Poll of the Day > I find it ironic that Democrats started all that impeachment process...

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Nade Duck 12/16/19 2:04:55 PM #101:	heck --- https://imgur.com/ElACjJD "Most of the time, I have a whole lot more sperm inside me than most women do." - adjl <cite>Nade Duck posted [p:931668191] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>heck </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/16/19 3:23:52 PM #102:	HornedLion posted... Just had a fiery discussion with a coworker about all this, and I figured out what their reasoning is for being okay with the majority of the country wanting one thing but instead the minority winning. Their talking point to that is mob rule. Yup. You heard it right. NYers, Californians, highly populated areas, the college educated, and the like... are all a mob. In the end, though, after getting hit with all the facts they were left with, Why the outrage now, what about when Obama.... Whataboutisms. Thats all theyre left with in the end. Not sure which Fox News host came up with that one, but I've heard it too. "We can't have majority rule. It would be awful. When people feel their voices aren't being heard, they start to get violent." - It's like, OK, I don't disagree... so why is your conclusion that it's alright to ignore the will of an even bigger group of people and make them feel their voices aren't being heard? Also look for this old gem to make a (re)appearance as we get closer to the election: "The electoral college is a good idea, because it prevents big states like California, New York, and Texas from having all the power and influence." - Because it's better for swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania to have that power instead? OK. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:931671527] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>Just had a fiery discussion with a coworker about all this, and I figured out what their reasoning is for being okay with the majority of the country wanting one thing but instead the minority winning. Their talking point to that is mob rule. Yup. You heard it right. NYers, Californians, highly populated areas, the college educated, and the like... are all a mob. In the end, though, after getting hit with all the facts they were left with, Why the outrage now, what about when Obama.... Whataboutisms. Thats all theyre left with in the end.</quote>Not sure which Fox News host came up with that one, but I've heard it too. "We can't have majority rule. It would be awful. When people feel their voices aren't being heard, they start to get violent." - It's like, OK, I don't disagree... so why is your conclusion that it's alright to ignore the will of an even bigger group of people and make them feel their voices aren't being heard? Also look for this old gem to make a (re)appearance as we get closer to the election: "The electoral college is a good idea, because it prevents big states like California, New York, and Texas from having all the power and influence." - Because it's better for swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania to have that power instead? OK. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 12/16/19 3:28:49 PM #103:	All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:931671737] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HornedLion 12/16/19 5:21:44 PM #104:	darkknight109 posted... Not sure which Fox News host came up with that one, but I've heard it too. "We can't have majority rule. It would be awful. When people feel their voices aren't being heard, they start to get violent." - It's like, OK, I don't disagree... so why is your conclusion that it's alright to ignore the will of an even bigger group of people and make them feel their voices aren't being heard? Also look for this old gem to make a (re)appearance as we get closer to the election: "The electoral college is a good idea, because it prevents big states like California, New York, and Texas from having all the power and influence." - Because it's better for swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania to have that power instead? OK. Me and my coworker already went there. I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else. Thats another pattern Ive noticed about these folks. They can never stay on one topic. They immediately jump to others. They just recite GOP talking points without knowing what they actually mean. --- Don't runaway from troubles... instead meet them Hedons. <cite>HornedLion posted [p:931676623] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Not sure which Fox News host came up with that one, but I've heard it too. "We can't have majority rule. It would be awful. When people feel their voices aren't being heard, they start to get violent." - It's like, OK, I don't disagree... so why is your conclusion that it's alright to ignore the will of an even bigger group of people and make them feel their voices aren't being heard? Also look for this old gem to make a (re)appearance as we get closer to the election: "The electoral college is a good idea, because it prevents big states like California, New York, and Texas from having all the power and influence." - Because it's better for swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania to have that power instead? OK.</quote> Me and my coworker already went there. I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else. Thats another pattern Ive noticed about these folks. They can never stay on one topic. They immediately jump to others. They just recite GOP talking points without knowing what they actually mean. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 12/16/19 5:28:32 PM #105:	HornedLion posted... Me and my coworker already went there. I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else. Thats another pattern Ive noticed about these folks. They can never stay on one topic. They immediately jump to others. They just recite GOP talking points without knowing what they actually mean. The best justification that I've heard is that it mitigates the ability for urban areas (which have higher population densities) to overpower rural areas, since people's priorities tend to differ based on what sort of work they do (which, in turn, tends to differ by area). Rather than risking having a bunch of unhappy farmers whose voice is never heard over that of the IT folks that crowd into cities, the farmers get more weight to their votes to attempt to balance it out. Now, is that accomplished by the current state of the electoral college? Couldn't tell you. Probably not, given the tendency toward gerrymandering and football politics over addressing real issues. But that's the theory, and I don't think that theory is entirely without merit. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:931676898] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>Me and my coworker already went there. I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else. Thats another pattern Ive noticed about these folks. They can never stay on one topic. They immediately jump to others. They just recite GOP talking points without knowing what they actually mean.</quote> The best justification that I've heard is that it mitigates the ability for urban areas (which have higher population densities) to overpower rural areas, since people's priorities tend to differ based on what sort of work they do (which, in turn, tends to differ by area). Rather than risking having a bunch of unhappy farmers whose voice is never heard over that of the IT folks that crowd into cities, the farmers get more weight to their votes to attempt to balance it out. Now, is that accomplished by the current state of the electoral college? Couldn't tell you. Probably not, given the tendency toward gerrymandering and football politics over addressing real issues. But that's the theory, and I don't think that theory is entirely without merit. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 12/16/19 5:39:01 PM #106:	Rural areas should not have anywhere close to the same representation, because there are fewer people there. in democracy people are what matter, not areas of land --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:931677357] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>Rural areas should not have anywhere close to the same representation, because there are fewer people there. in democracy people are what matter, not areas of land </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster 12/16/19 5:46:10 PM #107:	Mead posted... Rural areas should not have anywhere close to the same representation, because there are fewer people there. in democracy people are what matter, not areas of land Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact? <cite>TheWorstPoster posted [p:931677686] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Rural areas should not have anywhere close to the same representation, because there are fewer people there. in democracy people are what matter, not areas of land</quote> Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 12/16/19 6:02:41 PM #108:	OhhhJa posted... All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states Theres actual evidence of the US president flipping on the subject, and your strongest counter point is just making shit up. --- I have no idea whether or not he's a racist, but apparently there are recordings of him using racial slurs so it's a distinct possibility. <cite>Blighboy posted [p:931678401] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states</quote>Theres actual evidence of the US president flipping on the subject, and your strongest counter point is just making shit up. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HornedLion 12/16/19 6:06:54 PM #109:	TheWorstPoster posted... Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact? Have you been to Wyoming? Idk if you would call what theyre doing as living. --- Don't runaway from troubles... instead meet them Hedons. <cite>HornedLion posted [p:931678582] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>TheWorstPoster posted... </cite> <quote>Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact?</quote> Have you been to Wyoming? Idk if you would call what theyre doing as living. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 12/16/19 6:13:11 PM #110:	I cant believe ICOYAR straight up asked why 40 000 000 people should have more say than 500 000 people. It's poop or pee levels of dumb. --- I have no idea whether or not he's a racist, but apparently there are recordings of him using racial slurs so it's a distinct possibility. <cite>Blighboy posted [p:931678839] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>I cant believe ICOYAR straight up asked why 40 000 000 people should have more say than 500 000 people. It's poop or pee levels of dumb. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/16/19 6:13:17 PM #111:	OhhhJa posted... All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states So people keep telling me, apparently ignorant of the fact that I'm completely against undemocratic electoral systems, regardless of who benefits. In Canada, I complained about Conservative Steven Harper winning what amounts to 100% of legislative and executive power with just 39% of the vote. I complained again when it happened four years later when Liberal Justin Trudeau did the exact same thing with the exact same numbers (one of the reasons I voted for him in 2015 was his promise to change Canada's FPTP voting system, a promise he ultimately did not keep). Systems that distort the people's electoral will are bullshit, regardless of which party they serve to prop up. The electoral college is a dumber system than most, but it's hardly the only undemocratic voting system out there. HornedLion posted... I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else. Did you explain to him that the electoral college was never intended to pick the president and it was expected by the constitution's framers to be a once-in-a-lifetime event? TheWorstPoster posted... Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact? Suppose you live in California, the most populous state of 40,000,000 people and convinced 500,000 of your peers to vote for your candidate of choice. Would you want tiny Wyoming, with its population that's less than 2% of yours, to override your efforts with just 150,000 people and thereby dictate to you how you live and what laws you must enact? Those are real numbers, by the way. The value of a vote in Wyoming is over 3x higher than the value of a vote in California because of the way the electoral college assigns its electors. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:931678844] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>All the Democrats that were suddenly angry with the electoral college after the election would be in full support if CA and NY were red states</quote>So people keep telling me, apparently ignorant of the fact that I'm completely against undemocratic electoral systems, regardless of who benefits. In Canada, I complained about Conservative Steven Harper winning what amounts to 100% of legislative and executive power with just 39% of the vote. I complained again when it happened four years later when Liberal Justin Trudeau did the exact same thing with the exact same numbers (one of the reasons I voted for him in 2015 was his promise to change Canada's FPTP voting system, a promise he ultimately did not keep). Systems that distort the people's electoral will are bullshit, regardless of which party they serve to prop up. The electoral college is a dumber system than most, but it's hardly the only undemocratic voting system out there. HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>I told him that the electoral college is a dumb relic that needs to be no more. And he said there was a very important reason for it, and then neglected to inform me of that reason. Instead he went somewhere else.</quote>Did you explain to him that the electoral college was never intended to pick the president and it was expected by the constitution's framers to be a once-in-a-lifetime event? TheWorstPoster posted... </cite> <quote>Suppose that you live in Wyoming, the least populous state, of 500,000 people, and having its own state and local governments and laws. Would you REALLY want California (the most populous state of 40,000,000 people, and with its own state and local governments), telling you how to live, and what laws to enact?</quote>Suppose you live in California, the most populous state of 40,000,000 people and convinced 500,000 of your peers to vote for your candidate of choice. Would you want tiny Wyoming, with its population that's less than 2% of yours, to override your efforts with just 150,000 people and thereby dictate to you how you live and what laws you must enact? Those are real numbers, by the way. The value of a vote in Wyoming is over 3x higher than the value of a vote in California because of the way the electoral college assigns its electors. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 12/16/19 6:21:15 PM #112:	darkknight109 posted... Fucking what? You want Shokin to investigate himself? The only way I see this making sense is if the prosecutor owns the company he was expected to look into. Which is something I've not heard mentioned before. So I don't see how you can think that was what I said. darkknight109 posted... You're arguing that Biden was corrupt, while simultaneously arguing that he was trying to get a prosecutor shitcanned who was overlooking the corruption you're accusing him of partaking in. No, I'm not arguing that. darkknight109 posted... Please decide which set of Republican talking points you're going to stick with Is that where you're getting confused? You're responding to what you expect me to say and not paying attention to what I'm actually saying? darkknight109 posted... Sure. And if Trump had done that, he would have been completely within his rights. Great, so in preparation to go before congress with his concerns he was a) determining if making an appeal to congress was called for and b) ensuring it's success if it is. darkknight109 posted... Even if he opted to replace her with someone else, that doesn't change the process. Just use whatever person he sends in to replace her to carry out the process instead. So while someone else is appointed, briefed on everything they need to know, go through the bureaucratic channels, and an investigation gets underway there's still a deadline represented by how long the aid can be delayed. Do you think Trump would have gotten an answer by then? darkknight109 posted... Do I about have the long and short of this incredibly ridiculous defence? No... at this point I severely doubt if you and I are having the same conversation. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:931679189] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Fucking what? You want Shokin to investigate himself?</quote>The only way I see this making sense is if the prosecutor owns the company he was expected to look into. Which is something I've not heard mentioned before. So I don't see how you can think that was what I said. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>You're arguing that Biden was corrupt, while simultaneously arguing that he was trying to get a prosecutor shitcanned who was overlooking the corruption you're accusing him of partaking in.</quote>No, I'm not arguing that. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Please decide which set of Republican talking points you're going to stick with</quote>Is that where you're getting confused? You're responding to what you expect me to say and not paying attention to what I'm actually saying? darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Sure. And if Trump had done that, he would have been completely within his rights.</quote>Great, so in preparation to go before congress with his concerns he was a) determining if making an appeal to congress was called for and b) ensuring it's success if it is. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Even if he opted to replace her with someone else, that doesn't change the process. Just use whatever person he sends in to replace her to carry out the process instead.</quote>So while someone else is appointed, briefed on everything they need to know, go through the bureaucratic channels, and an investigation gets underway there's still a deadline represented by how long the aid can be delayed. Do you think Trump would have gotten an answer by then? darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Do I about have the long and short of this incredibly ridiculous defence?</quote>No... at this point I severely doubt if you and I are having the same conversation. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 12/16/19 6:30:14 PM #113:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... No... at this point I severely doubt if you and I are having the same conversation. not surprising considering youre ignoring every post that disproves the bullshit you insist on peddling --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:931679519] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>No... at this point I severely doubt if you and I are having the same conversation.</quote> not surprising considering youre ignoring every post that disproves the bullshit you insist on peddling </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/16/19 6:36:02 PM #114:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... No, I'm not arguing that. You sure as hell seem to be. Your arguments have devolved into a contradictory mess that are getting to be impossible to untangle. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Great, so in preparation to go before congress with his concerns What's your evidence he was planning to go before congress at all? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... he was a) determining if making an appeal to congress was called for and b) ensure it's success if it is. And breaking the law in the process. What you're basically saying is that in order to determine if Ukraine was corrupt and therefore justify asking congress to freeze aid, Trump froze aid and attempted to investigate if Ukraine was corrupt. Do you see the several logical problems with that statement? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... No, I'm not arguing that. Then lay out your case. You've separately alleged that Biden was corrupt, because he got rid of a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company ("therefore Trump was totally justified in investigating Biden"), and that the prosecutor was corrupt because he wasn't investigating Biden's company ("therefore Trump was totally justified in illegally freezing aid to Ukraine, something he did not have the power to do"). You've also separately argued that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden because he was corrupt and also that he wasn't pressuring Ukraine at all and was just concerned and the freeze was done because Ukraine is corrupt. You need to sort your arguments out and pick a lane. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... So while someone else is appointed, briefed on everything they need to know, go through the bureaucratic channels, and an investigation gets underway there's still a deadline represented by how long the aid can be delayed. Do you think Trump would have gotten an answer by then? Probably not. You know what that doesn't justify? Breaking the law. If Trump was so concerned about this, the correct action was to go to congress, explain, "I have grave misgivings about this aid and would like to request that it be frozen while I conduct an investigation into Ukraine in order to confirm that they are not corrupt and this aid is being spent appropriately," and request congressional approval to rescind the aid. If granted, Trump can freeze the aid for as long as he wants, until the investigation is completed to his (or, more specifically, to congress's) satisfaction. But Trump didn't do that. Instead, he illegally froze the aid, lied about it, then attempted to use it to blackmail a foreign country for dirt on a political opponent only to frantically backtrack when he got caught. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... No... at this point I severely doubt if you and I are having the same conversation. Apparently not, given how you cherry pick which of my points to respond to while studiously ignoring all the holes I'm poking in your argument. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:931679775] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>No, I'm not arguing that.</quote>You sure as hell seem to be. Your arguments have devolved into a contradictory mess that are getting to be impossible to untangle. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Great, so in preparation to go before congress with his concerns</quote>What's your evidence he was planning to go before congress at all? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>he was a) determining if making an appeal to congress was called for and b) ensure it's success if it is.</quote>And breaking the law in the process. What you're basically saying is that in order to determine if Ukraine was corrupt and therefore justify asking congress to freeze aid, Trump froze aid and attempted to investigate if Ukraine was corrupt. Do you see the several logical problems with that statement? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>No, I'm not arguing that.</quote>Then lay out your case. You've separately alleged that Biden was corrupt, because he got rid of a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company ("therefore Trump was totally justified in investigating Biden"), and that the prosecutor was corrupt because he wasn't investigating Biden's company ("therefore Trump was totally justified in illegally freezing aid to Ukraine, something he did not have the power to do"). You've also separately argued that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden because he was corrupt and also that he wasn't pressuring Ukraine at all and was just concerned and the freeze was done because Ukraine is corrupt. You need to sort your arguments out and pick a lane. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>So while someone else is appointed, briefed on everything they need to know, go through the bureaucratic channels, and an investigation gets underway there's still a deadline represented by how long the aid can be delayed. Do you think Trump would have gotten an answer by then?</quote>Probably not. You know what that doesn't justify? Breaking the law. If Trump was so concerned about this, the correct action was to go to congress, explain, "I have grave misgivings about this aid and would like to request that it be frozen while I conduct an investigation into Ukraine in order to confirm that they are not corrupt and this aid is being spent appropriately," and request congressional approval to rescind the aid. If granted, Trump can freeze the aid for as long as he wants, until the investigation is completed to his (or, more specifically, to congress's) satisfaction. But Trump didn't do that. Instead, he illegally froze the aid, lied about it, then attempted to use it to blackmail a foreign country for dirt on a political opponent only to frantically backtrack when he got caught. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>No... at this point I severely doubt if you and I are having the same conversation.</quote>Apparently not, given how you cherry pick which of my points to respond to while studiously ignoring all the holes I'm poking in your argument. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 12/16/19 7:13:13 PM #115:	Mead posted... Rural areas should not have anywhere close to the same representation, because there are fewer people there. in democracy people are what matter, not areas of land Which has the potential to create a country where non-urban living sucks because those living outside of urban areas effectively have no political voice. Yeah, it means individuals' interests aren't necessarily represented democratically, but it allows groups' interests to be, which is arguably a more effective way to run a country. In theory, at least. Again, the actual execution leaves a lot to be desired, particularly where the whole distinction between federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions should already allow for different regions to be governed differently if that's what will work better for them. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:931681122] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>Rural areas should not have anywhere close to the same representation, because there are fewer people there. in democracy people are what matter, not areas of land</quote> Which has the potential to create a country where non-urban living sucks because those living outside of urban areas effectively have no political voice. Yeah, it means individuals' interests aren't necessarily represented democratically, but it allows groups' interests to be, which is arguably a more effective way to run a country. In theory, at least. Again, the actual execution leaves a lot to be desired, particularly where the whole distinction between federal, state, and municipal jurisdictions should already allow for different regions to be governed differently if that's what will work better for them. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HornedLion 12/16/19 7:18:41 PM #116:	adjl posted... Which has the potential to create a country where non-urban living sucks because those living outside of urban areas effectively have no political voice. Yeah, it means individuals' interests aren't necessarily represented democratically, but it allows groups' interests to be, which is arguably a more effective way to run a country. Are the needs/wants of those in rural areas really *THAT* much different? --- Don't runaway from troubles... instead meet them Hedons. <cite>HornedLion posted [p:931681326] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Which has the potential to create a country where non-urban living sucks because those living outside of urban areas effectively have no political voice. Yeah, it means individuals' interests aren't necessarily represented democratically, but it allows groups' interests to be, which is arguably a more effective way to run a country.</quote> Are the needs/wants of those in rural areas really THAT much different? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 12/16/19 7:22:13 PM #117:	darkknight109 posted... Apparently not, given how you cherry pick which of my points to respond to while studiously ignoring all the holes I'm poking in your argument. I don't think you've responded to every single thing I've said either. Although I think we should pick up on the parts we find most important. darkknight109 posted... because he got rid of a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company I don't recall saying that removing the first prosecutor was a bad thing. darkknight109 posted... If Trump was so concerned about this, the correct action was to go to congress, explain, "I have grave misgivings about this aid and would like to request that it be frozen while I conduct an investigation into Ukraine in order to confirm that they are not corrupt and this aid is being spent appropriately," I expect that if he had then we would still be in the same place we are now. The Democrats would claim that Trump only made the appeal the help Russia and make that the grounds for impeachment. Because they never moved away from the former and they were always heading toward the latter. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:931681463] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Apparently not, given how you cherry pick which of my points to respond to while studiously ignoring all the holes I'm poking in your argument.</quote>I don't think you've responded to every single thing I've said either. Although I think we should pick up on the parts we find most important. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>because he got rid of a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company</quote>I don't recall saying that removing the first prosecutor was a bad thing. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>If Trump was so concerned about this, the correct action was to go to congress, explain, "I have grave misgivings about this aid and would like to request that it be frozen while I conduct an investigation into Ukraine in order to confirm that they are not corrupt and this aid is being spent appropriately,"</quote>I expect that if he had then we would still be in the same place we are now. The Democrats would claim that Trump only made the appeal the help Russia and make that the grounds for impeachment. Because they never moved away from the former and they were always heading toward the latter. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 12/16/19 7:40:31 PM #118:	HornedLion posted... Are the needs/wants of those in rural areas really THAT much different? Of course they are. Living in rural areas is vastly different from living in urban areas <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:931682159] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>Are the needs/wants of those in rural areas really THAT much different?</quote>Of course they are. Living in rural areas is vastly different from living in urban areas </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 12/16/19 7:43:12 PM #119:	HornedLion posted... Are the needs/wants of those in rural areas really *THAT* much different? In some ways. Infrastructure requirements differ pretty considerably. The biggest difference is the sorts of industries that dominate the areas, so if you start getting into federal subsidies, there'll be some differences of opinions. In the grand scheme of things, though, the basic needs aren't really that different and most of the political divide between urban and rural stems from being culturally conservative/liberal. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:931682288] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>Are the needs/wants of those in rural areas really THAT much different?</quote> In some ways. Infrastructure requirements differ pretty considerably. The biggest difference is the sorts of industries that dominate the areas, so if you start getting into federal subsidies, there'll be some differences of opinions. In the grand scheme of things, though, the basic needs aren't really that different and most of the political divide between urban and rural stems from being culturally conservative/liberal. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HornedLion 12/16/19 7:48:17 PM #120:	adjl posted... In some ways. Infrastructure requirements differ pretty considerably. The biggest difference is the sorts of industries that dominate the areas, so if you start getting into federal subsidies, there'll be some differences of opinions. In the grand scheme of things, though, the basic needs aren't really that different and most of the political divide between urban and rural stems from being culturally conservative/liberal. Thats what Im saying. I get the infrastructure, and we already have things in place in terms of loans and such to address rural living. But usually theyre bitching about abortions, war on Christmas, gay rights, etc. --- Don't runaway from troubles... instead meet them Hedons. <cite>HornedLion posted [p:931682528] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>In some ways. Infrastructure requirements differ pretty considerably. The biggest difference is the sorts of industries that dominate the areas, so if you start getting into federal subsidies, there'll be some differences of opinions. In the grand scheme of things, though, the basic needs aren't really that different and most of the political divide between urban and rural stems from being culturally conservative/liberal.</quote> Thats what Im saying. I get the infrastructure, and we already have things in place in terms of loans and such to address rural living. But usually theyre bitching about abortions, war on Christmas, gay rights, etc. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl 12/16/19 7:55:22 PM #121:	HornedLion posted... But usually theyre bitching about abortions, war on Christmas, gay rights, etc. Eeyup. I see nothing wrong with letting those particular voices be drowned out like the minority they are instead of being given more political legitimacy than they democratically deserve. But then I'd be singing the praises of the electoral college if it worked the other way and was enabling progress toward things like gay marriage's legalization (presuming that would not have already happened in such an inverted world), so I can't exactly claim impartiality there. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:931682824] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>But usually theyre bitching about abortions, war on Christmas, gay rights, etc.</quote> Eeyup. I see nothing wrong with letting those particular voices be drowned out like the minority they are instead of being given more political legitimacy than they democratically deserve. But then I'd be singing the praises of the electoral college if it worked the other way and was enabling progress toward things like gay marriage's legalization (presuming that would not have already happened in such an inverted world), so I can't exactly claim impartiality there. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HornedLion 12/16/19 8:13:24 PM #122:	adjl posted... Eeyup. I see nothing wrong with letting those particular voices be drowned out like the minority they are instead of being given more political legitimacy than they democratically deserve. But then I'd be singing the praises of the electoral college if it worked the other way and was enabling progress toward things like gay marriage's legalization (presuming that would not have already happened in such an inverted world), so I can't exactly claim impartiality there. Way I see it is like this. If 66% of the office voted to cater in BBQ and then 44% voted to cater in pizza... there better be no way in hell that we end up with marinara sauce on our dress shirts by the end of the day. --- Don't runaway from troubles... instead meet them Hedons. <cite>HornedLion posted [p:931683576] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Eeyup. I see nothing wrong with letting those particular voices be drowned out like the minority they are instead of being given more political legitimacy than they democratically deserve. But then I'd be singing the praises of the electoral college if it worked the other way and was enabling progress toward things like gay marriage's legalization (presuming that would not have already happened in such an inverted world), so I can't exactly claim impartiality there.</quote> Way I see it is like this. If 66% of the office voted to cater in BBQ and then 44% voted to cater in pizza... there better be no way in hell that we end up with marinara sauce on our dress shirts by the end of the day. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 12/16/19 8:25:18 PM #123:	HornedLion posted... Way I see it is like this. If 66% of the office voted to cater in BBQ and then 44% voted to cater in pizza... there better be no way in hell that we end up with marinara sauce on our dress shirts by the end of the day. This analogy is terrible. It's a ridiculous oversimplification of an extremely complex system. Say you have a business amd the front office comprises 60 percent of employees and the warehouse 40 percent. And let's say the company gets either new computers are new electric pallet jackets. Obviously the office and warehouse are gonna want different things but each serves an important purpose for the company. This is still a huge oversimplification but a far better analogy <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:931684017] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>HornedLion posted... </cite> <quote>Way I see it is like this. If 66% of the office voted to cater in BBQ and then 44% voted to cater in pizza... there better be no way in hell that we end up with marinara sauce on our dress shirts by the end of the day.</quote>This analogy is terrible. It's a ridiculous oversimplification of an extremely complex system. Say you have a business amd the front office comprises 60 percent of employees and the warehouse 40 percent. And let's say the company gets either new computers are new electric pallet jackets. Obviously the office and warehouse are gonna want different things but each serves an important purpose for the company. This is still a huge oversimplification but a far better analogy </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/16/19 11:30:52 PM #124:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I don't think you've responded to every single thing I've said either. Although I think we should pick up on the parts we find most important. Based on that, you apparently find factual inaccuracies unimportant, because that's most of what you're skipping over. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I don't recall saying that removing the first prosecutor was a bad thing. You have a short memory then. From Post 92: "As for why I suspect Biden actually is corrupt - The US had to withhold aid to Ukraine in the past to remove the previously mentioned prosecutor. It was Biden's job to pressure Ukraine into doing this.The company that the prosecutor was meant to investigate employs Biden's son." There's four inaccuracies or notable omissions in this statement, as I've previously gone into: 1) The US didn't withhold aid, they refused to guarantee future loans 2) It was the US embassy, not Biden, that was pushing for Shokin's ouster - Biden was just brought in as the point man. 3) The US was not alone in pushing for Shokin's removal - the EU, the IMF, and the Ukrainian citizenry also wanted him gone 4) Shokin wasn't looking into Burisma, he'd let the investigation go dormant; his successor, with America's blessing, re-opened the investigation while promising to take an aggressive stance against corruption. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... The Democrats would claim that Trump only made the appeal the help Russia and make that the grounds for impeachment. That's not grounds for impeachment by any reasonable metric, because Trump petitioning congress to modify their funding priorities is not a crime and is, in fact, a routine part of governance. There's absolutely no way a majority of Democrats would support impeachment proceedings over a budget modification request, not when Trump has employed far more legally dubious budgetary moves - like declaring a fake emergency to strip funding from the military and use it to build the wall - and never been at serious threat of impeachment. Hell, if the Democrats were that gung-ho on impeachment, they could have done it based on the reports of the Mueller report. Mueller pointedly did not exonerate Trump on charges of obstruction of justice and he all but stated that the only reason he didn't accuse the president of committing a serious crime is because he did not feel he had the authority to do so. Meanwhile, over 1000 former prosecutors from both parties signed an open letter indicating that it was their view that Trump's conduct, as laid out in the Mueller report, constituted a criminal offence and that they believe he would be facing criminal charges were it not for presidential immunity to federal prosecution. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:931691471] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I don't think you've responded to every single thing I've said either. Although I think we should pick up on the parts we find most important.</quote>Based on that, you apparently find factual inaccuracies unimportant, because that's most of what you're skipping over. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I don't recall saying that removing the first prosecutor was a bad thing.</quote>You have a short memory then. From Post 92: "As for why I suspect Biden actually is corrupt - The US had to withhold aid to Ukraine in the past to remove the previously mentioned prosecutor. It was Biden's job to pressure Ukraine into doing this.The company that the prosecutor was meant to investigate employs Biden's son." There's four inaccuracies or notable omissions in this statement, as I've previously gone into: 1) The US didn't withhold aid, they refused to guarantee future loans 2) It was the US embassy, not Biden, that was pushing for Shokin's ouster - Biden was just brought in as the point man. 3) The US was not alone in pushing for Shokin's removal - the EU, the IMF, and the Ukrainian citizenry also wanted him gone 4) Shokin wasn't looking into Burisma, he'd let the investigation go dormant; his successor, with America's blessing, re-opened the investigation while promising to take an aggressive stance against corruption. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>The Democrats would claim that Trump only made the appeal the help Russia and make that the grounds for impeachment.</quote>That's not grounds for impeachment by any reasonable metric, because Trump petitioning congress to modify their funding priorities is not a crime and is, in fact, a routine part of governance. There's absolutely no way a majority of Democrats would support impeachment proceedings over a budget modification request, not when Trump has employed far more legally dubious budgetary moves - like declaring a fake emergency to strip funding from the military and use it to build the wall - and never been at serious threat of impeachment. Hell, if the Democrats were that gung-ho on impeachment, they could have done it based on the reports of the Mueller report. Mueller pointedly did not exonerate Trump on charges of obstruction of justice and he all but stated that the only reason he didn't accuse the president of committing a serious crime is because he did not feel he had the authority to do so. Meanwhile, over 1000 former prosecutors from both parties signed an open letter indicating that it was their view that Trump's conduct, as laid out in the Mueller report, constituted a criminal offence and that they believe he would be facing criminal charges were it not for presidential immunity to federal prosecution. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 12/17/19 10:08:16 AM #125:	darkknight109 posted... 1) The US didn't withhold aid, they refused to guarantee future loans So the US told Ukraine they won't get aid unless they do what the US wants. Trump asked Ukraine to do something but never made it a condition of receiving aid. darkknight109 posted... 2) It was the US embassy, not Biden, that was pushing for Shokin's ouster - Biden was just brought in as the point man. Biden was assigned this job. It was his job to see that an investigation into Burisma occurs. darkknight109 posted... 3) The US was not alone in pushing for Shokin's removal - the EU, the IMF, and the Ukrainian citizenry also wanted him gone This fact doesn't contradict anything I said. Why are you bringing this up? darkknight109 posted... 4) Shokin wasn't looking into Burisma, he'd let the investigation go dormant; his successor, with America's blessing, re-opened the investigation while promising to take an aggressive stance against corruption. This fact doesn't contradict anything I said. Why are you bringing this up? darkknight109 posted... if the Democrats were that gung-ho on impeachment, they could have done it based on the reports of the Mueller report They are, and they have been planning to impeach him before the Mueller report even came out. They've been planning it since the election results. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:931704425] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>1) The US didn't withhold aid, they refused to guarantee future loans</quote>So the US told Ukraine they won't get aid unless they do what the US wants. Trump asked Ukraine to do something but never made it a condition of receiving aid. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>2) It was the US embassy, not Biden, that was pushing for Shokin's ouster - Biden was just brought in as the point man.</quote>Biden was assigned this job. It was his job to see that an investigation into Burisma occurs. darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>3) The US was not alone in pushing for Shokin's removal - the EU, the IMF, and the Ukrainian citizenry also wanted him gone</quote>This fact doesn't contradict anything I said. Why are you bringing this up? darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>4) Shokin wasn't looking into Burisma, he'd let the investigation go dormant; his successor, with America's blessing, re-opened the investigation while promising to take an aggressive stance against corruption.</quote>This fact doesn't contradict anything I said. Why are you bringing this up? darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>if the Democrats were that gung-ho on impeachment, they could have done it based on the reports of the Mueller report</quote>They are, and they have been planning to impeach him before the Mueller report even came out. They've been planning it since the election results. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/17/19 1:41:13 PM #126:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... So the US told Ukraine they won't get aid unless they do what the US wants. Loan guarantees are not aid (though that is a slim distinction) SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Trump asked Ukraine to do something but never made it a condition of receiving aid. Incorrect, and numerous people have testified under oath to this fact, including: -Gordon Sondland, Trump's Ambassador to the EU, who was heavily involved in the Ukraine inquiry. Notably, Sondland initially gave testimony favourable to Trump but, upon hearing about the statements other witnesses had made, later amended it seemingly to avoid perjury charges. Sondland has now said it was his understanding that the White House meeting and military aid were conditioned on Zelenskiy doing as Trump asked, and he stated as much to Andriy Yermak, an aide to the Ukranian president. -Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Director for European Affairs. Vindman testified "there was no doubt" Trump wanted to trade military aide for Ukraine's investigations. -William Taylor, Trump's Ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor repeatedly raised concerns about a quid pro quo and was largely brushed off by administration officials. Taylor also reviewed the summary transcript and found significant omissions, including a significant amount of time Trump spent talking about Biden, and requested that corrections be made. These corrections were denied. -According to texts between Kurt Volker (special envoy to Ukraine) and Gordon Sondland, Zelenskiy was actually sent a script by presidential aides laying out exactly what he should say in his statement. Notably, Volker resigned almost immediately after the scandal broke. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Biden was assigned this job. It was his job to see that an investigation into Burisma occurs. Alright. Still waiting to hear the corrupt part here. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... This fact doesn't contradict anything I said. Why are you bringing this up? Because you've said that Biden was corrupt for pushing for the ouster of a prosecutor who was supposed to be investigating Burisma, the company his son worked for; I'm simply showing that a lot more people, including those outside the US, wanted Shokin gone. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... They are, and they have been planning to impeach him before the Mueller report even came out. So why didn't they do it when the Mueller report came out? When they had over 1000 bipartisan legal professionals agreeing that the report met the standard for high crimes and misdemeanours? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... They've been planning it since the election results. So they wait until Trump is 3/4 of the way through his term so that at best they would be stripping him of less than a year's worth of power and making Pence - a man who has more conservative bonafides and none of Trump's political vulnerability - in power? Seems tactically questionable. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:931712213] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>So the US told Ukraine they won't get aid unless they do what the US wants.</quote>Loan guarantees are not aid (though that is a slim distinction) SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Trump asked Ukraine to do something but never made it a condition of receiving aid.</quote>Incorrect, and numerous people have testified under oath to this fact, including: -Gordon Sondland, Trump's Ambassador to the EU, who was heavily involved in the Ukraine inquiry. Notably, Sondland initially gave testimony favourable to Trump but, upon hearing about the statements other witnesses had made, later amended it seemingly to avoid perjury charges. Sondland has now said it was his understanding that the White House meeting and military aid were conditioned on Zelenskiy doing as Trump asked, and he stated as much to Andriy Yermak, an aide to the Ukranian president. -Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Director for European Affairs. Vindman testified "there was no doubt" Trump wanted to trade military aide for Ukraine's investigations. -William Taylor, Trump's Ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor repeatedly raised concerns about a quid pro quo and was largely brushed off by administration officials. Taylor also reviewed the summary transcript and found significant omissions, including a significant amount of time Trump spent talking about Biden, and requested that corrections be made. These corrections were denied. -According to texts between Kurt Volker (special envoy to Ukraine) and Gordon Sondland, Zelenskiy was actually sent a script by presidential aides laying out exactly what he should say in his statement. Notably, Volker resigned almost immediately after the scandal broke. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Biden was assigned this job. It was his job to see that an investigation into Burisma occurs.</quote>Alright. Still waiting to hear the corrupt part here. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>This fact doesn't contradict anything I said. Why are you bringing this up?</quote>Because you've said that Biden was corrupt for pushing for the ouster of a prosecutor who was supposed to be investigating Burisma, the company his son worked for; I'm simply showing that a lot more people, including those outside the US, wanted Shokin gone. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>They are, and they have been planning to impeach him before the Mueller report even came out.</quote>So why didn't they do it when the Mueller report came out? When they had over 1000 bipartisan legal professionals agreeing that the report met the standard for high crimes and misdemeanours? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>They've been planning it since the election results.</quote>So they wait until Trump is 3/4 of the way through his term so that at best they would be stripping him of less than a year's worth of power and making Pence - a man who has more conservative bonafides and none of Trump's political vulnerability - in power? Seems tactically questionable. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 12/17/19 2:03:57 PM #127:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... So the US told Ukraine they won't get aid unless they do what the US wants. Trump asked Ukraine to do something but never made it a condition of receiving aid. yeah he just blocked the aid so they would know theyd get it regardless --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:931713123] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>So the US told Ukraine they won't get aid unless they do what the US wants. Trump asked Ukraine to do something but never made it a condition of receiving aid.</quote> yeah he just blocked the aid so they would know theyd get it regardless </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SKARDAVNELNATE 12/17/19 4:42:23 PM #128:	darkknight109 posted... Because you've said that Biden was corrupt for pushing for the ouster of a prosecutor No, I didn't. Where do you think I said that? darkknight109 posted... Incorrect, and numerous people have testified under oath to this fact The Ukraine presidsent says otherwise. What reason does he have to lie if he's the victim? darkknight109 posted... Seems tactically questionable. Sounds about right for the Democrats. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:931719857] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Because you've said that Biden was corrupt for pushing for the ouster of a prosecutor</quote>No, I didn't. Where do you think I said that? darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Incorrect, and numerous people have testified under oath to this fact</quote>The Ukraine presidsent says otherwise. What reason does he have to lie if he's the victim? darkknight109 posted... </cite> <quote>Seems tactically questionable.</quote>Sounds about right for the Democrats. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 12/17/19 6:38:17 PM #129:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... No, I didn't. Where do you think I said that? Post 92, brah. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... The Ukraine presidsent says otherwise. What reason does he have to lie if he's the victim? Because the odds of Trump being removed were never higher than low single digits, meaning this guy is dependent on Trump not fucking him over again if he actually wants to not get rolled by Russia, so he has to pretend like everything's cool even though he basically got shaken down by a mobster president. Seriously, read the transcript of his conversation with Trump. This guy knew exactly what was going on. Not to mention, if he truly "felt no pressure" from Trump, why did he book an appearance on CNN to read the script that Trump's minions had sent to him? Why did he cancel it when the whistleblower report became public and Trump released the aid money? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Sounds about right for the Democrats. Standard conspiracy theory statement here. "The target of my ire is a secret criminal mastermind, deviously manipulating the world powers into doing their nefarious bidding, while still making mistakes so stupid that I, a nobody on an internet message board, can spot them with no insider knowledge." --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:931724679] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>No, I didn't. Where do you think I said that?</quote>Post 92, brah. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>The Ukraine presidsent says otherwise. What reason does he have to lie if he's the victim?</quote>Because the odds of Trump being removed were never higher than low single digits, meaning this guy is dependent on Trump not fucking him over again if he actually wants to not get rolled by Russia, so he has to pretend like everything's cool even though he basically got shaken down by a mobster president. Seriously, read the transcript of his conversation with Trump. This guy knew exactly what was going on. Not to mention, if he truly "felt no pressure" from Trump, why did he book an appearance on CNN to read the script that Trump's minions had sent to him? Why did he cancel it when the whistleblower report became public and Trump released the aid money? SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Sounds about right for the Democrats.</quote>Standard conspiracy theory statement here. "The target of my ire is a secret criminal mastermind, deviously manipulating the world powers into doing their nefarious bidding, while still making mistakes so stupid that I, a nobody on an internet message board, can spot them with no insider knowledge." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 12/17/19 6:40:16 PM #130:	Trumpsters have been pushing the "dems are illegally ousting Trump" narrative since before the election even happened https://youtu.be/_jV7ocKGTAc They have no right to accuse others of crying wolf --- I have no idea whether or not he's a racist, but apparently there are recordings of him using racial slurs so it's a distinct possibility. <cite>Blighboy posted [p:931724750] in I find it ... [t:78246484]...</cite> <quote>Trumpsters have been pushing the "dems are illegally ousting Trump" narrative since before the election even happened https://youtu.be/_jV7ocKGTAc They have no right to accuse others of crying wolf </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Poll of the Day > I find it ironic that Democrats started all that impeachment process... (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > I find it ironic that Democrats started all that impeachment process...