It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Alpo]

I'm sure the lines on St. Patty's day will be around the block to buy this book....

....since there is a pub around the corner.

 

[d.kaufman]

Wonder who the leaker is this time


https://www.blabber.buzz/conservati...j-S9u1bnl_NZm5kOJeuQJDiPBg-SZUYxSWJ3A6W7tpI.A

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wonder who the leaker is this time


https://www.blabber.buzz/conservati...j-S9u1bnl_NZm5kOJeuQJDiPBg-SZUYxSWJ3A6W7tpI.A

Someone, who might be on the hook financially, but not criminally. Bolton does nit deny the veracity of the leaked content from the book.

 

[Kutnupe14]

NYT of today is a mere shadow of its former self, trafficking in anonymous sources and has been so wrong so many times lately. I Believe nothing they say...

Ok, I imagine there are a lot of people that hold that opinion. Nevertheless, the reporting may be true. If it is true, is that a problem for you, or is it still "meh?" If, by chance, you're dismissive of the allegations, indicating it isn't a big deal, why is there a need to be dismissive of the source that reported it?

 

[Kutnupe14]

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/...-senators-charge-in-opposing-appointment.html
Bolton Not Truthful, 36 Senators Charge in Opposing Appointment

NYT, so I thought byou'd be OK with the source

So, do you think being interviewed by the State Department inspector general is something that you forget about, or do you think Bolton is capable of lying?

I'm fine with it. I was not aware of that information. However, let's keep in mind that doesn't mean the information is false. I direct you to the question I posed to IngoMike. Further, if we're going stating that Bolton is untrustworthy based on an incident from 2005. In light of that, you cannot avoid yet another instance of the president choosing to be associated with someone of poor character. Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Guiliani, Cohen, Parnas.... and now Bolton. With so many liars, opportunists, and generally corrupt people around him it would seem, at least to me, that he is a poor judge of character, and not in full control of his administration. Which interestingly enough, is probably the best defense against him having committed an impeachable offense, because he's not in full control of the office in which he sits.

 

[IndyGal65]

Ok, I imagine there are a lot of people that hold that opinion. Nevertheless, the reporting may be true. If it is true, is that a problem for you, or is it still "meh?" If, by chance, you're dismissive of the allegations, indicating it isn't a big deal, why is there a need to be dismissive of the source that reported it?

If's and but's should not be a part of reporting the news. The American people shouldn't have to worry if a story "may be true." The fact that the NYT has had numerous reporting gaffs is enough for any rational person to doubt them as a trustworthy and respectable news source. Hell, even the liberal mecca of CNN called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh/index.html

Edit: A simple Google search lists many more incidents.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If's and but's should not be a part of reporting the news. The American people shouldn't have to worry if a story "may be true." The fact that the NYT has had numerous reporting gaffs is enough for any rational person to doubt them as a trustworthy and respectable news source. Hell, even the liberal mecca of CNN called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh/index.html

Edit: A simple Google search lists many more incidents.

If you hold this opinion, then it shouldn't be beyond criticizing the POTUS in the same way; as he too has had numerous gaffs and told numerous mistruths.

 

[Twangbanger]

When the Mueller investigation began, the hope of the TDS-ers was, "Where There's Smoke, There's Fire."

So you give those people smoke. It's easy and can be replicated infinitely. You will get them every time. Because they have no choice.

As for the personnel issue, the whole reaction to his election guarantees Trump's applicant pool is going to mostly be has-beens and never-beens. The Town has declared all-out war against him, and currently-established pros know Washington D.C. has a long memory. It would destroy their long-term careers to be associated with him. So they sit this dance out. It's the same reason Trump chose an evangelical wack-job from Indiana as running mate. There was literally no-one else available. Even Trump's friend Rick Scott from FL would not answer the call.

In retrospect, I cannot find much to criticize in this personnel strategy - nor much choice for him to do otherwise. When your agenda is as disruptive as Trump's, picking the kind of people he does actually has sort of an advantage. You actually need people who are disposable. When you're somebody like a George Bush, and your issue agenda is inimical to the interests of the average person, your security in the town comes from who you appoint, and how much the rest of the town approves of those people.

Trump is different. His strength, unlike most Presidents, does not in any way stem from the resume-quality of the people he appoints. And in fact, as I mentioned before, the so-called "best" candidates for those positions are essentially unavailable to him. His appeal is that he has about a third of the voters in this country so strongly with him, they would not abandon him if he dissected a puppy in Lafayette Square. And the GOP is therefore stuck with him, because if they alienate those voters, they have no hope of governing again in the short- to medium-term future. (They may not have it anyway; but pissing off those people guarantees failure). In this sense, the attitudes of these voters "count more" than the opinions of the professional elite, and it galls them immensely.

Trump appointees are going to provide a never-ending supply of smoke for the TDS-ers. And the President's detractors, in lapping this stuff up so eagerly, risk eventually tiring out the American public to where they could care less about this stuff. They're almost already there. If you went and stood next to the weenie-on-a-toothpick guy at Costco, and took a poll of people going by about whether or not America should _even_ be giving foreign aid to countries like Ukraine in the first place, I'd wager at least 60% of them will say, "Hell, no!" They do not even care about the underlying issue impeachment is _about_.

So I say, party-on, people. You're taking the one disfavorable thing you have about this President, and wearing it out to the point of apathy.

 

[Kutnupe14]

When the Mueller investigation began, the hope of the TDS-ers was, "Where There's Smoke, There's Fire."

So you give those people smoke. It's easy and can be replicated infinitely. You will get them every time. Because they have no choice.

As for the personnel issue, the whole reaction to his election guarantees Trump's applicant pool is going to mostly be has-beens and never-beens. The Town has declared all-out war against him, and currently-established pros know Washington D.C. has a long memory. It would destroy their long-term careers to be associated with him. So they sit this dance out. It's the same reason Trump chose an evangelical wack-job from Indiana as running mate. There was literally no-one else available. Even Trump's friend Rick Scott from FL would not answer the call.

In retrospect, I cannot find much to criticize in this personnel strategy - nor much choice for him to do otherwise. When your agenda is as disruptive as Trump's, picking the kind of people he does actually has sort of an advantage. You actually need people who are disposable. When you're somebody like a George Bush, and your issue agenda is inimical to the interests of the average person, your security in the town comes from who you appoint, and how much the rest of the town approves of those people.

Trump is different. His strength, unlike most Presidents, does not in any way stem from the resume-quality of the people he appoints. And in fact, as I mentioned before, the so-called "best" candidates for those positions are essentially unavailable to him. His appeal is that he has about a third of the voters in this country so strongly with him, they would not abandon him if he dissected a puppy in Lafayette Square. And the GOP is therefore stuck with him, because if they alienate those voters, they have no hope of governing again in the short- to medium-term future. (They may not have it anyway; but pissing off those people guarantees failure). In this sense, the attitudes of these voters "count more" than the opinions of the professional elite, and it galls them immensely.

Trump appointees are going to provide a never-ending supply of smoke for the TDS-ers. And the President's detractors, in lapping this stuff up so eagerly, risk eventually tiring out the American public to where they could care less about this stuff. They're almost already there. If you went and stood next to the weenie-on-a-toothpick guy at Costco, and took a poll of people going by about whether or not America should _even_ be giving foreign aid to countries like Ukraine in the first place, I'd wager at least 60% of them will say, "Hell, no!" They do not even care about the underlying issue impeachment is _about_.

So I say, party-on, people. You're taking the one disfavorable thing you have about this President, and wearing it out to the point of apathy.

Ok, I lol'd and I like Pence (generally at least).

 

[Ingomike]

Ok, I imagine there are a lot of people that hold that opinion. Nevertheless, the reporting may be true. If it is true, is that a problem for you, or is it still "meh?" If, by chance, you're dismissive of the allegations, indicating it isn't a big deal, why is there a need to be dismissive of the source that reported it?

Based on reading a variety of sources I believe it has been common for Presidents to push for countries receiving aide to do things they believed were good for the country. This President did that in asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, or even just announce they were investigating Bidens. Where we will differ is I believe the motive of getting to the bottom of corruption is the reason, you think it as a boost to Trumps personal campaign. We may never know the truth.

As as for the NYT, I like letting others know they are not what they once were any chance I get...

 

[cbhausen]

This seems like an impeachable crime to me:


https://www.businessinsider.com/bol...dered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1

Congress approved the military aid to the Ukraine, and the president froze it with the condition that it was announced the Biden's be investigated. Keep in mind it wasn't that the Bidens were investigated, but that it was announced that they were being investigated. The Ukraine could have just agreed to investigate the Bidens, and that should've been enough. The fact that it was required that it be announced indicates, at least to me, given that Biden is a potential presidential candidate, that the president was seeking a political benefit in said announcement. That, to me, is an abuse of power, and an impeachable event.

Biden’s what? Son? Butler? Housekeeper?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Biden’s what? Son? Butler? Housekeeper?

the apostrophe was auto-corrected. It’s not needed.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

This seems like an impeachable crime to me:


https://www.businessinsider.com/bol...dered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1

Congress approved the military aid to the Ukraine, and the president froze it with the condition that it was announced the Biden's be investigated. Keep in mind it wasn't that the Bidens were investigated, but that it was announced that they were being investigated. The Ukraine could have just agreed to investigate the Bidens, and that should've been enough. The fact that it was required that it be announced indicates, at least to me, given that Biden is a potential presidential candidate, that the president was seeking a political benefit in said announcement. That, to me, is an abuse of power, and an impeachable event.

Wow. A leaked tidbit of anti-Trump news on Sunday right before the proceedings get started again on Monday which I'm sure Democrats will use to whine about getting more witnesses called. You should see my shocked face.

 

[churchmouse]

When the Mueller investigation began, the hope of the TDS-ers was, "Where There's Smoke, There's Fire."

So you give those people smoke. It's easy and can be replicated infinitely. You will get them every time. Because they have no choice.

As for the personnel issue, the whole reaction to his election guarantees Trump's applicant pool is going to mostly be has-beens and never-beens. The Town has declared all-out war against him, and currently-established pros know Washington D.C. has a long memory. It would destroy their long-term careers to be associated with him. So they sit this dance out. It's the same reason Trump chose an evangelical wack-job from Indiana as running mate. There was literally no-one else available. Even Trump's friend Rick Scott from FL would not answer the call.

In retrospect, I cannot find much to criticize in this personnel strategy - nor much choice for him to do otherwise. When your agenda is as disruptive as Trump's, picking the kind of people he does actually has sort of an advantage. You actually need people who are disposable. When you're somebody like a George Bush, and your issue agenda is inimical to the interests of the average person, your security in the town comes from who you appoint, and how much the rest of the town approves of those people.

Trump is different. His strength, unlike most Presidents, does not in any way stem from the resume-quality of the people he appoints. And in fact, as I mentioned before, the so-called "best" candidates for those positions are essentially unavailable to him. His appeal is that he has about a third of the voters in this country so strongly with him, they would not abandon him if he dissected a puppy in Lafayette Square. And the GOP is therefore stuck with him, because if they alienate those voters, they have no hope of governing again in the short- to medium-term future. (They may not have it anyway; but pissing off those people guarantees failure). In this sense, the attitudes of these voters "count more" than the opinions of the professional elite, and it galls them immensely.

Trump appointees are going to provide a never-ending supply of smoke for the TDS-ers. And the President's detractors, in lapping this stuff up so eagerly, risk eventually tiring out the American public to where they could care less about this stuff. They're almost already there. If you went and stood next to the weenie-on-a-toothpick guy at Costco, and took a poll of people going by about whether or not America should _even_ be giving foreign aid to countries like Ukraine in the first place, I'd wager at least 60% of them will say, "Hell, no!" They do not even care about the underlying issue impeachment is _about_.

So I say, party-on, people. You're taking the one disfavorable thing you have about this President, and wearing it out to the point of apathy.

I am in the 60% hell no group and have been for years. Long before TDS was an affliction.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

Democrats producing evidence against President Trump. . .

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;U0ipS5gjmDc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0ipS5gjmDc[/video]

 

[utahskies]

 

[IndyGal65]

If's and but's should not be a part of reporting the news. The American people shouldn't have to worry if a story "may be true." The fact that the NYT has had numerous reporting gaffs is enough for any rational person to doubt them as a trustworthy and respectable news source. Hell, even the liberal mecca of CNN called them out.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/16/media/new-york-times-kavanaugh/index.html

Edit: A simple Google search lists many more incidents.

If you hold this opinion, then it shouldn't be beyond criticizing the POTUS in the same way; as he too has had numerous gaffs and told numerous mistruths.

Nice deflection, but that wasn't my point.

 

[chipbennett]

This seems like an impeachable crime to me:


https://www.businessinsider.com/bol...dered-continued-ukraine-aid-freeze-nyt-2020-1

Congress approved the military aid to the Ukraine, and the president froze it with the condition that it was announced the Biden's be investigated. Keep in mind it wasn't that the Bidens were investigated, but that it was announced that they were being investigated. The Ukraine could have just agreed to investigate the Bidens, and that should've been enough. The fact that it was required that it be announced indicates, at least to me, given that Biden is a potential presidential candidate, that the president was seeking a political benefit in said announcement. That, to me, is an abuse of power, and an impeachable event.

One, just based on past book pre-release allegations that turned out to be nothingburgers, I would caution to wait until the book is actually released.

Two, what gets discussed in meetings to be done is not the same as what is actually decided upon and carried out. And we know that what was carried out did not resemble the above.

Three, even if it had, I still don't agree that it is inherently impeachable, because the underlying allegation against the Bidens was criminal, credible, and supported by Joe Biden's own, boastful self-incrimination, captured on video.

 

[chipbennett]

Wonder who the leaker is this time


https://www.blabber.buzz/conservati...j-S9u1bnl_NZm5kOJeuQJDiPBg-SZUYxSWJ3A6W7tpI.A

My money is on the mole who was frog-walked out of the White House a couple weeks ago, Andrew Peek.