Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

PropJoe10

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Amazing.

Here's him saying there was no quid pro quo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_c17vxrPWQ

It's only 1 minute, watch it.

You should go and watch the entire hearings and actually inform yourself on the facts given by numerous witnesses. You might just change your mind.

Overheal

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

He heard someone else say Trump wants quid pro quo. Does he provide any actual evidence (e-mails, video, etc.)? Nope.

In fact, when pressed on his first hand experience on the matter, he states Trump said no quid pro quo.

Same as everyone else in this hearing. "I heard someone else talk about it and it sounds bad".

Do you happenstance know why he doesn't provide that information or have a refreshed memory?

OMM 0000

PropJoe10 wrote: »

You should go and watch the entire hearings and actually inform yourself on the facts given by numerous witnesses. You might just change your mind.

Can you link to some actual evidence?

By this I don't mean "I heard some guy say some other guy heard Trump wanted quid pro quo".

listermint

OMM 0000 wrote: »

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

He heard someone else say Trump wants quid pro quo. Does he provide any actual evidence (e-mails, video, etc.)? Nope.

In fact, when pressed on his first hand experience on the matter, he states Trump said no quid pro quo.

Same as everyone else in this hearing. "I heard someone else talk about it and it sounds bad".

Let's stop his nonsense


Just stop..stop stop stop.


Trump's chief of staff came out two weeks ago and said there was quid pro quo. He said it in front of the press corp he was asked questions on it he confirmed it. He called this press conference. Under the pretence that it was ok and it was not illegal



So as I said..


Stop spreading lies.

rosser44

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Btw my point is you guys (some of you) have made up your mind.

It doesn't matter what evidence is presented,

What evidence have the GOP presented?

Their own people have acknowledged trump did what he did.

We have testimony of the bribery/extortion/personal use of state power (whatever you want to call it, its all semantics) from multiple career diplomats.


Trump saying "no quid pro quo" on a call the same day Nunes found out about the whistleblower complaint via the intelligence committee is like saying you weren't gonna rob the bank after actually being caught red handed breaking into it

Overheal

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Can you link to some actual evidence?

By this I don't mean "I heard some guy say some other guy heard Trump wanted quid pro quo".

The Congressional Record is evidence. There are numerous posters here who have now watched every second of it. What do you offer: a 1 minute clip from thousands of minutes of testimony. So, I feel comfortable regarding your scoff for 'actual evidence' as not genuine.

aloyisious

Jim Jordan outside the hearing room talking to the media. He's spinning that the hearings are not about the facts.

kowloon

Haven't the defenders moved on to 'it's fine to ask for something in return' already?

OMM 0000

listermint wrote: »

Let's stop his nonsense


Just stop..stop stop stop.


Trump's chief of staff came out two weeks ago and said there was quid pro quo. He said it in front of the press corp he was asked questions on it he confirmed it. He called this press conference. Under the pretence that it was ok and it was not illegal



So as I said..


Stop spreading lies.

But you're the one lying here.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKRjDdIGWU4

Do you even realise you're lying?

I'm going to type what the Chief of Staff says:

"The look back at what happened in 2016 [Trump believes the Steele Dossier came from Ukraine] certainly was part of the thing he was worried about regarding corruption for that nation." He then implies the funds weren't blocked.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

Overheal

OMM 0000 wrote: »

But you're the one lying here.

Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKRjDdIGWU4

Do you even realise you're lying?

I'm going to type what the Chief of Staff says:

"The look back at what happened in 2016 [Trump believes the Steele Dossier came from Ukraine] certainly was part of the thing he was worried about regarding corruption for that nation." He then implies the funds weren't blocked.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

https://youtu.be/LKRjDdIGWU4?t=200

Can we dispense with your nonsense now please?

OMM 0000

Overheal wrote: »

https://youtu.be/LKRjDdIGWU4?t=200

Can we dispense with your nonsense now please?

You're moving the goal posts!

You're now using the fact Trump wanted an investigation into who hacked the democrat's servers (which the democrats also wanted) as evidence he wanted the Bidens investigated... this just proves how dishonest you are.

Can you really not see this?

Is this just you refusing to admit you're wrong (as is normal on the Internet) or are you so far gone you are relating everything to orange man bad?

Again, I'm not a Trump supporter. He's a ridiculous person.

OMM 0000

I can already see I'm completely wasting my time. Jesus Christ could appear and tell the truth and you'd still refuse to believe it. So I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

As I said already, I'm no Trump fan. I think he's a ridiculous person. But "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a real thing, and you guys (some of you) are experiencing it. Perhaps you can't see or admit it now, but in the future you'll realise it.

You need to remove your emotions from this situation (like I have), and look at the facts in a cold, logical manner.

Overheal

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You're moving the goal posts!

You're now using the fact Trump wanted an investigation into who hacked the democrat's servers (which the democrats also wanted) as evidence he wanted the Bidens investigated... this just proves how dishonest you are.

Can you really not see this?

Is this just you refusing to admit you're wrong (as is normal on the Internet) or are you so far gone you are relating everything to orange man bad?

Again, I'm not a Trump supporter. He's a ridiculous person.

You're saying there's no connection between Joe Biden and the Democrats? Think about your logic there.

If you don't want to completely waste your time as you say, go watch the hearings.

PropJoe10

aloyisious wrote: »

Jim Jordan outside the hearing room talking to the media. He's spinning that the hearings are not about the facts.

In the current US, he's right. It's about playing to the idiot element in Trump's base. Ratings are the only things that will really decide anything here, not the facts. And it's extremely sad to have to even type that.

Dohnjoe

OMM 0000 wrote: »

You need to remove your emotions from this situation (like I have), and look at the facts in a cold, logical manner.

What are the facts according to you?

What do you think about testimony from Sondland, Vindman, Taylor, Volker, Cooper, Hale, et al?

What would it take for you to believe that Trump withheld aid as part of quid pro quo for an investigation into a political rival? (please don't say Trump literally admitting it, or being recorded demanding it, that isn't going to happen)

mcmoustache

kowloon wrote: »

Haven't the defenders moved on to 'it's fine to ask for something in return' already?

My interpretation of the current position is that there was no quid-pro-quo and the quid-pro-quo was perfectly OK.


It takes a special kind of mind to be able to do that.

PropJoe10

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Can you link to some actual evidence?

By this I don't mean "I heard some guy say some other guy heard Trump wanted quid pro quo".

With respect here, you're not going to gain any credibility by posting a 30-second clip of Sondland saying something without actually understanding the context of what he said. I'm not going to sit here trawling through clips from the last few days on your behalf, but feel free to go and actually get an understanding of the hearings so far and you'll probably get into far fewer arguments in this thread.

Overheal

C-SPAN has it all, and more, for everyone. A few people in the comments have been timestamping and tagging highlights too

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb--64Gl51jIEVE-GLDAVTg

everlast75

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Amazing.

Here's him saying there was no quid pro quo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_c17vxrPWQ

It's only 1 minute, watch it.

That's not what he said.

1) Sondland said unequivocally there was a qpq
2) TRUMP said "no qpq" to Sondland. There's a difference.
3) Trump knew there were questions being raised about the situation when he said it on that phone call.
4) Do you not think it odd that Trump would say the phrase "no qpq" unpromoted? What an odd phrase to use.
5) Trump's own transcript says "i would like you to do me a favour though". If you asked your boss for a day off, and he said "sure, but I'd like you to do me a favour though" - do you not think one is conditional upon the other?

aloyisious

OMM 0000 wrote: »

But you're the one lying here.

Do you even realise you're lying?

Have you looked at the Boards.ie set of rules when it comes to the use of the L-word you've used twice above in describing what another debater has posted? Page 1 of this thread has Quin_Dub, a site moderator, mentioning the Boards.ie charter.

everlast75

Talk about history repeating itself.

Look at these and see how many you recognize


https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1197555268948611073?s=19

OMM 0000

aloyisious wrote: »

Have you looked at the Boards.ie set of rules when it comes to the use of the L-word you've used twice above in describing what another debater has posted?

Listermint came along and accused me of lying, and I responded to his post pointing out he is in fact lying, yet in your eyes I'm the guilty one.

Perhaps you need to ponder this to understand why you may have serious bias issues.

PropJoe10

Some polls apparently showing more people turning against impeachment which I find absolutely staggering.

listermint

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Listermint came along and accused me of lying, and I responded to his post pointing out he is in fact lying, yet in your eyes I'm the guilty one.

Perhaps you need to ponder this to understand why you may have serious bias issues.

Your only here for an argument. You've watched a few clips and your opening posts were all about this thread that and this thread this.


Yes for sure. You can play the in impartial card but your post form in this thread and previous ones speak volumes.


Spoofs

Leroy42

If one is of the mind that Trump is innocent in all this, then surely and even graver realisation must come to the fore.

Trump, the man that was going to drain the swamp and sort out Washington, is completely and totally ineffective. He is surrounded by, not only career politicians and diplomats actively working against him, but also those that he trusts the most.

That is the alternative reality that one needs to accept if ones position is to believe Trump. That Trump never asked for any QPQ, but almost everyone around him simply assumed that it is what he wanted. That is a massive failure on his part to get across his message to those working for him.

So either he did ask for this, or he is totally incompetent. Since he has not sacked any of Mulvaney, Rudy, Pompeo for this terrible carry on without his knowledge, and indeed had stopped them from testifying to Congress in order to clear their names and his, the suspicion must be that it is not simply the entire rest of the WH on a solo run. The mere fact that he is spending all his time defending himself to the media, rather than dealing with what would be a massive problem tells you all you need to know

OMM 0000

listermint wrote: »

Your only here for an argument. You've watched a few clips and your opening posts were all about this thread that and this thread this.

Yes for sure. You can play the in impartial card but your post form in this thread and previous ones speak volumes.

Spoofs

You're not being fair.

You can't dispute my points so you have to attack my character.

This is predictable, but unfortunate, and the reason I am hesitate to reply any further.

aloyisious

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Listermint came along and accused me of lying, and I responded to his post pointing out he is in fact lying, yet in your eyes I'm the guilty one.

Perhaps you need to ponder this to understand why you may have serious bias issues.

OK. Ref your asking for proof about Don asking for a QPQ, would you be satisfied with Don's White House Chief of Staff [Mick Mulvaney] live televised statement that Don did ask President Zelensky for a QPQ during the one-on-one phone conversation the two presidents had in July as evidence of the requested QPQ? Some one else here has put that question to you.

StringerBell

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Some polls apparently showing more people turning against impeachment which I find absolutely staggering.

Which ones?

Woodenfloor

One would imagine Mr Holmes will be out of work soon.
Eavesdropping on an Ambassador and gossiping the phone call .
MS HILL very likable witness but one would wonder about her connections to the Brook inks Institute.
Unfortunately can't see past President Trump for 2020.

pixelburp

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Some polls apparently showing more people turning against impeachment which I find absolutely staggering.

Because of the modern impeachments, it's the least sexy or exotic. It's not wiretapping or blowjobs, which has a seedy and rubber-necking quality, it's geopolitical shenanigans so good luck getting a lethargic, apathetic populus engaged. It's glib, but US politics are heavily anti intellectual and partisan now; and as hearings drag on patience will wain as the sober realties of this less exciting version of impeachment presents itself.