[Rock N' Roll Right Winger]

AntonToo, on 13 November 2019 - 08:18 PM, said:

Well you see <<not-moron>>, qui-pro-quo simply means something-for-something and not all "something"s are same. Some things are aproproiate and yet others are not as your parents may, or may not have taught you at one point.

If Trump would have indeed used the millitary aid to pressure Ukraine into anti-corruption reforms there would be nothing to talk about here, because that something would be in furtherance of American foreign policy. But there is ALOT to talk about here since the something was Ukrainian President opening investigation of Bidens and going on TV to declare it to the world. That is not Trump furthering national foreign policy interests, that is Trump abusing his office to conduct his personal domestic politics.

You lie. :bs:

Everything that you've said is pure bullshidt.

[Moderator T]

AntonToo, on 13 November 2019 - 08:18 PM, said:

Well you see <<not-moron>>, qui-pro-quo simply means something-for-something and not all "something"s are same. Some things are aproproiate and yet others are not as your parents may, or may not have taught you at one point.

If Trump would have indeed used the millitary aid to pressure Ukraine into anti-corruption reforms there would be nothing to talk about here, because that something would be in furtherance of American foreign policy. But there is ALOT to talk about here since the something was Ukrainian President opening investigation of Bidens and going on TV to declare it to the world. That is not Trump furthering national foreign policy interests, that is Trump abusing his office to conduct his personal domestic politics.

So, in other words, you believe that by the act of running for office, the Bidens should be immune to investigations? That because he possibly might be Trump's opponent in a future election, he gets to do whatever he wants without consequence?

Suspend your irrational hate for Trump for a minute and help me out. Lets say there's more evidence about Biden, his son, and Ukraine that we're not privy to (since you don't seem to mind what we already know) that Biden did some shady things to help his son's company along. What actions would you find acceptable by the Trump administration? Should the State Department be allowed to look into something that affects/affected our foreign policy? Should the Justice Department look into possibly criminal actions? Should the head of the executive branch of government be involved? Should the nation in question gather information?

[Noclevermoniker]

AntonToo, on 13 November 2019 - 12:09 AM, said:

oook, time to chew it up for the special ones:

Held up aid was the context for the call, as Sondland (with newly refreshed meemory) testified he informed Ukrainian offcicials in mid-July that it's release is conditioned on public investigation announcement by Zelensky. In the July 25th conversation Trump specifically talks about how Ukraine is not reciprocating the generous aid United States is providing and then proceeds to tell Ukranian President who Trump wants investigated.

Direct text from transcript:

Trump: United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor...I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.

Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation.

Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair....Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man...and I would like him to call you. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, 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.

https://www.cnn.com/...call/index.html


Clearly Trump starts out the conversation with how he is dis-satisfied with Ukraine and the talks about how they can make it all better by investigating Crowdstrike and Bidens.

:biglaugh:
Seriously.

[Howsithangin]

AntonToo, on 13 November 2019 - 08:18 PM, said:

the something was Ukrainian President opening investigation of Bidens

*BUZZER* Nope.

Since Papa Biden got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired for investigating his son (but that's ok in your world), this therefore indicates that a case already exists. :)


PS Still waiting, Princess

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 14 November 2019 - 12:59 AM

[JerryL]

AntonToo, on 13 November 2019 - 08:18 PM, said:

Well you see <<not-moron>>, qui-pro-quo simply means something-for-something and not all "something"s are same. Some things are aproproiate and yet others are not as your parents may, or may not have taught you at one point.

If Trump would have indeed used the millitary aid to pressure Ukraine into anti-corruption reforms there would be nothing to talk about here, because that something would be in furtherance of American foreign policy. But there is ALOT to talk about here since the something was Ukrainian President opening investigation of Bidens and going on TV to declare it to the world. That is not Trump furthering national foreign policy interests, that is Trump abusing his office to conduct his personal domestic politics.

I know I am not a moron. Thank you for recognizing that. I am also not a partisan hack and a massive hypocrite, but those are different topics.

First, for the bold, the only problem is that that never happened. That is a lie.

Now, let me lay this out for you. Look at this with no party blinders, if you are able. It doesn't matter who is in the WH or who is the former VP. Try to look at this like a sentient being with the capacity for critical thought.

A (former) VP's son is given a high 6-figure job by a foreign company that he is no way qualified for...not in the slightest...while his father is still in office.
The ONLY thing he brings to the table is access to high level US government through his (former) VP father.
He flies to the foreign country with his father in his USG role and (in all likelihood) leveraged that trip for personal business reasons.
It is coming out that that he was paid even more than his $50K/MONTH salary for the job that he is not qualified to do.
His company is being investigated for corruption.
His father, the (former) VP has publicly bragged about how he held up $1B in aid until the foreign country fired the prosecutor investigating the company the son works for. The (former) VP, in his self-aggrandizing on what a bad ass he is, fails to disclose, of course, that his son was being paid $600K+ per year by that same company.

Why would you NOT want that investigated?
How is investigating potential corruption and influence peddling at the highest levels of the US NOT in the best interests of the United States?
Are elected officials who are charged with LAW ENFORCEMENT (the President is the highest LEO in the country)...no matter their party affiliation...NOT able to investigate corruption involving members of the opposition?

This post has been edited by JerryL: 14 November 2019 - 03:34 AM

[Taggart Transcontinental]

AntonToo, on 13 November 2019 - 12:09 AM, said:

oook, time to chew it up for the special ones:

Held up aid was the context for the call, as Sondland (with newly refreshed meemory) testified he informed Ukrainian offcicials in mid-July that it's release is conditioned on public investigation announcement by Zelensky. In the July 25th conversation Trump specifically talks about how Ukraine is not reciprocating the generous aid United States is providing and then proceeds to tell Ukranian President who Trump wants investigated.

Direct text from transcript:

Trump: United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

Zelenskyy: I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

Trump: I would like you to do us a favor...I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it.

Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation.

Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair....Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man...and I would like him to call you. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, 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.

https://www.cnn.com/...call/index.html


Clearly Trump starts out the conversation with how he is dis-satisfied with Ukraine and the talks about how they can make it all better by investigating Crowdstrike and Bidens.

So lets chew this up for the mentally retarded among the left.

What crime was committed there?

What are the elements of that crime?

Did this conversation meet those elements?

I will give you a hint, the first question is the important one, the others are red herrings since there is no crime committed 2 and 3 do not exist.

[Taggart Transcontinental]

MontyPython, on 13 November 2019 - 12:55 PM, said:

Re - The part I bolded & underlined: How the hell would you know what I know about TV news? It just so happens that back when I still lived in Seattle one of my roommates for a few years was a cameraman for the local ABC affiliate. I was present for LOTS of his meetings with his assigned reporters and producers in our home, as well as down at the station itself (because he had no car and needed me to drive him there and drive him home.) The emphasis was always about objectivity and researching the facts before going on-air with a story, AND on beating the competition. Precisely the opposite of "colluding" with the other networks in order to advance a "shared" agenda.

(Edited later to add): Remember, I've already acknowledged today's networks are indeed almost all on the same page. The "talking heads" on almost every major "news" network are virtually interchangeable. My point has nothing to do with today's network "news" bullsh*t. My point is only about the nonsense claim that this network news "collusion" has been going on during our entire lifetimes. That's pure paranoid BS.

B)

Right Monty
When did this start to occur? These goals were made public in 1963. When did they officially occur? There are 45 of these goals from the Communist Party of the United States. I believe the original goals were posted in the 1930's

https://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

Quote

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

https://pjmedia.com/...-marxist-media/

Quote

When did the subversion process begin? It probably began with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 and was certainly well underway in the 1930s. A prime early example of the manipulation of U.S public opinion by the media was America’s sellout of China to the communists in the 1940s. James Perloff writes in The New American that “a plethora of books and news reports perpetuated the myth that Mao’s communists were ‘democratic agrarian reformers.’"

Soviet Prime Minister Vyacheslav Molotov (of Molotov cocktail fame) outlined the strategy: “Who reads the Communist papers? Only a few people who are already Communists. We don’t need to propagandize them [...]. We have to influence non-Communists if we want to make them Communists or if we want to fool them. So, we have to try to infiltrate in the big press.”

So Look at the number 20, infiltrate book review and you have this. This was in 1942-43. We have been reading garbage for a very long time believing it was objective reporting.

Quote

“Every one of the 22 pro-Communist books [...] received glowing approval in the literary reviews [...] every one of the anti-Communist books was either roundly condemned or ignored.” He also commented that the New York Times reviews were almost indistinguishable from those in the communist Daily Worker.

Like I said, a lot of this crap has been going on for a very long time. That's why I don't trust any "journalist" that has been educated to be a journalist, their instincts are wrong. They are instinctively identifying the US as the problem. The perspective they are pushing is one of victim aggrandizement and thus they find the victim and use it as a weapon to make the point that the "old" system (Our Constitution) does not support the little man.

[Taggart Transcontinental]

AntonToo, on 13 November 2019 - 08:18 PM, said:

Well you see <<not-moron>>, qui-pro-quo simply means something-for-something and not all "something"s are same. Some things are aproproiate and yet others are not as your parents may, or may not have taught you at one point.

If Trump would have indeed used the millitary aid to pressure Ukraine into anti-corruption reforms there would be nothing to talk about here, because that something would be in furtherance of American foreign policy. But there is ALOT to talk about here since the something was Ukrainian President opening investigation of Bidens and going on TV to declare it to the world. That is not Trump furthering national foreign policy interests, that is Trump abusing his office to conduct his personal domestic politics.

So Aid from a government to another government is not considered a quid pro quo thing?
Did you just wake up yesterday? ALL Aid is in fact a something for something arrangement. We give money to country A so they can use that money for a purpose B. That's is something for something. Dumbass. OH and all money comes with strings to create pressure to force that government to do what we want.

[Taggart Transcontinental]

JerryL, on 14 November 2019 - 03:08 AM, said:

I know I am not a moron. Thank you for recognizing that. I am also not a partisan hack and a massive hypocrite, but those are different topics.

First, for the bold, the only problem is that that never happened. That is a lie.

Now, let me lay this out for you. Look at this with no party blinders, if you are able. It doesn't matter who is in the WH or who is the former VP. Try to look at this like a sentient being with the capacity for critical thought.

A (former) VP's son is given a high 6-figure job by a foreign company that he is no way qualified for...not in the slightest...while his father is still in office.
The ONLY thing he brings to the table is access to high level US government through his (former) VP father.
He flies to the foreign country with his father in his USG role and (in all likelihood) leveraged that trip for personal business reasons.
It is coming out that that he was paid even more than his $50K/MONTH salary for the job that he is not qualified to do.
His company is being investigated for corruption.
His father, the (former) VP has publicly bragged about how he held up $1B in aid until the foreign country fired the prosecutor investigating the company the son works for. The (former) VP, in his self-aggrandizing on what a bad ass he is, fails to disclose, of course, that his son was being paid $600K+ per year by that same company.

Why would you NOT want that investigated?
How is investigating potential corruption and influence peddling at the highest levels of the US NOT in the best interests of the United States?
Are elected officials who are charged with LAW ENFORCEMENT (the President is the highest LEO in the country)...no matter their party affiliation...NOT able to investigate corruption involving members of the opposition?

Much like Chelsea Clinton being hired. However, unlike Biden's son, Chelsea appears to be actually working hard at her job. So cudo's for her.

[JerryL]

Taggart Transcontinental, on 14 November 2019 - 06:28 AM, said:

Much like Chelsea Clinton being hired. However, unlike Biden's son, Chelsea appears to be actually working hard at her job. So cudo's for her.

She was hired for name recognition as she pretty much grew up and into adulthood in the public eye. Aslo, she was/is actually respected by some circles. Her work for the slush fund is just all in the family.

Hunter Biden, on the other hand, had no individual name recognition, is a repeat drug offender, and was kicked out of the Navy while his dad was in office. How F'd up do you have to be that you can't even be protected from being kicked out of the Navy when your father is the sitting Vice President of the country? His hiring was purely for access.

[Severian]

Gee, the government paid the businesses I worked for in exchange for goods and services. QUID PRO QUO!!!!

[Taggart Transcontinental]

JerryL, on 14 November 2019 - 07:41 AM, said:

She was hired for name recognition as she pretty much grew up and into adulthood in the public eye. Aslo, she was/is actually respected by some circles. Her work for the slush fund is just all in the family.

Hunter Biden, on the other hand, had no individual name recognition, is a repeat drug offender, and was kicked out of the Navy while his dad was in office. How F'd up do you have to be that you can't even be protected from being kicked out of the Navy when your father is the sitting Vice President of the country? His hiring was purely for access.

Exactly, but unlike Hunter, at least Chelsea works and is respected for that effort. Hunter is a huffer that simply had a shot because daddy had power.

[MontyPython]

Taggart Transcontinental, on 14 November 2019 - 06:20 AM, said:

Right Monty
When did this start to occur? These goals were made public in 1963. When did they officially occur? There are 45 of these goals from the Communist Party of the United States. I believe the original goals were posted in the 1930's

https://rense.com/general32/americ.htm

https://pjmedia.com/...-marxist-media/

So Look at the number 20, infiltrate book review and you have this. This was in 1942-43. We have been reading garbage for a very long time believing it was objective reporting.




Like I said, a lot of this crap has been going on for a very long time. That's why I don't trust any "journalist" that has been educated to be a journalist, their instincts are wrong. They are instinctively identifying the US as the problem. The perspective they are pushing is one of victim aggrandizement and thus they find the victim and use it as a weapon to make the point that the "old" system (Our Constitution) does not support the little man.

But lemme guess: You read Infowars...and consider them "honest" and "objective"...right...?

:coolshades:

[JerryL]

Taggart Transcontinental, on 14 November 2019 - 09:25 AM, said:

Exactly, but unlike Hunter, at least Chelsea works and is respected for that effort. Hunter is a huffer that simply had a shot because daddy had power.

No disagreement here, except I don't think that they hired Hunter at all. What they were paying for was access through the VP. They hired Joe. His son was just the proxy.

[RedSoloCup]

Rock N, on 13 November 2019 - 09:31 PM, said:

You lie. :bs:

Everything that you've said is pure bullshidt.

His specialty. Sad!

This post has been edited by RedSoloCup: 14 November 2019 - 11:12 AM

[Tikk]

JerryL, on 14 November 2019 - 09:50 AM, said:

No disagreement here, except I don't think that they hired Hunter at all. What they were paying for was access through the VP. They hired Joe. His son was just the proxy.

But here's the truly concerning part:

If Antontoo thinks that you are not a moron. And based upon his track record. You should seriously consider that you are, indeed, a moron.

[JerryL]

Tikk, on 14 November 2019 - 11:36 AM, said:

But here's the truly concerning part:

If Antontoo thinks that you are not a moron. And based upon his track record. You should seriously consider that you are, indeed, a moron.

Oh.

<censored>!

[grimreefer]

Moderator T, on 13 November 2019 - 11:56 PM, said:

So, in other words, you believe that by the act of running for office, the Bidens should be immune to investigations? That because he possibly might be Trump's opponent in a future election, he gets to do whatever he wants without consequence?

Bobo didn't see anything wrong with Quid Pro Quo Joe's family fortune building so, ipso facto, Scandal Free Administration^TM. Who the hell does Trump think he is to second guess Chicago Jesus' judgement?



:whistling:

[Moderator T]

grimreefer, on 14 November 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Bobo didn't see anything wrong with Quid Pro Quo Joe's family fortune building so, ipso facto, Scandal Free Administration^TM. Who the hell does Trump think he is to second guess Chicago Jesus' judgement?



:whistling:

If I Twittered I'd create the new hashtag #quidprojoe