Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

Options
1…34689…56

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    Everyone involved says he did. He even had bagman Rudy in the mix. Gangsters.
    Correction... Only people who have made assumptions and have no direct knowledge have said he did.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #153
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Correction... Only people who have made assumptions and have no direct knowledge have said he did.

    People who listened in on the call said he did.


  • Options
    #154
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,613 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Wrong! Trump wanted the Ukraine to look into their possible illegal influence in the 2016 US election, and possible corruption of a high-powered US elected official.

    Tell us why did Trump want the Ukraine to open an investigation into the 2016 election when the entire US intelligence community has already concluded that Putin and Russia were the protagonists? Just because Trump doesnt believe his own intelligence officials doesnt mean it is not true.

    prinzeugen wrote: »
    You also seem to conveniently forget that almost every country in the EU wanted that prosecutor removed because of their ties to Russia.

    Yeah its amazing how these Trump supporters love to cry fake news but their own versions of factual events frequently leave out the facts that dont suit them. Biden acted in unison with the EU and IMF to withhold money, Trump acted unilaterally to do it for his own political interests. The obvious acid test is to ask if would Trump have demanded this investigation in Ukraine if Biden were not running against him- the simple answer is no, he wouldnt. He wasnt so exercised about corruption in Ukraine for the first 3 years of his presidency but now it is his number one topic in the fourth year of his presidency when he is up for re-election.


  • Options
    #155
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    People who listened in on the call said he did.
    Who are they and what exactly did they say?

    1. Did Trump ask Ukraine to look into their part in influencing the 2016 election and to look into possible corruption of a US elected official? - YES.

    2. Did Trump tell the Ukraine president that if he didn't do so US aid would not be coming? - NO

    3. Did the Ukraine president believe there to be a quid pro quo? - NO

    To be an impeachable offense the answer to all three questions needs to be YES.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #156
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Tell us why did Trump want the Ukraine to open an investigation into the 2016 election when the entire US intelligence community has already concluded that Putin and Russia were the protagonists? Just because Trump doesnt believe his own intelligence officials doesnt mean it is not true.
    Who? Brennan and Clapper? Give me a break! They're lawyering up as we speak.
    Yeah its amazing how these Trump supporters love to cry fake news but their own versions of factual events frequently leave out the facts that dont suit them. Biden acted in unison with the EU and IMF to withhold money, Trump acted unilaterally to do it for his own political interests. The obvious acid test is to ask if would Trump have demanded this investigation in Ukraine if Biden were not running against him- the simple answer is no, he wouldnt. He wasnt so exercised about corruption in Ukraine for the first 3 years of his presidency but now it is his number one topic in the fourth year of his presidency when he is up for re-election.
    The Biden part of the call was only an afterthought? Don't you think there needs to be investigations into illegal activities and corruption? Or is it if it hurts Democrats it should be ignored?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Who are they and what exactly did they say?

    1. Did Trump ask Ukraine to look into their part in influencing the 2016 election and to look into possible corruption of a US elected official? - YES.

    2. Did Trump tell the Ukraine president that if he didn't do so US aid would not be coming? - NO

    3. Did the Ukraine president believe there to be a quid pro quo? - NO

    To be an impeachable offense the answer to all three questions needs to be YES.

    testimony from people who listened in on the call has already been given. you haven't listened to the call. neither have i. People who did listen to the call say 2 is a YES. 3 is irrelevant. Your mate trump is going down.


  • Options
    #158
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    testimony from people who listened in on the call has already been given. you haven't listened to the call. neither have i. People who did listen to the call say 2 is a YES. 3 is irrelevant. Your mate trump is going down.
    Again, who are those people and what have they claimed?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #159
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,613 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Who? Brennan and Clapper? Give me a break! They're lawyering up as we speak.

    Eh no, I said the entire US intelligence community has concluded that Putin was behind the 2016 election meddling. They said as much and then Trump threw them under the bus when he met Putin because he was too scared to stand up to him. He embarrassed your country on the international stage.
    The Biden part of the call was only an afterthought? Don't you think there needs to be investigations into illegal activities and corruption? Or is it if it hurts Democrats it should be ignored?

    So why year 4 of this presidency and not year 1? Coincidental, no?
    And please tell us where all this Ukraine stuff is coming from. I dont see the CIA or FBI shouting up about the Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election because theyve already concluded it was Russia behind it. The only people pushing the Ukraine conspiracy theory are Guiliani and Trump. People in the CIA whose job it is to know these things all point towards Russia and not Ukraine. So who to believe, the intelligence community or a known and proven liar who got caught trying to use a shadow foreign policy to implicate a political rival? I know where my money is, CIA all the way.


  • Options
    #160
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Again, who are those people and what have they claimed?

    Mulvaney has claimed it. that colonel guy whose name i cannot remember claimed it. wha tthey have claimed is what i already said. "open an investigation into biden or we'll hold up aid". pretty straighforward.


  • Options
    #161
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Eh no, I said the entire US intelligence community has concluded that Putin was behind the 2016 election meddling. They said as much and then Trump threw them under the bus when he met Putin because he was too scared to stand up to him. He embarrassed your country on the international stage.



    So why year 4 of this presidency and not year 1? Coincidental, no?
    And please tell us where all this Ukraine stuff is coming from. I dont see the CIA or FBI shouting up about the Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election because theyve already concluded it was Russia behind it. The only people pushing the Ukraine conspiracy theory are Guiliani and Trump. People in the CIA whose job it is to know these things all point towards Russia and not Ukraine. So who to believe, the intelligence community or a known and proven liar who got caught trying to use a shadow foreign policy to implicate a political rival? I know where my money is, CIA all the way.
    Why so long? Because the CIA and FBI have resisted cooperating in investigations and it has taken time.
    Yet Politico’s investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another’s elections.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Mulvaney has claimed it. that colonel guy whose name i cannot remember claimed it. wha tthey have claimed is what i already said. "open an investigation into biden or we'll hold up aid". pretty straighforward.
    Stop spreading falsehoods!!!!!

    No, Mulvaney did not claim there was a quid pro quo.
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/20/politics/mick-mulvaney-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-donald-trump/index.html

    And Lt. Col. Vindman testified he ‘believed’ Trump demanded quid pro quo for Ukrainian aid. 'Believed' is an opinion.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #163
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Stop spreading falsehoods!!!!!

    No, Mulvaney did not claim there was a quid pro quo.
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/20/politics/mick-mulvaney-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-donald-trump/index.html

    And Lt. Col. Vindman testified he ‘believed’ Trump demanded quid pro quo for Ukrainian aid. 'Believed' is an opinion.

    mulvaney did admit it. then he rolled back when he realised what he had admitted to. It amazes me how so many people are wiling to bend over for trump. Make America Gape Again.


  • Options
    #164
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    mulvaney did admit it. then he rolled back when he realised what he had admitted to. It amazes me how so many people are wiling to bend over for trump. Make America Gape Again.
    You have a direct line into the brain of Mulvaney?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #165
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You have a direct line into the brain of Mulvaney?

    are you saying that he didnt admit it and then rolled back what he said?

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/mick-mulvaney-walks-back-trump-quid-pro-quo-admission-ukraine
    Sure, he told the media during a stunning press conference Thursday afternoon, we do quid pro quos all the time! “Get over it,” he said.


  • Options
    #166
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    are you saying that he didnt admit it and then rolled back what he said?

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/10/mick-mulvaney-walks-back-trump-quid-pro-quo-admission-ukraine
    No... CORRECTING testimony happens.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #167
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No... CORRECTING testimony happens.

    this wasn't testimony. it was a press conference. it is right there in the article.


  • Options
    #168
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    this wasn't testimony. it was a press conference. it is right there in the article.
    Okay... CORRECTING what is said in a press conference happens.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #169
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Okay... CORRECTING what is said in a press conference happens.

    Of course it does. You clearly dont think it odd that he admits a quid pro quo in a press conference and then tries to claim that the press misconstrued him when they quoted him. Almost like reality doesn't enter in your thinking.


  • Options
    #170
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Of course it does. You clearly dont think it odd that he admits a quid pro quo in a press conference and then tries to claim that the press misconstrued him when they quoted him. Almost like reality doesn't enter in your thinking.
    If he realized he said something that was incorrect or taken wrong by the press, why wouldn't he go on record to correct it?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #171
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,739 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Jesus Notobtuse dig up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If he realized he said something that was incorrect or taken wrong by the press, why wouldn't he go on record to correct it?

    how can be be taken up wrong when they quoted him directly? how does that work. What he said was very straightforward. How exactly do you get something like that wrong?


  • Options
    #173
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    how can be be taken up wrong when they quoted him directly? how does that work. What he said was very straightforward. How exactly do you get something like that wrong?

    If Hunter Biden is forced to testify in the impeachment hearing don’t you think he or his dad will be correcting past comments? Hunter said he had conversations with his father about Burisma. His dad claimed they never spoke about Burisma.

    If the so-called whistleblower has to testify, don’t you think his lawyer will be correcting something he tweeted in the past, or face possible arrest for his involvement in the coup attempt against Trump:
    #coup has started. As one falls, two more will take their place. #rebellion #impeachment
    — Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) January 31, 2017

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #174
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,739 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If Hunter Biden is forced to testify in the impeachment hearing don’t you think he or his dad will be correcting past comments? Hunter said he had conversations with his father about Burisma. His dad claimed they never spoke about Burisma.

    If the so-called whistleblower has to testify, don’t you think his lawyer will be correcting something he tweeted in the past, or face possible arrest for his involvement in the coup attempt against Trump:

    ryZcmob.gif


  • Options
    #175
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    If Hunter Biden is forced to testify in the impeachment hearing don’t you think he or his dad will be correcting past comments? Hunter said he had conversations with his father about Burisma. His dad claimed they never spoke about Burisma.


    This isn't about hunter biden. This is about trump using the office of president for personal gain.

    [/QUOTE]
    If the so-called whistleblower has to testify, don’t you think his lawyer will be correcting something he tweeted in the past, or face possible arrest for his involvement in the coup attempt against Trump:[/QUOTE]

    coup???? Using the constitution is now a coupl? you really are too far down the trump rabbit hole.


  • Options
    #176
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    This isn't about hunter biden. This is about trump using the office of president for personal gain.


    If the so-called whistleblower has to testify, don’t you think his lawyer will be correcting something he tweeted in the past, or face possible arrest for his involvement in the coup attempt against Trump:

    coup???? Using the constitution is now a coupl? you really are too far down the trump rabbit hole.
    No, this is about Joe Biden and the related consequences it might cause his campaign. Look at the title of the thread.

    And abusing the Constitution, the powers of the CIA, FBI and DOJ might be considered a soft coup.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #177
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,168 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    No, this is about Joe Biden and the related consequences it might cause his campaign.

    And abusing the Constitution, the powers of the CIA, FBI and DOJ might be considered a soft coup.

    there has been no abuse of the constitution. the House voted to begin an impeachment enquiry. Unless of course you are a constitutional scholar and can tell us how the constitution has been abused?


  • Options
    #178
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    there has been no abuse of the constitution. the House voted to begin an impeachment enquiry. Unless of course you are a constitutional scholar and can tell us how the constitution has been abused?
    I'm not a Constitutional scholar but I have played one on TV. ;)

    Some of the framers of the Constitution noted that impeachment was unavoidably a political process and worried it could devolve into a partisan tool. Alexander Hamilton predicted in Federalist Paper 65: “In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the preexisting factions ... and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

    Democrats are using the impeachment process as a political tool. It started out as a witch-hunt and now has turned into a kangaroo court with Shiff playing the part of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Democrats started the process with Russian collusion as the reason (without any proof), then it was obstruction, then it became quid pro quo. Now it seems they are making it about bribery. What will the reason for impeachment be next week when the bribery nonsense falls apart? Whatever it will be I predict Joe Biden's past questionable actions will be right in the heart of if as the Obama's administration's actions stinks to high heaven in all this.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #179
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,739 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You’ve lost me. Schiff isn’t the “judge jury executioner” bs. The trial happens in the senate. The debate on articles of impeachment will happen on the floor of the house. It’s not like the president would be removed based on secret evidence. That’s not how any of this works.


  • Options
    #180
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,739 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    But just so we’re clear: Bidens actions questionable, all Trumps actions, contacts with Russians, pressuring of Ukraine, obstruction of justice etc. not questionable?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,032 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Well assuming you're right, if the Dems decide Warren and Sanders are too far off the reservation to beat The Donald, is there a centrist saviour out there for them?

    And right on cue, it's Mike Bloomberg. The moderate Messiah, or just a very naughty OAP? Whatever happens, looks like America is destined to elect a geriatric POTUS


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement