Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
Lol but in banana republic world only Law officers can investigate corruption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well, then Impeachment is illegal since Pelosi is doing it instead of officer friendly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Like I said, only Pelosi is allowed to investigate corruption.
Anyone but Orangemanbad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
It's Trump's job to get cooperation with other national leaders to further the interests of the United States. Whether you think looking into Corruption involving Joe to the tune of billions of dollars is a national interest is up for interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
Cause Trump can't look into corruption. Only Pelosi can do that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No fam.
100% screwed is zero compensation.
Even fake news climateers don't say 100%.
They say 97%
Why so radical extreme absolute?
Stats are for scientific comparison.
100% is for religious dogma.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Partially compensated, no thanks to copyright law.
Who cares? Why would you cry wolf with fake news by spouting 100%?
If you have an argument, you don't have to use fictional stats that are impossible. There's very few things in nature that are 100%
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yah, Wikipedia says he was partially compensated, so not 100%
Superlatives are the tool of a person with a bad argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
99.999% of the content creators are already 100% screwed by the publishers and distributors.
What a dumb statement. 100% screwed means the creators sign a contract for zero compensation.
Created:
One of Trump's quotes that applies here is: "No future President should ever have to go through this."
An impeachment inquiry shouldn't occur the moment a president comes down an escalator.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Way to leave off the rest of the quote.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.
I mean Trump can nuke the planet, right?
It is absolutely clear the ONLY reason Trump was elected was as a check on a massively corrupt, inept, and anti-American Congress.
If Congress can simply remove that check because it interferes with the status quo, that is the end of the government's system of checks and balances.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
A SCOTUS failed to be impeached as well...Judge Chase...Impeaching a judge because you don't like his rulings wasn't sufficient grounds for removal.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Imagine if Congress impeached a SCOTUS Judge because "they thought" her rulings put the nation "at risk."
That's banana republic right there.
Created:
Once set the example of impeaching a President for what, when the excitement of the hour shall have subsided, will be regarded as insufficient causes, as several of those now alleged against the President were decided to be by the House of Representatives only a few months since, and no future President will be safe who happens to differ with a majority of the House and two thirds of the Senate on any measure deemed by them important, particularly if of a political character. Blinded by partisan zeal, with such an example before them, they will not scruple to remove out of the way any obstacle to the accomplishment of their purposes, and what then becomes of the checks and balances of the Constitution, so carefully devised and so vital to its perpetuity? They are all gone.
-Senator Lyman Trumbull
Wise words stated 150 years ago, and they are just as valid today.
The president is a check on the Congress, and you can't impeach a president for being "Orangemanbad" and disagreeing with the way Congress normally governs without destroying those checks and balances.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
How many posts does this site have to date in the forums?
Created:
Ivanka wouldn't have the stomach to endure deep state attacks and 90% crony corporate unfavorable media coverage.
Also, her lack of narcissism means she would be more likely to go along to get along, which isn't what the country needs more of right now.
Created:
Posted in:
DNC isn't going to listen to smelly Walmart Biden supporters in the historically racist South.
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
Chinese babies also don't have a 70% chance of growing up fatherless.
Created:
-->
@thett3
My question to progressives is this: how do you reconcile the reality of crime and victimization in the United States with the narrative that white people are oppressing black people? Materially, what is it that white people currently do to black people that outweighs a net 500,000 violent crimes every single year? Please be specific.
Oh comeon..this is way too easy.
Minorities are violent because they are oppressed by the white man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I doubt drafter knows the scumteam as a sub in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Would you mind taking this quiz/survey for me?
1) Hillary asking GPS fusion to put together a pee tape to smear Trump with the help of foreign assets.
choose 1
a) illegal
b) not illegal
2) Hillary asking Crowdstrike to hide the DNC server(s) from the FBI in Ukraine.
choose 1
a) illegal
b) not illegal
3) Trump asking for the Crowdstrike server(s).
choose 1
a) illegal
b) not illegal
4) Trump asking Zelensky to look into corruption involving Biden.
choose 1
a) illegal
b) not illegal
Scoring: 1 point for every "a" answer.
Results:
0: you are very savvy with the law, probably watches all media sources biased and unbiased.
1-2: You are a partisan hack with an agenda, probably watches nothing but biased media.
3-4: You are a complete idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
We really shouldn't be surprised at this though. The left has been using the Alphabet agencies to deliver a soft coup against Trump since he came down the escalator. 6 ways till Sunday and all that mess according to Schumer.
So suggesting the Alphabet agencies should be in charge of foreign relations and foreign requests is just an extension of that soft coup to weaken the presidency to spite Orangemanbad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
He is asking them to dig into something that has already been investigated.
There is no statute of limitations on corruption.
They could request assistance from the Ukrainian government in their investigation.
To who? The ambassador? We don't use the FBI or Congress to talk to Ambassadors.
At best they could request the President to ask the ambassador for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
But asking for a thing of value, in this case dirt on a political opponent, is a crime.
It's not a crime when it's also of value to the entire nation. That is a diplomatic trade on behalf of America.
It's not Trump's fault Biden screwed himself.
Same thing goes for the Crowdstrike server alleged to be in Ukraine.
It is a thing of value to the entire nation, not just Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
That isn't true at all. Law enforcement agencies fairly regularly request documents or additional evidence from foreign law enforcement agencies.
This is clearly and verifiably not true. Russia does NOT allow requests of any kind from the FBI.
Please prove me wrong on this, please do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
Is that the third party company hired to go through the information on the server for the Government? or for Hillary?
Yes.
The FBI never got to look at the actual hacked DNC servers.
Basically all info from the DNC servers was legally "hearsay" since it was all taken from the source by Crowdstrike and then passed on as 2nd hand info to the FBI.
There were rumors that there was at least one of the DNC servers in the Ukraine. Trump was asking Zelensky to verify this if he could with the purpose of handing the server over to the FBI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The FBI is allowed to request documents from other governments for the purposes of an official investigation.
Do you even know what the word Jurisdiction means?
They are most certainly not "allowed" to do this by every nation. The only thing they are "allowed" to do is abide by extradition treaties regarding criminals in foreign nations. They are most certainly not allowed to hop a plane to Ukraine and start an investigation and ask for evidence in Ukraine. Ukraine has zero reason to hand a damn thing over to the FBI.
Again, this is a matter of diplomacy. You don't conduct diplomacy with alphabet agencies. That's fucking retarded to think that's how diplomacy is done.
Where are you getting this nonsense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
More importantly, the USA will have the highest wealth per individual than China for the next 50 years at least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you allow foreign governments to interfere in elections in that way, then you are enabling politicians with corrupt contacts with those countries to have an advantage over honest politicians who don't have close contacts with potentially hostile foreign powers.
Pure Balderdash. If Hillary asked Putin to fabricate a story implicating Trump, it's literally no different of an outcome than if Hillary asked a friendly Domestic news agency to fabricate the same exact story.
People can figure out the bullshit on their own, that is the responsibility of the voter in a Democracy. When people are not allowed to figure out what is bullshit because of censoring and legalese crap, then democracy dies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Why would a politician need to ask a foreign government for this info?
Because using espionage over diplomacy isn't smart.
I don't know why you have this weird idea that the FBI or Congress has jurisdiction in Ukraine to investigate anything. How did you ever get that idea?
Was that on any of the fake news outlets? Someone's opinion about what the FBI can or cannot do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If trump actually wanted this investigated legally, he would have referred it to the justice department. They could have had law enforcement look into this. He could have pushed the senate or congress to look into it. He didn't do either of those things.
Look into what? Doesn't he have to listen to the info first before he can then pass said info onto the DOJ?
Mind you, Congress and the DOJ have zero jurisdiction in the Ukraine, so it falls upon diplomacy to get the information about corruption harming the nation, not law. You can't just pick up the phone and ask the FBI to get information from the Ukraine. Using the CIA to spy on an ally is worse.
That is an abuse of power.
Subjective opinion. Orangemanbad isn't a felony.
If trump actually wanted this investigated legally, he would have referred it to the justice department. They could have had law enforcement look into this. He could have pushed the senate or congress to look into it. He didn't do either of those things.
And every politician involved in any election of a potential president or wishing to potentially run for the presidency will never be able to ask for information or even listen to information that can then be passed along to the DOJ or FBI.
That's banana republic territory, to be jailed for simply listening to information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'd give you an extra vote tonight, but scum is clearly going to kill you night 1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
How did you score on the quiz?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If Trump cannot ask anyone, foreign or domestic, about the obviously dubious behavior of a political rival, then we have created a de facto immunity for anybody running for president, an immunity that extends to their family if they mix family with previous public-office holding. So long as American officials and private citizens misbehave abroad and then run for president, they cannot be investigated legitimately, so this line of thinking goes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Yah motivator was in caps so I'm guessing that's who I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
UNVOTE
I'm just being a little bitch, sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I'm supposed to be a motivator..what I do is give an extra vote to someone I select during the night
Created:
Posted in:
But what if we were to treat the request for information as tantamount to interference? Let us trace this line of thinking to its absurd conclusion. If Trump cannot ask anyone, foreign or domestic, about the obviously dubious behavior of a political rival, then we have created a de facto immunity for anybody running for president, an immunity that extends to their family if they mix family with previous public-office holding. So long as American officials and private citizens misbehave abroad and then run for president, they cannot be investigated legitimately, so this line of thinking goes.
As a historical matter, this would mean that the Benghazi and Clinton Foundation investigations undertaken by Congress were illegitimate the day they began because they had political consequences for presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. They would similarly mean that the Russiagate investigation was wrong the day it began. And while many people can justifiably point to misbehavior by Russiagate investigators, it cannot reasonably be said that Donald Trump’s words, deeds, and associates made that investigation unreasonable from the get-go. Indeed, we can go still further back.
Going back further still, if targeting a political opponent for investigation is illegitimate under any circumstances, then FDR was wrong to direct the FBI to work with friendly European governments to investigate Charles Lindbergh and the German American Bund.
Clearly, creating an effective blanket immunity for those powerful enough to run for president is truly the stuff of banana republics. Indeed, if it achieved anything, it would only encourage well-heeled rascals to run for office while simultaneously encouraging the politically connected to engage in international graft. I, for one, think America has enough of both already.
Opponents of the president have elevated his person above his position, deciding that the practice of executive power itself is illegitimate because of who has been elected to wield it. That is the very kind of institutional nihilism many of these same people claim to fear most about this presidency.
Created:
Posted in:
Here are the facts. The decision of Joe Biden, while vice president, to facilitate his son Hunter’s international business dealings presents, minimally, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Indeed, anything that Hunter Biden touched that intersected, however tangentially, with the official doings and responsibilities of his father can be presumed to be a worthy subject of investigation unless and until proven otherwise. The younger Biden’s shady dealings with his uncle dating at least to 2008, his absurd (and absurdly lucrative) board post on the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, his massive financing rounds in China, and his travel to these countries along with his father, the latter acting in his official capacity — all raise significant questions.
Information is not interference. Based on the call transcript, Trump asked Zelensky to get to the bottom of whether Ukraine or Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 election. One may consider Trump’s concerns absurd or silly. Alternatively, one may suspect Ukrainian involvement. I do not know and will not pretend to know, because whether Ukraine was actually involved is irrelevant. The request for information that the Ukrainian president may be uniquely positioned to offer is fair and does not, in and of itself, constitute election interference.
The president is well within his rights to seek information from his counterparts abroad. He can ask Zelensky if the Dodgers will make the World Series, or who Zelensky thinks is the most formidable Democratic candidate. Soliciting information, in the form of facts or opinion, does not constitute election interference. It does not constitute having a foreign head of state do opposition research for the Trump campaign. It is not some of in-kind contribution.
While the seeking of information does not intrinsically constitute a problem — indeed, it’s exactly the sort of thing we want the president doing in exchanges with foreign heads of state — what Trump chooses to do with the information he receives matters immensely. Were Trump to pass documents to his campaign, that would blend his official powers with his electioneering apparatus, which is against campaign-finance law. Were Trump to tell Zelensky to leak whatever damaging information he might find about Biden, that too would constitute election interference. Obviously, if Trump asked Zelensky to target Biden or his campaign with hacking, it would be a crime. If he asked Zelensky to fabricate information and leak it to the public, this impeachment talk would be completely justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
Then Speed informed me through PM that he made a mistake, My "justification" as Motivator is that I encourage Spider Man.
Created:
Posted in:
Nevermind
UNVOTE
Speed just informed me through PM that my justification is that I am a Motivator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
I don't have a "justification." It's just parts copy pasted from my PM.
I didn't create this game.
VTL WARREN
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
No it isn't lol. Let's make a checklist here.
1) Hillary asking GPS fusion to put together a pee tape to smear Trump with the help of foreign assets.
choose 1
a) illegal
b) not illegal
2) Hillary asking Crowdstrike to hide her server from the FBI in Ukraine.
choose 1
a) illegal
b) not illegal
3) Trump asking for the Crowdstrike server.
choose 1
a) illegal
b) not illegal
4) Trump asking Zelensky to look into corruption involving Biden.
choose 1
a) illegal
b) not illegal
Scoring: 1 point for every "a" answer.
Results:
0: you are very savvy with the law, probably watches all media sources biased and unbiased.
1-2: You are a partisan hack with an agenda, probably watches nothing but biased media.
3-4: You are a complete idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I seriously doubt Congress has the power to prevent Giuliani from going to Ukraine and getting the info from the Crowdstrike server along with anything else that Zelensky wants to offer him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. 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. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President 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. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. 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 so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
Basically Trump wanted to talk about Crowdstrike, Zelensky wanted to talk about Guliani, then Trump wanted to talk about Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
If anyone can get this country back on track to when it was great and you were free, Chapelle can do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
If he can release a document confessing to a crime and your response is that you don't care, it would appear that he can commit any crimes he wants and people like you will cheer him on. If the rest of the public is as partisan as you are, then your democracy is doomed.
Nah, I don't see democracy doomed at all. People can still freely walk into a voting booth and know their vote is going to be counted. And yeah you can vote for criminals if you know their crimes are bullshit like Bill Clinton's was. It won't hurt democracy at all. In fact, it vindicates it. This is how bad laws get changed-- At the ballot box.
For instance, it's bullshit that whistleblowers right now get protection for hearsay testimony which isn't admissible in any court. So we can have an election that has consequences and say that it is a bullshit law, re-elect Trump, and get the law reverted back to when you had to have 1st hand knowledge of something as a whistleblower.
Created: