TakeYouToTasker

Explain the relevance in the first quote, and in the second quote explain why Giuliani would be expected to comply, explain why its problematic for a private citizen to pursue opposition research related to criminality, and explain how this will be damaging to the President.

The wonderful thing about the internet is that it saves the things you post. If one chooses to scroll up a bit, they’ll see that I posted a list of declining conditions related to the national political discourse. They’ll then see that you quoted a part highlighting physical assaults, and made a joke about it. And that somehow makes me fragile, I guess? I’m quite sure that all passes for tidy logic on whatever planet you’re from. Cheers.

Have you joined gatorman on the “physical assault over political disagreement is funny” train? But you know what, thank you for making my point. Without your contribution it wouldn’t have been so obviously correct.

We have regular physically violent eruptions in political space. We have groups doxxing others online and staking our their homes. We have discrimination and non-service over political affiliation. We have semi-regular assaults over individuals choosing to wear red hats. We have semi-regular outbursts from blue check mark journos wishing rape on women to have the gall to be pro-life. We have promises of gun confiscation, and promises of non-compliance. We have a party which will not accept election outcomes they do not prevail in. We have a breakdown of cultural norms and institutions, and promises of fiat rule. We have no more shared values. But by all means, ignore the Bleeding Kansas level discourse, the mounting anger, and the ever increasing divide. America is different, right? It can’t happen here, even though it’s already happening all over the world. Because reasons?

You’ll note I said “should”. That said, the treaty, fully ratified, is law. The President is explicitly authorized to do exactly what he did. In fact, he is expected to faithfully execute our laws.

In 1999 President Bill Clinton signed a treaty with the Ukraine in which both nations pledge to offer mutual support/assistance on criminal matters. This treaty, vested with full Constitutional authority, should put an end to any nonsense related to “wrongdoing” by the President. https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

Paleface in red face.

It's just a game, bud. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. Not even a little bit. NFL football is a fun distraction, and it's certainly not worth your mental health being impacted.

The kid had a bad day. Oh well.

Appreciate the clarification. Is this a change to a prior policy, or have many of us been operating under a misunderstanding for years?

All turnovers are reviewed.

Wow!

Thank God...

Oh no...

Great drive.

That'll do.

LETS GOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Tom is 100% correct. You’re advocating for totalitarianism. That’s not worth preserving.

Should be? He is. He wants to use the power of the state, extra-legally, against his political enemies. That’s the most liberal thing ever.

This account is wholly untrue according to a bevy of recently released documents, and the direct testimony of Shokin. https://www.dailywire.com/news/report-newly-revealed-documents-blow-up-bidens-ukraine-story “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors,” said Shokin. “On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation.”

Math is hard. Lets walk this out: Scenario 1: You make $100,000/yr, and pay $1000 in income taxes bi-weekly (26 pay periods/yr), for a total of $26k annually. At tax time you get a refund of $10k, leaving you with a net annual tax bill of $16k. Scenario 2: You make $100,000/yr, and pay $500 in income taxes bi-weekly (26 pay periods/yr), for a total of $13k annually. At tax time you get a bill for $2k, leaving you with a net annual tax bill of $15k. In which scenario do you have more money?

This is getting tiring. Democrats are essentially arguing that the President doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy, and the CIA has decided that it should be the body who chooses who the President is allowed to be. This is already backfiring massively, and will cost Democrat’s the House. While those D’s in safe states are doing the bidding of the extreme elements of the electorate (their constituents), Democrats in mixed districts and in swing states are already talking about what a terrible miscalculation this was. Conversely, Republicans have been fundraising off the issue, and the President raised something like $10m in small money donations alone. Meanwhile Joe Biden is going down in flames over the Ukraine, and Dem donors on Wall Street have told the Democrats that if Warren tops the ticket they won’t donate. The Democrats have absolutely screwed themselves by deciding that the electoral will of the people doesn’t actually matter if the people choose to elect Republicans.

This seems like it would be really important, but those screaming “impeachment” seem to be ignoring it. Gee, I wonder why?

That’s not an argument.

Read the whole thread.