The President of the US has been impeached

[Quest4Nes | 376]

8 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

Best comment I read about this was that he is just bitching about wind because of a turbine farm fight near his Scotland golf course.

The whole thing makes him sound like a moron, but he does have a genuine grudge against the wind power industry.

Not any less coherent than biden talking about turning on the radio for black kids. Those debates are going to be hilarious

Edited December 28, 2019 by Quest4Nes

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

30 minutes ago, Quest4Nes said:

Not any less coherent than biden talking about turning on the radio for black kids. Those debates are going to be hilarious

What about... What about... What about...

 

Trump being a total dumbass on camera about wind power is not at all reduced by one of the Democrat candidates also being a dumbass on a separate occasion about a different topic.

Edited December 28, 2019 by arch_8ngel

[m308gunner | 352]

On 12/26/2019 at 9:01 PM, Link said:

Ok, maybe I have misunderstood you after all. Sorry. 

Can you explain what you mean by this? I do agree that his own trolling, and needling and bullying are successful to his ends. I wouldn’t guess that he is convincing anyone or changing their mind, which is what I think persuasion is. (of course, we’ll never know about that for sure. since we can’t read them... ) 

Sorry, was busy with real life stuff for a few days there.

If you have 20 minutes of free time check out the video. Mr. Adams describes the persuasion game of Trump much better than I. 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

29 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

Sorry, was busy with real life stuff for a few days there.

If you have 20 minutes of free time check out the video. Mr. Adams describes the persuasion game of Trump much better than I. 

 

That guy definitely sniffs his own farts. 

Joe Rogan? Now I know why you are so confused.

[m308gunner | 352]

19 hours ago, Californication said:

Tanooki, lets stay on point, you don't think it is a crime for the president to hold back money congress has appropriated, so he could use it as a negotiating chip, to get a personal benefit from a foreign country?

Really?

  I thought we already covered this point? A quick google search turned up a BBC article that seems pertinent to the subject at hand .

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42557818

 As to the "personal benefit", *shrugs* I've addressed that point multiple times, though obviously not to everyone's satisfaction.

[m308gunner | 352]

Just now, Californication said:

That guy definitely sniffs his own farts. 

Joe Rogan? Now I know why you are so confused.

  Truly your level of analysis is leaps and bounds beyond the common man. With such a well laid out argument I humbly prostrate myself before your considerable intellect and beg for mercy. 

[Californication | 1,477]

2 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  Truly your level of analysis is leaps and bounds beyond the common man. With such a well laid out argument I humbly prostrate myself before your considerable intellect and beg for mercy. 

Thank you. That's all I ask.

[m308gunner | 352]

6 minutes ago, Californication said:

Thank you. That's all I ask.

Well played

[Tanooki | 4,934]

19 hours ago, Californication said:

Tanooki, lets stay on point, you don't think it is a crime for the president to hold back money congress has appropriated, so he could use it as a negotiating chip, to get a personal benefit from a foreign country?

Really?

Nope, I don't.  Just because it's authorized it's not legally bound to be sent out and there are variables at play we may not know that could allow some/all of it to be withheld legitimately so too which had m308 there not linked that BBC article I would would written up something similarly.  This whole personal benefit thing is just a straight up assumption of guilt to fit a narrative because Trump loved to do unhinged shit so it's easier to make it stick.  Around these parts until more recent years it seems we used to value innocence before guilt, not the other way around.

[Californication | 1,477]

Look,  I like Joe Rogan. I had the News Radio DVD set for years and rewatched all the old episodes, his newer stand up routines are solid, and who doesn't like him ring side.

Now as a political commentator, Joe Rogan is not up to par. His ratio of scumbag, loser political commentator guests to good political commentator guests is terrible. 

On top of that, this video is basically two millionaires many times over that want to protect their wealth and therefore are a part of the republican party. Their goal is to convince Joe Rogans viewers why that is an acceptable thing to do.

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Californication

[m308gunner | 352]

2 minutes ago, Californication said:

Look,  I like Joe Rogan. I had the News Radio DVD set for years and rewatched all the old episodes, his newer stand up routines are solid, and who doesn't like him ring side.

Now as a political commentator, Joe Rogan is not up to par. His ratio of scumbag, loser political commentator guests to good political commentator guests is terrible. 

On top of that, this video is basically two millionaires many times over that want to protect their wealth and therefore a part of the republican party. Their goal is to convince Joe Rogans viewers why that is an acceptable thing to do.

 

Well to be fair Joe Rogan does not pretend to be a political commentator. He just invites people onto his show that he thinks would be interesting to talk to. I still think he's kind of a meat head, to be honest, but he does keep conversations going.

  Neither Scott nor Joe are republicans though. They're both residents of California and espouse some pretty far left policies. They've just made enough "F#@& You Money" (their words, not mine) in their entertainment careers that they feel more free to not adhere to a more easily defined political ideology/agendas. 

[Californication | 1,477]

I read the BBC article and I agree with it. It says congress doesn't always specify how foreign aid is to be allocated, in those situations the president has leeway in how it is apportioned. 

This is not one of those situations. Congress specifically said this money was to be given to the Ukraine. It was specifically so Ukraine could buy weapons from U.S. company's to fight Russia. 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

9 hours ago, m308gunner said:

Well to be fair Joe Rogan does not pretend to be a political commentator. He just invites people onto his show that he thinks would be interesting to talk to. I still think he's kind of a meat head, to be honest, but he does keep conversations going.

  Neither Scott nor Joe are republicans though. They're both residents of California and espouse some pretty far left policies. They've just made enough "F#@& You Money" (their words, not mine) in their entertainment careers that they feel more free to not adhere to a more easily defined political ideology/agendas. 

I've heard Rogan say that and it doesn't add up. He is a political commentator because he regularly talks about politics and has a huge audience. 

He occasionally has a really honest, genuine guest, but mostly he invites a lot of disreputable people that mostly push Republican ideology. He is definitely good on some issues, but as a whole he invites people on the show that have no credibility and will say anything if you throw a dollar in their pocket. 

At best they are liberal/conservative Democrats which is very similar to a left leaning republican. 

Let me give you a differnet example, 95% of those Hollywood elites are liberal democrats if not conservative. Every once in a while there is a real lefty like Susan Sarandon, or Danny Glover. The rest of them are rich assholes who don't want to shake the boat because they are already set. 

The difference between a liberal and a real lefty is that a liberal is only different from republican about social programs (gay rights, abortion, civil right, gun rights, etc.). A lefty wants to change the system, they want to change the balance of power in the country to help the average guy (minimum wage increase, universal healthcare, free education, less wars, fixing the prison system, drug legalization)

Edit: For me the biggest red flag is that when they talk about Trump they call him a succesful businessman over and over. That is factually wrong, he isbnot a successful businessperson. 

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Californication

[Link | 2,714]

6 hours ago, m308gunner said:

If you have 20 minutes of free time check out the video. Mr. Adams describes the persuasion game of Trump much better than I. 

 

I’m sorry. I know you have been harping on persuasion and Scott Adams videos for this whole thread, but I can’t. I have never watched or listened to a podcast, or a vlog as they used to be called. I don’t even like AVGN or Pat or Game Grumps or any of the other 5 million video game related youtubers. 

It’s not a format that interests me. I do love reading professional interviews, biographies, and memoirs of people I admire (some of my favorite books ever), and even people I don’t like if the interviewer is skilled enough to tease out interesting perspective from the subject, but videos of random blithering are just not something I can get with. I honestly gave this video a full 5 minutes, got nothing from it, and could not stand any more. 

For me, write well or be ignored. And goddamn, get to the fucking point already. That’s why youtube blogs suck. They need lots of filler to pad their time. I’m not down with that.

[Link | 2,714]

5 hours ago, m308gunner said:

Neither Scott nor Joe are republicans though. They're both residents of California

I know California gets a lot of static for being “liberal”, but they’ve had quite a few republican governors, including throughout almost all of the 80s, 90s, and 00s. 

[Californication | 1,477]

Here is a breakdown of the money Ukraine was supposed to receive.

This is not an opinion piece these are facts.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid

Facts don't care abouy your feelings.

[m308gunner | 352]

15 hours ago, Californication said:

Here is a breakdown of the money Ukraine was supposed to receive.

This is not an opinion piece these are facts.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid

Facts don't care abouy your feelings.

Do people still listen to Ben Shapiro?

[Link | 2,714]

I don’t know why anyone would...

[Nes Freak | 584]

i look at it this way.  if he does get the boot and wins the next election that will be funny as heck to me lol.

[Rooster | 124]

22 hours ago, Californication said:

Here is a breakdown of the money Ukraine was supposed to receive.

This is not an opinion piece these are facts.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/role-omb-withholding-ukrainian-aid

Facts don't care abouy your feelings.

Didn't seem like people were interested in facts.

[Californication | 1,477]

8 hours ago, m308gunner said:

Do people still listen to Ben Shapiro?

I'm sure he has some sort of audience despite making a fool out of himself over and over. Looks like he was on Joe Rogan in April and August. 

So I posted a breakdown of how congress appropriated money to Ukraine and how the funds already passed the point where Donald Trump could divert them.

Before you said Donald Trump didn't break the law because he had the right to withhold the funds. Do you still think he didn't break the law?

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Californication

[m308gunner | 352]

4 hours ago, Californication said:

I'm sure he has some sort of audience despite making a fool out of himself over and over. Looks like he was on Joe Rogan in April and August. 

So I posted a breakdown of how congress appropriated money to Ukraine and how the funds already passed the point where Donald Trump could divert them.

Before you said Donald Trump didn't break the law because he had the right to withhold the funds. Do you still think he didn't break the law?

 I don't think I argued either way about the legality of Trump temporarily withholding the aid, but feel free to quote where I did. Learning is fun. I've maintained that as long as Trump's goal aligned with our national interests I'm fine with how thing went down. Also, from the article you linked:

"At present, it is unclear whether OMB withheld the money in a manner consistent with its legal obligations. Without drawing any definitive conclusions, this post explains the complex legal underpinnings of the issue about which Congress seeks information."

And from Dick Durbin (emphasis added), "... They were withholding these funds that had been appropriated and signed into law by the President until the last two weeks of the fiscal year. That’s crazy. It hardly ever happens."

"Whether there is some good legal or other explanation for the long delay in releasing the money is a question that lacks a clear answer, and that might remain unanswered indefinitely if Congress cannot get its hands on the requested documents."

There are other passages that seem to indicate there's more wiggle room legally (lawyers will be lawyers), but I would have thought if there was something the Democrats could hang their hat on it would have been more clearly defined in their articles of impeachment. Color me unimpressed until we get more information.

  Also, most Americans who haven't been baying for Trump's blood since his inauguration probably give less of a toss than I do. Pretty sure the president not obeying an obscure law/code/ordinance ranks pretty low on their daily list of concerns or how they would rate his performance. 

[m308gunner | 352]

On 12/29/2019 at 3:48 AM, Link said:

I’m sorry. I know you have been harping on persuasion and Scott Adams videos for this whole thread, but I can’t. I have never watched or listened to a podcast, or a vlog as they used to be called. I don’t even like AVGN or Pat or Game Grumps or any of the other 5 million video game related youtubers. 

It’s not a format that interests me. I do love reading professional interviews, biographies, and memoirs of people I admire (some of my favorite books ever), and even people I don’t like if the interviewer is skilled enough to tease out interesting perspective from the subject, but videos of random blithering are just not something I can get with. I honestly gave this video a full 5 minutes, got nothing from it, and could not stand any more. 

For me, write well or be ignored. And goddamn, get to the fucking point already. That’s why youtube blogs suck. They need lots of filler to pad their time. I’m not down with that.

Ah, I see. Well, you do you.

[Link | 2,714]

1 hour ago, m308gunner said:

Ah, I see. Well, you do you.

Thank you for explaining what you really mean.

[Californication | 1,477]

2 hours ago, m308gunner said:

 I don't think I argued either way about the legality of Trump temporarily withholding the aid, but feel free to quote where I did. Learning is fun. I've maintained that as long as Trump's goal aligned with our national interests I'm fine with how thing went down. Also, from the article you linked:

"At present, it is unclear whether OMB withheld the money in a manner consistent with its legal obligations. Without drawing any definitive conclusions, this post explains the complex legal underpinnings of the issue about which Congress seeks information."

And from Dick Durbin (emphasis added), "... They were withholding these funds that had been appropriated and signed into law by the President until the last two weeks of the fiscal year. That’s crazy. It hardly ever happens."

"Whether there is some good legal or other explanation for the long delay in releasing the money is a question that lacks a clear answer, and that might remain unanswered indefinitely if Congress cannot get its hands on the requested documents."

There are other passages that seem to indicate there's more wiggle room legally (lawyers will be lawyers), but I would have thought if there was something the Democrats could hang their hat on it would have been more clearly defined in their articles of impeachment. Color me unimpressed until we get more information.

  Also, most Americans who haven't been baying for Trump's blood since his inauguration probably give less of a toss than I do. Pretty sure the president not obeying an obscure law/code/ordinance ranks pretty low on their daily list of concerns or how they would rate his performance. 

There is nothing obscure about the president not being able to screw with the money congress appropriates, that is like govt. 101. I don't know if it sounds obscure to you because you made me get an articles that specifically points out the law because you didn"t accept my opinion. 

You keep looking at one piece of information instead of the whole picture because you think that's how you prove your point. 

In the real world there are multiple layers going on and this is just one point. 

When you add this to the phone call that is extremly incriminating through the transcript which the Trump White House already edited, 

And the fact that they lied to govt. Agencies about why the money was being held, 

And that they then hid the transcript of the phone call in a database were it should not have been, 

If you are being honest and can't admit that he did something wrong you've got to be either disingenous or maybe a little slow.

And if you can't put that together than you probably also missed the other problem, this is the one time were Trump was caught red handed with his hand in the jar. He is probably doing this with other countrys in other ways. 

Look at all the foreign countrys paying inflated prices at his hotels. What do you think they expect in exchange for that? Or the manufacturing/exporting deals Ivanka gets in China. 

These countrys expect something in return. 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Californication