johnnybangkok

22 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Verifiable truth is one thing, what the dems are doing right now is entirely another. 

I thought Trump fans would jump on the fact that Sondland had confirmed the “no quid pro” conversation and, as usual, that Sondland wasn’t personally privy to being specifically told by Trump himself that aid was dependent on the investigation into the Bidens (just sooo predictable). But there are people who were in that actual conversation i.e. Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney and everyone’s favorite lawyer Giuliani. Now if only they could be compelled to appear and clear everything up then I think it would all become much, much clearer.  Im not sure how to do that though. Maybe some sort of congressional request. You know, something that shouldn’t be ignored. Maybe like a subpoena. 

Any reason why these people are refusing to obey a congressional subpoena Trump fans other than they know they will have to commit perjury to defend Trump? 
No? Thought so. 
 

2 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Quite an emotional outburst.  My guess is you know the "impeachment" nonsense is coming to an end, Trump will NOT be removed, and he WILL be reelected.

Another time travelling Trump fan.

16 hours ago, hyku1147 said:

History shows us that hysteria* is a very dangerous, and highly contagious, emotional disturbance/psychiatric condition. Many Dem's - including Yovanovitch -  are exhibiting -  "selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and over-dramatic or attention-seeking behavior."

 

It is telling that there is no Trump hysteria, yet the Anti-Trump plague has spread across both North America, and Europe, like the Black Death. The carrier being pseudo journalism.

 

* hys·te·ri·a

 

noun: hysteria; plural noun: hysterias

1. exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people.

   "the mass hysteria that characterizes the week before Christmas"

    

   Psychiatry

   A psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior...

 

Don't you love how Trump fans have to give us definitions of big words like 'hysteria' and 'psychiatry'?

Believe us we know these words. We have to deal with them every day when debating you lot. 

'Asked on Sunday about rumours the president was visiting for reasons other than a routine checkup, Grishamn said: "Absolutely not. He is healthy as can be."

Obviously it wasn't a psychiatric evaluation.

5 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I wouldn't tattoo anyone's name on my forehead. What a strange thing to say.

For good reasons it takes 2/3 vote in the Senate to remove a President from office. Why is that? So to prevent the Impeachment process from simply being a partisan tool for removing a President from Office without justification. 

In the case of Nixon their was enough bi-partisan support to convict, so to save face he resigned.

In this case, there is no impeachable offense yet defined. Personally, I know exactly what is going on. This is still an attempt to illegally remove a President. It's dirty, unforgivable, and will end badly for this ruthless bunch of seditionist pigs. This stench filled Communist loving, war-mongering filthy mob of scumbag rats will end soon in a vast dump of indictments coming soon... an embarassing episode of American history from a the biggest crybabies ever to exist in the USA, "whah whah the President isn't polite" Get over it!

Any chance of actually disputing the facts or are you just going to go on a hate filled rampage against 'seditionist pigs'? If you genuinely think this is all about crying because the 'President isn't polite' then you haven't been paying attention.

Evidence is mounting on a daily basis that he did indeed commit bribery (an impeachable offence). Career dipomats of impeccable service to the US are putting their careers and their personal safety at risk to testify as such. Yovanovitch has testified under oath that she was pulled back to Washington to clear the way for Trump allies to persuade Ukraine to launch corruption probes into Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Bill Taylor has confirmed there was a conversation between Sondland and Trump overheard from a staffer (David Holmes) and in turn Holmes has also testified under oath that he was present when Trump had asked Sondland “So, he’s going to do the investigation?” to which Sondland responded by saying that Zelensky “loves your ass,” that he would pursue the investigation, and that he would do “anything you ask him to.”

And then there's Gordon Sondland.

This is going to be the the Dems star witness. A Trump appointee and a man who was actually on the calls and is deep, deep in the middle of it all. Now we already know that Sondland has changed his tune in a new, revised statement were he has testified “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” but since he has also categorily denied there was any 'quid pro quo/bribery' in previous statements it will be super interesting to see which story he will stick to this week, especially now there is a clear threat of perjury. Many think he has no choice other than to come completely clean and honestly tell the world what was actually said in those calls.

So rant and rage as much as you want. Blame 'seditionist pigs' and 'Communist loving, war-mongering filthy mob of scumbag rats' but I wonder how you are going to defend Trump when Sondland confirms all the other witness testimonies are true and accurate? Your boy only has himself to blame as he put himself in this situation and the noose is tightening. Hopefully it will be the end to this embarrassment of a POTUS but knowing the gutless GPO's in the Senate I'm afraid it's just the beginning.

20 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Well then, you're admitting that you believe President Zelensky was lying.  You won't believe he spoke the truth in all of the interviews he gave to all of the press agencies.

 

Well, to put it another way, since it's not a question that you want to see Trump impeached and removed from office then you cannot, cannot believe President Zelensky spoke the truth.  Because to do so you would then no longer be able to argue for impeachment.  Do you understand that you are prohibited, due to your single focus for impeachment, to argue fairly or objectively?

 

This is why I posted earlier:

 

To slightly rephrase an Upton Sinclair quote:  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary bias and political leanings depends upon his not understanding it."

 

Do you understand the truth of that statement, bristolboy?  I sure do.  And so do a whole lot of other people on these threads.

 

And since the truth is opposite your desire then by hook or crook you will lie, cheat or steal or do anything else that is required to squash the truth.  This is how deranged the left is.  They are willing to destroy America as long as they can get Trump.

 

Everyone knows it, bristolboy.  It's not a secret.  It's all out in the open.

 

 

Do you understand the hypocrisy of your argument 'Do you understand that you are prohibited, due to your single focus for impeachment, to argue fairly or objectively? when you in turn constantly argue with very little fairness and absolutely no objectivity?

Evidence is mounting on a daily basis but you (and we are not holding our breath you ever will) have never said a bad word against Trump and the rest of his mafia gang. Career dipomats of impeccable service to the US are putting their careers and their personal safety at risk and still you berate, obfuscate and deflect along an increasingly desperate GOP's standard line (where's the whistleblower; it's all hearsay; but, but The Bidens). Yovanovitch has testified under oath that she was pulled back to Washington to clear the way for Trump allies to persuade Ukraine to launch corruption probes into Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Bill Taylor has confirmed there was a conversation between Sondland and Trump overheard from a staffer (David Holmes) and in turn Holmes has also testified under oath that he was present when Trump had asked Sondland “So, he’s going to do the investigation?” to which Sondland responded by saying that Zelensky “loves your ass,” that he would pursue the investigation, and that he would do “anything you ask him to.” Now I'm sure you will probably argue (yet again) that this is second hand hearsay as Holmes wasn't actually on the call which leads us nicely to 'memory man' Gordon Sondland.

This is going to be the the Dems star witness. A Trump appointee and a man who was actually on the calls and is deep, deep in the middle of it all. Now we already know that Sondland has changed his tune in a new, revised statement were he has testified “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” but since he has also categorily denied there was any 'quid pro quo/bribery' in previous statements it will be super interesting to see which story he will stick to, especially now there is a clear threat of perjury. Personally I think he has no choice now other than to come completely clean and honestly tell the world what was actually said in those calls.

So berate Yovanovitch all you want for feeling threatened about Trumps tweets (like that's the important part of all of this) or for Bill Talyor only having 'hearsay' evidence because, you know, he wasn't actually on the call but I wonder how you are going to defend Trump when Sondland confirms all the other witness testimonies are true and accurate?  

Oh and whilst we are are on the subject of berating witnesses, please keep in mind that John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Mick Mulvaney himself and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget (who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry) have all refused congressional subpoenas to impear at the impeachment hearings. This is on top of the scores of other Trump acolytes who have refused to appear at the hearings.

For someone with nothing to hide, Trumps doing a pretty damning job of hiding everyone who has first hand knowledge of all these conversations. Now I wonder why that could be? 

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Hunter doesn't speak the language, has no experience but, wait for it Daddy is VP!  Hunter also confessed he would not have got the job without the name Biden.  I am amazed that anyone does not see that as a problem. And don't even start me on Bidens Quid Pro Quo regarding the 1bn in aid and his boasting on camera.

No one is saying it isn't a problem but when you have Trump offering Ivanka a role that she has no experience in and is massively ill-equipped to handle and getting Jared to 'sort out the Middle East' alongside many other roles, then the word hypocrisy immediately springs to mind. 

ALL children should be banned from using their political parents influence to land plumb jobs but until it becomes illegal for everyone, then you can't just single out Hunter Biden. 

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You're all so convinced that Trump has committed impeachable offences, so how come Nancy doesn't move forward with impeachment? Could it be that there isn't any actual proof?

You do realise that all those people meeting and discussing the Ukraine affair (you know the stuff that's on TV with the Senators and all the other government people) is actually the impeachment process?

48 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

You claim to be smarter than me and tell me I have a huge chip on MY shoulder?

I hope you can see the arrogance and irony in that blather.

 

You constantly berate those who disagree with you and claim to be "eloquent" and "sincere" and call it debate. While calling names of those who disagree with you.

 

yet another shining example of leftist self proclaimed intellectual superiority backed up by your own opinion.

 

the irony of you telling me to look inward is astounding.

 

but, as you have said, let us see how the biased media will spin the show and then just how feeble this attempt at unseating an elected president will work out for those who share your obviously self acclaimed superior opinion and intellect and firm righteous grip on the "facts".

 

the backlash will be painful.....for some. 

 

I didn't claim to be smarter than you, I talked about 'people' being smarter than you. Again I cannot be held responsible for your lack of understanding. 

I 'berate' those that don't use facts to back up their argument and only rely on whataboutisms, deflections and debunked conspiracy theories. It may look like I berate a lot of people but then they can always stop relying on whataboutisms, deflections and debunked conspiracy theories.

I never call anyone names other than Trumpers (not too derogatory I don't think but please provide proof of other name calling that is) whilst you have called people (including myself) 'irrational', 'emotional' and 'preening' on this thread alone.

And also if any of the facts I have presented are not facts you are again welcome to counter this with verified facts of your own. If I have misquoted any of the people who have sworn under oath regarding Trumps QPQ you can present your version of what was said and see if it differs. I have taken all of my quotes from their own sworn testimonies, which no one has contested as just my 'own opinion' other than yourself.

You jumped on a post I made in reply to Tippaprons assertion 'Funny how when you hit the lefties with facts, logic, and honesty things start to get real quite on these threads' like I was the person who bought up the 'facts, logic, and honesty' part but you will also note I added 'I look forward to debating you over the next few days/weeks as the live show hits town.' 

I'll extend the same offer to you but I do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill and looking for an argument that isn't there so I'm not holding my breath that you'll keep the personal attacks out of things.

It doesn't bother me but the moderators might think differently.

26 minutes ago, elmrfudd said:

and there it is again; agree with your biased opinion=you are smart and the  "truth" shines

 

disagree=you are stupid and "falsehoods" are everywhere

 

and the pseudo intellectuals will all agree...on tvf

 

 

how about just wait for the success/failure of the current democratic

attempt to circumvent an election?

 

what will be the next attempt? will it ever be enough if you keep losing these ridiculous attempts?

I'm sorry you have a huge chip on your shoulder about people being smarter than you but all we are doing is debating differing points of view over passionate subjects. I try to argue my point with facts, eloquence and sincerity and if that comes across to you as 'smart' and/or 'pseudo intellectual' (this is the third time you've used that phrase) then perhaps you should look more inward at your own insecurities.