America under President Trump

[Rue]

18 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

It's not just about you....Trump's critics said he was doomed before, and they were wrong...many times.

Mueller actually helped Trump in the end, vindicating him for Russian "collusion".

The House waited because Pelosi did not have the votes.

Impeachment is a political, not criminal process.

 

The fact that Democrats and Republicans find what Trump did with the Ukrainian President unacceptable may have political motivations but that does not mean what Trump did has no legal ramifications. Trump partisans such as yourself believe because Trump is a political figure and you agreee with his political opinions that  you can be blind when he breaks the law. When a political figure acts unethically and illegally both political and legal issues are triggered and the legal ones do not vanish because you like Trump.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Rue

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Rue said:

 

The fact that Democrats and Republicans find what Trump did with the Ukrainian President unacceptable may have political motivations but that does not mean what Trump did has no legal ramifications. Trump partisans such as yourself believe because Trump is a political figure and you agreee with his political opinions that  you can be blind when he breaks the law. When a political figure acts unethically and illegally both political and legal issues are triggered and the legal ones do not vanish because you like Trump.

You have zero evidence he broke the law. Trump partisans are not the only people suggesting this, you just want to pretend that they are all pro-Trump partisans, so you can write off everyone who holds that opinion without thinking.

[bush_cheney2004]

22 minutes ago, Rue said:

 

The fact that Democrats and Republicans find what Trump did with the Ukrainian President unacceptable may have political motivations but that does not mean what Trump did has no legal ramifications. Trump partisans such as yourself believe because Trump is a political figure and you agreee with his political opinions that  you can be blind when he breaks the law. When a political figure acts unethically and illegally both political and legal issues are triggered and the legal ones do not vanish because you like Trump.

 

Trump faces no legal liability for the alleged Ukraine cover up or electioneering, just the political process of impeachment, same as Clinton.

...Bill Clinton still served two full terms.

[Boges]

14 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The White House let everyone see the call. There was no crime, and there was no cover up, all you are doing is grasping at straws. The transcript showed that Democrats jumped the gun on a nothing burger again, but just like the last nothing burger they jumped the gun on, they refuse to admit that they made an obvious mistake and double down on the derp.

Yeeeeah there was. He clearly asked a foreign government's leader for help to with a future election. 

Nice to see you've come off the ridiculous claim that the IG and the Whistleblower were wrong because the recounts weren't first hand. 

Curious, if no crime was committed, why was the transcript moved to a top secret server? 

[Boges]

52 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Trump faces no legal liability for the alleged Ukraine cover up or electioneering, just the political process of impeachment, same as Clinton.

...Bill Clinton still served two full terms.

That's true, which is why the Mueller Report didn't work.

Once he's a private citizen again tho. 

I'm sure the Southern District of New York have several things they'd like to talk to him. 

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Boges said:

Yeeeeah there was. He clearly asked a foreign government's leader for help to with a future election. 

Nice to see you've come off the ridiculous claim that the IG and the Whistleblower were wrong because the recounts weren't first hand. 

Curious, if no crime was committed, why was the transcript moved to a top secret server? 

No he didn't. There was no crime, if there was, they wouldn't have released the transcript or the complaint. They didn't have to do that, and they did it, to rub the haters noses in your wrongness and make a fool out of them, yet again. Some of you move the goalposts, some of you are still in denial that it's a nothing burger, some of you do both, but Trump wins when you out yourselves as that full blown nuts.

You got Muellered again, clown.
Ha-ha! Nelson Muntz knows.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

No he didn't. There was no crime, if there was, they wouldn't have released the transcript or the complaint. They didn't have to do that, and they did it, to rub the haters noses in your wrongness and make a fool out of them, yet again. Some of you move the goalposts, some of you are still in denial that it's a nothing burger, some of you do both, but Trump wins when you out yourselves as that full blown nuts.

You got Muellered again, clown.
Ha-ha! Nelson Muntz knows.

Yeah no crime. That's why Trump is threatening to execute people. 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Yeah no crime. That's why Trump is threatening to execute people. 

You're so delusional, it's hilarious. Trump is not worried in the slightest, wishful thinking is a helluva drug and so is confirmation bias. Two concepts that pollute your thinking to point where you simply are unable to see the reality in front of you, manifested in Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

12 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You're so delusional, it's hilarious. Trump is not worried in the slightest, wishful thinking is a helluva drug and so is confirmation bias. Two concepts that pollute your thinking to point where you simply are unable to see the reality in front of you, manifested in Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I see an increase in rhetoric and lack of any cogent argument from you. 

I bet the Whistleblower has TDS too. 

[Boges]

Here are multiple ways it could be illegal. 

https://reason.com/2019/09/26/did-trump-commit-an-actual-crime-by-seeking-a-ukrainian-investigation-of-joe-biden-and-does-it-matter-for-impeachment-purposes/

AND!!!! 

You don't have to commit a crime to be impeached. 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by Boges

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

I see an increase in rhetoric and lack of any cogent argument from you. 

I bet the Whistleblower has TDS too. 

I have yet to see a cogent argument out of you regarding Trump ever. All you do is parrot Fake News, you buy essentially every Democrat talking point hook, line and sinker.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

I have yet to see a cogent argument out of you regarding Trump ever. All you do is parrot Fake News.

I'm parroting a transcript that was released by the White House and a Whistleblower complaint from a member of the intelligence community. 

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

I'm parroting a transcript that was released by the White House and a Whistleblower complaint from a member of the intelligence community. 

No you're not. That transcript shows no proof of any crime, you are assuming you can read Trump's mind and know exactly what he meant, even though he never said any such thing and you have no proof that he meant it the way you think he did. Sorry but I put no faith in your mind reading skills, and even if you were pro-Trump, I would put no faith in those skills.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

No you're not. That transcript shows no proof of any crime, you are assuming you can read Trump's mind and know exactly what he meant, even though he never said any such thing and you have no proof that he meant it the way you think he did.

Again, no crime needs to be committed. 

The context of the call is that Military Aid was suspended a week prior. The President of Ukraine reiterated his need for said Military Aid. The immediate response from Trump is ask for help in digging up dirt on Hillary and Biden. "I need you to do me a favour". 

We don't really have to be mind-readers here. 

[Boges]

Also, Why is Trump's personal lawyer. A man who has no security clearance and who's not employed by the Government making deals with foreign leaders to solidify military aid? 

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

Again, no crime needs to be committed. 

The context of the call is that Military Aid was suspended a week prior. The President of Ukraine reiterated his need for said Military Aid. The immediate response from Trump is ask for help in digging up dirt on Hillary and Biden. "I need you to do me a favour". 

We don't really have to be mind-readers here. 

Your guilty until proven innocent standard is asinine. You would not apply the same standard to a politician you liked, if they were in the same position, obvious partisan hackery is obvious.

Trump did not specify what the favor was, or what he was getting in return for it, and neither did the Ukrainian's, you have no quid pro quo. What you need is an actual trading of favors being explicitly discussed, not vague talk that might or might not be an indication that maybe at some other point in time a quid pro quo may have been discussed. That is not a quid pro quo.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Your guilty until proven innocent standard is asinine. You would not apply the same standard to a politician you liked, if they were in the same position, obvious partisan hackery is obvious.

Trump did not specify what the favor was, or what he was getting in return for it, and neither did the Ukrainian's, you have no quid pro quo.

Well proving guilt is what impeachment is for, a trial. But I would argue this transcript is excellent probably cause. ALSO, something you're not comprehending, Impeachment is a political process. The burden of a criminal court doesn't need to be applied here.  

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Boges said:

Well proving guilt is what impeachment is for, a trial. But I would argue this transcript is excellent probably cause. ALSO, something you're not comprehending, Impeachment is a political process. The burden of a criminal court doesn't need to be applied here.  

Impeachment is a political witch hunt, it has nothing to do with proving guilt or innocence. Stop trying to act like you are educating me, I'm well aware it's a political process. If you try to impeach a POTUS with no proof of crimes, it will backfire and empower that POTUS, and he won't be removed from office. Go ahead, make Trump's day, impeach him, it's still going to be four more years.

Last time a POTUS was impeached, they had proof of a crime, and Clinton still became more popular than ever and wasn't removed from office. If you go after Trump with nothing, how do you think that hurts him? It will rally his base and alienate swing voters, same as what happened with Clinton. Impeachment plays right into Trump's hands, no matter how much you bury your head in the sand and refuse to believe it, all because that isn't what you want to happen.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Impeachment is a political witch hunt, it has nothing to do with proving guilt or innocence. Stop trying to act like you are educating me, I'm well aware it's a political process. If you try to impeach a POTUS with no proof of crimes, it will backfire, and he won't be removed from office.

So then why is your argument against impeachment that a crime wasn't committed? 

Now you can pivot to your argument that this will help Trump in 2020. And believe that all you want. No one knows the future. 

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, Boges said:

So then why is your argument against impeachment that a crime wasn't committed? 

Now you can pivot to your argument that this will help Trump in 2020. And believe that all you want. No one knows the future. 

If you impeach without proof of crime, it will backfire even more than if you do it with proof of a crime that voters don't care about. If you want to empower Trump, go right ahead. I know the past, I know what happens when a political party in America goes down the impeachment path, clearly you do not, or you wouldn't be acting like it's likely to hurt Trump.

You can believe that all you want, but the past shows that your wishful thinking scenario has never happened, and you are grasping at straws with your Impeach Trump canard. That's the difference between my political analysis and yours, I actually know what has happened in similar situations in the past, while you don't have the slightest clue about any of that and are huffing the wishful thinking dust, thinking that this form of analysis is just as valid as having a working knowledge of American political history.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

18 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

If you impeach without proof of crime, it will backfire even more than if you do it with proof of a crime that voters don't care about. If you want to empower Trump, go right ahead. I know the past, I know what happens when a political party in America goes down the impeachment path, clearly you do not, or you wouldn't be acting like it's likely to hurt Trump.

It's your opinion there's no proof of a crime. It's not an objective fact. 

[egghead]

24 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's your opinion there's no proof of a crime. It's not an objective fact. 

C'mon, we all knew Trump commited no crime, Hunter Biden as well. However, Joe was different story. 

[Yzermandius19]

36 minutes ago, Boges said:

It's your opinion there's no proof of a crime. It's not an objective fact. 

It is an objective fact based on the evidence presented thus far. The only people who think otherwise, are the misinformed, most of whom are Trump Haters, and in that instance, confirmation bias is the main reason they buy that bullsh*t, has nothing to do with facts.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Yeeeeah there was. He clearly asked a foreign government's leader for help to with a future election. 

Nice to see you've come off the ridiculous claim that the IG and the Whistleblower were wrong because the recounts weren't first hand. 

Curious, if no crime was committed, why was the transcript moved to a top secret server? 

1 Can you find the quote from the transcript where he said that the investigation of an obvious crime had anything to do with the upcoming election? You need to cite that Boges.

2 The whistleblower's own statement said that "they talked to people with first hand knowledge of the conversation". 

3 When Obama left the Whitehouse he made access to secret information easier for hundreds of people, resulting in an unprecedented amount of leaks. Conversations between the President and all other world leaders, not just that particular phone call, were all moved to more secure servers.

[egghead]

9 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The socialist Democrats can harass Trump and take out Joe Biden at the same time:

 

I believe this impeachment is not all about Dems's socialist. Dems need to impeachment Trump becasue they reach the conlusion Trump is likely to win re-election and Dems will lose the house as well. So, they are willing to give up their front runner who is the only electable candidate in the field.

Edited September 27, 2019 by egghead