Trump-Ukraine Imbroglio: Who Is That Whistleblower? - Page 30 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics and Society

Trump-Ukraine Imbroglio: Who Is That Whistleblower?

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 30 of 171

First

10 20 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 40 50 80 130

Last

Page 30 of 171

First

10 20 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 40 50 80 130

Last

09-28-2019 , 01:56 PM

#726

Rococo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 20,873

Person A: This chocolate ice cream tastes delicious.
Person B: This chocolate ice cream tastes terrible.
Luckbox: Neither of you should be confident that you are eating chocolate ice cream.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 01:57 PM

#727

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 62,452

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

Person A: This chocolate ice cream tastes delicious.
Person B: This chocolate ice cream tastes terrible.
Luckbox: Neither of you should be confident that you are eating chocolate ice cream.

Well this has got to be a strawman. Are person A and person B billionaire media and government who are always lying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

Forget about whether the transcript is rough or perfectly accurate. Did the call occur at all? And if you believe it did, why are you so confident?

Why is this important Rococo? I've said 1) it isn't important and 2) I have no idea.
How much are you bothered by the fact that the you have zero clue how accurate the transcript is?

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 09-28-2019 at 02:02 PM.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 01:58 PM

#728

Regret$

burnt out

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 12,124

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:03 PM

#729

Rococo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 20,873

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

Well this has got to be a strawman.

Why is this important Rococo? I've said 1) it isn't important and 2) I have no idea.

I assume it informs your opinion about whether Trump should be impeached. Surely you don't want the president to be impeached on the basis of a conversation that very well may not have occurred. That would be a bad precedent.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:05 PM

#730

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 62,452

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

Trump can be impeached for a wide variety of reasons as everyone knows.
If the conversation did occur he's a traitor and if it didn't occur he's a hoaxster. Either way it isn't good.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:10 PM

#731

Rococo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 20,873

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

How much are you bothered by the fact that the you have zero clue how accurate the transcript is?

Given that it was released by the Trump administration, I think we can all be confident that an actual transcript could only have made Trump look worse.

Put another way, Trump didn't release a transcript that included a bunch of stuff that was much more damaging than what he actually said.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:12 PM

#732

Rococo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 20,873

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

Trump can be impeached for a wide variety of reasons as everyone knows.
If the conversation did occur he's a traitor and if it didn't occur he's a hoaxster. Either way it isn't good.

Still not a good look to impeach a president on the wrong ground, right?

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:15 PM

#733

maulaga58

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,048

Does Trump lose executive privilege if impeached?

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:18 PM

#734

Rococo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 20,873

Quote:

Originally Posted by maulaga58

Does Trump lose executive privilege if impeached?

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:20 PM

#735

maulaga58

veteran

Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 2,048

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

Watching MSNBC it said the precedent in US versus Nixon he would.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:22 PM

#736

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 62,452

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

Still not a good look to impeach a president on the wrong ground, right?

This sort of politics doesn't concern me. I would impeach them all and keep on going then rewrite the constitution if I had my say. "Looks" are silly.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:27 PM

#737

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 62,452

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rococo

Yeah probably stuff like "ok in a couple of months this story is going to break. All I need you to do is back my official position that that you weren't pressured and confirm our transcript. Have a nice day and we'll see about those F-35s".

Quote

09-28-2019 , 02:35 PM

#738

PairTheBoard

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 10,144

If Trump is impeached and removed from office, can he still run for President in 2020?

PairTheBoard

Quote

09-28-2019 , 03:19 PM

#739

beastalamode

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 321

Oh ok so money to burn is saying that the form switch doesn't change anything. Then why did the change come last month AFTER Trumps conversation with the Ukrainian president? That's very suspicious and pardon me if I don't believe one of the mouthfrothers on the left.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 03:22 PM

#740

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 62,452

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastalamode

M2B nailed it. It's a red-herring.
It's Oswald in Mexico and Mohammed Atta's passport.
It's suspicious for sure but it's supposed to be suspicious because that is the point and what makes it a red-herring.

Last edited by Luckbox Inc; 09-28-2019 at 03:49 PM.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 03:36 PM

#741

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastalamode

I quoted the actual law.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 03:54 PM

#742

markksman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,909

Quote:

Originally Posted by PairTheBoard

If Trump is impeached and removed from office, can he still run for President in 2020?

PairTheBoard

If the senate convicted they could hold a second, simple majority, vote to ban him from holding public office.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 03:55 PM

#743

markksman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,909

Lol 2nd hand knowledge hearsay nonsense. Clinton got impeached based on second hand knowledge.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 04:04 PM

#744

Slighted

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 17,540

an admission by a party(trump) is not hearsay.

also- this isnt a court case, so there is no such thing as hearsay.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 04:31 PM

#745

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slighted

an admission by a party(trump) is not hearsay.

also- this isnt a court case, so there is no such thing as hearsay.

Even if it was a court case, you can file a complaint based on hearsay, the discovery process is used to figure out what evidence is out there to substantiate your claims. The whole thing is absurd. The fact that the Federalist allowed that article to be published is beyond egregious.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 04:34 PM

#746

Rococo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 20,873

Quote:

Originally Posted by maulaga58

Watching MSNBC it said the precedent in US versus Nixon he would.

That might be true with respect to the grounds for the impeachment, like the crime-fraud exception.

I can't imagine that he loses the benefit of it entirely. I may have misunderstood your question.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 04:38 PM

#747

Willd

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 16,475

Quote:

Originally Posted by beastalamode

There's no evidence that that part was changed after the conversation, only that it was changed at some point after May 2018. There's only evidence that there was some revision made in August this year but no indication that that revision was the change that removed the paragraph mentioned in the federalist article.

The whole form has apparently had a major layout change (including changing the name of the form) in the time since May 2018 so the insinuation that there was a secret change made specifically to remove that one section is quite a reach.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 05:26 PM

#748

Max Cut

Guest

Posts: n/a

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc

I didn't realize I had been asked a question.
But technically speaking the left is opposed to power and the right supports it. You can't really be so-called right but you can be so-called left. And I'll always stick up for Jsmith. Sure he's a "reactionary" but I sincerely believe he means well so perhaps so-called right is appropriate afterall in some cases.

His posting does not support your feeling that he means well. He trolls politics regularly. If he means well he could read more and post like an adult.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 05:49 PM

#749

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willd

Man, it’s not a reach, it’s a flat out lie. Federal forms don’t get changed in secret. What does that even mean? The form is publicly available, how is it a secret? Plus, there are procedures that govern how how substantive changes can be made to federal rules. Agencies can’t just make substantive changes to federal procedure in secret, if they try to, you can usually invalidate the change. It’s nonsense and reprehensible for the Federalist to allow **** like that to be published.

Quote

09-28-2019 , 06:14 PM

#750

Luckbox Inc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 62,452

Wait...I thought the only thing that the Federalist got wrong was arguing that it was prohibited* to submit a whistleblower claim without first hand knowledge?
What else was there?
*more or less..I don't think they used that word ever.

Quote

Page 30 of 171

First

10 20 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 40 50 80 130

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 30 of 171

First

10 20 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 40 50 80 130

Last