America under President Trump

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Then why hasn't he acted already? 

He also needs 51 votes to act unilaterally on the Trial rules. 

Not every GOP Senator is on board with doing a show trial that just ignores all the evidence against Trump. 

McConnell wants to stretch it out because it hurts Democrats to not wrap it up quickly, the more details people hear about impeachment, the more they turn on it. The GOP Senators want a trial that makes Democrats look as bad as possible and Trump to look as good as possible, just as House Democrats wanted hearings that make Trump and Republicans look as bad as possible.

The few Never Trump Republicans that there are not running the show, and most of them are smarter than to give the Democrats a win by siding with them on this issue, your pipe dream of Republicans forcing McConnell to rig the Senate trial against Trump in accordance with the will of house democrats is a pipe dream.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

McConnell wants to stretch it out because it hurts Democrats to not wrap it up quickly, the more details people hear about impeachment, the more they turn on it. The GOP Senators want a trial that makes Democrats look as bad as possible and Trump to look as good as possible, just as House Democrats wanted hearings that make Trump and Republicans look as bad as possible.

Yeah that's total BS. You have no evidence for that. 

They wanted this over ASAP so Trump can claim he was vindicated. 

You play 100% in opinion, you never actually back up your claims with anything. 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Yeah that's total BS. You have no evidence for that. 

They wanted this over ASAP so Trump can claim he was vindicated. 

You play 100% in opinion, you never actually back up your claims with anything. 

Look at impeachment polls, it was most popular when the only evidence was selectively leaked testimony, after American's heard the testimony in it's entirety, approval for impeachment went down. All the swing state polls show removal from office underwater.

You've been listening to wishful thinking Democrats and media, impeachment is very much playing in Trump's behavior, as his approval rating going up during the hearings shows, on top actual impeachment polls that have the public souring on the idea the more information they are privy to.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Look at impeachment polls, it was most popular when the only evidence was selectively leaked testimony, after American's heard the testimony, approval for impeachment went down.

Looks pretty steady since October to me. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Looks pretty steady since October to me. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Yet more people disapprove of Trump than approve of impeachment, meaning the Dems are taking an unpopular stance, even by your Nate Silver weighted polls. Check the swing state polls, and see Trump's numbers getting better since impeachment. His approval has shot up since impeachment.

Impeachment might play well in California and New York, but not in the Rust Belt. You simply see what you want to see, you want impeachment to hurt Trump, so you ignore all evidence to the contrary and even your cherry picked data doesn't show a growth in approval for impeachment, but the opposite trend.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Yet more people disapprove of Trump than approve of impeachment, meaning the Dems are taking an unpopular stance, even by your Nate Silver weighted polls.

So if polls don't meet Trumps historically low approval ratings then Impeachment is a bad idea? In a less partisan world, Trump would have been forced out of office a long time ago. Impeachment polling support are more now than they were when the GOP told Nixon to GTFO. 

Again the goal isn't really to remove him from office, it's to have evidence shown that he abused his power. 

But we're going round and round now. Because you'll claim there isn't evidence, and that's just a partisan opinion. As Canadians we just have to watch and root for the sides we want to win. 

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

So if polls don't meet Trumps historically low approval ratings then Impeachment is a bad idea? In a less partisan world, Trump would have been forced out of office a long time ago. Impeachment polling support are more now than they were when the GOP told Nixon to GTFO. 

Again the goal isn't really to remove him from office, it's to have evidence shown that he abused his power. 

But we're going round and round now. Because you'll claim there isn't evidence, and that's just a partisan opinion. As Canadians we just have to watch and root for the sides we want to win. 

You have no evidence he abused his power. He just used his power in way you don't like, that isn't evidence of abuse. Plenty of things you don't like are within the POTUS's power to do.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You have no evidence he abused his power. He just used his power in way you don't like, that isn't evidence of abuse.

There's plenty of evidence. You just won't accept any of it. 

[Yzermandius19]

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

There's plenty of evidence. You just won't accept any of it. 

Neither will America, especially swing state voters. Partisan Democrats accepting it means nothing of consequence. A lot more people who disapprove of Trump don't want to see him impeached than people who approve of Trump and want to see him impeached. Disapproval of impeachment is higher than Trump's approval rating, you are boosting his popularity with this idiotic strategy.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Neither will America, especially swing state voters. Partisan Democrats accepting it means nothing of consequence. A lot more people who disapprove of Trump don't want to see him impeached than people who approve of Trump and want to see him impeached.

Pure Speculation. 

[Yzermandius19]

3 minutes ago, Boges said:

Pure Speculation. 

Disapproval of impeachment is higher than Trump's approval rating, you are boosting his popularity with this idiotic strategy. That's not speculation, those are facts.

The only way disapproval of impeachment can be higher than his approval rating is if more of those who don't approve of Trump don't want to see him impeached than those who approve and want to see him impeached. That's how math works, you're just in denial about basic math because it reveals that you are buying into a false narrative.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Disapproval of impeachment is higher than Trump's approval rating, you are boosting his popularity with this idiotic strategy. That's not speculation, those are facts. \

The only way disapproval of impeachment can be higher than his approval rating is if more of those who don't approve of Trump don't want to see him impeached than those who approve and want to see him impeached. That's how math works.

That doesn't mean he'll be re-elected. And if he does, it doesn't mean impeachment will be the cause. 

[Boges]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/john-bolton-testify-impeachment-subpoena/index.html

UH OH!

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, Boges said:

That doesn't mean he'll be re-elected. And if he does, it doesn't mean impeachment will be the cause. 

He'll be re-elected, and impeachment will be one of many causes. The Democrats would have been better off to not have tried to impeach him, but that wouldn't have saved them.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

19 minutes ago, Boges said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/politics/john-bolton-testify-impeachment-subpoena/index.html

UH OH!

He won't be subpoena'd and if he is, it just means the Republicans are sure his testimony will play to Trump's advantage. Don't get your hopes up.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Yzermandius19

[Boges]

20 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

He'll be re-elected, and impeachment will be one of many causes. The Democrats would have been better off to not have tried to impeach him, but that wouldn't have saved them.

Cool with the more reckless speculation. 

 

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Even Trump's biggest suckholes in the Republican party don't deny he did it.

Did what? Talked to Zelenski about an investigation into an obvious crime? So what? Everyone on the planet knows that Biden committed a crime because he bragged about it. That can't be investigated properly from within the USA, but there's an agreement in place whereby the USA and the Ukraine aid each other in Criminal investigations. 

The Dems are trying to prove that Trump withheld aid to force Zelenski to "dig up crap" on Biden. No one on earth has produced any actual evidence of that.

The only actual quid pro quo was when Biden withheld $1B in loan guarantees from the US Gov't to force the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor who was snooping around Burisma, where Joe Bidens son was gifted a $50K/mo job. 

You're in lalaland if you don't think that Biden blatantly committed a crime, or if you think that the Dems haven't done quid pro quos to cover their backs lately, or if you don't know that the Dems have started investigations into their election rivals. 

You're just a sucker to another Dem farce.

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, Rue said:

The evidence is there. Try read it before you deny it exists. It will be placed in the Senate trial and raised. 

I'm not supposed to go digging up evidence at your command. If you think it's there, cite it. That's how it works. The burden of proof lies with the accusers. 

[Boges]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Did what? Talked to Zelenski about an investigation into an obvious crime? So what? Everyone on the planet knows that Biden committed a crime because he bragged about it. That can't be investigated properly from within the USA, but there's an agreement in place whereby the USA and the Ukraine aid each other in Criminal investigations. 

The Dems are trying to prove that Trump withheld aid to force Zelenski to "dig up crap" on Biden. No one on earth has produced any actual evidence of that.

The only actual quid pro quo was when Biden withheld $1B in loan guarantees from the US Gov't to force the Ukrainians to fire the prosecutor who was snooping around Burisma, where Joe Bidens son was gifted a $50K/mo job. 

You're in lalaland if you don't think that Biden blatantly committed a crime, or if you think that the Dems haven't done quid pro quos to cover their backs lately, or if you don't know that the Dems have started investigations into their election rivals. 

You're just a sucker to another Dem farce.

Lets ignore that there's plenty of evidence that Trump withheld funds to get Zelenski to investigate the Biden's (as well as some crazy Crowdstrike Conspiracy theory)

What National Security purpose does it serve to investigate Joe Biden for something did in 2016 on tape? The argument that he had that prosecutor fired to protect his son doesn't make sense because his son wasn't being investigated at the time. 

But in 2019, how does investigating Biden serve the US National Interest? It serves Trump politically, but that's what he had Rudy and those other two goons for. Even the idea that he'd ask Zelenski to investigate the Bidens seems to be an abuse of power (again ignoring the withheld military funds). It doesn't serve to US in any way, shape or form. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Boges

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

Lets ignore that there's plenty of evidence that Trump withheld funds to get Zelenski to investigate the Biden's (as well as some crazy Crowdstrike Conspiracy theory)

What National Security purpose does it serve to investigate Joe Biden for something did in 2016 on tape? The argument that he had that prosecutor fired to protect his son doesn't make sense because his son wasn't being investigated at the time. 

But in 2019, how does investigating Biden serve the US National Interest? It serves Trump politically, but that's what he had Rudy and those other two goons for. Even the idea that he'd ask Zelenski to investigate the Bidens seems to be an abuse of power (again ignoring the withheld military funds). It doesn't serve to US in any way, shape or form. 

Holy crap Boges. I can't even imagine the inside of your brain.

Crazy crowdstrike conspiracy? How about crazy Russian collusion theory? Why is it a bad thing if Trump wants to find out what happened re: the 3 yr long witch hunt by the Dems? That's personal for him.

The argument that Biden had that Prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma is definitely worth looking into. 1) It's an absolute fact that Biden did a quid pro quo. 2) It's an absolute fact that he lied when he said he didn't know his son worked there. 3) Even Hunter Biden acknowledged the fact that he "probably" got the Burisma jb because of who his dad was. 4) the new Ukrainian prosecutor isn't investigating Burisma, and Burisma is known to have experience corruption on a massive scale. 

Trump made a personal meeting with Zelenski contingent on an investigation, he didn't make the aid contingent on an investigation.

You can go on CNN sites right now and find lies, here's one: https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/12/politics/july-25-timeline/

You notice that CNN says that Trump went right from Zelensky talking about Javs to Trump asking for an investigation into Joe Biden.

Quote

During the pre-planned call, Zelensky says Ukraine wants additional US military assistance, but Trump says, “I would like you to do us a favor though.” Trump then asks him to investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election 

Nothing is accurate about that. 1) Zelenski talked about buying Javelins. Not about another aid shipment. So when Zelensky talked about buying stuff from the US Trump didn't just blurt out "no need to pay, there's a free shipment headed your way". 2) Trump went on to talk about crowdstrike which has absolutely nothing to do with Biden. Nothing at all. CNN told a 100% direct lie about a material fact, as usual. The answer is there in black and white in their own website: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html.

If CNN and the Dems are mad because Trump didn't tell Zelensky that free Javelins were on the way when Zelensky was talking about buying them, that's just plain stupid.

[OftenWrong]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

NONE of the testimony gave any reason why the money was held up. No one ever suggested any reason. According to those who testified, 100% of the US government agencies concerned wanted the aid to be sent to Ukraine. It was held up right after his phone call with the Ukraine president.

After they were found out, after the whistle blower told on them and the IG informed them of this fact, then Trump removed the hold.

Holding up aid money to a purported ally you are helping because it is in your national security interests is, by definition and all logic AGAINST your national security interests. For the president to do this in hopes of forcing that government to launch a phony investigation of his political rival is definitely impeachable.

What?

Evidence?

Evidence?

 

Evidence? What next, you want me to start citing things with links? Just my opinion, no evidence is necessary. Says so right there in my third sentence. I've listened to the testimony of non-witnesses, heard the opinions of media panelists and that's where I'm at. We can argue over proving my opinion but... naa. I don't care enough to put the effort in. I'll simply say I've taken your input under advisement.

Given the intense partisan debate I'm sure your definition of high crimes and misdemeanors will be promoted by the Dems and denounced by the Republicans. These are the lawmakers, but even they can't decide. Politics, you see. I would be easier to prove if it were a clear case, but it just ain't.

Anyway why are you assuming any of what you've heard is fact? Yes the aid was held up, we know that. The reason for the hold was not given. You choose to believe Trump is guilty. By your own admission no one knows why it was held. Therefore, not guilty until proven, by evidence. That's where I'm at. Let the court (Senate) play it out. 

[Boges]

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

1) It's an absolute fact that Biden did a quid pro quo.

But not for personal gain. It was the Obama administrations position to have Shotkin removed. 

Quote

2) It's an absolute fact that he lied when he said he didn't know his son worked there.

Cite that he said he didn't know his son worked there. 

Quote

3) Even Hunter Biden acknowledged the fact that he "probably" got the Burisma jb because of who his dad was.

Nepotism in politics? SHOCKING Trump never benefitted for Nepotism or anything. 

Quote

4) the new Ukrainian prosecutor isn't investigating Burisma, and Burisma is known to have experience corruption on a massive scale. 

Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. Getting him fired didn't protect Hunter Biden. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Boges said:

But not for personal gain.

It was to protect his family. Hunter wasn't just reaping the benefits of his dad's position in Ukraine, he was also doing it with the Communist Bank of China.

Quote

It was the Obama administrations position to have Shotkin removed. 

It was the Trump administration's position that a crime by Biden needed to be investigated.

Quote

Cite that he said he didn't know his son worked there. 

Get your head out of your ass Boges. It was common knowledge for a long time that Joe Biden's position was that he didn't know his son was on the board at Burisma. 

Here's Joe saying it, rudely, for the 1,000th time, on video: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/02/joe_biden_on_hunter_i_didnt_know_he_was_on_the_board_of_that_company.html

If Joe wasn't on record as saying that he didn't know his son worked for Burisma then why would the photo of Joe, Hunter and Devon Archer been a big deal? It was proof that Joe was lying the whole time, about knowing that Hunter worked at Burisma. The day that photo came out was the day that the whistleblower complaint story went hyperbolic. It was the day when the Dems started circling their wagons like a tornado. 

Quote

Nepotism in politics? SHOCKING Trump never benefitted for Nepotism or anything. 

There's a huge difference between a father giving his son a job at the company he built, and a father who gets elected to government who allows corporations or countries to bestow riches upon him or his family. There's never a good reason for it.

Quote

Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. Getting him fired didn't protect Hunter Biden. 

Cite?

[Boges]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Cite?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

Quote

 

But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.

Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.

 

 

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, Boges said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

 

Boges, that cite isn't relevant. 

You said that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. I asked for proof. You cited a link that claims Shokin was fired for a different reason. That's not the same thing, at all. 

Find me a source that backs your claim, and don't change the direction. It was your claim, you need to back that claim up. Not change the topic.