Yzermandius19

Not for a company that is being investigated they didn't. It's bad optics for Biden, even if his son did nothing wrong, the spin is effective. Politicians don't care about hypocrisy, especially if it not being a hypocrite gets in the way scoring political points against your opposition, then they gladly indulge in it with much enthusiasm. Welcome to politics.

Without a provable quid pro quo, there is nothing illegal about it. In order for their to be a quid pro quo, Ukraine would have had to follow his suggestion and ask for something in return, and since they never even did the first part, that pipe dream is dead in the water.

Because those reasons don't focus the story on Biden's weaknesses, duh.

Being POTUS or not is irrelevant. It's not illegal either way. Doing opposition research is not illegal, it's protected free speech, whether you are POTUS or not.

Any number of reasons. The fact that you can only think of one, means you exactly nothing about US-Ukranian relations.

Clinton used Ukraine to get dirt on Trump. Turnabout is fair play.

There can be no other reason to withold aid. Your imagination is next level bad.

Throw away remarks that aren't acted in is astonishingly corrupt only to those grasping at straws. Can't obstruct justice if no justice was obstructed.

Trump did not admit that the "whistleblower" was credible. He admitted that he suggested Ukraine do something that they never did, and this entire story is fake news in a lame attempt to deflect from Biden's Ukraine issues.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/donald-trump-whistleblower/index.html You clearly aren't paying attention, if you were unaware of this. Not credible in the slightest, not even a whistleblower. The "whistleblower" got his information from an off the record rumor while off duty, from someone who claims to have heard the conversation, and didn't feel the need to blow the whistle themselves, that's about as low credibility as you can get. As usual Boges, you are a sucker for Fake News.

The media even admits to it. You're not even paying attention.

It's not credible because the "whistleblower" never heard the conversation, he heard second hand, from a person he claims heard the conversation and yet refuses to come forward on the record, it's nothing but an off the record rumor dude. How is a rumor by a third party who wasn't even a witness credible? Riddle me that. You assume that because it's critical of Trump, it must be right, you don't look at the facts, you see what you want to see.

The IG is wrong. No matter what the complaint says, it is not credible. Hearing it or not will make no difference, and just result in people like you moving the goalposts when all your speculation is proven to be wishful thinking. Ukraine didn't look into Biden, Trump suggesting they do so is irrelevant, since it had no impact on anything. Suggesting Ukraine look into it, is not illegal, and not an impeachable offense, only if there was a quid pro quo would it matter, and there wasn't. Giuliani looking into it isn't relevant either, there is no law against opposition research.

You are jumping to conclusions that paint Trump in a negative light, because it is what you want to see. It is not a credible complaint, it is third hand information at best, it's not even a whistleblower, therefore whistleblower protections do not apply. Some guy heard another guy say that he heard Trump say something on a phone call that the first guy never even heard, that is not credible, in any way, shape or form. If you find that to be credible, your judgement should be called into question.

The "whistleblower" doesn't even know what he said, they never heard the conversation, and you still take their word for it. Typical. You know who it's actually confirmed did do that though? Hillary Clinton used the Ukraine to dig up dirt on Trump, but only when Trump might have done it, according to some guy who heard another guy say Trump said it, do you give a sh*t. Turnabout is fair play, if the Democrats don't like it, they shouldn't have gone there in the first place, crying foul now only when their opponent does it, is typical political hypocrisy.

They really can't. It's all TDS fueled hysteria, completely nonsensical blather, totally incoherent. Orange Man Bad is not coherent. Trump is infinitely more coherent than his extremely counter-productive opposition.

Neither can the Democrats, you think Biden is coherent? Lulz. There is no one who can beat him, he ain't running against Usain Bolt, he's running against babies who can barely crawl. You are tunnel visioning on his weaknesses while ignoring his opponents far bigger weaknesses.

Drumpf is done now. Said wishful thinkers for billionth time, they never grow tired of being wrong.

Y'all are acting like "assault" weapons bans aren't already arbitrary as it is. Plenty of "hunting" rifles that are perfectly legal are just as dangerous, if not more dangerous, then these "assault" rifles they ban. These bans are not based on logical considerations, but emotional ones, it's just a scary label to scare rubes who know nothing about guns, it has nothing to do with lethality, it's mostly based on cosmetic features that don't impact effectiveness of the firearm whatsoever. If you think assault rifles are significantly more dangerous than most sporting or hunting rifles, it's because you think scary looking guns are more lethal than they actually are, based purely on how scary the label they are classified under sounds and how militarized a gun looks to an ignorant observer.

Logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can't prove a negative. Hence innocent until proven, and not guilty until proven innocent, you can't prove innocence, but you can prove guilt, hence the standard.

Presidential and Congressional elections are separate, the districts choice for POTUS is irrelevant, unless the states want them to matter. Under the system you propose, candidates would only campaign in major cities and the rest of the country would be completely ignored. This is not Canada, where the PM sits in Parliament, and it should not be treated as such. The President is suppose represent the entire country, not just the urban districts. The House already represents the districts, you don't the need the President to be elected by whoever controls the House. The President is suppose to check the power of the House, and the House is supposed to check the power of the President, intertwining them as you suggest is against the very ethos of America, checks and balances, that's why the EC exists as it does. Trying to remake America in Canada's image simply doesn't fly south of the border, nor should it. You really want to give Trump Nancy Pelosi's job on top of his own? That's your plan to MAGA? Be careful what you wish for, stop only thinking about how things would work if the side you prefer had power, and start thinking about how things would work if the side you don't prefer had that power, because the pendulum will eventually swing a direction you find distasteful. If you design a system that only works well if the side you trust has power, then all that extra power you just gave to the President is eventually going to be used by a President you don't like, it's an extremely short sighted plan that is bound to backfire on you, and you aren't going to like the results when it does.

Incorrect. Private citizens can be totally anti-free speech, mobs have no right to shut down speech they don't like. You can mock, laugh and boo without stifling the free speech of others, if you can't do that, you are against free speech, and only for speech that you approve of. If free speech only covered speech that no one considers offensive, it wouldn't need to be protected by constitutional rights because no one would try and shut anyone down, it is there to prevent the government or the people from infringing on the rights of those with opinions others consider offensive. Free speech is not only popular ideas get to talk, all others ideas get shut down by the government or a mob, that ain't free speech. You can reject ideas all you want, you don't get to reject ideas by infringing on others rights though. You don't have to listen, but that doesn't give you the right to prevent other people from listening. That is not the system working exactly as it should. History shows that shutting down free speech like that will eventually be turned around and used against Antifa, and when it does, they aren't going to like it, and are going to scream fascism, but they are the one's who created the problem and will just be getting a taste of their own medicine. Can't say I didn't warn you. If you can't see a problem with an anti-semetic mob shutting down Jews expressing ideas they don't like, because you think such actions are only going to be used to shut down people whose opinions you don't approve of, and these tactics will only ever be used by people you agree with, and that makes it all okay, then you are too far gone to be reasoned with. Wishful thinking and an inability to see unintended consequences for the fail.

Preventing unpopular people from speaking is not freedom of expression, that is shutting down the voices of unpopular people, which hinders their freedom of expression. You don't have to listen, but that doesn't give you the right to prevent other people from listening. That is what you are doing, that is not free speech. In fact, that is exactly what the Nazi's did to silence their opposition, among other tactics, and Antifa is embracing Nazi tactics openly while claiming to be against fascism, y'all are clowns. Your freedom of expression does not supersede theirs, fascists claim otherwise, but fascists would claim otherwise wouldn't they? Them being unpopular does not excuse your actions, if they turned around and started doing it to you, you'd cry fascism, but if you impede their freedom of expression, it's all cool because you claim to be one of the good guys? That's not how it works, both popular and unpopular opinions are entitled to speak freely, without a mob shutting them down because they don't like what they have to say, or the person who is saying it. Those who think otherwise can go suck a bag of dicks, they are fascist scum, whether they claim to be anti-fascist or not, their actions reveal what they truly believe.

Drowning out the free speech of others is not freedom of expression, you are not the arbiters of who is allowed to speak and who is not, that is not free speech. Some people want to listen to them, and you think you have a right to prevent them from doing so, if you don't like the speaker. That is fascist, not anti-fascist. You ain't fooling me. Most the time the speaker isn't even a fascist or white supremacist, it's just a conservative commentator you don't like, and even when the few times you are attempting to shut down actual fascists, they still have a right to speak at a public venue where people want to listen to them, and other people showing up to prevent them from speaking is not pro-free speech, just the opposite. Antifa are the real Nazi's here, the Nazi's shut down people from speaking who they disagreed with too, and now Antifa is stealing their tactics to silence the opposition, while claiming to fight against their cause. Clown Show, if y'all want to pretend like you are actually anti-fascists, try not acting like fascists and letting people you disagree with actually speak, pro tip. You don't have to listen to them, but you don't have to prevent others from listening to them either. Preventing others from listening to them is anti-free speech, your right to speak freely does not supersede theirs, it's not them who go around shutting down antifa events, but it's antifa who go around shutting down theirs.

Donald Trump won the popular vote in 30 US states, that are worth 305 electoral votes. Hillary won the popular vote in 20 US states + DC, that are worth a total of 232 electoral votes. It's is the United States of America, and not the United People's of America, for a reason. Zeitgeist is just mad that the system is deliberately designed to stop a party running up voting total margins only in major urban centers from winning the White House, and it worked against the party he wanted to win.