Donald Trump is digging his own grave

[Callisto]

Asking me to show you the double standard is like a blind person after being shown the tree in front of them then asks "where is the tree?".

Look, i dont think i need to repeat the self evident, obvious double standard that is going on here with trump and biden.

I'll give it to you, you do love playing(?) thick. LOL it's sad you don't realize just how bad your argument is. You're not asked to prove a double standard because none exists, you alone claim there was one. Secondly, if there was one then it's something provable. i.e., support your claims, you've failed to do. You bleating "double standard" means nothing. Put up or shut up. Period.

Well, it should be no different with trump. You dont have to like him, but, he did not break any law.

That's another point you're wrong on and why you continually fail. Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant, either the man is a corrupt criminal or he's not. All evidence proves time and again that he's corrupt to the core. I would say the same thing about anyone else shown to engage in the same activity. I am a constitutionalist. I am an independent. I.do.not.care about party loyalties. Had Trump remained a Democrat, or had gone third party, my position would be the same.

You need to wake up and move beyond your fierce loyalty to man over country. Stop lying for someone who has crapped all over the Constitution and has totally disrespected the office of the presidency.

You're wasting bandwith.

 

[Callisto]

So we can now move past arguing over whether or not there was a quid pro quo on the call. The WH has clearly stated that there was. The question now is.....is that okay?

There's only one person here in total denial. Most people are capable of processing the information that's come out.

To the question: no, it's not ok. The issue is not that quid pro quo doesn't happen in politics, it does. However, legal ones don't occur the way this one did. Firstly, the aid had already been approved. Any conditions for its release would have had to be specified beforehand, as part of the process leading to approval. Not after and not unilaterally. That is why not only did the first whistleblower speak up, but multiple staffers who handle such aid immediately knew what Trump did was illegal and said something. Trump's response was to fire them all - people who have decades of experience handling military aid and know what is legal. He removed the Ambassador to Ukraine, a diplomat who's served under Republican and Democrat presidents and considered an unsurpassed expert in diplomacy and that region. Yet, because she wasn't one of his henchmen, Trump has her fired, claiming she wasn't doing her job. Yet, he didn't appoint someone else as ambassador that supposedly could do a better job. Instead he sends lackeys and his personal attorney to wheel and deal under the table.

There is nothing legal, much less ethical, about this.

 

[Jollybear]

I'll give it to you, you do love playing(?) thick. LOL it's sad you don't realize just how bad your argument is. You're not asked to prove a double standard because none exists, you alone claim there was one. Secondly, if there was one then it's something provable. i.e., support your claims, you've failed to do. You bleating "double standard" means nothing. Put up or shut up. Period.

Good lord......

Im gonna approuch this differently. Im gonna ask you questions.

Ok, here goes....did trump ask ukraine for a favor? Did he use aid as leverage? Yes or no?

Did biden ask ukraine to do something? Did he use aid as leverage? Yes or no?

That's another point you're wrong on and why you continually fail. Personal likes and dislikes are irrelevant, either the man is a corrupt criminal or he's not. All evidence proves time and again that he's corrupt to the core. I would say the same thing about anyone else shown to engage in the same activity. I am a constitutionalist. I am an independent. I.do.not.care about party loyalties. Had Trump remained a Democrat, or had gone third party, my position would be the same.

Your a constitutionalist? No way? So am i, lol. Im also not committed to trump. Im committed to logic, critical thinking and morality.

You need to wake up and move beyond your fierce loyalty to man over country. Stop lying for someone who has crapped all over the Constitution and has totally disrespected the office of the presidency.

Wow. Apparently we have a completely different perspective on the constitution.

What part of the constitution did trump break in this call to ukraine?

Give me the quote.

 

[Jollybear]

Whether or not there was a quid pro quo on Trump's call with the Ukrainian President can no longer be in question. Trump's Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney has stated it outright ("we do that sort of thing all the time")...

Yahoo News on Twitter

Interestingly, Mulvaney stated that the quid pro quo was about Ukraine assisting the DoJ in an investigation of the DNC server hack. But when asked about that, DoJ officials said they had no idea what Mulvaney was talking about....

Alex Mallin on Twitter

So we can now move past arguing over whether or not there was a quid pro quo on the call. The WH has clearly stated that there was. The question now is.....is that okay?

Whether there was or not a quid pro quo, no, its not wrong to do that.

But, then, its not that simple. Its more complicated then that.

Sometimes its good, sometimes its bad.

In the case of trumps call, there is nothing bad about it. Nothing was harmed in anyway.

The ukraine president was not harmed, the american people wer not harmed and joe biden, well, the american people have a right to know things about there political candidates. But in anycase, those that still want to vote biden, they still have the freedom too. There freedom is not harmed at all.

 

[Jose Fly]

Whether there was or not a quid pro quo, no, its not wrong to do that.

But, then, its not that simple. Its more complicated then that.

Sometimes its good, sometimes its bad.

In the case of trumps call, there is nothing bad about it. Nothing was harmed in anyway.

The ukraine president was not harmed, the american people wer not harmed and joe biden, well, the american people have a right to know things about there political candidates. But in anycase, those that still want to vote biden, they still have the freedom too. There freedom is not harmed at all.

If you see nothing wrong with any of this, you and I have nothing to discuss.

 

[Jollybear]

If you see nothing wrong with any of this, you and I have nothing to discuss.

Well, you certainly have your right to a viewpoint, but, you dont get to dictate the diologue or how i think, what points i make or what questions i ask.

Further, if you dont answer my questions, thats your right, but it certainly makes your view not appear right.

 

[Prometheus85]

Whether there was or not a quid pro quo, no, its not wrong to do that.

But, then, its not that simple. Its more complicated then that.

Sometimes its good, sometimes its bad.

In the case of trumps call, there is nothing bad about it. Nothing was harmed in anyway.

The ukraine president was not harmed, the american people wer not harmed and joe biden, well, the american people have a right to know things about there political candidates. But in anycase, those that still want to vote biden, they still have the freedom too. There freedom is not harmed at all.

Your defense
Then: No quid pro quo. Perfect call. Trump just asked for a favor.
Now: Of course quid pro quo. Get over it.

At this point, @Jollybear just admit you don’t know what your talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you certainly have your right to a viewpoint, but, you dont get to dictate the diologue or how i think, what points i make or what questions i ask.

Further, if you dont answer my questions, thats your right, but it certainly makes your view not appear right.

Your questions have been answered. As to the comparison between Trump and Biden, Biden performed an open and legal act where aid was used for leverage. Trump performed an illegal and covert act where aid was used as leverage.

Let's look at two people each of them shot a deer. The first got a license, went out during the daytime, and shot a deer. The second did not get a license (making his activity illegal) went out at night (to keep it secret) and used a flashlight to "shine" the deer. He then shoots that deer breaking several laws. Do you see the difference between the two? If you see the difference there you should be able to see the difference between what Trump did and what Biden did. Except that Trump "missed the deer". He did not get what he asked for. But let's go back to our hunters again. The first hunter legally shot a deer. The second one had no license, went out a night, used a flashlight so the he could see the deer's eyes and to freeze it in place, and then shot at it but missed. Guess what? That is still illegal. Incompetence in fully breaking the law does not make the attempt legal. Trump is still wrong even though he did not get what he asked for. It was still illegal. It was an attempted quid pro quo.

 

[Shad]

There's only one person here in total denial. Most people are capable of processing the information that's come out.

To the question: no, it's not ok. The issue is not that quid pro quo doesn't happen in politics, it does. However, legal ones don't occur the way this one did. Firstly, the aid had already been approved. Any conditions for its release would have had to be specified beforehand, as part of the process leading to approval. Not after and not unilaterally. That is why not only did the first whistleblower speak up, but multiple staffers who handle such aid immediately knew what Trump did was illegal and said something. Trump's response was to fire them all - people who have decades of experience handling military aid and know what is legal. He removed the Ambassador to Ukraine, a diplomat who's served under Republican and Democrat presidents and considered an unsurpassed expert in diplomacy and that region. Yet, because she wasn't one of his henchmen, Trump has her fired, claiming she wasn't doing her job. Yet, he didn't appoint someone else as ambassador that supposedly could do a better job. Instead he sends lackeys and his personal attorney to wheel and deal under the table.

There is nothing legal, much less ethical, about this.

POTUS can withhold funding. Trump cited corruption reasons. Obama did it to Egypt during the Arab Spring and the MB when it started to go crazy when elected. Try again.

Yawn

Daniel Doherty - Obama Cuts Foreign Aid to Egypt

 

[Jose Fly]

Your defense
Then: No quid pro quo. Perfect call. Trump just asked for a favor.
Now: Of course quid pro quo. Get over it.

It's amazing to watch, isn't it? The true believers will never back away from this President no matter what. So they'll put forth whatever argument they need at any given time, with no thought at all as to what they said before.

 

[Cooky]

It's amazing to watch, isn't it? The true believers will never back away from this President no matter what. So they'll put forth whatever argument they need at any given time, with no thought at all as to what they said before.

Whatever it takes to defeat enemy #1, the Democrat left.

 

[Prometheus85]

It's amazing to watch, isn't it? The true believers will never back away from this President no matter what. So they'll put forth whatever argument they need at any given time, with no thought at all as to what they said before.

@Jollybear claims that he’s not a trump supporter. Either he’s lying to himself or he’s been brainwashed by right wing media.

 

[Cooky]

@Jollybear claims that he’s not a trump supporter. Either he’s lying to himself or he’s been brainwashed by right wing media.

The left is trying way too hard to remove Trump from office. So much so, that people who don't even support Trump find that as a greater threat than even Trump himself.

You wish people would just categorize him with Nixon and move on... But that's not going to happen, because of the way the left has behaved.

...We've all seen it play out. It is/ was a witchhunt from day 1.

 

[Subduction Zone]

POTUS can withhold funding. Trump cited corruption reasons. Obama did it to Egypt during the Arab Spring and the MB when it started to go crazy when elected. Try again.

Yawn

Daniel Doherty - Obama Cuts Foreign Aid to Egypt

One can cut aid for legal reasons. Asking another country to investigate a political rival is not legal. Trump ordered to cut aid for his own personal gains and that was illegal.

 

[Jose Fly]

@Jollybear claims that he’s not a trump supporter. Either he’s lying to himself or he’s been brainwashed by right wing media.

Um......no idea what to say to that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Whatever it takes to defeat enemy #1, the Democrat left.

It says a lot that in the eyes of today's Republicans, "enemy #1" is Democrats rather than ISIS, Al Qaeda, Putin, communists....

 

[Prometheus85]

The left is trying way too hard to remove Trump from office. So much so, that people who don't even support Trump find that as a greater threat than even Trump himself.

You wish people would just categorize him with Nixon and move on... But that's not going to happen, because of the way the left has behaved.

...We've all seen it play out. It is/ was a witchhunt from day 1.

Lies, nonsense, threats to arrest his opponents in congress and his apparent effort to hold up military aid to Ukraine in search of dirt on political rival Joe Biden.

the democrats are doing their constitutional duty by trying to remove this dangerously unfit president form office.

 

[Prometheus85]

Whatever it takes to defeat enemy #1, the Democrat left.

So, Americans who align themselves with working people, respect for diversity, access to healthcare and education, tax fairness, the environment, and the sort of diplomacy that promotes peace and prosperity around the world are the are enemy #1

 

[Jollybear]

It says a lot that in the eyes of today's Republicans, "enemy #1" is Democrats rather than ISIS, Al Qaeda, Putin, communists....

Aaaaahhhh, democrats ARE comnunists!

 

[Jollybear]

So, Americans who align themselves with working people, respect for diversity, access to healthcare and education, tax fairness, the environment, and the sort of diplomacy that promotes peace and prosperity around the world are the are enemy #1

Holy ****! The sheer foolishness of all of this!

Respect for diversity!? Really? They have the least amount of respect for diversity!

And tax fairness!? You call punishing the wealthy fair!?

And the environment (global warming is a lie) and if the green new deal was installed would kill billions of people. Global warming will not do that.

And healthcare can be done in a free market.

And peace and prosperity is done by not policing the world and free markets.