johnnybangkok

19 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

You have already mentioned you don't care about the poor

 

Please show where I used those words, or just the usual leftie practice of taking things out of context. 

 

Look at construction sites and tell me who's swinging those hammers, chances are they're neither white or black. Families not staying together could possibly be a reason for some hardships.

 

Our whole education system needs to be revamped where a young person getting out of high school has the experience of an entry level trade. Not everyone is college material. Trade schools and apprentice ship programs made more available.

Scream about cost of a good education and I'm there with you. But don't tell me the younger generations aren't getting lazier. No more winner and losers in sports, now all are getting ribbons and trophies.

 

But, everything will be better when the bad orange man is out of office. Good news for you is you've only got a little over 5 yrs to go.

In another post referring to people who are less fortunate than you, your exact words were 'They're not less fortunate, just lazier. I worked hard for what I have'.

I think your opinion of poorer people (and now younger people by the looks of it) being in their situation simply through 'laziness' is lazy thinking on your behalf.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

When a UK MP colludes with the EU to undermine the UK government's position, that is traitorous.  

 

I know you Remainers love to try and control the language that others can use, but my description is entirely accurate. I'm sure you hate the phrase "surrender bill" as well. The reason Remainers hate these words so much is because of their unerring accuracy. The truth hurts.

 

I will add one more. Remainer MP's are cowardly. They don't want an election because they know they will lose their seats. They pretend it's because they don't trust Johnson with the election date when they know full well a one line bill could set the date of the election to be before Brexit. Which makes them liars as well. If they thought they'd win the election, Corbyn would call one.

 

The lib dems and Labour MP's were voted in on manifestos to honour the result of the referendum and now they have changed their minds. Is that anti-democratic or dishonest? Let's go for both.

 

So yes, this Parliament is a disgrace. It's dysfunctional. Even the speaker is biased. I'm not sure how you claim it is respected. Most of the country is aware that it's a complete shambles and has nothing but contempt for it, and that includes a lot of Remainers.

Well I'm convinced.

16 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

So that is your angle, coming at it with maximum spin and tenuous connectivity.

This is how the other side will spin it. Trump, in a person to person phone call, brought up the subject of Biden's blackmail and interference in the government of the Ukraine. Biden, who bragged on stage about this blackmail was making a very obvious interference of a foreign countries affairs to protect his son's fake position at Burisma. Trump wanted to get some information about that. As it should be the right of a president to investigate the crimes of the former VP. No threats or blackmail were made. It was an open and understandable conversation.

Apparently the way in which this occurred was the wrong process to request information and on that technicality Trump gets impeached.

This is a far cry from Watergate, or Clinton in his rape trials and diddling Monica in the oval office. It was a procedural error. The lamest excuse ever to impeach a president. But we know the dog has its bone and it will never let it go.

This has been gone over sooooo many times I really can't be bothered going into it all again with you. Just watch the news and you'll see for yourself

25 minutes ago, finnishmen said:

only big idiot country want join stupid communism scammer idea eu, eu thief lot lot money and make lot own law and lot more only problems, what country win if join to eu, ? nothing. better no think all <deleted> europe union.

Well that's clear then

35 minutes ago, chokrai said:

Do you not understand that we think that your side is evil? We think that Obama, Clinton and most of the other Democrats have no ethics or morals at all. I could spend all day linking to articles about how corrupt they are but you would not read them or believe them so what is the point. Better you just keep watching the lunatics on CNN and MSNBC to confirm your bias.

But, but......Trump?

5 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Ahh...not a good start.

Nope. But not a total waist. 

I did at least say 'we shall all be grateful and forgiving.....'

That'll require a lot of apologies though.

5 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Interesting article that points out for Trump to be thrown out of office, his opponents are going to have to persuade millions of Trump supporters to come over to their side.  So if you want Trump supporters to call their congressmen and senators to vote to impeach and then convict Trump, better start playing nice :).  An apology from Hillary for the nickname "deplorables" might be a good start.

 

From the article:  "There’s a lesson here for Trump’s opponents, too. If they want impeachment to be followed by removal, they are going to have to persuade millions of voters who are currently in his corner. Impeachment can’t be seen as an act of culture-war vengeance – a judgment on voters for being stupid and racist enough to choose Trump – if it is to succeed."

 

https://news.yahoo.com/why-trumps-removal-wouldnt-lead-194533639.html

Yeah his actual removal would require some Republican Senators to suddenly grow a pair and vote with their conscience, respecting the office rather than their own self interest.

Since that's not going to happen (and it's going to show them up for who they truly are) but Congress IS still going to see this through, perhaps on a similar vein to what you suggested we could get an apology from Trump. Something along the lines of 'sorry for the Campaign Finance Violation, my Honest Services Fraud (look it up), my borderline extortion and my attempt to intimidate the current whistleblower (Witness Intimidation), my Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller case, my siding with Dictators at the expense of trusted allies, my VERY obvious racism, my general dividing of a nation, my Twitter tantrums, my science denying, my cashing in at taxpayers expense by getting everyone to stay at my hotels, my having a go at Meryl Streep. I'm sorry. I'm truly, truly sorry.   

And we shall all be grateful and forgiving for at least he didn't call anyone 'deplorable'.

5 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

So it was a good idea to build the fence when barry was king but Trump takes over and it's He wants a wall, he must be racist....Got it.

Off topic but more importantly, debated to death.

I'm not going to go into why everything you say here is just wrong from the fact that President Barack Obama (Barry to you) built what he did to keep rabid republicans happy because of The Secure Fence Act of 2006 (a George W. Bush initiative), to the fact that Trumps wall is just costly, ineffective and unnecessary being that there's already 700 miles there thanks to Obama (yes he actually built more than Trump ever has or importantly, ever will). The wall isn't just the reason there's also when he was sued for not allowing blacks into his apartments in 1973, to ordering black people off the floors of his casino's in 1980, to inserting himself in the Central Park 5 case in 89, to right up to modern times with calling white supremacists 'good people' to in September announcing he was dropping the amount of refugees allowed into the US from 110,000 to just 18,000. 

The wall is just one of many, many, many, many reasons we think Trump is racist. 

13 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You know in the dystopian novels the majority of the people are so convinced they are right, but they are clearly brainwashed and deep in the fallacy of the state propaganda. And as you read it you hope at first that they might see how stupid they are being, but later in the book you don't care anymore. Let them be stupid, they are happier in their ignorance. You still hope for the protagonist, who invariably is red-pilled and aware. But the rest you care nothing about anymore. That's where I am at. Let the NPC's have their illusion. It's a kindness really. 

 

And there we have it.

You obviously have some self-delusion that everyone else is wrong with being 'brainwashed and deep in the fallacy of the state propaganda' and you are the only 'red-pilled and aware' individual around, ready to save us lowly automatons who know no better.

Ok then, if that's your role then can you please do it a bit better by:-

A) Providing better arguments substantiated with proper facts and corroborated with better sources than the crackpot sites you are so fond of quoting. 

B) Sticking to one argument and arguing that better.  

Everything else just sounds like the ramblings of a conspiracy nut and doesn't hold traction with most. 

I hope you see this in the constructive manner it is meant.

14 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

"A guy comes up to you in the street and sticks a gun in your face and yells 'give me your money!' "

 

If only it were that simple, it would be obvious. But the problem with the transcript vis-a-vis your analogy, (and yes I have read the transcript as well as the legal analysis on both sides), is that there was no "gun" presented. You have to infer that the robber may have had a gun or a weapon, but simply chose not to display it at that time. So if someone just comes up to you on the street and says "Give me your money" with no threatening weapon displayed, is that a robbery or simply a request? One is legal, the other is not.   You have to make the legal argument that it was obvious a robbery was intended, even though a weapon was neither explicitly shown nor stated.  That is a very tough legal argument for something as serious as a presedential impeachment. Not impossible of course, but really, really difficult.

 

"it is an attempt to get dirt on a political opponent on the back of a huge financial inducement"

 

This is not clear from the transcript. It is certainly the opinion of those who are pushing for impeachment, but this is never stated in the transcript. You are assigning your opinion of his motive to the words and his supporters will not agree with you. It doesn't make them stupid and you brilliant. It does mean that people have different values and interpret the data to fit their personal bias.

 

Objectively this is anything but clear.  It's quite muddy in fact, and I think there is essentially no chance (right now) it will result in a conviction. The vote will most likely fall straight down party lines if this is all there is.  Let's wait and see what other evidence surfaces during the hearings, maybe something will come out that will shed more light on this and push the needle clearly to one side, but based on what has been shown so far there is absolutely nothing concrete.

 

Those that know me know I do not support Trump. He is bad for America. He is a psycopath and a demagogue. But the current way people just snarl and denigrate those with opposing views in the USA is anything but helpful. Trump is a symptom of a very deep problem that is a long time in the making.  This impeachment hearing is unlikely to be anything other than political theater. Enjoy it like you would enjoy any comedy at the cinema.

 

I appreciate your well thought out argument, but have to disagree with the 'there is absolutely nothing concrete' part. I'm not sure just how much concrete you can get; the President of the United States in a call to a foreign leader starts off by letting that leader know just how much he should be thankful to the US with 'I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about'.

He is establishing obligation.

This obligation is confirmed by President Zelenskyy with a 'Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000%....' 

Next comes the pitch with Trump saying "I would like you to do us a favor...... He then goes on talking about 'Crowdstrike' and the server he thinks Ukraine has. 

And in classic Columbo 'just one more thing' style he then says 'The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.'

It's reckoned there are 7 things Trump is guilty of in this exchange and with his actions thereafter:-

1. BRIBERY - Where hundreds of millions of aid is offered for help in smearing Biden - not my favorite as it's not clear there is indeed a quid pro quo and it's too easy to argue otherwise.

2. HONEST SERVICES FRAUD - Trump allows the aid to go through; Ukraine does him a favour - political representatives are not allowed to do this. A valid point.

3. EXTORTION - Can't see this myself as I don't see President Zelenskyy being threatened. 

4. WITNESS INTIMIDATION - By calling the whistleblower   'almost a spy,” recently and inferring capital punishment for treason, this could be seen as witness intimidation.  

5. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - By moving records of the call into a separate system for protecting highly classified documents, obstruction of justice charges could be brought.  

6. CONSPIRACY - Reaching an agreement with others to commit any of these other crimes would set up the possibility of a conspiracy charge.

But for me the main charge of Campaign Finance Violation wherein it’s a crime for any American (and I don't think I have to say this includes the POTUS) to ask a foreigner for help winning a U.S. election is the most obvious. Whilst talking of 'favors' he explicitly asks for President Zelenskyy to look into Bidens actions in an attempt to get information that will smear Biden. Not sure how clear you can get with that one.

I agree with your point that 'The vote will most likely fall straight down party lines' as it's obvious this will pass Congress only to stall at the Senate but what else are Democrats supposed to do? There have been many, many, many incidents of un-President like behavior verging on criminal from this man so does he get away with it again? I for one am glad the Democrats have drawn a line in the sand and although it may turn out to be 'political theater', it's something that needs to be done. And with any luck (not holding my breath) we will see the end of the worst President in modern history.

11 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Trump derangement syndrome has got you speaking in tongues now.

This has been one roller coaster ride for you here hasn't it? You started of with some wild conspiracy asserting that 'It's likely that Burisma was an asset of the CIA and being funded to counteract Russian influence in the natural gas industry' which then pivoted to (unfounded) assertions that the Ukrainian prosecutor released documents 'that include the statements from the prosecutor who was fired on Biden's demand that he was indeed investigating Burisma' and that 'Giuliani provides evidence the prosecutor was fired for investigating Burisma' to where you are now which is the absolute nonsense that 'There is an accord signed between the US and the Ukraine where they agree to share information on investigations'.

First of all you need to make up your mind which absurd conspiracy theory you're going to go with. I mean that's 3 extreme, wildly unconfirmed conspiracies in one thread; is this your personal best?

I will repeat one last time; it is a crime for any American (not withstanding someone as senior as the President) to ask a foreigner for ANY assistance in winning a U.S. election. Regardless of quid pro quo or financial inducement, there is no doubt this happened and no amount of absurd conspiracy theories are ever going to change that.