4 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

And the beauty of it all is that Trump is transforming the courts with Originalist judges.  It is becoming more difficult for LIBs to go "judge shopping" in search of an activist judge.

 

McConnell has Trump's list lined up and ready to begin again.

Originalist judges and a Republican Senate that doesn't think abuse of power is an impeachable offense.  Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You know, every time you parrot the Republican talking point that "Zelensky said..." I can remind people that Zelensky is the President of a country at war, dependent on the US, under obvious pressure, and his words can only be understood in that context.

 

I like reminding people of this, so keep it up.  I can do this as long as you can.

More speculation and conjection ! His foreign minister and other Ukrainian officials echo's his 3 instances of declaring there was nothing wrong with the phone call! Your opinion is just that,its not fact  its hearsay . 

I will remind people Z on 3 occasions said no push,normal and no  blackmail. 

He is the key witness that the dem's needed to prove their case for a much  much needed bi partisan vote.

 

Your deflecting and telling everybody but ,but , look over there ,when in fact ,the fact is, 3 times he stated that your wrong and the dem talking point that your parroting  ! .

   

1 hour ago, riclag said:

More speculation and conjection ! His foreign minister and other Ukrainian officials echo's his 3 instances of declaring there was nothing wrong with the phone call! Your opinion is just that,its not fact  its hearsay . 

I will remind people Z on 3 occasions said no push,normal and no  blackmail. 

He is the key witness that the dem's needed to prove their case for a much  much needed bi partisan vote.

 

Your deflecting and telling everybody but ,but , look over there ,when in fact ,the fact is, 3 times he stated that your wrong and the dem talking point that your parroting  ! .

   

The fact is that Ukraine is at war with its much more powerful neighbor, it needs US support to survive, and Trump is a temperamental man-child, as he demonstrated during a Mar-a-Lago Superbowl party:

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html

 

Zelensky had every reason to lie about the pressure.  But thank you for the opportunity to remind people.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You know, every time you parrot the Republican talking point that "Zelensky said..." I can remind people that Zelensky is the President of a country at war, dependent on the US, under obvious pressure, and his words can only be understood in that context.

 

I like reminding people of this, so keep it up.  I can do this as long as you can.

Citing what Zelensky said and how he said it isn't "the Republican talking point..." It's a matter of record. Now, let's discuss when Zelensky was under duress. Was it when one of his people had to beg for lethal aid, saying "we can't win a war with blankets" or was it when he had already gotten the needed aid and had already purchased the Stinger missiles from us?

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Being at war with a much more powerful neighbor and being dependent on the US in this war is not duress.  Funny.

 

You can also keep it up.  Just more opportunities to remind people of what the real world looks like.

So it is your assertion that Zelensky has been lying?

51 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The fact is that Ukraine is at war with its much more powerful neighbor, it needs US support to survive, and Trump is a temperamental man-child, as he demonstrated during a Mar-a-Lago Superbowl party:

 

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article239913588.html

 

Zelensky had every reason to lie about the pressure.  But thank you for the opportunity to remind people.

 Your speculation is irrelevant  because at the end of the day the record will show Z said what he said on 3 occasions the most importantant witness in this sham impeachment,but thank you for the opportunity to remind people ,no push,no blackmail and a normal conversation

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000006736087/trump-ukraine-zelensky.html

So, in summary, a cover up, as expected. It has now has been made obvious to anyone during this 'trial' except, of course, to core trumpers.

5 hours ago, riclag said:

  Can the senate overrule  the cheif justice when he told the house dems and WH lawyers to stop with the  admonishing conduct ?How about the CJ refusing to state Rand Pauls question on the whistleblower, could the republican majority over rule the CJ and bring  it to a vote to have the CJ  read the question?

Pelosi seems to think that the CJ can make decisions! 

https://apnews.com/1544c83c96cfdcc4c7ba36c5562109a1

 

 

So he followed the same principles as Schiff about the WB. Keep his ID secret, according to the intent of the law. Good to know it....

8 hours ago, riclag said:

  Can the senate overrule  the cheif justice when he told the house dems and WH lawyers to stop with the  admonishing conduct ?How about the CJ refusing to state Rand Pauls question on the whistleblower, could the republican majority over rule the CJ and bring  it to a vote to have the CJ  read the question?

Pelosi seems to think that the CJ can make decisions! 

https://apnews.com/1544c83c96cfdcc4c7ba36c5562109a1

 

 

Correct. Moscow mitch calls for a vote to overturn any decision by the cj. So all they needed to do was vote to compel the cj to ask the question.

12 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

NYT 31/12/19

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee, said late Thursday that although he believed that Democrats have proved their case that President Trump had acted “inappropriately” in his dealings with Ukraine

It what the NYT claims he said, they didn’t quote him. 
 

 

3 hours ago, candide said:

So, in summary, a cover up, as expected. It has now has been made obvious to anyone during this 'trial' except, of course, to core trumpers.

“core trumpers” apparently includes most all non-leftists.

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Originalist judges and a Republican Senate that doesn't think abuse of power is an impeachable offense.  Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

They don’t believe Trump abused his power. How is that a contradiction? 

Hey, what happened to all the charges and overwhelming evidence from the Mueller report you were bleating on about a few months ago? 
 

Why was none of that included in the articles of impeachment? 

46 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

It what the NYT claims he said, they didn’t quote him. 
 

 

Stop embarrassing yourself and denial on truth and facts. Here is his direct quote. 

"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law“. 

6 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

So it is your assertion that Zelensky has been lying?

That's what Democrats have also insinuated.

8 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law“. 

And after all of that:

 

"I think what he did is a long way from treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors."

3 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

And after all of that:

 

"I think what he did is a long way from treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors."

Nice diversion try. The resistance inside the party is manifesting. Trump will caused the party to shrink and damaged for years. Fortunately he only has 9 months of his presidency. Soon the madness will be over. 

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Stop embarrassing yourself and denial on truth and facts. Here is his direct quote. 

"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law“. 

Why would you putting it in quotes now embarrass me? 
 

I’m not saying he didn’t say it,  I’m just saying I have no reason to believe anything in the press without seeing a transcript. 
 

Saying something is inappropriate is not the same as saying it’s criminal.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Nice diversion try. The resistance inside the party is manifesting. Trump will caused the party to shrink and damaged for years. Fortunately he only has 9 months of his presidency. Soon the madness will be over. 

While his approval rating (if you believe the polls) is higher than ever, and higher than Obama’s at the same point in his first term. 
 

How ‘bout that speech? 
 

 

7 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Citing what Zelensky said and how he said it isn't "the Republican talking point..." It's a matter of record. Now, let's discuss when Zelensky was under duress. Was it when one of his people had to beg for lethal aid, saying "we can't win a war with blankets" or was it when he had already gotten the needed aid and had already purchased the Stinger missiles from us?

Oh it's a Republican talking point; Republicans have repeated it ad nauseam. 

 

Zelensky was under duress when, as a newly elected President, he needed the prestige of a White House meeting with the President of the US, and wasn't getting it.  He was also aware that the needed aid had not been received even if he didn't know that Trump had put a hold on it.

7 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

So it is your assertion that Zelensky has been lying?

Wow!  You're really on top of things! 

 

Do I need to explain again why Zelensky was lying?  Happy to do it.

7 hours ago, riclag said:

 Your speculation is irrelevant  because at the end of the day the record will show Z said what he said on 3 occasions the most importantant witness in this sham impeachment,but thank you for the opportunity to remind people ,no push,no blackmail and a normal conversation

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000006736087/trump-ukraine-zelensky.html

At the end of the day the record will show that Ukraine was at war with a much more powerful neighbor and Zelensky needed the aid of the US.  That required lying so as to not upset the hyper-sensitive Trump.

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

They don’t believe Trump abused his power. How is that a contradiction? 

Hey, what happened to all the charges and overwhelming evidence from the Mueller report you were bleating on about a few months ago? 
 

Why was none of that included in the articles of impeachment? 

I posted that the Republican Senate does not believe abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.  That was the claim of Trump's defense team, and I've heard no Republican Senator dispute it.   https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/trump-defense-claims-abuse-of-power-not-impeachable-offense-78048325608

 

You can do your own research on why the House took the impeachment approach it did.  It's unlikely a thoroughly cowed Republican Senate under the direction of Moscow Mitch would have impeached under any circumstances.

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Nice diversion try. The resistance inside the party is manifesting. Trump will caused the party to shrink and damaged for years. Fortunately he only has 9 months of his presidency. Soon the madness will be over. 

While his approval rating (if you believe the polls) is higher than ever, and higher than Obama’s at the same point in his first term. 
 

How ‘bout that speech? 

LOL.  Trump's poll numbers keep increasing and he's filling stadiums.  But haven't we heard that line about Republicans abandoning Trump before?  And my God, what's he going to do when Trump is elected for another four years?  LOL

 

Excellent speech as always.

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Nice diversion try. The resistance inside the party is manifesting. Trump will caused the party to shrink and damaged for years. Fortunately he only has 9 months of his presidency. Soon the madness will be over. 

Completing the QUOTE of Lamar Alexander is not a diversion.  It's the summary of all that he said -- in his own words -- and was left out by you.  The diversion -- the intellectually dishonest quote was provided by you, since you chose to leave out the summary statement.

 

The rest of your post is more wishcasting.

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Why would you putting it in quotes now embarrass me? 
 

I’m not saying he didn’t say it,  I’m just saying I have no reason to believe anything in the press without seeing a transcript. 
 

Saying something is inappropriate is not the same as saying it’s criminal.

 

 

 

And that's why I added Alexander's summary.  The OP left out the crowning summary of Alexander's statement on Trump's actions.

 

Lamar Alexander:

"I think what he did is a long way from treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors."

Just now, Ricohoc said:

And that's why I added Alexander's summary.  The OP left out the crowning summary of Alexander's statement on Trump's actions.

 

Lamar Alexander:

"I think what he did is a long way from treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors."

Forward of it or backwards from it?

12 minutes ago, mogandave said:

While his approval rating (if you believe the polls) is higher than ever, and higher than Obama’s at the same point in his first term. 
 

How ‘bout that speech? 
 

 

Again nice try. His approval did spike up slightly after the impeachment scandal but still below the 50% rating. In simple words, majority still say he is doing a lousy job.  

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I posted that the Republican Senate does not believe abuse of power is not an impeachable offense.  That was the claim of Trump's defense team, and I've heard no Republican Senator dispute it.   https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/trump-defense-claims-abuse-of-power-not-impeachable-offense-78048325608

 

You can do your own research on why the House took the impeachment approach it did.  It's unlikely a thoroughly cowed Republican Senate under the direction of Moscow Mitch would have impeached under any circumstances.

Wow, analysis by NBC news, that’s impressive. Aren’t they one of the sources you were quoting when you were bleating on about collusion and obstruction of justice after the Mueller debacle? 
 

I think there are a lot of things the Senate would remove him from office for, but not for stuff fabricated by the left and promoted by their press. 

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Again nice try. His approval did spike up slightly after the impeachment scandal but still below the 50% rating. In simple words, majority still say he is doing a lousy job.  

Trump won the last election with an approval much lower than that.

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Again nice try. His approval did spike up slightly after the impeachment scandal but still below the 50% rating. In simple words, majority still say he is doing a lousy job.  

Perhaps, but still a smaller majority than thought Obama was doing a lousy job at the same point in his first term. 

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Oh it's a Republican talking point; Republicans have repeated it ad nauseam. 

 

Zelensky was under duress when, as a newly elected President, he needed the prestige of a White House meeting with the President of the US, and wasn't getting it.  He was also aware that the needed aid had not been received even if he didn't know that Trump had put a hold on it.

Wow!  You're really on top of things! 

 

Do I need to explain again why Zelensky was lying?  Happy to do it.

At the end of the day the record will show that Ukraine was at war with a much more powerful neighbor and Zelensky needed the aid of the US.  That required lying so as to not upset the hyper-sensitive Trump.

You lost the argument, heybruce.  Here's why:

 

Formal fallacies of arguments:  Appeal to probability:  A statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).

 

Appeal to probability is inductive reasoning:  Inductive reasoning is a method of reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying some evidence for the truth of the conclusion; this is in contrast to deductive reasoning. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument may be probable, based upon the evidence given.

 

Succinctly put: deduction is about certainty/necessity; induction is about probability. Any single assertion will answer to one of these two criteria.

 

Both of your premises 1) that Zelensky was under pressure and 2) he lied are fallacious arguments.

 

Continue to argue at the risk of your credibility.

13 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Again nice try. His approval did spike up slightly after the impeachment scandal but still below the 50% rating. In simple words, majority still say he is doing a lousy job.  

But better than Obama at this stage of his Presidency.  Which says what?