jkcerda on 11/11/2019 at 20:01
Quote Posted by caffeinatedzombeh
If you want to reduce birth rates the easiest way to do it is reduce infant mortality and reduce poverty, you don't go having 20 kids if you expect all of them to survive and you don't need to send them all out to work in the fields so that you have enough to eat.
the scary thing here is you are serious.............. it's not the 20's anymore, most people don't work in the fields.
Renzatic on 11/11/2019 at 20:19
Quote Posted by jkcerda
yes, the INTERPRETATIONS are pretty specific, yet no where have I seen/read that TRUMP HIMSELF uttered the damn words..........
So testimony from 8 high positioned officials, all corroborating the same actions, isn't enough to at least say things look bad, and that a trial might be justified?
Ask yourself what these people have to gain by lying? Marie Yovanovitch is probably the only questionable take, given that she could be accused of holding a grudge against the Trump administration for removing her from her position for what she believes to be unfair reasons. But what about Bill Taylor? He was brought out of retirement to work as acting ambassador to Ukraine on Pompeo's recommendation to Trump. We have no reason to believe he hates Trump so much he'd be willing to sabotage our diplomatic positions, and perjure himself in front of congress just to rid us of him. Gordon Sondland? He was picked by Trump to act as ambassador to the EU. Was he a secret anti-Trumper? Alexander Vindland, a highly decorated officer in a pretty nice, comfy position? Why would he lie? Volker, Kent, McKinley, and Hill? Are they all Deep State operatives running a smear campaign to take down our duly elected president?
If it were just that one whistleblower, or just a couple of the people listed above, you could argue bias or hearsay. But 8 people, plus at least three unnamed whistleblowers, all with a solid grasp of Constitutional law, and a professional understanding of how foreign relations are properly conducted? That's a hard case to forward.
Quote Posted by jkcerda
the scary thing here is you are serious.............. it's not the 20's anymore, most people don't work in the fields.
Given the context, he's probably talking about 3rd world nations, where agriculture is still a big thing.
jkcerda on 11/11/2019 at 20:25
Quote Posted by Renzatic
So testimony from 8 high positioned officials, all corroborating the same actions, isn't enough to at least say things look bad, and that a trial might be justified?
Ask yourself what these people have to gain by lying? Marie Yovanovitch is probably the only questionable take, given that she could be accused of holding a grudge against the Trump administration for removing her from her position for what she believes to be unfair reasons. But what about Bill Taylor? He was brought out of retirement to work as acting ambassador to Ukraine on Pompeo's recommendation to Trump. We have no reason to believe he hates Trump so much he'd be willing to sabotage our diplomatic positions, and perjure himself in front of congress just to rid us of him. Gordon Sondland? He was picked by Trump to act as ambassador to the EU? Was he a secret anti-Trumper? Alexander Vindland, a highly decorated officer in a pretty nice, comfy position? Why would he lie? Volker, Kent, McKinley, and Hill? Are they all Deep State operatives running a smear campaign to take down our duly elected president?
If it were just that one whistleblower, or just a couple of the people listed above, you could argue bias or hearsay. But 8 people, plus at least three unnamed whistleblowers, all with a solid grasp of Constitutional law, and a professional understanding of how foreign relations are properly conducted? That's a hard case to forward.
Given the context, he's probably talking about 3rd world nations, where agriculture is still a big thing.
I win I win I win ****happy dance******
here is the way I see it.
trump, being the lying POS CEO that he has been asked his dip shit lawyer to get things done, dip shit lawyer goes full retard or 100% what trump wanted and indeed ask for the quid pro blah blah blah, since you DON'T HAVE TRUMP on record stating such things trump gets off scott free and looks like the victim of the witch hunt here. ..
ZylonBane on 11/11/2019 at 20:30
Quote Posted by jkcerda
I win I win I win ****happy dance******
Why do any of you idiots even attempt to have a serious conversation with this even bigger idiot?
Renzatic on 11/11/2019 at 20:49
Quote Posted by jkcerda
I win I win I win ****happy dance******
here is the way I see it.
trump, being the lying POS CEO that he has been asked his dip shit lawyer to get things done, dip shit lawyer goes full retard or 100% what trump wanted and indeed ask for the quid pro blah blah blah, since you DON'T HAVE TRUMP on record stating such things trump gets off scott free and looks like the victim of the witch hunt here. ..
Thing is, Trump personally sent Giuliani to Ukraine to act on his behalf, which makes him directly complicit.
To walk away from this looking even remotely innocent, Trump will have to prove he was ignorant of EVERYTHING being committed in his name, all by a proxy granted the power of the presidency by the man himself to use as leverage. This is an incredibly thin defense though, and on the off chance it were to succeed in clearing him of any guilt in the Ukraine matter, it'd end up making him look grossly, dangerously inept. This in turn could be used against him as justification for his removal from office.
Though really, it's all academic at this point. Even if the Democrats managed to produce tapes and documents signed by Trump proving his guilt beyond even a shadow of a reasonable doubt, there's still no way they'll push the Republican senate to a 2/3rds majority to have him removed from office. It's an election season, and any vulnerable Republican knows they need Trump's base to keep their seats. They won't vote against him, risking the ire of their core constituency.
jkcerda on 11/11/2019 at 21:09
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Why do any of you idiots even attempt to have a serious conversation with this even bigger idiot?
jealous? you did quote me so are you NOW part of the idiots trying to have a conversation??? take a number...........
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Thing is, Trump personally sent Giuliani to Ukraine to act on his behalf, which makes him directly complicit.
To walk away from this looking even remotely innocent, Trump will have to prove he was ignorant of EVERYTHING being committed in his name, all by a proxy granted the power of the presidency by the man himself to use as leverage. This is an incredibly thin defense though, and on the off chance it were to succeed in clearing him of any guilt in the Ukraine matter, it'd end up making him look grossly, dangerously inept. This in turn could be used against him as justification for his removal from office.
Though really, it's all academic at this point. Even if the Democrats managed to produce tapes and documents signed by Trump proving his guilt beyond even a shadow of a reasonable doubt, there's still no way they'll push the Republican senate to a 2/3rds majority to have him removed from office. It's an election season, and any vulnerable Republican knows they need Trump's base to keep their seats. They won't vote against him, risking the ire of their core constituency.
let me rephrase, NO WHERE have I said trump was innocent, hell I said he made his retard lawyer do it on HIS behalf, thing is BOTH retards are going to play he said/she said or I said and he thought I meant blah blah blah blah. just like you (I think) I don't see trump being removed from office and this damn shit show is just playing at trumps benefit.
Renzatic on 11/11/2019 at 21:43
Here's the way I think it'll play out. The Republicans are gonna try and twist this into a hearing against the Biden's. They're already attempt to schedule them to appear before the house, and even if the Democrats can push that aside, they'll definitely appear before the senate. At the same time, they'll have to prove that all the witnesses testifying against Trump are untrustworthy, and explain why Trump didn't attempt running an investigation through all the usual channels, instead relying on Giuliani working in secret. The Democrats job will be to forever try to keep things on topic, which won't be easy for them to do.
The single most important thing that we all need to come to terms with is that won't be a bog standard, C-SPAN style federal court proceeding. You're definitely right about one thing: it's going to be a teetotal absolute shit flinging freakshow circus style fuckfest, squeezed for every drop of political gain to be had from it. I can guarantee you that clips from the trial will be aired by both sides during the 2020 campaign commercials.
Though it may not necessarily benefit Trump. In the end, I think whoever ends up looking the least desperate will be declared the victor. Either way, the breakdown of our government will be spectacular to watch.
jkcerda on 11/11/2019 at 21:53
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Here's the way I think it'll play out. The Republicans are gonna try and twist this into a hearing against the Biden's. They're already attempt to schedule them to appear before the house, and even if the Democrats can push that aside, they'll definitely appear before the senate. At the same time, they'll have to prove that all the witnesses testifying against Trump are untrustworthy, and explain why Trump didn't attempt running an investigation through all the usual channels, instead relying on Giuliani working in secret. The Democrats job will be to forever try to keep things on topic, which won't be easy for them to do.
The single most important thing that we all need to come to terms with is that won't be a bog standard, C-SPAN style federal court proceeding. You're definitely right about one thing: it's going to be a teetotal absolute shit flinging freakshow circus style fuckfest, squeezed for every drop of political gain to be had from it. I can guarantee you that clips from the trial will be aired by both sides during the 2020 campaign commercials.
Though it may not necessarily benefit Trump. In the end, I think whoever ends up looking the least desperate will be declared the victor. Either way, the breakdown of our government will be spectacular to watch.
trump works well in the current shit show we have, I was surprised to see the democrats be stupid enough to fall for a circus that benefits trump . not sure how bloomberg is going to work out here either, do dems have a chance between bloomberg & Biden to take out trump? I don't see the rest of the clowns making it with independents and trump IS pissing off anyone who does not subscribe to the Howard stern/jerry springer/ WWE shit show they are ALL engaging in.
Renzatic on 11/11/2019 at 22:29
Don't assume Trump's immunity from scandal as a given. He may seem to thrive on strife, but we've also almost seen him in a controlled environment, where the variables are in his favor. If the Republicans don't play their cards quite right, if he breaks down in front of a hostile investigation, it'll do a ton to hurt his chances with the independent voters, which are currently pretty wishy-washy on their prospects for him.
Remember, he doesn't just have to convince his base, he also has to convince those swing voters who previously signed on for Obama, but decided to give him a chance over Hillary in 2016. They're the ones who determine elections, not the core Democrat/Republican straight ticket voters.
These ensuing impeachment hearings, and the inevitable trial is one big wild card for everyone. The Democrats can very easily overplay their hand, and the Republicans can end up dying on a hill they shouldn't be anywhere near. There are no guarantees anyone will come out of this unscathed, up to and including Donald J. Trump.
caffeinatedzombeh on 11/11/2019 at 22:43
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Given the context, he's probably talking about 3rd world nations, where agriculture is still a big thing.
Well I'm either talking about parts of the world that have the sort of population growth that that sort of thing might make a difference, don't already have those things and where Bill and Melinda Gates have spent huge sums of money keeping people alive and fighting poverty
or I'm talking about the 1920s... I'm not really sure that "probably" has any real place in working out which does it?