johnnybangkok

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. 

2 minutes ago, Becker said:

And the Kurds didn't help at Normandy!

And the wall in Colorado and the 14 million jobs Ivanka has helped create or if you buy a box of cereal you need a voter ID, that exercise depletes your body's finite energy and, and, and........

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Good job, johhny!!  You really got me that time.  No kidding.  You really did.  Kudos.  Vindman should gift his purple heart to you.  But you did forget to include one small, insignificant fact:  There was no quid pro quo.

Ok one more time for the people at the back of the room - 

Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union in a dramatic u-turn testified that he personally delivered the message on Sept. 1 to a top Ukrainian official that U.S. military aid was contingent upon the country’s ability to launch an investigation that Trump wanted after he “refreshed” his recollection.

Bill Taylor, U.S. charge d’affaires for Ukraine told Congress that "it was becoming clear" to him that a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian President "was contingent upon the investigation of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections,”

And last but not least, decorated army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director of European affairs for the National Security Council- who was listening to the call - said he had “no doubt” that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, according to the transcript. He also said he reported his concerns to the National Security Council’s top lawyer because he was so “concerned.”
 

For the hard of hearing “contingent upon” and “pressuring “ (Big words I know) means quid pro quo. 

14 minutes ago, Sujo said:

A little fact checking of trumps tweets lately.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/ap-fact-check-trumps-flawed-051645067.html

It's not wonder Trump fans get so 'confused'. His incoherent ramblings, conspiracy theories and plain old lies are there for everyone to see. The man is unhinged. 

53 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Do the investigation will clear Biden’s name and hunt rather than help Trump, yes?

 

Yes, “Former Obama administration officials investigated...” former Obama officials and found no corruption. 
 

Well, that proves it, next!

What I find amazing is that you cannot see just how dumb Trump has been over the Biden conspiracy. 

EVERYONE (his advisers, Washington insiders, Congressmen, the media, Senators the lot) now know it was a cynical media hoax orchestrated by Peter Schweizer in an attempt to smear the Bidens and to help Trump but Trump is soooooo dumb that he actually believed it and is now facing impeachment because of it. However, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that a man who said of Alex Jones "Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down' would fall for such nonsense but you just keep banging that tired old drum and try and keep the Biden conspiracy alive as it must be getting REALLY hard now to defend this embarrassment of a POTUS.    

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Well Done......excellent post.

 

BUT as we have seen here and on other threads, the trump supporters have a mental block with regards to seeing anything wrong with the myriad of lies and deceit (not to mention theft) perpetrated by this POS. 

Oh I am VERY aware of the Trumpers on here and their inability to accept facts that are contrary to their echo chambers but it shouldn't stop us from calling them out on their BS. 

Masochistically, I actually prefer it as it means, unlike them, we have to assemble arguments that are factual and corroborated by multiple media sources, and will stand the 'scrutiny' of their sharp and incisive minds (only joking of course - most are as dumb as a box of frogs and wouldn't know a fact if it hit them on the head).

I'm also encouraged that many of Trumps initial supporters (going back to when he was first nominated) are now conspicuously quiet on these threads (to be replaced by suspiciously new posters with provocative avatars and new accounts), so I'm hoping, we might actually have got through to the less rabid Trumpers and you never know, maybe changed a few minds (wishful thinking I know).   

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Does anybody check if anybody out there changes his or her mind about Trump?

 

I'll change my mind as soon as someone gives me the same drugs that they're taking.

 

But then there are those people who ignore any evidence.

 

I've posted lots of evidence but it's all ignored by the left.  The problem is that the left only accepts the evidence they want.  Not only that, but they conflate evidence with established fact.  And then accuse people who refuse to do the same of ignoring evidence, erm, established fact.

You haven't posted any 'evidence'. All you post is whataboutism, deflections and debunked conspiracy theories. Your whole argument is that Trump had every right to ask the Ukraine about the Bidens and many, many people have tried to educate you (myself included) that no, that is a breach of campaign finance laws. We have seen sworn testimony from many people to include this article about Laura Cooper, deputy assistant secretary of defense testifying that "All of the senior leaders of the U.S. national security departments and agencies were all unified in their view that this assistance was essential," but also;-

Fiona Hill, former Russia expert for the National Security Council  Described a July 10 White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which Gordon Sondland pressured Ukraine for a political investigation and insisted Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney had agreed to the plan. Following the meeting, Hill said John Bolton, the president’s national security adviser, told her to tell the president’s legal adviser “that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.”

Michael McKinley, former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he was disturbed by a push to use U.S. diplomatic missions "to procure negative political information for domestic purposes," as well as a "failure" at the State Department to support the American diplomatic corps.

Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the European Union in a dramatic u-turn testified that he personally delivered the message on Sept. 1 to a top Ukrainian official that U.S. military aid was contingent upon the country’s ability to launch an investigation that Trump wanted after he “refreshed” his recollection.

Bill Taylor, U.S. charge d’affaires for Ukraine told Congress that "it was becoming clear" to him that a meeting between Trump and the Ukrainian President "was contingent upon the investigation of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections,”

And last but not least, decorated army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director of European affairs for the National Security Council- who was listening to the call - said he had “no doubt” that Trump was pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, according to the transcript. He also said he reported his concerns to the National Security Council’s top lawyer because he was so “concerned.”

So either ALL of these people are lying to congress and therefore committing perjury and risking up to 5 years in prison, their reputations and their careers or your boy is a cheating, conniving, back-dealing crook who was holding off $400 million in aid to the Ukraine unless they investigated a often debunked conspiracy theory concerning Biden and his son.

Now you are more than welcome to come back on this with your 'evidence' that you think we are all ignoring but having seen your numerous posts before, I'm not going to hold my breath for anything that is based on facts.

Source https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-testified-congress/story?id=66763043

55 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Why are you so afraid of Biden being investigated? Like Trump, if he’s done nothing wrong he has nothing to fear, right?

OMG, this has been gone over SOOOOO many times.  

'...sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim. 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'.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

The Biden conspiracy nonsense has been debunked so many times to the point where the originator of the story Peter Schweizer, a longtime associate of Steve Bannon, has been exposed as the person who started it all. He "devised a clever way to use the mainstream media against liberal politicians: Just gather a bunch of provocative but unrelated facts about a Democrat and pretend they point to a nefarious plot that's completely unsupported by those facts, then, instead of feeding them into the right-wing media fever swamp, feed them to respectable mainstream outlets that, in their desperate quest for balance, will investigate, promote, and legitimize the story, allowing it to spew all over the news ecosystem." 

https://theweek.com/speedreads/874015/samantha-bee-runs-down-man-who-created-bidenukraine-conspiracy-theory

I know this doesn't feed into yours or Fox News's echo chamber but you've been conned and the evidence is very clearly there so as Sujo says bring it on but do it through the proper legal channels. Biden and son will be easily exonerated (although probably tarnished by association) and yet another Trump fed conspiracy theory will die a horrible but satisfying death. 

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

ya secret - Reps not allowed to question, not allowed to speak about what happened etc. etc. but facts don't mean much to you I know.

Again big on hyperbole and short on facts. The GOP WAS allowed to question and of course were allowed to “leak” to their hearts content (Google is your friend).  This was however the fact finding part of the investigation so it was mostly just hearing already prepared statements. From here on in though it will all be public so watch the fireworks. It’s going to be one helluva show. 

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Johhnybangkok I am not an attorney but at this point there is no campaign and Biden may or may not be the nominee so to say any effort by Ukraine against Biden was a campaign violation would be a stretch. PS if Trump did something wrong with Ukraine, how do his actions compare to Bidens? 
 

 

I thought I had already explained this adequately enough in my previous post and Bristolboy and Eric Loh have also eloquently answered but if you need it spelling out again, then let me begin.

Even if Bidens actions were proven to be to solely protect his son (which has absolutely been proven not to be the case) he would be guilty of at least extortion. This is a criminal act for which he would face investigation by the Justice Department and thereafter, indictment, prosecution and punishment. Trump could have gone down this route and asked for a full investigation using the appropriate legal channels but instead decided to ask for a 'favour' on the back of withholding some $400 million congressionally approved aid to the Ukraine. He back-channeled it through Giuliani and used a now well established 'quid pro quo'. This is where he comes unstuck because amazingly enough, politicians are not allowed to use bribery, blackmail, extortion, strong-arming and other dubious techniques against political opponents, and Biden is most certainly a political opponent. 

Do you understand it now? Even if Biden was guilty (he's not of course), this does not acquit Trump and his efforts to smear a political rival with massively dubious and illegal methods. This is why he will be impeached, and rightly so.

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I do understand the import of sworn testimony and fully agree with you that cases have been settled using sworn testimony.  Yet it is not the only evidence considered when settling a case.  I've never heard of a case that had been settled using only a single, solitary piece of sworn testimony and without regard for any other evidence or facts.  While it does carry weight it is not the sole determinant.

 

My point is that many people take a single piece of sworn testimony and then begin to prance around proclaiming it to be proof positive.  Which it is not.  They then proceed to talk about it as though it were established fact.  Which again it is not.  Therefore, anyone who takes an yet unproven claim and proclaims it to be established fact is lying.

So by your account we are not to believe Vindman's sworn testimony even though he is the Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council, a highly decorated, seasoned army professional with an impeccable background and no scandals to his name because, you know, people lie and we shouldn't just listen to just one person soooooooooo.......what about Bill Taylor, and of course the amazing return of memory for Gordon Sondland who has now stated that there was indeed QPQ but that he had just 'forgot' the first time he was asked.

There are now several people all backing what the whistle-blower has said. Are they all lying under oath? Will they all jeopardize their careers and reputations because they just want to get one over on Trump?

Your argument for individual dishonestly is undercut by the collective. Now please stop defending the indefensible.    

42 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

What you are missing is that there is no problem he asked for help in investigating. Leaders have private phone conversations all the time and ask for assistance. The VP threatened Ukraine and used QPQ blatantly but "that's ok" to you and the hypocrite Dems. 

Leave it to 2020 but Dems are scared to lose again so let's have 'Russiagate"  followed by "Ukrainegate"  if that doesn't work let's try "Estoniagate". How about some policy?

You have had this explained to you many, many times so you are either willfully ignoring the facts or really a secret Trump fan.

Let's start with this statement - 'The VP threatened Ukraine and used QPQ blatantly but "that's ok" to you and the hypocrite Dems.'

In his capacity as VP, Biden at the time could do this as it was IN THE INTEREST OF THE US (and the IMF and the EU) and was not for personal, political gain. This is a common political tactic, where money and aid is used as leverage.

Trump on the other hand wanted an investigation into a political opponent for his own political gain. This is a clear violation of campaign finance law which prohibits any person from soliciting, accepting, or receiving anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election (and by virtue of Biden being the leading Dem nominee, he is part of the US election). The law doesn’t just apply to money — investigations or political dirt that benefit a particular campaign counts as “things of value” too. 

You claim to be 'have been a supporter of Dems values for years' yet all I see is you trying to defend Trump with the flimsiest of facts, deflections and conspiracy theories. If you truly support Dem values then you should be behind this impeachment because the Dems are correct in what they are doing as it is just the right thing to do.   

On 11/8/2019 at 7:53 PM, ExpatOK said:

As has been explained, the impeachment process is nothing more than a coup attempt.  The lawyer for "he who cannot be named," the whistleblower, has defended his own remarks in 2017 calling it a coup.  The coup attempt actually started the minute Trump was elected and continues to this day.

 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/whistleblowers-lawyer-reiterates-coup-against-president-trump-began-the-week-he-took-office

Your posts are stupidly suspicious. Now let me think who else on this site is trying to push the “coup” story. Oh yes, that’ll be every other FoxNews loving Trump supporter on here trying to push their pearls of wisdom on us slow witted liberals.