Hedge Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Foxx said: Bob stop being such a disingenuous idiot, Bob. Just for some levity, the 2 Bobs: 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muppy Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The President is not only empowered, but rather required, to set and conduct foreign policy. Pursuant to that, the President followed, to the letter and spirit of the law, the authority permitted to him by the Ukraine treaty signed by President Clinton empowering the executive to work with the Ukraine to ferret out international corruption between the two nations. There is no Constitutional provision requiring this matter be handled/managed by the DOJ; and besides, the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch, which the President is the head of. There is no firewall of any sort between the DOJ and the President. Your argument is that the President does not have the right to conduct foreign policy, and that the President serves under the oversight of Congress. It is a bad argument. if this is so cut and dry as you surmise then why was this call deemed "perfect" by DT now "not so perfect" by his own defense counsel? I think you misunderstood what I was attempting to say... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Never forget 1 minute ago, Hedge said: You check out Burkman's announcement today? 1 minute ago, Margarita said: if this is so cut and dry as you surmise then why was this call deemed "perfect" by DT now "not so perfect" by his own defense counsel? I think you misunderstood what I was attempting to say... Put Trump on the stand and the impeachment is over the next day. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You can't dispute those facts, honestly. He is conspiring with Putin, obviously Please do expand on this assertion good sir. I'm not familiar with these facts. If you have facts that are confirmed through multiple sources I will absolutely listen. I want to know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: I don't know. Let's ask Atkinson what he knows about all of this. Is he unwilling to give testimony to the Senate? Conjecture is tough when I don't know who the guy is yet. lol Was it related at all to trying to protect the whistle blower's identity? I know that is why the House says they refused some House Repub requests. One of Senator Rick Scott's questions will be around this. He has released a few of his questions and he intends to ask why this testimony has not been unsealed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, CoudyBills said: Please do expand on this assertion good sir. I'm not familiar with these facts. If you have facts that are confirmed through multiple sources I will absolutely listen. I want to know the truth. You don't know the facts? Ok, you win then. Ignorance is bliss. Maybe read up on somethings....oh that's right, you don't trust any sources at all. I forgot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: I don't know. Let's ask Atkinson what he knows about all of this. Is he unwilling to give testimony to the Senate? Conjecture is tough when I don't know who the guy is yet. lol Was it related at all to trying to protect the whistle blower's identity? I know that is why the House says they refused some House Repub requests. Yes - his testimony was about the whistle blower. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 That was NOT the entire substance of his testimony. Gary's wrong. Again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Titanic was about Rose's love of Jack. DR: That was NOT the entire substance of the movie. Wrong. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Tiberius said: You don't know the facts? Ok, you win then. Ignorance is bliss. Maybe read up on somethings....oh that's right, you don't trust any sources at all. I forgot. That's what I thought. No stomach for honest debate. Edited January 29, 2020 by CoudyBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Foxx, I find it more and more difficult to ignore your repeated insults. If they continue, I will stop engaging and just put you on ignore with DR and Tom. I don't need it. I have taken more time than I have to have a conversation here. You may disagree with my posts but I am not disingenuous. If so, where, what post? Notice that there are about a dozen or so folks that jump on my replies. Your side does not get flooded over like that so maybe you missed it. I stated earlier that I can't possibly give detailed replies to everyone. I noted that if I missed something to bring it up again. I watched about a half hour of Bondi off Youtube. She made a good case for not voting for Hunter for anything. She made a very strong case that he displayed pretty poor judgement. His board position looked bad and she made that point. She also threw a lot of suspicion on JoeB but from the part I saw, not proof of anything other than the prosecutor firing. Since that was our nation's policy I don't see any equivalence to Trump's affair. Is it possible that JoeB didn't want Hunter in that job? Is it possible that Hunter took it over Joe's objections? I don't know but I am just pointing out that surmising evil intentions by JoeB may not be correct. Bob, i have tried very patiently to explain things to you. when you don't play by the rules of common ordinary social discourse, then you get moved into another category for treatment. moving the goal posts, avoiding posts that would have you have to explain or respond to something that would possibly make you uncomfortable because there is no logical defense other than to avoid them because responding to them would make you have to admit you were wrong, much like the 'extortion' discussion we had, amongst others are all tactics that show you are not being genuine in your discourse. this turnip didn't just fall off the truck. the ship has sailed on our previous discussions at this point, because to go back and make sense of the mishmash that you have created at this point would prove to be more effort than i am willing to expend in your direction now. what i will do is to attempt, going forward, to interact with you one more time on a cordial basis. however that basis depends on you being genuine in our discourse, Bob. be honest and genuine and we will have no problem. Edited January 29, 2020 by Foxx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muppy Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said: Have you not seen the video? I hadn't seen it no. I appreciate now what was said and that's great. If someone lacks information its very profitable that it be spoken up and brought forward it furthers understanding. Im reading a lot of posts chastising for not knowing every nuance or detail in regards to this political thread. The lack of knowledge in my view doesn't equal stupidity OR laziness . I thought This is was a chat board forum. As such if the expectation that everyone have full knowledge and wisdom about every nuance or an expert before entering well then you will have the ultra zealots in each camp at war and not much else. A seeker of info and insight diminished and chastised for it? If that's what PPP is about then maybe Im in the wrong chat. Not saying you did that IDBillzfan just an observation. 2 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: So to be clear, just changing those two names and you're still cool with everything? Crickets. Thought so. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Just now, Margarita said: I hadn't seen it no. I appreciate now what was said and that's great. If someone lacks information its very profitable that it be spoken up and brought forward it furthers understanding. Im reading a lot of posts chastising for not knowing every nuance or detail in regards to this political thread. The lack of knowledge in my view doesn't equal stupidity OR laziness . No one has a real problem with people not knowing all the facts or nuances. That's more than understandable and acceptable. The issue is when people like @Bob in Mich come down and claim they DO know all of the information and make sweeping proclamations that anyone who disagrees with him is doing so because they're not interested in the "full truth" -- and then it turns out they don't know the information themselves. That's the issue. I, as an example, am always happy to discuss (at length) the nuances and facts with people who are honest about their desire to learn, rather than those who plug their ears and run from any information which runs counter to their programming. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Is that the bait Bolton used on Trump when Trump hired him? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Gary, still three steps behind. Because he refuses to think for himself. ************* 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Margarita said: I hadn't seen it no. I appreciate now what was said and that's great. If someone lacks information its very profitable that it be spoken up and brought forward it furthers understanding. Im reading a lot of posts chastising for not knowing every nuance or detail in regards to this political thread. The lack of knowledge in my view doesn't equal stupidity OR laziness . I thought This is was a chat board forum. As such if the expectation that everyone have full knowledge and wisdom about every nuance or an expert before entering well then you will have the ultra zealots in each camp at war and not much else. A seeker of info and insight diminished and chastised for it? If that's what PPP is about then maybe Im in the wrong chat. Not saying you did that IDBillzfan just an observation. so, you argue against it without having the information on it? gotcha. typical of you though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Gary Busey said: Is that the bait Bolton used on Trump when Trump hired him? No. That was a porn star lure. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Gary, still three steps behind. Because he refuses to think for himself. Is that it? How big are these steps we talking about? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 15 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Never forget Graham's observations in early 2016 are consistent with this site's anti-Trumpers' thoughts at that time. You also know that most people here didn't vote for Trump in 2016. But in the wake of the crazy train that entered the train station after the election, Trump doesn't look so bad after all. Yet you attribute it to blanket Trump support. These are all the facts that you intentionally ignore, and that's why you get called out for your shallow "contributions" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 49 minutes ago, CoudyBills said: Bob. 1. President sets foreign policy. 2. You dispute a video bragging about it? You assured me you are a man of integrity. The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY. Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes. I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper. Remember the witnesses in the House? 17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes I don't dispute what Biden bragged about. Never said I did. I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son. It was sort of a worldwide consensus that that particular prosecutor wasn't doing enough to root out corruption. Quid pro quo's are not the problem, for about the tenth time now. It is the personal political benefit that makes this unacceptable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Just now, Bray Wyatt said: Is that it? How big are these steps we talking about? 69" x 6.9" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Just now, Gary Busey said: Context Gary. What is the context? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 the video was posted earlier, but should be watched. careful what you wish for, dems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY. Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes. I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper. Remember the witnesses in the House? 17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes I don't dispute what Biden bragged about. Never said I did. I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son. It was sort of a worldwide consensus that that particular prosecutor wasn't doing enough to root out corruption. Quid pro quo's are not the problem, for about the tenth time now. It is the personal political benefit that makes this unacceptable The capitalized part, please elaborate. Not a trap, honestly asking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 @Bob in Mich i am going to be going to watch the Trial now. you know, because i want to inform myself firsthand (you might try this tract). not let others fill in my understanding. though i will be checking in, if your around, i will possibly see you on breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY. Investigating corruption is not contrary to national policy. In fact, Ukraine and the US have a treaty mandating precisely that. Using caps to make a point does not make your point any more intelligent. 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes. There's ZERO evidence that Trump did it for corrupt purposes, the preponderance of evidence, in fact, shows otherwise. Unless you engage in mind reading... which you're fine with because you're more emotional than you are intelligent at this point. 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper. Remember the witnesses in the House? 17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes None of those witnesses thought it was impeachable when asked directly during their testimony. None. But details are hard when you don't know the facts of the issue you're debating. 3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I don't dispute what Biden bragged about. Never said I did. I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son. His son's employer. You're disputing an uncontested fact because you're not a smart person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: The president does not have the right to leverage Congressionally preapproved aid for his own personal political benefit,WHEN THAT POLICY IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THE NATIONAL POLICY. Like several other situations, the President has control of many decisions and can decide what he wants EXCEPT if those actions are deemed to be for corrupt purposes. I am not the only one that thinks what he did was improper. Remember the witnesses in the House? 17 largely Trump employees testified under oath that they, generally speaking, thought it was improper and appeared to them to be for political purposes I don't dispute what Biden bragged about. Never said I did. I dispute that the prosecutor was currently investigating Biden.'s son. It was sort of a worldwide consensus that that particular prosecutor wasn't doing enough to root out corruption. Quid pro quo's are not the problem, for about the tenth time now. It is the personal political benefit that makes this unacceptable one more time... the president sets foreign policy. the appointed bureaucrats are claiming to be upset about policy. they can't complain about anything else, period. they don't get to set policy. cripes. gain understanding would you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Just now, Foxx said: one more time... the president sets foreign policy. the appointed bureaucrats are claiming to be upset about policy. they can't complain about anything else, period. they don't get to set policy. cripes. gain understanding would you. He can't. @Bob in Mich's brain is as broken as Gary's. TDS is terminal if left untreated. Just wait until November when Bob realizes he has 4 more years left of Trump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 25 minutes ago, Hedge said: Just for some levity, the 2 Bobs: What about Bob? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 20 minutes ago, Margarita said: if this is so cut and dry as you surmise then why was this call deemed "perfect" by DT now "not so perfect" by his own defense counsel? I think you misunderstood what I was attempting to say... Because perfection doesn’t matter. What matters is that the President conducting foreign policy pursuant to his Constitutional role, and to international treaties given the same weight, is not an impeachable offense. To the contrary, it is his directly prescribed Constitutional duty; and acting to impeach the President for something that is literally his job to do as determined by the High Law of our country is itself unConstitutional. The argument being made by Democrats, which you are apparently borrowing, is that the President doesn’t have the authority to set/conduct foreign policy; and that the entrenched bureaucracy should instead perform this function, subverting the President, with the oversight of Congress. That’s not how our government is designed to work. 5 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: Damn, I hate doing this. Up thread you asked me "if the House dems were correct in their assumptions about Trump" and now you state emphatically that he should be removed. How dense are you? There has been no foreign election influence by Trump. You realize that there are over 150 million people in the country that agree with me and disagree with you about that election interference take. It may not seem it down here but it is clearly not as cut and dry as you claim. And, you still haven't found enough integrity to answer the simple question I asked. I am not the least bit surprised to be perfectly honest with you. Edited January 29, 2020 by Bob in Mich 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 29, 2020 Author Share Posted January 29, 2020 https://pjmedia.com/trending/did-biden-save-this-ukraine-firm-responsible-for-1-8b-in-missing-aid-his-son-is-on-the-board/ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: one more time... the president sets foreign policy. the appointed bureaucrats are claiming to be upset about policy. they can't complain about anything else, period. they don't get to set policy. cripes. gain understanding would you. I don't understand what is so hard about this. The Trump campaign and administration was very clear about a foreign policy heavy on rooting out foreign corruption and enhancing burden sharing. If the electorate is unhappy about rooting out corruption and foreign influence then the remedy is to VOTE for a candidate who wouldn't promote that as part of his or her foreign policy. A candidate like Joe Biden would certainly fit the bill. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said: You realize that there are over 150 million people in the country that agree with me and disagree with you Link? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 29, 2020 Share Posted January 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: You realize that there are over 150 million people in the country that agree with me and disagree with you about that election interference take. Evidence and facts don't agree with your take, or the 150 million people. Emotions aren't facts. Emotions aren't evidence. Things we learn in basic civics classes, but Bob is still struggling with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts