On break for Day 2 of hearings. I wasn't able to watch it from the beginning, but Trump is having a bit of a melt down on Twitter, attacking Marie Yovanovitch mid testimony. It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right?
So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense.
It really is that simple. And people see this and know it.
Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done?
I don't think "Party A is better than Party B" is a valid argument, or even relevant, when it comes to whether or not a president should be impeached. Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER" |
|
|
|
Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better.
Trump sent his personal lawyer (a civilian without security clearance, no oath taken or senate confirmation) to undermine the foreign policies that the State department were directed to push by Trump. Do you think that's the way it should be done? I guess you could look at it as "they just think it should be done their way, not Trumps", and that wouldn't be inaccurate. It's also an argument you could use for pretty much anything a president could ever be accused of. Just because it's what POTUS wants, doesn't mean it's the right way. Do you think federal employees, like most of the witnesses, should just blindly follow orders from Trump with total loyalty, and just keep their mouths shut because he's President? .... LOL here's the problem. We voted this dude in as POTUS knowing that he was unorthodox, knowing that he wasn't going to do things the way they were done in the past. I really don't care what the LOSERS in that 2016 election wanted or what they want now. I do understand that a lot of them don't like his unorthodox methods. And in 2018 we voted in Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of democrats that ran on impeaching the president. Not trying to be confrontational. But the whole "but he's the president" thing I think is pretty dangerous. The president is not a King. He's the head of 1 of the 3 co-equal branches of government. It was Obama that media suggested was looking and acting King-like, not Trump. It's only that Trump is not the King they'd wished for, right? So there you have it. A bunch of sore losers who did get a Congressional majority advocating impeachment, for, whatever. And now they are scraping around in impeachment hearings looking for some plausible impeachable offense. It really is that simple. And people see this and know it. Meanwhile, exactly what real, useful work has the Democratic Congress done? |
|
|
|
Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better.
Trump sent his personal lawyer (a civilian without security clearance, no oath taken or senate confirmation) to undermine the foreign policies that the State department were directed to push by Trump. Do you think that's the way it should be done? I guess you could look at it as "they just think it should be done their way, not Trumps", and that wouldn't be inaccurate. It's also an argument you could use for pretty much anything a president could ever be accused of. Just because it's what POTUS wants, doesn't mean it's the right way. Do you think federal employees, like most of the witnesses, should just blindly follow orders from Trump with total loyalty, and just keep their mouths shut because he's President? .... LOL here's the problem. We voted this dude in as POTUS knowing that he was unorthodox, knowing that he wasn't going to do things the way they were done in the past. I really don't care what the LOSERS in that 2016 election wanted or what they want now. I do understand that a lot of them don't like his unorthodox methods. |
|
|
|
Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?
Well, global warming is indeed real. Like, man open your eyes it's everywhere. Could you elaborate with the words "conspiracy.."? Though we have reasons to be skeptics, the argument must be clear.. for me, i stand between agree and disagree.. but it's not the matter, the effects are real. ... Care to explain what it is you see that is so "real?" |
|
|
|
Responding to this post. Totally fair to criticize Obamas decision to not supply lethal aid. But in 2015 he approved ~$200m in aid to help Ukraine defend themselves against the Russians. They also sanctioned Russia and kicked them out of the G8 for invading Crimea. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that "democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally". I think it's pretty clear that general view by both Democrats and Republicans is that helping out Ukraine is in the best interest of American National Security. I don't think it is so much that Obama should be criticized for not helping Ukraine, it is more that this shows Democrats are being dishonest when they say things along the lines of "Trump is endangering our national security" and when Taylor (and?) Kent (I was listening sporadically throughout the day, and am not entirely sure who said what, but presume their overall narrative was generally similar) said that Trump's actions are at odds with "long standing" foreign policy with regards to Ukraine. From my perspective, Taylor and Kent don't like Trump's foreign policy stances on Ukraine, which is totally within their rights, but this is not something that should be within their testimony discussing "high crimes and misdemeanors" potentially committed by a president, which is the standard for impeaching a president.
One of the two said that Ukraine is on a path to join NATO, which would mean potentially sending US troops to defend it if necessary, and I am not sure that would be in the US's best interest; maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but it is not something that should be rammed down our throats by unelected State Department officials. I don't think the argument the Dems are making is simply "Trump withheld funding from Ukraine", although that's certainly what the Republicans are trying to make it seem. Kent made it pretty clear that he considered it his duty to carry out whatever foreign policy the president decided, and if Trump decided he didn't want to send aid then that was fine. They both testified that the entire state department, maybe even including Pompeo - not sure what he knew, were told that the aid was coming, so they reassured Ukraine it was coming, and Ukraine believed them. Then Trump got all sneaky and sends his personal lawyer to basically undermine the entire State department. The whole thing made Ukraine appear vulnerable to Russia and made the US look like a country that has no problem fucking around with Allies while they are being invaded by Russia. If he didn't want to send the aid to Ukraine, he shouldn't have proposed it to Congress. If he wanted to investigate Ukraine before the aid was sent, he should've done it before the check was supposed to be in the mail. If he wanted a favor from the President of Ukraine, he should've asked for it before the US agreed to send the money. If he wants to do whatever he wants and answer to nobody, like he has for most of his life, he shouldn't run for President. That's my simplified interpretation of the Dems narrative anyway. Really, all that you have said (and what I got from listening to Taylor) is that these guys think they know how it should be done and the POTUS shouldn't get in their way because they know better. |
|
|
|
...
Trump has blocked the release of all documents and testimonies of his inner circle, which weakens the "there are no emails, documents or testimonies from high ranking officials that prove Trump did something bad" argument. I'm not saying it proves anything one way or another, but it's definitely something to consider.
Sure, consider it. If the Dems had just used standard parliamentary procedure, equal rights to counter a witness, they wouldn't be dealing with this block. Listening to Rush Limbaugh a bit today, he was essentially telling Pelosi to give this up, saying it's already looking bad for the Dems. I agree but for differing reasons. The impression I got was really one of Deep State Wants To Run Things. So what's going on? After arguing there was no deep state for several years, now the Dems have embraced it? |
|
|
|
...
Yeah, it's possible that it was just a coincidence that after 2 months of withholding the money, they decided to release it 2 days after realizing the whole thing was likely to be investigated by Congress. There is going to be a ton of evidence that doesn't prove something 100% did or did not happen. It doesn't mean we should just ignore it.
If the money had been released a week earlier, when the only potential motivation was to help Ukraine, the GOPs "the money was released, Ukraine didn't investigate, end of story" defense would be solid. But it wasn't.
Or the Dems knew the upcoming date of funds release, and scheduled their announcement two days prior. Knowing they'd have no "case" in two days. Emails or other communications showing a chain of causation, show a chain of causation. Two dates do not. |
|
|
|
Any computer hacker could have told you that spam wasn't very nutritious.
computer hackers dont eat spam. they hack pizza delivery websites to get free pizza ..still not nutritious I'm sure there's a joke to be had here about denial of service, but I can't find it. If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong. Now for an important question. Can a vegan eat animal crackers? |
|
|
|
....
I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.
I actually don't agree that Trump asking for a look into Biden's son constitutes "asking about dirt on the opponent." There could have been any number of things going on behind the scenes that would make a plausible and sensible explanation for setting the son on the Board of Burisma. In the absence of those explanations or any serious explanation (eg. "We can't tell you- it's a national security matter") then yes, the suspicion of dirt certainly does exist and is not going away. He didn't just ask them to look into it though, he asked the Pres of Ukraine to hold a press conference and announce that they were opening the investigation. (according to testimony) Does not change what I said one bit. ....
Well yes. The Dems did a VERY good job combating that line of thought, by saying that the money was only released AFTER the house had begun their investigation.
I think the timeline is as follows:
House begins the investigation into the President - Sep 9th
Money is released - Sep 11th
If Trump had released this money the 5th or something along those lines, this would've been a different story. Not totally cleared, but at least the Republicans could've fought on that front.
This is neither fair nor accurate. There are all sorts of things that affect something like, "when the money was released." You are trying to impute cause and effect in a sequence of events. It doesn't work that way - just because one event happened after another does not imply one caused the other. They can both have independent chains of causation, and that's quite common. |
|
|
|
....
I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.
I actually don't agree that Trump asking for a look into Biden's son constitutes "asking about dirt on the opponent." There could have been any number of things going on behind the scenes that would make a plausible and sensible explanation for setting the son on the Board of Burisma. In the absence of those explanations or any serious explanation (eg. "We can't tell you- it's a national security matter") then yes, the suspicion of dirt certainly does exist and is not going away. |
|
|
|
Opening statements and first 45 minutes are over, a staff lawyer questioned Taylor and Kent for the Democrats for most of the time. I think Kent did a good job of laying out the timeline of events since he became ambassador last Spring. ....
Taylor came across as an arrogant, frustrated mid level bureocrat. I thought it was quite interesting how he presumed that HE (and his ilk) should be the main forces in policy, not the POTUS. Deep state, right there. |
|
|
|
...
This inquiry is a big sham by the Democrats as they’re using pressure techniques to remove Trump from the White House....
So now the "Whistleblower" isn't going to be called to the stand? Guess he had a lot to hide. I don't think he's relevant anymore. He didn't listen to phone call first hand, someone else told him about it so he reported it. We have the "transcript" that confirms his claim and several witnesses who actually listened to the phone call. What could he possibly add? Even if he was totally discredited.....
Republicans wrote to the California Democrat that the whistleblower’s accusations have been contradicted by information the three panels have since gathered in closed-door impeachment testimony from several witnesses this month.
“In light of these inconsistencies between facts as alleged by the employee and information obtained during the so-called impeachment inquiry, the Committee ought to fully access the sources and credibility of the employee,” Republican Reps. Jim Jordan, Devin Nunes, and Michael McCaul wrote to Schiff. |
|
|
|
...
This inquiry is a big sham by the Democrats as they’re using pressure techniques to remove Trump from the White House....
So now the "Whistleblower" isn't going to be called to the stand? Guess he had a lot to hide. |
|
|
|
....
Spam tinned 'meat' is not Ham
Spam is 7g protien per 100gram weight
ham is 21g protien per 100gram weight
thus poor people buying spam would be 3x less protien nutrient even if they sliced the same 100g of spam as someone else slicing 100g of ham
... Any computer hacker could have told you that spam wasn't very nutritious. |
|
|
|
Nobody is doubting that you can produce scary stories! Reality of course is totally different. And this has nothing to do with science. Cold has always killed orders of magnitude more people than heat. Really, all you've been doing is spouting Climate Alarmist Memes. How about lets not confuse that with actual climate science, or anything of the sort? It's not supportable rationally, but is just a belief system like religion. |
|
|
|
I don't understand - why is it needed to construct generators and other stuff, if you can buy it? It's boring, affords a lot of money and takes much time.
Excellent question. Because it does not work. |
|
|
|
Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out.
Yes, higher humidity due to more evaporation due to higher temperatures. Yes, it rains out. More rain as a consequence of global warming. I guess then that higher amount of water in the air will subtract from that sea level rise problema. More rain sounds basically good to me. I'm sure you have figured out some way it's bad? Haha, yes I have  Yes, a higher amount of water in the air would mean lower sea levels - were it not for all the melting ice everywhere. The way we're heading, in some years' time the north pole might be totally ice-free in summer. Well, you are going to have a difficult time arguing that's a bad thing. I'm thinking ... Eskimo girls in bikinis! |
|
|
|
Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out.
Yes, higher humidity due to more evaporation due to higher temperatures. Yes, it rains out. More rain as a consequence of global warming. I guess then that higher amount of water in the air will subtract from that sea level rise problema. More rain sounds basically good to me. I'm sure you have figured out some way it's bad? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
