Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

[Ev1l0rd]

Hillary wrote her senior thesis, and largely agreed with him, but she doesn't "look up to him"? Is this really what you're claiming?

Secondly, "lol he was just trolling bro" isn't an argument. Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer & admired him. He further said he'd rather be in hell & would continue organizing people there.

Okay, so you didn't read the article. Gotcha.

Fine, I guess I'll cite your own source back at you.

For your claim on her looking up to him (implied):

But there's little evidence that Clinton was particularly close to the man. And indeed, her decision to write a thesis involving Alinsky wasn't her idea, her thesis adviser recently told The Washington Post.

For your claim on her agreeing with him:

He [Alan Schechter] said Clinton approached it pragmatically and not from a pro-Alinsky perspective. "The thesis was entirely pragmatic," Schechter said. "Its conclusions were extremely pragmatic -- 'This doesn't work,' 'that doesn't work,' 'this has the only hope of partial benefit.'"

Probably something stronger:

He recalled her telling him the following spring that Alinsky had offered her a job, but she had concluded, he said, that his method wouldn’t have a major impact on poverty and that it would lose its impact on the political leaders of the community.

She had come to see Alinsky as a well-meaning rabble-rouser, Schechter argued.

For your claim on "lol he was just trolling bro", let me back up the claim:

Alinsky was a self-described radical, and this is indeed a provocative statement. It also appears to be something of a one-off; while Alinsky's book is all about "Rules for Radicals," he does not go on to further discuss this particular radical — Lucifer — and the example he might provide for other radicals.

For the claim on "admiring him" and "he'd rather be in hell":

Alinsky did offer other provocative comments that have led to of accusations of sympathy for the devil, so to speak. In a 1972 Playboy interview, he said that while he identifies as Jewish, he would choose to go to Hell. "Hell would be heaven for me," because it was full of "have-nots," he said. "They're my kind of people."

This is literally "lol im trolling". You have to be dense not to get that.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

If you are making an argument/claim and want to be taken seriously by both sides then sources will only serve to assist. If you found information that is worth bringing here then why not. If the information is credible and corroborated then it will just make someone look foolish by attacking it.

Everyone knows Trump is Mr. Projectionist. I don't need to post any proof or sources for ANYone. Someone calls him racist, he Tweets that the other person is racist. Someone calls him mentally unstable, he comes out and says the other person is mentally unstable. Someone says corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. He comes back instantly with that person is corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. Just go to his Twitter account. There's your proof. From Trumps own mouth/fingers. Not mine. Having to provide some source of proof to anyone about this shouldn't have even been needed. But there ya go. There's plenty more, but let's just go with Trumps very own Twitter account for all the proof anyone needs.

Edit: Need a bit more? How about Mr. Fake News himself posting fake news? Or him whining about "anonymous sources", when he himself is CONSTANTLY using phrases like "People tell me" and "Everyone says" nearly every time he opens his mouth.

 

[Xzi]

Everyone knows Trump is Mr. Projectionist. I don't need to post any proof or sources for ANYone. Someone calls him racist, he Tweets that the other person is racist. Someone calls him mentally unstable, he comes out and says the other person is mentally unstable. Someone says corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. He comes back instantly with that person is corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. Just go to his Twitter account.

Probably not a surprise to anyone, but there's a whole subreddit dedicated to cataloging examples of this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrumpCriticizesTrump/

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michae...-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates-2019-11-04/

I'm currently 40/156 of McKinley and decided to post this her in case others are interested.

I'm not prioritizing Yovanovitch as I believe her testimony was leaked aggressively. I'll probably read her testimony tonight.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marie-...-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates-2019-11-04/

 

[chaosblade02]

They're only trying to impeach him because they know they can't beat him in an election. It's desperation. Trump is going to win in 2020, and I'm going to bathe in all the salt generated, just like I did back in 2016. We're going to see Trump totally unleashed if he gets re-elected. And I'm gonna love every second of it.

 

[Deleted User]

They're only trying to impeach him because they know they can't beat him in an election. It's desperation. Trump is going to win in 2020, and I'm going to bathe in all the salt generated, just like I did back in 2016. We're going to see Trump totally unleashed if he gets re-elected. And I'm gonna love every second of it.

Impeachment is done for cases of abuses of power. Using said power for your own self gain and not the interest of the country should be considered abuse of power. Which in this case, is 100% for self gain. There is no other beneficiary other than trump in this situation.

 

[notimp]

They're only trying to impeach him because they know they can't beat him in an election. It's desperation.

No, they do to him what he did to others in the last election. Just at professional scale.

Coward Donald. The corrupt president is so scared of Biden, he jeopardized the national security just to get some dirt on his opponent.

Its part of the public game. To win the next election.

Also - they cant impeach him, without the votes of the republicans. Cant. They need a 2/3s majority in senate. So they either try to convince republicans (which doesnt seem to be happening) or the public - just how much of a corrupt coward the currently acting president is (lets hold the next G7 summit in Mar-a-Largo!) - but they cant impeach without numbers.

Also no one forced Trump to be a corrupt coward. He managed that on his own.

Also if you have so much feels for that orange haired bloke, that you turn into a professional mourning women ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_mourning ), first get out of idol worshiping, second, try to understand what politics is (especially concerning the importance of public leadership figures), and then try not to get so attached to a face anymore. Third - with your powers of foresignt (they know they cant beat him, so they impeach him), have you ever thought about becoming a bad fortune teller? Because you have all the qualifications.

One party alone cant impeach the president, if they don't have a 2/3 majority, which in democracies never happens. Seems someone designed a system that makes sense there, no?

If a single party could impeach a president unilaterally, like you seem to believe - it would end presidencies all the time. Right? So you make sure, that this isnt how this works.

 

[Taleweaver]

One of the more recent curious developments now that republicans got their way (no more "hiding" in "secret rooms" where only some republicans were allowed and only democrats could chose to examine, cross-examine or even be present in hearings in the first place...there'll be open hearings coming pretty soon)...is that they don't have a defense.

No, this isn't some trash talk. It's coming right to it: it's the same childish behavior from the Mueller investigation, but more of it. At least in the Mueller case they pointed out that there was no direct evidence of a crime or that he didn't had his 500 page report completely memorized. I wouldn't call those points exactly fair, but at least it was a defense. Which you certainly could say about this sort of shenanigans.


...but thus far it seems it's all going to be that kind of stabs from now on. The tenor in the debates involving conversative news anchors seems to be in the lines of "okay, so he used his power to get his way. That's why he's the president.". Erm...how do you even respond to that? Trump certainly wasn't kidding when he said that he could shoot down someone in the middle of the street and get away with it: as long as these sorts of 'news anchors'(1) have his back on him when supporting crimes, he just might.

Then again...Trump's far less nice to them nowadays. The media machine cares about viewers foremost, and as such take great interest in what polls objectively say (as opposed to Trump, who only cares what popular polls about him say). Those public hearings could really seal the deal for him (or as Scaramucci recently stated: a ten to fifteen point shift in the polls and he's finished).


(1): okay, I'm using the term very loose here. As a non-American, it's pretty hard to distinguish news anchors from opinion makers, political influencers or just plain out nutcases the channel brings in (whenever I watch youtube-snippets of fox, I ca often only tell the anchor from the host by who talks the most...that's the anchor ).

They're only trying to impeach him because they know they can't beat him in an election. It's desperation. Trump is going to win in 2020, and I'm going to bathe in all the salt generated, just like I did back in 2016. We're going to see Trump totally unleashed if he gets re-elected. And I'm gonna love every second of it.

Nice going. Your first post in a year and a half, and you devote it to...posting this?


But ey...you just keep on believing that, kiddo. It's clear that facts won't convince you, so having faith might be a good substitute.

 

[notimp]

The 'shooting' comment was made to rectify that he was 'a men of the people'. It was symbolic - nothing more.

On the rest of it - legally, pressuring another country, in the interest of the nation, in the same way he did - isnt even illegal, it probably is something that happens frequently between 'not allies', although probably not at the highest level (potential deniability). So the act in itself isn't that problematic.

Whats problematic is the misuse of power. Because he didn't do it in the interest of the country, he did do it to an ally - and he did it to get a leg up in the next election.

And even that - isn't illegal, but its highly amoral. Which is why now a jury of his peers (senate members) will decide, if this offense was gruesome enough to 'hurt the reknown of your country'. And therefore is enough of an offense to remove the guy from his post, prematurely.

And even though it definitely is -- all of that is pretext, and it comes down to 'do republicans have someone with better chances to get elected in their backpocket'? And 'how much will this scandal hurt us for years to come, if we don't combat it with PR'?

And the sum of those questions likely comes down to - stick with Trump. And as long as they do - he will not get impeached.

But Dems know that, and push on impeachement anyhow, because it will do huge reputation damage to Trump personally. But thats fair game, because if it wouldnt, you couldnt campaign on those grounds ever, unless you were sure you had the numbers in senate. Which is stupid.

The thing to understand here is, that senate party candidates will vote party line on that question. They'll not make a moral judgement decision, like they'll swear they'll do. They - in numbers - will vote according to whats good for their careers.

But thats ok, because eveyone knows, and its also kind of how thats supposed to work.


So 'accusers' in that matter compete for public opinion in the next election, and for opinion on the republicans side, that they shift towards 'that guy is a liability for us'. And for that, you need campaigning. Thats the entire thing.

Because in the end, there isn't a judge that decides, but a few guys that will vote along their parties lines.


So everything is a little more 'conniving' than your three word explanation on FOX, but at the same time, also calculatedly so - on part of how that 'system' works.

On the negative side, if Dems could be proven to 'just be instigators' this would mean negative reputation damage to them. But they already have won that front, because Reps have already admitted, that the POTUS used the power of the american state for his own gains. Refused military aid to an ally - hurting americas stance at the world stage - just to get dirt on a political opponent.

Thats already out of question. Because the president himself has admitted doing that, in front of cameras.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

The 'shooting' comment was made to rectify that he was 'a men of the people'. It was symbolic - nothing more.

You'd think so, but my read of that comment is a completely different one. Namely in that it serves a multiple purposes:

• Republicans can use it to portray him as a 'man of the people' as you say.
• Neo-nazis, KKKers and the ilk read it as "this guy will stand for my ideals, he'll make it so that I can shoot a man in the streets"
• Non-Trump supporters have legitimate reason to be concerned over those kinds of comments because it's a classic dogwhistle (although a bad one, given how obvious it is).

I'm probably ascribing too much intelligence to Trump, it's much more likely that someone on his campaign team used the term at one point to refer to how gullible Trump voters are and he repeated it on the campaign (a lot of what Trump says is a lot like a literal parrot: It will repeat what you say without a real understanding of what you said.)

Whats problematic is the misuse of power. Because he didn't do it in the interest of the country, he did do it to an ally - and he did it to get a leg up in the next election.

And even that - isn't illegal, but its highly amoral. Which is why now a jury of his peers (senate members) will decide, if this offense was gruesome enough to 'hurt the reknown of your country'. And therefore is enough of an offense to remove the guy from his post, prematurely.

"isn't illegal, but its highly amoral"

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for-

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

source: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52 section:30121 edition:prelim)

And 'how much will this scandal hurt us for years to come, if we don't combat it with PR'?

Expecting much from Republicans in terms of smart diplomatic moves is... tenuous, but keep in mind that Trump has managed to turn several major allies, both diplomatically and military, against the US. (Europe has been trying to strengthen the EU since they can't rely on any support from the US anymore since Trump is such a massive wild card, and the Kurds situation is worthy for another thread but is a millitary example). I don't think it's infeasible to see Republicans use this as an attempt to legitimize getting rid of him in a way that still allows them to complain about the Democrats, purely because the current scandals they can't throw enough propaganda over to smooth it out.

--

I have no comment on the rest (you're probably somewhat right although some senate republicans are turning on the party line from what I have heard, whether it is enough to cause a change in the line is to be seen however.)

 

[morvoran]

Everyone knows Trump is Mr. Projectionist. I don't need to post any proof or sources for ANYone. Someone calls him racist, he Tweets that the other person is racist. Someone calls him mentally unstable, he comes out and says the other person is mentally unstable. Someone says corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. He comes back instantly with that person is corrupt, anti-American, traitor, etc. Just go to his Twitter account. There's your proof. From Trumps own mouth/fingers. Not mine. Having to provide some source of proof to anyone about this shouldn't have even been needed. But there ya go. There's plenty more, but let's just go with Trumps very own Twitter account for all the proof anyone needs.

Edit: Need a bit more? How about Mr. Fake News himself posting fake news? Or him whining about "anonymous sources", when he himself is CONSTANTLY using phrases like "People tell me" and "Everyone says" nearly every time he opens his mouth.

Trump just calls out the hypocrisy of those that have their heads so far up their asses that they can't see the truth of their own actions. They call Trump racist but want to push identity politics and separate the races and treat them as if they're not equal while convincing them that they're not. He calls out people calling him crazy when they are the insane ones that believe socialism is good, abortion is not murder, and crime should not be punished ( but think a president should be impeached for nothing but winning an election).
You say you don't need to provide sources for the things you say, but I believe you have no sources but your very own imagination which you can't share on here as you're the only one who can see the insane world that is in your mind.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/imp...-testimony-by-two-of-trumps-three-amigos.html

"Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, revised his original testimony in the House impeachment probe into President Donald Trump to add that he conveyed to a Ukrainian counterpart that Trump would not release nearly $400 million in foreign aid until the country agreed to launch specific investigations sought by Trump."

"Sondland says he recalls telling the Ukrainian that the country’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, would need to deliver a public statement in person announcing the launch of the investigations intended to benefit Trump politically."

I'm going to start reading through the transcript of Sondland's testimony to see if those revisions are present in the released document and, if they are present, how they were framed.

Under oath testimony saying the president desired a public statement of an investigation into a political adversary is really a kick in the teeth to the Trump defense team and a nail in the coffin of the President's beloved 'no quid pro quo' defense.

Goal post on the Republican side, please prepare to move once again. Our game must endure. Fall back to Mulvaney's defense "We do it all the time, get over it" or "It might be an abuse of power, but does not rise to the standard of impeachment". Ready, Set, Match!

 

[morvoran]

Nice going. Your first post in a year and a half, and you devote it to...posting this?


But ey...you just keep on believing that, kiddo. It's clear that facts won't convince you, so having faith might be a good substitute.

their first post has more substance and truth than most posts from any liberals sheep here the past months. At least they make conclusions from their own mind rather than going along with what their leaders tell them to think.

One of the more recent curious developments now that republicans got their way (no more "hiding" in "secret rooms" where only some republicans were allowed and only democrats could chose to examine, cross-examine or even be present in hearings in the first place...there'll be open hearings coming pretty soon)...is that they don't have a defense

the Republicans do have a defense. It's called the transcript of the phone call which proves Trump did not bring up any quid pro quo. If you want to see a quid pro quo, look up the video of quid pro Joe Biden forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company using American tax dollars. I'm sure you won't look it up as that would destroy your nonsense claims.
If you kept up with the recently released transcripts, you'd know that all these witnesses that said damaging things about Trump actually supported his claim that the call was completely innocent with no wrong doing. The Demonrats have been lying to you all while you just suck it all up.

Expecting much from Republicans in terms of smart diplomatic moves is... tenuous, but keep in mind that Trump has managed to turn several major allies, both diplomatically and military, against the US. (Europe has been trying to strengthen the EU since they can't rely on any support from the US anymore since Trump is such a massive wild card, and the Kurds situation is worthy for another thread but is a millitary example). I don't think it's infeasible to see Republicans use this as an attempt to legitimize getting rid of him in a way that still allows them to complain about the Democrats, purely because the current scandals they can't throw enough propaganda over to smooth it out.

Oh boy, I guess giving money to corrupt governments, paying terrorist supporting countries that hate us to not build nuclear weapons while providing them the funds to develop those weapons, and using tax dollars to persuade countries to do your nefarious wishes are examples of good diplomatic moves? The EU has done nothing but depend on the US to provide most (if not all) the assistance to the world while trying to fix their own issues and mistakes.
Where you are talking about the Republicans "trying to remove Trump themselves", this is only because he is draining the swamp and changing the status quo they're used to which you can agree that would make anybody against Trump. He has a lot more supporters than those against him, but I'm sure you wouldn't know that as you only get your news from MSDNC. 97% of Republicans support trump, but of course, the defectors go on CNN and attack Trump which means if you only watch liberals news, you'd think 100% of Republicans are against him.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Trump just calls out the hypocrisy of those that have their heads so far up their asses that they can't see the truth of their own actions.

No, he's just the so maniest rich billionaire claiming to be the savior of the average person whilst in reality screwing them over for his own gain (see: Any tax plan he's implemented overfavoring the rich whilst the poor barely see an increase.) The difference is that Trumps pretension is less convincing than a paper cutout. Trump might just be one of the few people to actually fail the damn Turing test.

They call Trump racist but want to push identity politics

I don't think you know what that word means in the way you're applying it. Calling Trump a racist for racist actions isn't incompatible with wanting to improve the social status of repressed minorities.

and separate the taxes and treat them as if they're not equal while convincing them that they're not.

"separate the taxes" what the fuck does that mean. You mean a progressive tax system? The United States already has that. Also, you probably don't know what it means if you think it's a bad thing. The progressive tax system means that if you have an income that is above a certain amount, you pay a larger percentage of taxes on the part that is over that amount (so let's say you earn 5.000$ -hypothetical values used for this example- each month. Over the first 1.000$ you'd pay a very low tax rate... let's say 5%. Then, the second block is 1.000$-3.000$ for which the tax is 10%. You'd only be paying the 10% tax for 2.000$ at most here. And finally let's say that 3.000$-7.000$ block is a block over which the tax is 30%. Again, you'd only be paying 30% over the 2.000$ that makes up this block here for that amount of money.

What is being advocated for is increasing the amount for the highest possible block in taxes (the only people who realistically go under this are billionaires like Jeff Bezos) to something bigger than it currently is. Which is a very sensible move.

He calls out people calling him crazy when they are the insane ones that believe socialism is good,

Because workers rights are bad? If you think the Democrats are socialists, I'm sorry but go read up on political ideologies. Bernie Sanders isn't even a socialist (his policies are that of a Social Democrat, which is different) and he's the most left wing candidate out there.

abortion is not murder,

It isn't, and even if you think it is, consider the situation from a pragmatic case: If you forbid abortion, more kids are going to grow up in abusive environments because their parents didn't want them. Do you want to bring more abused kids in the world? Because that's a partial result of what forbidding abortion would entail (and that's without digging into any scientific parts of it).

and crime should not be punished ( but think a president should be impeached for nothing but winning an election).

Crime should be punished, I think everyone on the political spectrum agrees on that. Also "a president should be impeached for nothing but winning an election". Do you... do you know what this impeachment is about? Because it sure as hell isn't the 2016 election. It's about a phone call Donald Trump (the President of the United States) made towards the Ukranian president (Ukraine is a foreign country), in which he asked the president to "do him a favor" which was coded language (coded language is you saying one thing but meaning another, see also any mobster movie) for witholding military aid (which was money for military purposes that Congress and the House both approved) unless the Ukranian president would start investigations into Joe Biden (a Democrat and effectively Trumps rival for the 2020 elections at the time the call was made) and his son Hunter Biden.

Several members of Trumps administration (the people in the White House) have produced evidence they knew this was illegal and at the time did everything they could to prevent this story from getting out (such as moving the recording of the phone call to a secure server so nobody investigating it could access it anymore unless it gets declassified which is a hassle).

I tried to keep this simple so you would understand it and explained stuff that might be hard to parse for you.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

the Republicans do have a defense. It's called the transcript of the phone call which proves Trump did not bring up any quid pro quo. If you want to see a quid pro quo, look up the video of quid pro Joe Biden forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company using American tax dollars. I'm sure you won't look it up as that would destroy your nonsense claims.

Penalty on the play, using Quid Pro Quo defense when it is no longer admissible. 10 yard penalty.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

the Republicans do have a defense. It's called the transcript of the phone call which proves Trump did not bring up any quid pro quo. If you want to see a quid pro quo, look up the video of quid pro Joe Biden forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor that was investigating his son's company using American tax dollars. I'm sure you won't look it up as that would destroy your nonsense claims.

Watch literally any mobster movie. Hell, watch the Godfather (and if you watched it already, rewatch it). If you don't think it's a quid pro quo, you need to get your facts straight. Trump has historically had ties to the mob and he sure as hell knows how to do a quid pro quo whilst providing a flimsy defense.

Oh boy, I guess giving money to corrupt governments, paying terrorist supporting countries that hate us to not build nuclear weapons while providing them the funds to develop those weapons, and using tax dollars to persuade countries to do your nefarious wishes are examples of good diplomatic moves? The EU has done nothing but depend on the US to provide most (if not all) the assistance to the world while trying to fix their own issues and mistakes.

You clearly don't understand how basic diplomacy works. Diplomacy means working together. It might not be something you're aware of, but the wars you've been fighting? We've been taking all the asylum seekers your wars cause. There's also the fact that we do help out each other by improving each others trade (this is a mutual thing) and are capable of standing as a united block against international foreign threats such as Russia (which keep in mind wants to destabilize the Western world).

Trumps actions and constant international gaffes are causing those things to be destabilized, which can seriously damage the US and the West on a larger scale.

Where you are talking about the Republicans "trying to remove Trump themselves", this is only because he is draining the swamp and changing the status quo they're used to which you can agree that would make anybody against Trump.

Trump isn't draining the swamp. Trump is the swamp. He fucking brought the swamp in the White House. Half his administration is grifters from corporations and the other half has no real opinion of their own but just likes the attention, which makes them just as much a part of "the swamp" (Trump manages to go in both of those categories).

He has a lot more supporters than those against him, but I'm sure you wouldn't know that as you only get your news from MSDNC. 97% of Republicans support trump, but of course, the defectors go on CNN and attack Trump which means if you only watch liberals news, you'd think 100% of Republicans are against him.

Oh, I'm not naieve. Trump is the Republican partyline right now. Of course the majority supports him. But uh... let me clue you in on something, pal: The political system isn't just Republicans. You don't need to have the majority of Republicans supporting him to keep him in office. You just need enough to not support him that their combined vote with the Democrats will cause him to be kicked out.

Also, I don't watch US news stations. I'm not an American. You could be forgiven though, I must imagine seeing that flag below my name that says I'm fucking DUTCH must be hard to see and you can also be forgiven since I think this is the second time I pointed this out to you so I can be sure information must get to your brain a bit slowly.

 

[morvoran]

Any tax plan he's implemented overfavoring the rich whilst the poor barely see an increase.

Wrong!! Maybe you should look up information yourself other then going along with Rachel Maddow and your own "feelings" about how things are going. Trumps tax plans have benefited everyone.

Trump might just be one of the few people to actually fail the damn Turing test.

Ok, if you say so. Trump's intelligence is actual intelligence, not artificial like liberals. Artificial intelligence is based on the information fed into a computer, just like the liberal media is feeding into the lefts' minds making them come up with the craziest of conclusions.

I don't think you know what that word means in the way you're applying it. Calling Trump a racist for racist actions isn't incompatible with wanting to improve the social status of repressed minorities.

Why call someone a racist when they haven't done anything racist? Oh, that's right, because your leaders said he is one, so you go "beep boop, Orange man bad. He's a racist".

"separate the taxes" what the fuck does that mean.

It should have read "separate the races". My phone's auto correct is messed up.

Because workers rights are bad? If you think the Democrats are socialists, I'm sorry but go read up on political ideologies. Bernie Sanders isn't even a socialist (his policies are that of a Social Democrat, which is different) and he's the most left wing candidate out there.

What does socialism have to do with worker's rights? The rights to work your ass off and then give most of it to the government to spend on themselves and other people that refuse to work? I don't think so.
Socialism is socialism no matter how many different words you put in front or behind it. If you take money from those who have to give to those who have not, for whatever reason, is socialism.

It isn't, and even if you think it is, consider the situation from a pragmatic case: If you forbid abortion, more kids are going to grow up in abusive environments because their parents didn't want them. Do you want to bring more abused kids in the world? Because that's a partial result of what forbidding abortion would entail (and that's without digging into any scientific parts of it).

If you have a human, even a potential human, and you end it's life without good cause, that is murder plain and simple. Funny, about the "unwanted kids" theory, I remember hearing about a certain Chinese emperor who thought the same about poor people. Maybe, we should just kill anybody who is a burden on society? There was a member on this site who was suspended for "promoting murder", do you want to be next? Shame on you.
Personally, I would rather people use protection during sex or abstain all together if they're not responsible enough to not get pregnant or to take care of their "little accidents" rather then resort to murder.

Crime should be punished, I think everyone on the political spectrum agrees on that.

Maybe, you should look into what's been going on in California with the whole "shoplifting" issues where groups of people are going on sprees to rob shop owners while they, and the police, are helpless to stop them because of the liberal laws making small crimes potentially legal. Also, AOC just recently promoted the idea that we get rid of jails. Where are we going to hold our criminals? In daycares?

Penalty on the play, using Quid Pro Quo defense when it is no longer admissible. 10 yard penalty.

Be sure to let Pelosi and Schiff know, unless they just decided in the past 30 minutes to move onto obstruction of Congress. Then I haven't been caught up yet.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Be sure to let Pelosi and Schiff know, unless they just decided in the past 30 minutes to move onto obstruction of Congress. Then I haven't been caught up yet.

I'm poking fun at the situation, but don't take the ribbing too seriously, as this is breaking news so it's not something everyone has digested. Sure leaks of testimony from Taylor and Morrison have alluded to this information but Sondland's released testimony corroborated it.

I found his (Sondland's) revision notes to his testimony, they are at the bottom of the released transcript.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

-snip-

I read my sources.

I know what I'm saying.

I don't appreciate your constant suggestion of where I lie politically because I'm pretty sure I never explicitly stated it, nor do I appreciate the assumption that I'm American.

You constantly rely on a series of Gish Gallops and quite frankly it's tiring to keep disproving them. You clearly seem to be out of touch with reality. You accuse me of parroting others, but can you examine yourself for a moment? Your entire arguments rely on easily disproven points, often simply by using Google or actually reading and going through to the original sources for the claims yourself.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Also, AOC just recently promoted the idea that we get rid of jails. Where are we going to hold our criminals? In daycares?

While this is offtopic:

EDIT for clarity: ___This Quote is from AOC___
"
I know the term “prison abolition” is breaking some people’s brains. The right is already freaking out. Yet the US incarcerates more than anywhere in the world. We have more than enough room to close many of our prisons and explore just alternatives to incarceration.

First of all, many people in jailed or in prison don’t belong there at all. Whether it’s punitive sentencing for marijuana possession or jailing people for their poverty & letting the rich free through systems like cash bail, we wrongly incarcerate far, far too many people.

Secondly, our prison & jail system is so large bc we use them as de facto mental hospitals, homeless shelters, & detox centers instead of *actually* investing in... mental health, housing, edu, & rehab. If we invested meaningfully, what do you think would happen to crime?

Lastly, people tend to say “what do you do with all the violent people?” as a defense for incarcerating millions. Our lawmaking process means we come to solutions together, & either way we should work to an end where our prison system is dramatically smaller than it is today.
"

I just thought that would help others who weren't sure what you were alluding when providing that snippet. If it is cheaper to rehab someone or provide adequate mental health resources rather than continuing to jail them for a non-violent drug offense then I'd like to do what is cheaper for my wallet as I do pay enough in taxes and, while I think it's my civic duty to pay for taxation since I get representation, would prefer my tax dollars to be used productively with evidence-based approaches when given the opportunity.

Ok, back on topic, Sondland's testimony is over 350+ pages. I'm not going to try to start that until later tonight. I'm curious if Volker's testimony had any pending revisions. I don't see any by looking at them. Just that there is a statement at the end that is redacted when discussing potentially sensitive information that was disclosed in an email chain discussed during the deposition.

EDIT: grammar fix
EDIT 2: For clarity the quote above is from AOC