that. Those of you in thrall to the party of neo-serfdom just can't stand individual liberty and will use any pretext to destroy our republic.

---

"Democracy is over-rated"???

This from the same poster who claims the DEMOCRATS are fascists?

And this post got 5 approval stars on a forum where most people purport to be Christians and good, freedom loving Americans and huff and puff about unlimited gun rights? (I guess some freedoms have more value than others.)

I can understand that you oppose some or even all of the policy positions Democrats generally support.

But the idea that "democracy is overrated" because a majority of Americans might not vote for the candidates and policies you support, and that this therefore justifies the sort of behavior Trump enaged it--using federal aid dollars (and don't you guys generally oppose foreign aid?) as leverage to get a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen realted to a political opponent--is downright Soviet.

And YOU are accusing the DEMOCRATS of being socialists and fascists?

Would you also support the institution of a gulag into which Trump could disappear his political enemies?

You certainly supported the institution of a gular into which refugee kids were disappeared.

---

Democracy terrified the Founders. That's why we have an electoral college, a bicameral legislature, and lifetime appointments for judges.

---

Aaaand blacks were only 3/5 a person.

The founders were a little stupid, too. Let's not fetishize them too much.

---

All political systems have their perils. Let's not fetishize any of them too much.

---

I wasn't fetishizing any of them. But thanks for agreeing with me.

The genius of the founders was that they knew they didn't know it all. That's why they baked in the ability to change.

---

Adding to what I said earlier about Trump. It looks more and more like the phone call was part of a legitimate inquiry regarding not only Biden but the whole origin of the Russia investigation. Trump has every right to do this even if it does happen to benefit him politically. It also appears that Congress considered passing a law that would have required him to release the funds, implying that this was not the case before. So I'll go on record: as the facts now stand, Trump did nothing wrong.

---

No, Sam. It wasn't. You have to know that by now. Even his own party is struggling to defend him on this. It wasn't legitimate. It could not be when you look at it in context.

---

Facts say otherwise. Your TDS blinds you and y'all will do anything to stop a legitimately elected president.

---

I'm sorry, but that's verifiably false. Pelosi had to be dragged to this kicking and screaming. If Dems were just out to get him, why wait this long?

It's telling that at this point you're not even defending specific things. Not even defending him.

You're just attacking the Democrats who are actually doing their constitutionally mandates job.

He got caught using his office to pressure another country to help his election prospects. He should be working for the people.

Not himself.

---

Please quote specifically where in the call transcript that Trump pressured Ukraine to help his election prospects. Where's the quid pro quo? Be specific.

---

"I want you to do me a favor though"

---

Wrong. Finish out the quote......It's about Crowdstrike and their involvement in Hillary's email server and the DNC Russian hacking in 2016. There's no trade. Good try tho.

You've got BBL in a trap, but he's a true dimcrat and will never admit he's wroooong

curtpenn said:

---

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

---

Neither will the religious right. Republicans had control of all three branches twice, and the religious right caught and prevented passing legislation that would have made most abortions illegal, because they couldn't compromise for cases of incest, rape, or when the mother's life was endangered. Instead they chose their way or the highway, so the continuance of abortions rests just as much at their feet as anyone's.

BTW - one doesn't excuse the other.

Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor at National Review, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

You're going to be seeing quotes from Federalist 65 a lot over the next few months. It's the one where Alexander Hamilton explains that because impeachment "will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," it will often "connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other." The outcome, thus, will depend as much on political strength as on truth.


Watching the agitated arguments over impeachment this week, you'd have to say that Hamilton nailed it. The passions he mentioned are leading political combatants on both sides of the issue astray. Representative Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat who has been in Congress for 32 years, has decided that President Donald Trump is guilty of "treason." Not according to the Constitution's definition of the term, he isn't.


Those of us who consume a lot of conservative media are, however, seeing even more flawed arguments in defense of Trump. Here are a few of the leading ones.


There was no quid pro quo in Trump's call with Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelenskiy. It takes willful naivet to read the memorandum of the call released by the White House that way especially given that the Trump administration had held up some aid to Ukraine at the time of the call. In the conversation, Trump said that the U.S. had been good to Ukraine, noted that the relationship was not reciprocal, and then asked for "a favor" and an "other thing."


The "favor" concerned Ukrainian cooperation with an effort by Attorney General Bill Barr to look into a conspiracy theory involving Ukraine and the 2016 elections. The "other thing" was to help Barr and Trump's personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, "get to the bottom" of whether Vice President Joe Biden had intervened to stop a prosecution affecting his son.
It's fine for the president to ask for Ukrainian help in uprooting corruption. It's the administration's right to set its foreign-policy priorities, and fighting corruption has been a low one. The president's interest here was obviously personal. Otherwise there would have been no reason to involve Giuliani, a private lawyer, who had already said that he was "meddling in an investigation" to help his client.
The news media has edited the memorandum of the phone call to make Trump look worse. This is correct. Some outlets have used ellipses to jump from Trump's request for a favor directly to his comment about Biden. In skipping over the conspiracy-theory part of Trump's comment, they made the evidence that Trump was pressuring Ukraine over Biden look stronger than it is. An accurate recounting of the memorandum, though, is strong enough.
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.
It was just a phone call. There's no reason a phone call can't be enough to be worth investigating, or even removing an official from office. But what's under investigation isn't just a phone call anyway. We need to know the motives for the administration's temporary withholding of aid, which are disputed. And Giuliani's comment about meddling came more than two months before the phone call.
The "whistleblower complaint" contains a lot of hearsay. That's true, but the allegations are of sufficiently troubling acts as to be worth investigating.
Russiagate was a hoax, and the same people who spread it are yelling about this. Russia interfered in the 2016 election; the president has repeatedly denied that point; and top aides expressed their willingness to get election help from the Russian government. The idea that there was something worth looking into was no hoax, even if Robert Mueller was unable to show that Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy.
The multiplicity of grounds Trump's enemies have cited to call for impeachment shows they are just after him for partisan reasons. Partisanship is definitely playing a large role, just as Hamilton predicted. Note, though, that this defense of Trump is similar to one Hillary Clinton's fans made over her emails: They've alleged one thing after another about her for decades, so why take this one seriously? It wasn't wrong for Clinton's defenders to point to Republican partisanship. But Clinton also had a history of ethical corner-cutting that kept leading to accusations, some of them justified and some of them unjustified. Trump seems to have a habit of confusing his interests with the country's, and it too is leading to scandal after scandal.
Trump's enemies are trying to annul an election; they can't accept his legitimacy. Trump is the legitimate president, and some of his opponents have foolishly denied it. He was elected fair and square under the process our Constitution lays out. If he's removed from office after an impeachment trial, he'll have exited the presidency under another process the Constitution lays out. And Hillary Clinton won't become president.
Removing a president for high crimes and misdemeanors is not something to be done lightly. There is plenty of room for debate over what counts as an impeachment-worthy offense. It may be wiser to leave a judgment of Trump's conduct to the next election. But if Congress chooses to leave him in office, it shouldn't be based on the weak arguments his defenders are currently making.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

TDS thread

---

It has been said TDS is believing Trump's conduct is acceptable behavior for an American president.

---

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.

---

Clinton could have had an affair as long as he didn't lie under oath about it.

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.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

TDS thread

---

It has been said TDS is believing Trump's conduct is acceptable behavior for an American president.

---

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.

---

Please the US Code that Trump broke with his "criminal behavior". Be specific. Thanks.

BTW...Bill was impeached for lying under oath not for having an affair.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

TDS thread

---

It has been said TDS is believing Trump's conduct is acceptable behavior for an American president.

---

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.

---

Clinton could have had an affair as long as he didn't lie under oath about it.

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.

---

Trump lies on a daily basis. He isn't under oath, but he's president.

This is a long podcast, but it's well worth the time: https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2019/09/impeaching-the-president-the-background-the-road-map-and-trumps-legal-playbook

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

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

fadskier said:

---

xiledinok said:

---

Trump can do anything he wants as long as he didn't abort any kids on the way to the White House.
-Baylor Evangelicals 2019

---

It's not been proven yet that he has done anything other than help this economy, give me a tax break and curb immigration.

---

Honest question: what kind of proof would you accept?

---

Well let's see....are you going to

half-quote the famous Charlottesville quote?
misquote what he said about Mexican illegals?
insert Russian coorperation into the 2016 election?
bring up Blasey-Ford?
quote the Access Hollywood tape from 12 years ago?

I mean honestly, you people flip out about everything, scream that the sky is falling, and only look at sources that side with what you want to believe so, take your best shot.

Just understand this...I am not a "pro-Trumper at any cost." He has flaws...everyone does. I'm not the type to get worked up about it. The economy is doing well..as a middle-classer, I got more of my own money due to the tax cuts AND Hillary Clinton is not getting to appoint any SC judges.

I vote Pro-Life and small government.

---

Soooo you didn't list any proof you WOULD accept.

Is that your answer? None?

---

How can I accept something that I am not sure exists until I see it?

Let's start with things that have been proven...not anything that uses "anonymous" sources or "someone close to the situation." After all, that's just speculation.

---

This is a simple thought-experiment that normal humans do all the time.

Just ask yourself this: "what evidence would need to be presented to me before I would believe Trump did what he's been accused of doing?"

Because here are the facts:

1. he withheld money from the Ukraine
2. in the call with the Ukrainians (which the white house admitted was about this funding -Trump said so himself).
3. Trump changed his stories at least twice about WHY he withheld the funding
4. in the summary of the conversation (put together and released by the administration) he clearly asks the Ukrainian government for a favor.
5. that favor was to investigate the person he sees as his biggest competition for reelection.


What would it take for you to admit this happened and that it is bad? Because those are all verifiable FROM the Trump administration.

---

1. Yes he did.
2. So what?
3. I have not seen anything that references that
4.He does...in regard to the 2016 election
5. False. This is where you make the leap. The favor was not tied to Biden. Read the transcript. AND even if he did, why is it wrong for the president to seek help from a country where the previous VP was know to have engaged in possible illegal activity? Why are only Democrats allowed to do that?

You're asking me to connect dots that do not necessarily connect. It takes a leap. I don't leap with facts beneath my feet.

---

2. is informed by 3.
3. There is video proof he changed his story as to why. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/24/donald-trump-ukraine-military-aid-1509070

And that is REALLY important. Because the fact is that he changed his story AFTER they agreed to release the conversation summary WHICH IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT. And despite what Doc says (he's wrong a lot) the transcript DOES exist. The administration has admitted it put said transcript on a top-secret server WHICH IS NOT DONE FOR ALL TRANSCRIPTS. It's not even done for most. Administration officials have also said it didn't contain defense information or proprietary military plans that would make code-work level. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-white-house/index.html

5. this is NOT false. The administration has admitted the favor was tied to Biden. Look at the call summary.
"Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_ mayor bf New York Ci:ty, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great."

"There's a lot 6. talk about Biden's son,. that Eiden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

So I will ask you again. What proof WOULD you accept that these things happened? You keep saying or alluding to the lack of facts.

These are facts. What more WOULD you believe? The fact that you can't name something is telling me that there is no proof on earth that would make you believe this.

Would Trump have to be caught on camera confirming he did it?
"

---

1. Your politico reference says that he changed his story from withholding due to wanting more Europeans to help to withholding due to corruption within the Ukraine government. It says absolutely nothing about Biden. So that helps my opinion, not yours.

2. Wrong. After two previous conversations between the President and heads of other countries were leaked, all phone transcripts are being kept in a new location...not just that one.

3.I see you quoted the transcript but it does not say anything about the money and, like most libs, you only partly quote. the word favor is tied to the 2016 election interference. IT'S IN THE TRANSCRIPT. You just don't want to believe it. The word favor is actually directly tied to the server and election meddling.

Again, I get that you want so badly for Trump to be guilty, but you can't prove your point. In fact, you've helped mine. Thanks.

---

1. first, he said it was about corruption. THEN he said it was about Germany not doing it's part -which makes NO sense. Ukraine is one of the few areas where Europe has actually led the way monetarily and politically.

2. That is NOT true. Numerous White House sources have said explicitly that not all of these are stored on there, only certain ones. No one will elaborate why (which is okay, because impeachment will bring that all to light). Multiple former White House officials from Republican White Houses have said this is incredibly unusual. This isn't just some private server. It's a server that only 3-5 people in the country have access to.

For reference, in previous administrations, these summaries would be printed out and dropped on tables for reporters. This level of security FOR THESE types of calls is absolutely unprecedented. Please do the homework on this.

3. You do realize that bribes don't have to include money, right? I'm not being sarcastic. You can bribe someone with anything of value. Are you SERIOUSLY saying that dirt on Biden wouldn't have been of value to Trump?

Read the conversation again. He made it 10000% clear what he wanted from the Ukrainians, and he had created leverage (withholding funds and arms) to make them get it. There is a reason the world is losing its mind right now.

---

1. I've read. He's given several reasons. So what?
2. I have done my homework and read several sources. Susan Rive even said that Obama has a secure server.
3. Yes I do. Even the Ukrainian leader says he didn't feel pressure or that it was a bribe.

I've read the conversation several times. You are reading things into it. I'm not. And I've never much cared for what the world thinks.

TexasScientist said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

YoakDaddy said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Democracy is over rated because of its over dependence on the quality of the demos. Biden and Kerry are up to their eyeballs in corruption, but pay no attention to that. Those of you in thrall to the party of neo-serfdom just can't stand individual liberty and will use any pretext to destroy our republic.

---

"Democracy is over-rated"???

This from the same poster who claims the DEMOCRATS are fascists?

And this post got 5 approval stars on a forum where most people purport to be Christians and good, freedom loving Americans and huff and puff about unlimited gun rights? (I guess some freedoms have more value than others.)

I can understand that you oppose some or even all of the policy positions Democrats generally support.

But the idea that "democracy is overrated" because a majority of Americans might not vote for the candidates and policies you support, and that this therefore justifies the sort of behavior Trump enaged it--using federal aid dollars (and don't you guys generally oppose foreign aid?) as leverage to get a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen realted to a political opponent--is downright Soviet.

And YOU are accusing the DEMOCRATS of being socialists and fascists?

Would you also support the institution of a gulag into which Trump could disappear his political enemies?

You certainly supported the institution of a gular into which refugee kids were disappeared.

---

Democracy terrified the Founders. That's why we have an electoral college, a bicameral legislature, and lifetime appointments for judges.

---

Aaaand blacks were only 3/5 a person.

The founders were a little stupid, too. Let's not fetishize them too much.

---

All political systems have their perils. Let's not fetishize any of them too much.

---

I wasn't fetishizing any of them. But thanks for agreeing with me.

The genius of the founders was that they knew they didn't know it all. That's why they baked in the ability to change.

---

Adding to what I said earlier about Trump. It looks more and more like the phone call was part of a legitimate inquiry regarding not only Biden but the whole origin of the Russia investigation. Trump has every right to do this even if it does happen to benefit him politically. It also appears that Congress considered passing a law that would have required him to release the funds, implying that this was not the case before. So I'll go on record: as the facts now stand, Trump did nothing wrong.

---

No, Sam. It wasn't. You have to know that by now. Even his own party is struggling to defend him on this. It wasn't legitimate. It could not be when you look at it in context.

---

Facts say otherwise. Your TDS blinds you and y'all will do anything to stop a legitimately elected president.

---

I'm sorry, but that's verifiably false. Pelosi had to be dragged to this kicking and screaming. If Dems were just out to get him, why wait this long?

It's telling that at this point you're not even defending specific things. Not even defending him.

You're just attacking the Democrats who are actually doing their constitutionally mandates job.

He got caught using his office to pressure another country to help his election prospects. He should be working for the people.

Not himself.

---

Please quote specifically where in the call transcript that Trump pressured Ukraine to help his election prospects. Where's the quid pro quo? Be specific.

---

"I want you to do me a favor though"

---

Wrong. Finish out the quote......It's about Crowdstrike and their involvement in Hillary's email server and the DNC Russian hacking in 2016. There's no trade. Good try tho.

---

CrowdStrike conspiracy has been debunked. Tom Bossart, Trump's first Homeland Security Advisor explains it in an interview this morning with Stephanopoulos. Bossart is pro-Trump.



Fortune has an article on it here:

https://fortune.com/2019/09/28/crowdstrike-conspiracy-theories-trump-ukraine/

---

I totally understand his point. My point is that Crowdstrike was tasked with assessing the DNC server after the Russian hack yet only provided the FBI with a report, Pics, etc. when the FBI, and they're very capable of doing it, should've been the ones assessing the physical equipment. That's why Crowdstrike is important for Barr's investigation into the origins of Russian interference...the FBI never did their job but instead took a third party's report on it. I could care less about the links that the Forbes article notes.

I'll harken back to the title of this thread.

Who thinks the President is good at this? Seriously. Who thinks he's doing a good job? The country has literally NEVER been more polarized (save a Civil War, of course).

BrooksBearLives said:

---

I'll harken back to the title of this thread.

Who thinks the President is good at this? Seriously. Who thinks he's doing a good job? The country has literally NEVER been more polarized (save a Civil War, of course).

---

He's kept us out of unnecessary wars, addressed the long neglected issues of the working class, and apparently done a pretty good job with the economy.

The country is indeed more polarized than it has been since the Civil War, but that was true before Trump (refer to Noam Chomsky). It was true on the day of Trump's inauguration and the day of the Women's March, before he had a chance to do anything of which he's now accused.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

I'll harken back to the title of this thread.

Who thinks the President is good at this? Seriously. Who thinks he's doing a good job? The country has literally NEVER been more polarized (save a Civil War, of course).

---

He's kept us out of unnecessary wars, addressed the long neglected issues of the working class, and apparently done a pretty good job with the economy.

The country is indeed more polarized than it has been since the Civil War, but that was true before Trump (refer to Noam Chomsky). It was true on the day of Trump's inauguration and the day of the Women's March, before he had a chance to do anything of which he's now accused.

---

Do you think he's doing a good job as president?

You think it's okay he is threatening private citizens?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

I'll harken back to the title of this thread.

Who thinks the President is good at this? Seriously. Who thinks he's doing a good job? The country has literally NEVER been more polarized (save a Civil War, of course).

---

He's kept us out of unnecessary wars, addressed the long neglected issues of the working class, and apparently done a pretty good job with the economy.

The country is indeed more polarized than it has been since the Civil War, but that was true before Trump (refer to Noam Chomsky). It was true on the day of Trump's inauguration and the day of the Women's March, before he had a chance to do anything of which he's now accused.

---

Do you think he's doing a good job as president?

You think it's okay he is threatening private citizens?

---

Who is he threatening?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

I'll harken back to the title of this thread.

Who thinks the President is good at this? Seriously. Who thinks he's doing a good job? The country has literally NEVER been more polarized (save a Civil War, of course).

---

He's kept us out of unnecessary wars, addressed the long neglected issues of the working class, and apparently done a pretty good job with the economy.

The country is indeed more polarized than it has been since the Civil War, but that was true before Trump (refer to Noam Chomsky). It was true on the day of Trump's inauguration and the day of the Women's March, before he had a chance to do anything of which he's now accused.

---

Do you think he's doing a good job as president?

You think it's okay he is threatening private citizens?

---

What you don't seem to understand is that, YES, they DO think he's doing a good job as president because what you (or I, for that matter) would consider a "good job" and what they consider a "good job" are quite dissimilar. The sooner you understand this, the better off you will be.