• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump to host G7 at his own Florida resort property

TU Curmudgeon said:
I see the concept "analogy" is one that was taught on one of the days that you missed school.



A comment frequently heard from "competitors" of low skill.



Yes, and I have made it frequently. That you have missed it repeatedly does not mean that I have to repeat it again.

However, being a kindly, understanding, mild-mannered, and helpful fellow, I will repeat it again:


Either

  1. the facts are what the facts are
    *
    or
    *
  2. Mr. Trump is - indeed - "The Second Coming" and everything that anyone has ever said that was in the least bit non-laudatory is a complete lie instigated by the Devil.

I go with Option 1 even if you don't.
Click to expand...

And you keep spewing the same idiocy as any other frothing at the mouth far-left maniac. Can't believe I was away at work all this time and was actually expecting you to have a real point when I got back.

Though you can keep crying about facts all you want. Fact is, that much of what the lot of you keep spewing is just hyperbole and sheer assumption, and worst of all. For some reason it's always wrapped in this same crap that you just posted.
 
ClaraD said:
It's no conspiracy theory, it's a fact....in fact the top of the memo said...THIS IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT
Click to expand...

Only a fool would expect that a mere FIVE WORDS (added by some unknown person with some unknown authority who was acting for some unknown reason at some unknown time) to convince the people who 'the truth that it is something that it isn't?

[The above form of "Internet Rebuttal" has been specifically and officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
 
ClaraD said:
It's no conspiracy theory, it's a fact....in fact the top of the memo said...THIS IS NOT A TRANSCRIPT
Click to expand...

Yet, it took the lot of you so long to actually come to that conclusion. Because everyone on the left was claiming that when the form was released, it would prove Trump did this and that. But when it was finally released, the fact was that such a narrative had no ground.

Now we're stuck in in this impeachment clown show. Which is mostly botched up from someone who didn't even have first hand accounts of the incident in question.
 
Oborosen said:
Yet, it took the lot of you so long to actually come to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, almost 100% of all intelligent and literate people "formed the conclusion" that what was released was NOT a "transcript" when they read the words "This is NOT a transcript" printed on it.

Oborosen said:
Because everyone on the left was claiming that when the form was released, it would prove Trump did this and that.
Click to expand...

Not quite - they were claiming that when the TRANSCRIPT was released it would prove what was actually said.

Oborosen said:
But when it was finally released, ...
Click to expand...

Which it has NOT been.

Oborosen said:
...the fact was that such a narrative had no ground.
Click to expand...

Is something that only those who have not been paying attention to the evidence of those people who were actual participants in the events could believe.

Oborosen said:
Now we're stuck in in this impeachment clown show.
Click to expand...

Which wouldn't be happening unless there was a clown to impeach.

Oborosen said:
Which is mostly botched up from someone who didn't even have first hand accounts of the incident in question.
Click to expand...

Interesting opinion. It's wonderful how some people can work out what the verdict is going to be before the trial, and before the indictment is brought in, and before the jury is selected, and before the evidence is gathered.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Generally speaking, almost 100% of all intelligent and literate people "formed the conclusion" that what was released was NOT a "transcript" when they read the words "This is NOT a transcript" printed on it.
Not quite - they were claiming that when the TRANSCRIPT was released it would prove what was actually said.

Which it has NOT been.
Is something that only those who have not been paying attention to the evidence of those people who were actual participants in the events could believe.
Which wouldn't be happening unless there was a clown to impeach.
Interesting opinion. It's wonderful how some people can work out what the verdict is going to be before the trial, and before the indictment is brought in, and before the jury is selected, and before the evidence is gathered.
Click to expand...

What can possibly explain the judgment of those who think Trump's request for information on the 2016 election interference was quid pro quo and Biden's demand that the Ukrainian president fire the Ukrainian prosecutor Biden did not approve of was not quid pro quo?

1. Stupidity?
2. Ignorance?
3. Bias?
4. Blindness?
5, Deliberately lying with intent to deceive?
 
marke said:
What can possibly explain the judgment of those who think Trump's request for information on the 2016 election interference was quid pro quo and Biden's demand that the Ukrainian president fire the Ukrainian prosecutor Biden did not approve of was not quid pro quo?

1. Stupidity?
2. Ignorance?
3. Bias?
4. Blindness?
5, Deliberately lying with intent to deceive?
Click to expand...

WOW! Anyone—I’m not saying you (I don’t want to hurt your feelings or in any way commit an infraction on this very fair and balanced forum)—who does not understand the very clear, evident, testimony of quid pro quo—is stupid, ignorant, biased, blind, and deliberately lying to deceive.

Read the testimony!
 
marke said:
What can possibly explain the judgment of those who think Trump's request for information on the 2016 election interference was quid pro quo and Biden's demand that the Ukrainian president fire the Ukrainian prosecutor Biden did not approve of was not quid pro quo?

1. Stupidity?
2. Ignorance?
3. Bias?
4. Blindness?
5, Deliberately lying with intent to deceive?
Click to expand...

As long as you completely ignore (pursuant to the directives in the latest editions of The Current Response And Position Bulletin) the fact that the evidence was (and remains) that there was NO UKRAINIAN interference in the 2016 elections and the fact that the prosecutor was not "approved of" because he was NOT investigating corruption that had occurred BEFORE Mr. Biden's son became a member of the Board of Directors your comment makes perfect sense.

You might find "Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance" and its "MOSCOW — Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption." interesting (assuming that you are allowed to read stuff that is NOT in The Current Response And Position Bulletin).
 
marke said:
What can possibly explain the judgment of those who think Trump's request for information on the 2016 election interference was quid pro quo and Biden's demand that the Ukrainian president fire the Ukrainian prosecutor Biden did not approve of was not quid pro quo?

1. Stupidity?
2. Ignorance?
3. Bias?
4. Blindness?
5, Deliberately lying with intent to deceive?
Click to expand...

You're confused again. He's not talking about a Trump hate/division rally.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
As long as you completely ignore (pursuant to the directives in the latest editions of The Current Response And Position Bulletin) the fact that the evidence was (and remains) that there was NO UKRAINIAN interference in the 2016 elections and the fact that the prosecutor was not "approved of" because he was NOT investigating corruption that had occurred BEFORE Mr. Biden's son became a member of the Board of Directors your comment makes perfect sense.

You might find "Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance" and its "MOSCOW — Bowing to pressure from international donors, the Ukrainian Parliament voted on Tuesday to remove a prosecutor general who had clung to power for months despite visible signs of corruption." interesting (assuming that you are allowed to read stuff that is NOT in The Current Response And Position Bulletin).
Click to expand...

John Durham is already investigating Ukraine's role in the efforts to help Hillary Clinton ion the 2016 election. In spite of democrat obstruction and false charges against Trump in an effort to derail the investigation, Durham proceeds. There are multiple sources reporting unfolding details almost daily.

Ukraine admitted to interfering in the 2016 US election on Clinton’s side – OffGuardian
 
marke said:
John Durham is already investigating Ukraine's role in the efforts to help Hillary Clinton ion the 2016 election. In spite of democrat obstruction and false charges against Trump in an effort to derail the investigation, Durham proceeds. There are multiple sources reporting unfolding details almost daily.

Ukraine admitted to interfering in the 2016 US election on Clinton’s side – OffGuardian
Click to expand...

An interesting link to a website with zero credibility or established history (other than the fact that it was founded by people who have been banned from contributing to The Guardian because of their strong "pro-conspiracy", moderate "pseudo-science" and heavily "pro-Russian trollism") and which is generally rated as "strong Fake News".

That you give even passing credit to a source believes that a site that promotes quackery level pseudoscience is credible, which promotes "The 9/11 Hoax" theory, and which pushed "anti-vax" propaganda, says much about you.
PS - Did you know that, contrary to your implication, an "investigation" and a "conviction" are NOT the same thing?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
An interesting link to a website with zero credibility or established history (other than the fact that it was founded by people who have been banned from contributing to The Guardian because of their strong "pro-conspiracy", moderate "pseudo-science" and heavily "pro-Russian trollism") and which is generally rated as "strong Fake News".

That you give even passing credit to a source believes that a site that promotes quackery level pseudoscience is credible, which promotes "The 9/11 Hoax" theory, and which pushed "anti-vax" propaganda, says much about you.
PS - Did you know that, contrary to your implication, an "investigation" and a "conviction" are NOT the same thing?
Click to expand...

If Americans refuse to read or listen to any sources other than leftwing propagandist outlets they will end up ignorant. Everybody knows democrats colluded with Russians to dig up dirt on Trump in 2016 and to try to help Hillary win the election over Trump. It is not CT sites which are reporting this, but mainstream outlets as well. Consider this from CBS, dated July 13, 2017:

Politico reported in Jan. 2017 that Ukraine operatives sought to help Hillary in the 2016 election.

On July 11, 2017, Sean Hannity called for an investigation into Ukrainian election interference on Hillary's behalf.

On July 12, 2017, Senator Graham pressed Christ Wray to look into the allegations that Ukrainians interfered with the 2016 election on Hillary's behalf.

CBS also reported that a named DNC insider and former Clinton administration official had contacted someone in Ukraine in 2016 to dig up dirt on Trump.

Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf? - CBS News

On July 25, 2019, Trump asked the new president of Ukraine to allow him to send AG Barr to his country to look into the rumors that have been publicly circulating for years of crooked Ukrainian/American corruption in the 2016 election. Trump was right to do that. Democrats are wrong to obstruct investigations into the widespread rumors of crimes which have not yet been thoroughly investigated.
 
Last edited:
marke said:
If Americans refuse to read or listen to any sources other than leftwing propagandist outlets they will end up ignorant. Everybody knows democrats colluded with Russians to dig up dirt on Trump in 2016 and to try to help Hillary win the election over Trump. It is not CT sites which are reporting this, but mainstream outlets as well. Consider this from CBS, dated July 13, 2017:

Politico reported in Jan. 2017 that Ukraine operatives sought to help Hillary in the 2016 election.

On July 11, 2017, Sean Hannity called for an investigation into Ukrainian election interference on Hillary's behalf.

On July 12, 2017, Senator Graham pressed Christ Wray to look into the allegations that Ukrainians interfered with the 2016 election on Hillary's behalf.

CBS also reported that a named DNC insider and former Clinton administration official had contacted someone in Ukraine in 2016 to dig up dirt on Trump.

Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf? - CBS News

On July 25, 2019, Trump asked the new president of Ukraine to allow him to send AG Barr to his country to look into the rumors that have been publicly circulating for years of crooked Ukrainian/American corruption in the 2016 election. Trump was right to do that. Democrats are wrong to obstruct investigations into the widespread rumors of crimes which have not yet been thoroughly investigated.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting article. Did you read as far as the

It wasn't so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort's extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C.
[SOURCE]
​

bit?

How about the

So we're comparing apples and oranges here?

Well, yes and no. The first major difference between the Ukrainian and Russian efforts, of course, is that only Russia can be viewed as a "hostile foreign power." Ukraine may be a foreign country, but it's not a powerful one, and is in some ways a de facto American and NATO ally in countering Russian aggression.

The second big difference, as conservative columnist Ed Morrissey pointed out this week, is that the Democrats appeared to take pains to keep all this business away from the Clinton campaign. "If nothing else, the Clinton machine understood the need for firewalls between negative-research efforts and the candidate," Morrissey writes over at The Week.
[SOURCE]

bit?

BTW, did you happen to notice that your "proof" was contained in an article headed "Did Ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election on Clinton's behalf?" (slight typographical emphasis added)? Did you happen to notice the funny squiggly thingy at the end of the headline? Do you happen to know what the normal significance of those funny squiggly things is?​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
That's an interesting article. Did you read as far as the

It wasn't so much the Clinton campaign, per se, but a Democratic operative working with the Democratic National Committee did reach out to the Ukrainian government in an attempt to get damaging information about the Trump campaign.

That operative's name is Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American former Clinton White House aide who was tasked with ethnic outreach on behalf of the Democratic Party. As Vogel reported, she knew about Paul Manafort's extensive connections to the pro-Russian regime of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, and decided to dig deeper into possible connections between Moscow and the Trump campaign. As part of that effort, she discussed Manafort with the high-ranking officials at the Ukrainian embassy in Washington, D.C.
[SOURCE]
​
Click to expand...

Of course Chalupa was on the DNC payroll when she sought help from Ukraine in digging up dirt on Trump in 2016. That is one of the main reasons Trump wanted the DNC and Ukrainian connections investigated. Chalupoa also had connections with the reputed whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella who invited her to the White House in 2015. All those Trump-hating swamp rats seem to be linked together by one dirty cord or another.

Anti-Trump 'Whistleblower' Worked With DNC Operatives, Joe Biden
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom