Quin_Dub wrote: » OK - So that potentially covers Trump vs. Obama. Why has he under-performed vs. Reagan,Clinton ,GHWB and even Carter?? Also - It hasn't "Soared" as I said, on a percentage basis it has grown more slowly that every other President in 40 years. Yes - He's hit all time highs , but that was from levels that were already close to previous highs. It's easy to get to the top of the Mountain when you got dropped off a few feet from the summit by Helicopter. A bit like Trumps whole business career really...
Stacksofwacks wrote: » I think Bernie Sanders beats Trump hands down. With Biden its going to be tough as Trump has a lot more mud he can sling at him.
notobtuse wrote: » Even the DNC will never allow Sanders to become president. Look at what they did to him in 2016 and what their scribes at CNN did to him in the last debate as he's starting to gain momentum from the uneducated to reality crowd.
notobtuse wrote: » The reality is under Trump more than 7 million jobs have been added to the economy, unemployment rate has reached its lowest level in half a century, and it’s the first time on record there are more job openings than unemployed Americans. American workers of all backgrounds are thriving under President Trump. Yes, the stock market is not the economy but more Americans are invested in it than ever before and the booming economy is putting more money in Americans’ pockets. A recent CNN poll found that 76% believed that the economy was very or somewhat good which is an almost 10 point improvement from last year. I know it’s impossible for some to give Trump credit for anything good, but here’s the reality everyone should be looking at… Democrats are promising a green new deal, a wealth tax, their never-ending increased taxes on the rich, stricter regulations, guaranteed wages, healthcare for all, and open borders. If you were honest you’d know these policies would absolutely devastate the economy, the stock market, and the jobs market. I guess when all you can offer the voters is candy coated pain and misery, the only position you can take is to drum up hate towards Trump... and thankfully they have their media handmaidens to do their bidding, eh?
notobtuse wrote: » If we get to dueling witnesses the impeachment trial might drag on for up to two months. Who will campaign for Biden and Warren during that time? I'm thinking it will kill them to have to just sit there and simply listen as jurors and not be able to grandstand.
woohoo!!! wrote: » I get that folk are invested in hating on everything that Trump has done or does, but there's simply no denying that the US is booming like never before and that cannot be denied. It's actually a testament to Trumps fragile ego, propensity to insult and taking short cuts that means he's not an absolute shoe in for the next election.
Stacksofwacks wrote: » If the economy is doing well then the incumbent government/president normally gets re-elected(its the economy stupid) But these things go up and down, just cos Trump is taking all the credit doesn't mean he is the one primarily responsible. US is one of the biggest economies in the world, and this was even before the Trump era
Boggles wrote: » Why would Biden have to sit there for months? Anyway he has pulled ahead in another Iowa poll.https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/joe-biden-iowa-poll-101192
Quin_Dub wrote: » Ok - None of that in any way makes anything I have said untrue. Has Trump added more jobs to the Economy ? Yes , just less than any other President. Has Trump increased the overall value of the Stock Market ? Yes , just less than any other President. Given that all of the previous Democrat Presidents (accounting for 16 of the last 30 years) have done a measurably better job of the Economy than Trump thus far I don't buy into the "They'll ruin the Economy" argument. In fact , a GOP President has been in the White house for virtually every major economic crash in the last 40 years. Black Friday? , Dot Com Bust? , 2008? All under GOP leadership. Trump likes to claim that everything he touches is the "Biggest" , the "Best" or "Historic" etc. The reality is that they are none of those things - The Economy is doing reasonably well (although as I said lots and lots of evidence that the impacts of the decimation of the tax base as a result of his tax cuts will cause a collapse sooner rather than later). But the reality is that Trump has had less impact on the economy than all but G.W. Bush in the last 40+ years. That is absolute fact.
notobtuse wrote: » First... Is it about asking for a whole bunch of witnesses in the Senate trial so the impeachment trial lasts for several months and pulls their less electable senators of Sanders and Warren away from the campaign trail, giving Biden an advantage to win the primary?
notobtuse wrote: » The other idea deals with the health issues of SCOTUS justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She’s battling cancer and rumors are she might want to get out. So if she retires while the trial is going on the democrats can say an impeached president (who is going through the Senate trial portion) shouldn’t be allowed to nominate a successor... and extend the Senate trial as long as possible? Then with a short window until election argue to the people it would be too close to the election for Trump to make a selection, with the potential of him losing?
Boggles wrote: » Trump got himself impeached because of his own actions, The leaders of the Democratic Party actively pushed against impeachment until the evidence was so overwhelming they was no compelling reason not to move forward with impeachment.
Winning_Stroke wrote: » Ah here, no-one's buying that one! :pac: Sure he was in office a wet hour and the Washington Post et al were leading with stories of "The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun".
Boggles wrote: » Link? Anyway, The Washing Post isn't the leaders of the Democratic party. That is pretty obvious, at least to nearly everyone I imagine.
Winning_Stroke wrote: » If you honestly think impeachment hasn't been the goal of Dems from day one,
Winning_Stroke wrote: » I don't have a work sub/way around this so you can see for yourselfhttps://duckduckgo.com/?q=The+campaign+to+impeach+President+Trump+has+begun&ia=web I was using it as an example. If you honestly think impeachment hasn't been the goal of Dems from day one, I have a bridge to sell you. Next you'll be telling us you buy their bs over this being a "somber task" :pac:
Outlaw Pete wrote: » LMAO @ Nadler there saying to deny witnesses is to take part in a cover up, but that's just what they did during the damn hearings! Have these clowns any self awareness. Apparently not.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » LMAO @ Nadler there saying to deny witnesses is to take part in a cover up, but that's just what they did during the damn hearings!Have these clowns any self awareness. Apparently not.
Stateofyou wrote: » And if that were the goal, are they wrong?
Boggles wrote: » Biden pulls ahead in new Iowa pollJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she’s ‘cancer-free’ after a flurry of health concerns Conspiracy theories aside and back to actual fact. Trump got himself impeached because of his own actions, The leaders of the Democratic Party actively pushed against impeachment until the evidence was so overwhelming they was no compelling reason not to move forward with impeachment. But I will ask you this question again.Are you happy going forward to have Democratic presidents enlist the help of foreign governments to help them personally against political rivals in elections?
notobtuse wrote: » Yes, Notorious RGB, who is 86, claims she’s “cancer free,” yet she continues to have health issues. It’s no secret both sides of the political aisle have taken immense interest in her health. To your question: First, the term ‘political rival’ is disingenuous. But I digress. If an elected official, regardless of political party (see, I can bold too), brags on national television how he accomplished a quid pro quo with taxpayer dollars (as did Joe Biden by bragging about getting the prosecutor fired by the end of the day who was investigating the company his son worked for otherwise he would withhold $1 billion in taxpayer funds), then it would be amiss of duties for the powers that be NOT to use resources available to see if any corruption or wrongdoing was committed. You know the Democrats are scared to death to have Hunter Biden testify in the impeachment trial. If Hunter Biden was questioned about his dealings in Ukraine, and if his father had knowledge of the dealings (as Hunter has said he discussed his job with dad), and if it comes out anything shady was committed in testimony it would prove that President Trump was justified in suggesting the Biden’s deserved scrutiny. Jerry Nadler, one of the Democrats impeachment managers has suggested on “Meet The Nation” that having no impeachment witnesses is preferable to Hunter Biden testifying.
It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe. Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.
Democrats accuse Mr Trump of putting pressure on Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, to investigate Mr Biden and his son Hunter, who served as a board member of a prominent Ukrainian gas company for several years, to benefit the president’s own re-election campaign in 2020. Mr Trump and his allies, including Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, have retorted that the request was entirely legitimate, arguing that Mr Biden had forced Mr Shokin’s removal by withholding a $1bn loan guarantee, to protect his son from an anti-graft investigation. EU diplomats working on Ukraine at the time have, however, told the FT that they were looking for ways to persuade Kiev to remove Mr Shokin well before Mr Biden entered the picture. The push for Mr Shokin’s removal was part of an international effort to bolster Ukraine’s institutions following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the armed conflict in the eastern part of the country. “All of us were really pushing [former Ukrainian president Petro] Poroshenko that he needs to do something, because the prosecutor was not following any of the corruption issues. He was really bad news,” said an EU diplomat involved in the discussions. “It was Biden who finally came in [and triggered it]. Biden was the most vocal, as the US usually is. But we were all literally complaining about the prosecutor.” Mr Shokin had been appointed prosecutor-general of Ukraine in February 2015, but the discussions in Washington and EU capitals about pushing for his removal started as early as April after he failed to follow through on a burst of expected early anti-corruption moves, one former US Treasury official said. Mr Biden entered the fray in December 2015, placing Mr Shokin’s removal at the top of his agenda on a visit to Kiev. “I know how the idea to have Shokin fired came up, and it wasn't Biden. His direct involvement came late in the game,” the former US Treasury official said. Even once Mr Biden did take up the issue, former Obama administration officials said he did not mention his son’s business or the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma. “I had never heard of the company”, the former official said. “I didn’t even realise there was a nexus — it never came up.”
Quin_Dub wrote: » Except he wasn't investigating them at the time, not did he have any plans to - That angle has been debunked repeatedly. Or if you prefer , this one from the Financial times
“Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation.
notobtuse wrote: » Here we go again... dueling reports.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-prosecutor-biden-burisma-back-off-state-department-files Since there seems to be conflicting reports regarding a serious matter in which a vice president of the US committed a potential quid pro quo, wouldn’t you agree an investigation is warranted? Or since the reports you like to rely on clears a democrat of wrongdoing, it's settled silence?
