America under President Trump

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

The phone call made it clear he only cared about Crowdstrike and Burisma, not general corruption in Ukraine.

Speculation, not evidence. You having no other explanation, is not evidence of anything other than you putting your head in the sand, and not wanting to hear the explanations provided by many witnesses in this investigation.

They can come up with other possibilities other than the one they think is most likely, why can't you?

Not a single one of them has said that their opinion is anything other than their opinion, not a single one of them has said they have evidence that it was all about Biden's with Trump, they admit it's speculation on their part, so why can't you?

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Speculation, not evidence.

So how many people can speculate the same thing before it can be considered evidence? 

The irony is that Trump and his team are withholding the release of evidence. Sondland mentions that he's been denied records by the WH so he can't reference conversations. 

That's obstruction of Justice. That'll no doubt be added to articles of impeachment. 

 

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, Boges said:

So how many people can speculate the same thing before it can be considered evidence? 

 

Doesn't matter how many people speculate it, it's still speculation and not evidence. The fact that you think it is, just goes to show the straws you will grasp at to bash Trump.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Doesn't matter how many people speculate it, it's still speculation and not evidence. The fact that you think it is, just goes to show the straws you will grasp at to bash Trump.

It speaks more the goal posts you'll move to defend Trump. 

Obstruction of Justice is a crime. So refusal to provide the evidence that would be a reasonable article of impeachment. 

All these witnesses certainly supply ample probably cause. 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

It speaks more the goal posts you'll move to defend Trump. 

Obstruction of Justice is a crime. So refusal to provide the evidence that would be a reasonable article of impeachment. 

All these witnesses certainly supply ample probably cause. 

Prove he obstructed justice. People not having all the documents they wanted is not obstructing justice. Talk about moving the goal posts, when all other accusations fail, claim he obstructed justice.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Prove he obstructed justice. People not having all the documents they wanted is not obstructing justice.

Refusing to comply with Subpoenas. And telling people with first-hand knowledge not to testify. 

He's also clearly guilty of witness tampering. 

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Boges said:

Refusing to comply with Subpoenas. And telling people with first-hand knowledge not to testify. 

He's also clearly guilty of witness tampering. 

They issued no subpoenas to the people who didn't want to testify, they asked a bunch of people to testify, and chickened out of making it official in many cases, so those witnesses told them to actually subpoena them or f*ck off.

Trashing someone in a tweet is not witness tampering, that is your dumbest point yet, and that's saying a lot. You will just grasp at all the straws and move the goalposts constantly, anything to try and get Trump. Obvious TDS is obvious.

When your key points don't work, you just bring out any garbage and throw it against the wall to see what sticks, acting like because there is so much garbage to throw is evidence of wrong doing in and of itself. Pathetic.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

They issued no subpoenas, they asked people to testify, and chickened out of making it official.

Cite? 

Obstruction will be part of articles of impeachment 

https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/schiff-any-white-house-stonewalling-will-be-considered-obstruction-of-justice/

Now you're not spouting facts, you're just spouting opinions. 

So saying something is what it isn't isn't really debating. I could play that game all day myself. 

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Boges said:

Cite? 

Obstruction will be part of articles of impeachment 

https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/schiff-any-white-house-stonewalling-will-be-considered-obstruction-of-justice/

Now you're not spouting facts, you're just spouting opinions. 

So saying something is what it isn't isn't really debating. I could play that game all day myself. 

How about citing people refusing to testify under official subpoena's? You have no proof. Schiff saying it's obstruction of justice, does not make it so, you taking his word for it, is a clear sign you are in the bag for the Democrats. Schiff cites no evidence of people not testifying under official subpoena's, in fact, he is the one obstructing the subpoena's of witnesses the Republicans want to call, not the other way around. Schiff is in charge of the subpoena's, if he wanted to compel the witnesses to testify, he could, he just doesn't want to, while claiming it's the Republican's obstructing because he made a show of unofficially asking them to testify while not having balls to officially subpoena them, and you fell for it.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

Anything Zelensky says isn't applicable because he's being extorted by POTUS. 

Even the GOP's start witnesses said they deemed investigations into the Biden's and Crowdstrike in exchange for military aid would have been unacceptable. 

Kurt Volker actually claimed he didn't drawn the comparison between Burisma and Hunter Biden. Even though it's plain as day in the Memorandum. 

FFS Boges, now you're saying that the freely given opinion of the person who was on the other end of that phone call doesn't matter but you're already giving credibility to people who only heard second and third hand accounts, and you're regurgitating lies told by CNN that I just pointed out to you in the last post.

People were asked if "withholding military aid in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden" was wrong. I could ask them if throwing babies into the sun is wrong and get the same answer. It just doesn't apply to this case.

Volker didn't know, back when this was all going on, about the connection between HBiden and Burisma. Why would he have known back then? There are hundreds of companies in Ukraine. There was a war going on. Everyone had bigger fish to fry. H Biden and Burisma were literally of no concern to Volker at that time. 

Also, the whole issue of what investigation Trump talked to Zelensky about on the phone call was misrepresented to Volker. Trump started the investigation conversation about crowdstrike, which was only pertinent to the Russian collusion investigation, period. That's what Trump asked Zelensky about. Everything after that was a conversation, and Zelensky was the first one to bring any persons or subjects into the conversation which had any bearing on the Biden issue. IE, the prosecutor. Trump arranged to have the AG and Giuliani handle those issues, as is proper. "Our people will talk to your people".

At no point did Trump ever say "I want dirt" on Biden or anyone else, so for the Dems to continually frame Trump's call as something it wasn't is heinous, but you propagated their talking points like a good little chump. Trump said that he wanted an investigation into crowdstrike and at no point did he ever ask for it to reach any conclusions whatsoever. There's nothing wrong with that. If Hillary was held to the same scrutiny do you think her calls would be limited to "only find the truth about issues pertaining to investigations into my own conduct"? OMG I MIGHT DIE LAUGHING!!!!!!!!! What about Comey? The FBI offered reduced sentencing, for crimes that were completely unrelated to Russian collusion, to get Manafort to say something bad about Trump, at a point in time when the FBI still didn't have a single shred of evidence that Trump had actually colluded with Russia. That's disturbing. Did they want Manafort to lie? They should at least have a teensy shred of something before they bribe someone for testimony. 

[Boges]

26 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

How about citing people refusing to testify under official subpoena's? You have no proof. Schiff saying it's obstruction of justice, does not make it so, you taking his word for it, is a clear sign you are in the bag for the Democrats. Schiff cites no evidence of people not testifying under official subpoena's, in fact, he is the one obstructing the subpoena's of witnesses the Republicans want to call, not the other way around. Schiff is in charge of the subpoena's, if he wanted to compel the witnesses to testify, he could, he just doesn't want to, while claiming it's the Republican's obstructing because he made a show of unofficially asking them to testify while not having balls to officially subpoena them, and you fell for it.

So you're "Speculating" there's no subpoena? So if evidence is provided then it can be an impeachable offence? 

Sounds sort of like the Official Impeachment vote strawman. That one got called out pretty quickly. 

Cite this defence being used by GOP. Because if it's just something you made up, you better let them know about it, they need your help. 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

So you're "Speculating" there's no subpoena? So if evidence is provided then it can be an impeachable offence? 

Sounds sort of like the Official Impeachment vote strawman. That one got called out pretty quickly. 

Cite this defence being used by GOP. Because if it's just something you made up, you better let them know about it, they need your help. 

The GOP has been talking about it, you just haven't been listening, because you don't want to hear the other side.

You're in bag for the Democrats, and only want to hear about how Trump is doomed, so you tunnel vision on only the Democrats claims, you don't even know the claims the other side is making, because that might make you doubt that Trump is doomed.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

FFS Boges, now you're saying that the freely given opinion of the person who was on the other end of that phone call doesn't matter but you're already giving credibility to people who only heard second and third hand accounts, and you're regurgitating lies told by CNN that I just pointed out to you in the last post.

People were asked if "withholding military aid in exchange for an investigation into Joe Biden" was wrong. I could ask them if throwing babies into the sun is wrong and get the same answer. It just doesn't apply to this case.

Volker didn't know, back when this was all going on, about the connection between HBiden and Burisma. Why would he have known back then? There are hundreds of companies in Ukraine. There was a war going on. Everyone had bigger fish to fry. H Biden and Burisma were literally of no concern to Volker at that time. 

Also, the whole issue of what investigation Trump talked to Zelensky about on the phone call was misrepresented to Volker. Trump started the investigation conversation about crowdstrike, which was only pertinent to the Russian collusion investigation, period. That's what Trump asked Zelensky about. Everything after that was a conversation, and Zelensky was the first one to bring any persons or subjects into the conversation which had any bearing on the Biden issue. IE, the prosecutor. Trump arranged to have the AG and Giuliani handle those issues, as is proper. "Our people will talk to your people".

At no point did Trump ever say "I want dirt" on Biden or anyone else, so for the Dems to continually frame Trump's call as something it wasn't is heinous, but you propagated their talking points like a good little chump. Trump said that he wanted an investigation into crowdstrike and at no point did he ever ask for it to reach any conclusions whatsoever. There's nothing wrong with that. If Hillary was held to the same scrutiny do you think her calls would be limited to "only find the truth about issues pertaining to investigations into my own conduct"? OMG I MIGHT DIE LAUGHING!!!!!!!!! What about Comey? The FBI offered reduced sentencing, for crimes that were completely unrelated to Russian collusion, to get Manafort to say something bad about Trump, at a point in time when the FBI still didn't have a single shred of evidence that Trump had actually colluded with Russia. That's disturbing. Did they want Manafort to lie? They should at least have a teensy shred of something before they bribe someone for testimony. 

You really spend all this time to write all that and not produce a reasonable argument. 

You actually referenced James Comey and Paul Manafort. Way to deflect!

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

BOOM!!!!!

Sonland just threw Rudy and Trump under the Bus. 

Confirming what everyone knows. The Military Aide was being withheld in exchange for political investigations and it was at the direction of Rudy, Trump's personal lawyer. 

First hand account. 

I haven't seen what Sondland said yet, at some point I will, and once again I will have to explain the whole scenario to you because for the 80th time you just glommed onto a Schiff/CNN/Hillary talking point and you can't figure out what it all means by yourself. Just like Russian collusion, just like Ford/Kavanaugh, just like the transcripts, just like the Biden family's obvious profiteering, just like everything else, you take CNN's word for it and then you need to have it explained to you.

Dude you should KNOW by now that CNN hasn't been telling you the truth all along. Why do you keep listening to them? If you had an employee that kept stealing from you would you keep saying "I think they're telling the truth now when they say they won't steal anymore. Now that they duped me 17 times I know how to tell when they are lying".

 

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

The GOP has been talking about it, you just haven't been listening, because you don't want to hear the other side.

Cite. 

And would you concede it was Obstruction of Justice if an actual subpoena was issued? 

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Boges said:

You really spend all this time to write all that and not produce a reasonable argument. 

You actually referenced James Comey and Paul Manafort. Way to deflect!

If you could understand it, it would be reasonable. I can't dumb it down any more for you boges. I can't write it with crayons. 

[Boges]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

I haven't seen what Sondland said yet, at some point I will, and once again I will have to explain the whole scenario to you because for the 80th time you just glommed onto a Schiff/CNN/Hillary talking point and you can't figure out what it all means by yourself. Just like Russian collusion, just like Ford/Kavanaugh, just like the transcripts, just like the Biden family's obvious profiteering, just like everything else, you take CNN's word for it and then you need to have it explained to you.

Dude you should KNOW by now that CNN hasn't been telling you the truth all along. Why do you keep listening to them? If you had an employee that kept stealing from you would you keep saying "I think they're telling the truth now when they say they won't steal anymore. Now that they duped me 17 times I know how to tell when they are lying".

 

So every time you mention Kavanaugh I'll assume you're just going to old talking points. You have nothing new to contribute. 

[Boges]

Just now, WestCanMan said:

If you could understand it, it would be reasonable. I can't dumb it down any more for you boges. I can't write it with crayons. 

It's just meaningless rambling. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Boges

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Cite. 

And would you concede it was Obstruction of Justice if an actual subpoena was issued? 

Not obstruction on Trump's part, obstruction on the subpoena'd witnesses part. You have no such evidence though, so good luck finding it. You fell for Schiff's ruse, because you want to believe those arguing against Trump have as much credibility as possible, when that is not the case at all.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Not obstruction on Trump's part, obstruction on the subpoena'd witnesses part.

By direction of Trump and the DOJ. 

 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

By direction of Trump and the DOJ. 

 

Good luck proving that. Good luck proving there was official subpoena's too. Schiff lying about it, is not proof and neither is any other partisan democrats lying about it.

Edited November 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

BOOM!!!!!

I can't help but be reminded of all the times that you said this during Russian collusion of Ford lol. Keep kickin' that football Charlie Brown!

[WestCanMan]

7 minutes ago, Boges said:

So every time you mention Kavanaugh I'll assume you're just going to old talking points. You have nothing new to contribute. 

Boges: "Waah! Stop brining up the fact that I've been wrong about every single thing that I ever posted in the US Politics forum!" lol.

Try being right for once Boges. Think for yourself. Stop regurgitating everything Schiff says like it's gospel. You actually know he's a liar.

[taxme]

21 hours ago, Cannucklehead said:

Done on Canada day.  

If it were not for the Democrats trying to fight and hold up everything Trump wants to do like trying to get the trade deal between Mexico/America/Canada ratified things could possibly be a lot better and more fairer. Don't go trying to blame it on Trump for any tariffs that Trump puts on any Canadian products or vice-versa. The democrats are the problem, and not Trump. 

[Cannucklehead]

6 minutes ago, taxme said:

If it were not for the Democrats trying to fight and hold up everything Trump wants to do like trying to get the trade deal between Mexico/America/Canada ratified things could possibly be a lot better and more fairer. Don't go trying to blame it on Trump for any tariffs that Trump puts on any Canadian products or vice-versa. The democrats are the problem, and not Trump. 

The new nafta is being held up because Mexico refuses to upgrade their labour laws.