Who thinks Trump will win?

biko

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Can we begin by you telling us about Trump University and we'll go from there...

These are the standards of the man you support for POTUS.

Are you trying to divert attention away from Biden's Ukraine affairs?
Is it working?

biko

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

he is racist but i think he isn't going to take poor white folks dole from them any time soon

I know, he even said that he did not want his children to grow up in a 'racial jungle'.

Scot_in_Dublin

biko wrote: »

Pay walled.
Are these articles claiming Biden didn't do what he said he did?

I can PM you the entire article if you fancy a read through of it?

Kermit.de.frog

biko wrote: »

Are you trying to divert attention away from Biden's Ukraine affairs?
Is it working?

No one cares about any of that. It's a non story. And if it's not it can dealt with under the Biden presidency.

I'm talking about Trump.

I'll ask again - how can you support someone as immoral, vulgar, incompetent and corrupt as POTUS?

Is it because you think you get what you want?

"It's ok that he is an unfit dumb ass for the job as long as he follows my ideology"

Is that it?

Outlaw Pete

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'll ask again - how can you support someone as immoral, vulgar, incompetent and corrupt as POTUS?

The thread's not about Biko. You're just deflecting cause you have no rebuttal to the points he raised.

Scot_in_Dublin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The thread's not about Biko. You're just deflecting cause you have no rebuttal to the points he raised.

Would you fancy a read of the article Pete?

ILoveYourVibes

Racist socialism ..has always been a sure win.

I think the GOP has found that out.

Outlaw Pete

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Trump threatened to withold aid.

He didn't, he considered it given that Ukraine have/had a corruption problem and Zelensky ran on a campaign promise that he planned to change things. As POTUS Trump would be crazy not to test Zelensky and see if he really was keen to stamp out corruption. Would seem to me asking him to look into if there was any truth to the Biden / Shokin rumours was a good place to start.

Either way, can I ask you why you have no issue with Joe withholding $1Billion in aid until Shokin, the Ukraine prosecutor, was fired, even though Ukraine were happy with him and made it clear they had no issues with him at all, and were only getting rid of him cause Joe was threatening to withhold the aid until they did??

biko

Scot_in_Dublin wrote: »

I can PM you the entire article if you fancy a read through of it?

Thanks, but that is probably in breach of something. Thanks anyway.

Scot_in_Dublin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He didn't, he considered it given that Ukraine have/had a corruption problem and Zelensky ran on a campaign promise that he planned to change things. As POTUS Trump would be crazy not to test Zelensky and see if he really was keen to stamp out corruption. Would seem to me asking him to look into if there was any truth to the Biden / Shokin rumours was a good place to start.

Either way, can I ask you why you have no issue with Joe withholding $1Billion in aid until Shokin, the Ukraine prosecutor, was fired, even though Ukraine were happy with him and made it clear they had no issues with him at all, and were only getting rid of him cause Joe was threatening to withhold the aid until they did??

According to this AP news article around John Bolton, he actually may have

https://apnews.com/article/cd54bcd8a665c5de800120af57852679

Kermit.de.frog

biko wrote: »

Thanks, but that is probably in breach of something. Thanks anyway.

I note you don't want to answer...

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No one cares about any of that. It's a non story. And if it's not it can dealt with under the Biden presidency.

I'm talking about Trump.

I'll ask again - how can you support someone as immoral, vulgar, incompetent and corrupt as POTUS?

Is it because you think you get what you want?

"It's ok that he is an unfit dumb ass for the job as long as he follows my ideology"

Is that it?

I'm done with this one. Next! :cool:

Scot_in_Dublin

biko wrote: »

Thanks, but that is probably in breach of something. Thanks anyway.

No worries, and I did mean that honestly. Just find the article to be pretty comprehensive

Outlaw Pete

Scot_in_Dublin wrote: »

Would you fancy a read of the article Pete?

Cheers, but read it before.

Scot_in_Dublin wrote: »

No worries, and I did mean that honestly. Just find the article to be pretty comprehensive

Not sure why.

An anonymous EU diplomat (who had never even heard of Burisma at the time, which was odd) said they wanted Shokin out before Biden, but so what? Ukraine is/was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth, they are ALWAYS failing to prosecute some oligarch or other that's laundering cash through Latvia or some other such place and so that's par for the course to attack the Ukraine prosecutor.

Poreshenko, though, is on record as saying that they had no issues with Shokin whatsoever and only removed him because of the threat of losing the $1billion. Either way, the story this week is damning regardless. Just the fact that Biden appears to have lied about not speaking with Hunter about his overseas business dealings is enough surely for the media to be asking what motivated that lie, before we even get to the 'Big Guy' emails.

Scot_in_Dublin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Cheers, but read it before.



Not sure why. An anonymous EU diplomat said they wanted Shokin out before but so what? Ukraine is/was one of the most corrupt countries on Earth, they are ALWAYS failing to prosecute some oligarch or other that's laundering cash through Latvia or some other such place and so that's par for the course to attack the Ukraine prosecutor.

Poreshenko, though, is on record as saying that they had no issues with Shokin whatsoever and only removed him because of the threat of losing the $1billion.

Either way, the story this week is damning regardless. Just the fact that Biden appears to have lied about not speaking with Hunter about his overseas business dealings is enough surely for the media to be asking what motivated that lie, before we even get to the 'Big Guy' emails.

It wasn't one EU diplomat Pete. There were, from the article a number of them. Are you sure you've seen it? Again, am happy to send it onto you by PM per fair use laws etc.

biko

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I note you don't want to answer...

I don't want to engage in your fact less felling filled arguments.
Did you have a specific question I may have missed? Try to use less adjectives and provide credible sources for us to peruse.

Kermit.de.frog

biko wrote: »

I don't want to engage in your fact less felling filled arguments.
Did you have a specific question I may have missed? Try to use less adjectives and provide credible sources for us to peruse.

I asked why you support an idiot for POTUS?

Not complicated.

Tell us why?

biko

Come back when you manage to use adult language.

Kermit.de.frog

So you support Trump for president but can't tell us why.

That's the definition of MAGA really, isn't it?

ILoveYourVibes

biko wrote: »

Come back when you manage to use adult language.

Well you see the issue is ...'.not intelligent' really doesn't convey the severity of his lacking.

Why do you support someone with the IQ of a child?

EasycomeEasygo

Scot_in_Dublin wrote: »

Very cool. Now show me a link from Fox News or similar showing the same. The NY Post has been kinda quiet and alone since the big Hunter expose. Weirdly enough, even Rudy has gone to ground. Why is that?

So you post a link to a tweet with unverified documents and now you want me to post links to verify that spokesperson for Senator Johnson has said that Bobulinski's documents are genuine

Kermit.de.frog

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Why do you support someone with the IQ of a child?

Just want to add this is disgustingly unfair to most children but particularly those over 8 years of age.

ILoveYourVibes

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Just want to add this is disgustingly unfair to most children but particularly those over 8 years of age.

i dunno tho ...some 8 yr olds dude

Scot_in_Dublin

EasycomeEasygo wrote: »

So you post a link to a tweet with unverified documents and now you want me to post links to verify that spokesperson for Senator Johnson has said that Bobulinski's documents are genuine

That's kinda been the thing with the Hunter Biden story so far. And the initial reporter going to ground. Strange that.

Kermit.de.frog

All these republican senators in trouble in their states tells you how the election is going to go for Trump.

When the likes of Texas and South Carolina senators (Graham!) are in such danger of losing it's a big bellwether for the top of the ticket.

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1321646746200502278

EasycomeEasygo

Scot_in_Dublin wrote: »

I would point you to the link I posted outlining that timeline on these things according to the Financial Times. And that is not a left leaning paper by any stretch of the imagination.

You can point away but it doesn't mean anything. Why would Joe Biden say what he did say in the video?

https://jordan.house.gov/blog/?postid=399192

Scot_in_Dublin

EasycomeEasygo wrote: »

You can point away but it doesn't mean anything. Why would Joe Biden say what he did say in the video?

https://jordan.house.gov/blog/?postid=399192

What video? I see a transcript at the link you sent. If I'm missing it, please send it on. I will watch it.

patnor1011

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I asked why you support an idiot for POTUS?

Not complicated.

Tell us why?

Which one? Because there are two currently aspiring to become one.

EasycomeEasygo

Scot_in_Dublin wrote: »

What video? I see a transcript at the link you sent. If I'm missing it, please send it on. I will watch it.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=797504800724150

Scot_in_Dublin

EasycomeEasygo wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=797504800724150

Thank you. So this is kinda what is in the FT article I referenced earlier. Here's an excerpt from it:

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.

As European and American diplomats pressed Ukraine to clean up its corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office, which he took over in February 2015.

Mike Carpenter, who served as a foreign policy adviser to the then-vice president, told USA TODAY that Shokin "never went after any corrupt individuals at all" and "never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption."

Scot_in_Dublin

Scot_in_Dublin wrote: »

Thank you. So this is kinda what is in the FT article I referenced earlier. Here's an excerpt from it:

It's true that Joe Biden leveraged $1 billion in aid to persuade Ukraine to oust its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016. But it wasn't because Shokin was investigating Burisma. It was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians.

As European and American diplomats pressed Ukraine to clean up its corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office, which he took over in February 2015.

Mike Carpenter, who served as a foreign policy adviser to the then-vice president, told USA TODAY that Shokin "never went after any corrupt individuals at all" and "never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption."

I can drop in more excerpts from the article if it would lead to a bit more clarity around this.