|
|
Post by xanadu on Oct 4, 2019 13:52:38 GMT
(Insert Dem president) and those ellipses and much fewer words would be a case for execution lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanadu on Oct 4, 2019 13:53:44 GMT
Boris, I need you to get me dirt on Biden right now. Sooner you do it, sooner you get your hands on our military toys. Thanks Boris!
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Oct 4, 2019 13:53:59 GMT
You were wrong about the CIA whistleblower and can't admit that. Why should anybody give you a fucking "fair enough?" LOL. Crickets out of YankeeFan after peacocking to the wrong poster and then getting proven wrong, as usual. I went to bed! After a hard time getting my daughter to go to sleep. She really did not want to go to sleep. Thought it was "unfair". But, back on topic... This is spin. The whistle blower complaint focuses on the call between Trump and the President of Ukraine. We know the whistleblower wasn't on this call. We know he looked for the transcript, but discovered it had been hidden away, or however that was described, on a super secret server. We know when he first raised his concerns, he didn't know the specifics of the call, including even the date of the call, or who it was with. Now, I think we can all agree that it's impossible to gain first hand knowledge of an event after it happened. So, what first hand knowledge did the whistleblower possess? |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Oct 4, 2019 14:08:30 GMT
Lot's of people in the media, and here, are making comparisons like this:
Now, forgetting the fact that the Obama administration did weaponize the intelligence of community of the United States, and sought, and received the assistance of foreign intelligence services, to investigate the Trump campaign, this is not a fair comparison.
Trump is not asking anyone to dig up -- or make up, as has been accused by folks like Schiff -- dirt on Biden. He's not asking for an unspecified investigation into Biden -- like the kind that the Special Counsel conducted on the Trump campaign, that delved into completely unrelated topics.
He's asking for a specific, credible allegations to be investigated, by the countries where the wrongdoing occurred.
Now, if we want to make comparisons, let's turn it around...
Let's imagine that Trump's son flew with him on Air Force 1, to visit a foreign capital, and came back with a sweetheart deal, in an industry he had no experience working in. That wouldn't be worth investigating?
Let's further imagine the son is a career failure, best known for his drug addictions, for blowing his family's money on drugs and hookers, and for then leaving his family to hook up with his brother's widow.
I'm sure that would all be fine, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Oct 4, 2019 14:09:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpern23 on Oct 4, 2019 14:13:41 GMT
You were wrong about the CIA whistleblower and can't admit that. Why should anybody give you a fucking "fair enough?" LOL. Crickets out of YankeeFan after peacocking to the wrong poster and then getting proven wrong, as usual. I went to bed! After a hard time getting my daughter to go to sleep. She really did not want to go to sleep. Thought it was "unfair". But, back on topic... This is spin. The whistle blower complaint focuses on the call between Trump and the President of Ukraine. We know the whistleblower wasn't on this call. We know he looked for the transcript, but discovered it had been hidden away, or however that was described, on a super secret server. We know when he first raised his concerns, he didn't know the specifics of the call, including even the date of the call, or who it was with. Now, I think we can all agree that it's impossible to gain first hand knowledge of an event after it happened. So, what first hand knowledge did the whistleblower possess? It's not spin. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community said the whistleblower has first-hand knowledge of certain alleged actions. Period. Full stop. That the public doesn't know at this moment what that entails doesn't change the fact that you were wrong when you said he had no first-hand knowledge. I'll take that "fair enough" now. Oh, and yeah, I totally get that it's unfair to make the kid go to bed when she's tired. I've earned the "Meanest Dad in the World" title a few times for that one.  |
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Oct 4, 2019 14:16:16 GMT
I went to bed! After a hard time getting my daughter to go to sleep. She really did not want to go to sleep. Thought it was "unfair". But, back on topic... This is spin. The whistle blower complaint focuses on the call between Trump and the President of Ukraine. We know the whistleblower wasn't on this call. We know he looked for the transcript, but discovered it had been hidden away, or however that was described, on a super secret server. We know when he first raised his concerns, he didn't know the specifics of the call, including even the date of the call, or who it was with. Now, I think we can all agree that it's impossible to gain first hand knowledge of an event after it happened. So, what first hand knowledge did the whistleblower possess? It's not spin. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community said the whistleblower has first-hand knowledge of certain alleged actions. Period. Full stop. That the public doesn't know at this moment what that entails doesn't change the fact that you were wrong when you said he had no first-hand knowledge. I'll take that "fair enough" now. You’ve got to earn a fair enough. You’re still stuck on LOL. The whistleblower has no first hand knowledge of the phone call, which served as the basis of the complaint. This is not in question. |
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Oct 4, 2019 14:17:18 GMT
Lot's of people in the media, and here, are making comparisons like this: Now, forgetting the fact that the Obama administration did weaponize the intelligence of community of the United States, and sought, and received the assistance of foreign intelligence services, to investigate the Trump campaign, this is not a fair comparison. Trump is not asking anyone to dig up -- or make up, as has been accused by folks like Schiff -- dirt on Biden. FALSE. He's not asking for an unspecified investigation into Biden FALSE -- like the kind that the Special Counsel conducted on the Trump campaign, that delved into completely unrelated topics. He's asking for a specific, credible allegations to be investigated, by the countries where the wrongdoing occurred. FALSEIt's a perfectly fair comparison and illustrates yours and other's hypocrisy when it comes to R vs D. |
|
|
|
Post by dirtybird on Oct 4, 2019 14:20:34 GMT
“if the media played it straight, he couldn't do it.” Among the cutest things I’ve ever read. OK, you can post all the links from media outlets that called out Schiff for his stupendous stunt of a made-up conversation that he delivered from the well of the House last week. I'll wait right here. I hope you're still waiting. I wouldn't actually bother finding links, because even if I were to do it, I'd be answered with, "Now what about ..." and some other thing would pop up. In fact, asking for those links has relatively little to do with that above quote at all. If you wanna be an errand boy for me and find some links about something, you can do that. But your misunderstanding the words up there does remind me it's probably worth investigating that cute little story up there in quotes. The beauty of demanding the media play it straight so the leader if the free world can finally stop tantruming like a petulant child is that the media is this majestic cacophony of outlet upon outlet. So when some outlets don't offend, there will be some that do. Let's imagine the No. 4 and 8 newspapers in circulation nationally (NYT, WashPo) and No. 2 and 3 cable outlets (CNN, MSNBC) suddenly "played it straight," meaning cutting down on BS, but still spoke truth to power. Well that would still end up with some mean stuff about the pres, and then he's have to be bombastic, because any truth to power will be construed as bias. Let's take it a step further. If those outlets cut down on their BS and just stopped speaking truth to power, the president would still be somewhat bombastic because he'd want them to criticize his adversaries. And if they acquiesced to him then, he'd keep acting like a child because vocal segments of the media cheerlead it (see: network doing 140 percent better ratings than CNN). And if those outlets were in line, attention would turn to other outlets that offend the right, because snowflakes will find something to be offended by. In the end, it's a permission structure. Some democrat or media outlet somewhere did something, and thus the president can babble and lie like an upset child, no questions asked. Shoot, he asked a country he's often considered an adversary to please investigate his political opponent, as the leader of the free world who "negotiates" trade deals with that very country. But it's fine. Alyssa Mastromonaco said something on a show I didn't watch. (Also, what Schiff did was bad, or at least not good. Can we agree crappy retelling of conversations is bad? I assume when another poor telling of a conversation comes up, we'll all agree it's bad, right?) |
|
|
|
Post by bigpern23 on Oct 4, 2019 14:27:13 GMT
Lot's of people in the media, and here, are making comparisons like this: Now, forgetting the fact that the Obama administration did weaponize the intelligence of community of the United States, and sought, and received the assistance of foreign intelligence services, to investigate the Trump campaign, this is not a fair comparison. Trump is not asking anyone to dig up -- or make up, as has been accused by folks like Schiff -- dirt on Biden. He's not asking for an unspecified investigation into Biden -- like the kind that the Special Counsel conducted on the Trump campaign, that delved into completely unrelated topics. He's asking for a specific, credible allegations to be investigated, by the countries where the wrongdoing occurred. Now, if we want to make comparisons, let's turn it around... Let's imagine that Trump's son flew with him on Air Force 1, to visit a foreign capital, and came back with a sweetheart deal, in an industry he had no experience working in. That wouldn't be worth investigating? Let's further imagine the son is a career failure, best known for his drug addictions, for blowing his family's money on drugs and hookers, and for then leaving his family to hook up with his brother's widow. I'm sure that would all be fine, right? I think the thing here is that they already were investigated by the Ukrainians, the New York Times and others, and there's no evidence they did anything wrong. The President pressuring Ukraine to reopen the investigation into his political rival - while dangling military aid and a White House visit as a carrot - is blatantly against the law. |
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Oct 4, 2019 14:31:16 GMT
"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."
"A lot of talk"
"A lot of people"
"Whatever you can do"
"Sounds horrible"
He's so specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpern23 on Oct 4, 2019 14:35:25 GMT
It's not spin. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community said the whistleblower has first-hand knowledge of certain alleged actions. Period. Full stop. That the public doesn't know at this moment what that entails doesn't change the fact that you were wrong when you said he had no first-hand knowledge. I'll take that "fair enough" now. You’ve got to earn a fair enough. You’re still stuck on LOL. The whistleblower has no first hand knowledge of the phone call, which served as the basis of the complaint. This is not in question. "LOL. Not based on first hand knowledge either. Like the Ukraine report, it’s all part of the same strategy to take down the president." You didn't specify first-hand knowledge of the July 25 call. The Ukraine report, as you called it, was based, in part, on first-hand knowledge. Now you want to move the goalposts and claim you meant just the phone call, but you didn't mean the phone call. You said the whistleblower has no first-hand knowledge. And you're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Oct 4, 2019 15:48:36 GMT
The United States threatened to withhold military aid and unleash punishing trade measures against Ecuador if it did not withdraw from introducing a resolution to . . . ENCOURAGE BREAST FEEDING.
That is us. That's all we know. Threaten, threaten, threaten. Even for the most innocuous things. It's in our DNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Oct 4, 2019 21:38:26 GMT
This is a terrible guess:
|
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Oct 4, 2019 21:41:48 GMT
This is a terrible guess: I have taken heat, previously, for, "This could be the end of Trump!" posts because the poster wasn't actually saying that, "This could be the end of Trump!" But in this case ... This could be the end of Trump! |
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-919624-1312618814.jpeg.jpg)
