Skip to main content

The transfer of the data on this Ukraine call to a server usually reserved for top secret data is also a bit of a tell on how wrong the rumpster's staff knew this call to be.  I'm a little queasy on this, but I think that now that the Dems have opened this can of worms, they have no choice but to pursue it aggressively, thoroughly and honestly.  

If, 8 years from now we still have an orange bag of Crisco in a badly tailored suit as our chief executive, they will at least be able to look back and say, "We tried."  I just hope that the Dems are retaining top-notch legal advisers on this.  This is no time to let politicians handle the legal stuff.

PH

 I don't know of anyone who thinks asking Ukraine to go after Biden was appropriate.  Trump supporters say that this is not enough for impeachment. What bugs me, apart from the phone call itself, is that the President doesn't recognize that this was inappropriate. He says it was "a beautiful phone call."  That is, he doesn't think he was wrong (has he ever?) and thus, shows no remorse and, inferentially would do it again.  So, our national security remains at risk until this fellow is out of office, one way or the other.

 

 

irwin posted:

 I don't know of anyone who thinks asking Ukraine to go after Biden was appropriate.  Trump supporters say that this is not enough for impeachment. What bugs me, apart from the phone call itself, is that the President doesn't recognize that this was inappropriate. He says it was "a beautiful phone call."  That is, he doesn't think he was wrong (has he ever?) and thus, shows no remorse and, inferentially would do it again.  So, our national security remains at risk until this fellow is out of office, one way or the other.

 

 

He simply doesn't understand, or perhaps accept, or both, the limits on his authority.  Reminds me of when Nixon said if the President did it, it's not illegal.  We know how that ended up!

irwin posted:

 I don't know of anyone who thinks asking Ukraine to go after Biden was appropriate.  Trump supporters say that this is not enough for impeachment. What bugs me, apart from the phone call itself, is that the President doesn't recognize that this was inappropriate. He says it was "a beautiful phone call."  That is, he doesn't think he was wrong (has he ever?) and thus, shows no remorse and, inferentially would do it again.  So, our national security remains at risk until this fellow is out of office, one way or the other.

 

 

Exactly as I said before this whole nonsense began having litigated against him for years and deposed him multiple times.  All entirely predictable to anyone with half a brain

mikemann posted:

No hate for two days? Yer slippin 

No hate here, just awareness and incredulity.  Here's a quote from the late great Philip Roth, posted with love just for you!

"Trump is: ignorant of government, of history, of science, of philosophy, of art, incapable of expressing or recognizing subtlety or nuance, destitute of all decency, and wielding a vocabulary of 77 words that is better called Jerkish than English,"

PH

purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:
mikemann posted:

No hate for two days? Yer slippin 

No wine related posts or contributions? Right on track. Scrotelicker.

Pretty sure it's either scrote-licker or scrote licker.  Just one pedant's opinion.  

Funny, but I'm kind of with irwin on this.  I don't think it's Marc.

PH

Check out what's for dinner thread to remove any doubt. We've seen that "both excellent" style review several hundred times from him8C732DE9-8A6D-4D21-8084-5FC73E9391BF

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 8C732DE9-8A6D-4D21-8084-5FC73E9391BF
Last edited by bomba503
purplehaze posted:
mikemann posted:

No hate for two days? Yer slippin 

No hate here, just awareness and incredulity.  Here's a quote from the late great Philip Roth, posted with love just for you!

"Trump is: ignorant of government, of history, of science, of philosophy, of art, incapable of expressing or recognizing subtlety or nuance, destitute of all decency, and wielding a vocabulary of 77 words that is better called Jerkish than English,"

PH

Interestingly I have just begun reading all of Roth's books in order. Possibly the most important author of our lifetime. And oh yeah, a horrible person. But so were Frank Sinatra and Frank Lloyd Wright so what can you do?

As for Prince Myschkin's statement about hate--you'll got to be kidding me. You haven't been hearing hate here, just amazement of how corrupt and stupid the president and his sycophants are. Blackmail a foreign leader for dirt on your political opponents? That's OK? Or do you believe the lies and conspiracy theories his bootlickers and State Run television are feeding you?

And what if Obama did it? I guess you'd be applauding him right? Sure you would.

Last edited by The Old Man
bomba503 posted:
purplehaze posted:
billhike posted:
mikemann posted:

No hate for two days? Yer slippin 

No wine related posts or contributions? Right on track. Scrotelicker.

Pretty sure it's either scrote-licker or scrote licker.  Just one pedant's opinion.  

Funny, but I'm kind of with irwin on this.  I don't think it's Marc.

PH

Check out what's for dinner thread to remove any doubt. We've seen that "both excellent" style review several hundred times from him8C732DE9-8A6D-4D21-8084-5FC73E9391BF

Not saying you're wrong, bomba.  But did a search for "both excellent" going back 30 months, and only return came up with a post from him containing both words.  The context of the usage was not congruent with your assertion.  Post a link or two to support, if you'd be so kind.  Cheers.

PH

purplehaze posted:
mikemann posted:

No hate for two days? Yer slippin 

No hate here, just awareness and incredulity.  Here's a quote from the late great Philip Roth, posted with love just for you!

"Trump is: ignorant of government, of history, of science, of philosophy, of art, incapable of expressing or recognizing subtlety or nuance, destitute of all decency, and wielding a vocabulary of 77 words that is better called Jerkish than English,"

PH

I’m happy to say it - I fucking HATE 45.

bomba503 posted:

https://forums.winespectator.c...557#2863188075597557

Sentence structure and the way we write is very revealing. Nevermind that he went back to posting on the dining thread that was home to countless of his 40K plus posts

https://forums.winespectator.c...016#6387066436519016

 

Im sure I could find plenty more but think its pretty obvious

Interesting, but not probative.  Good pulls, regardless.  Thanks!

Ph

billhike posted:
 

I’m happy to say it - I fucking HATE 45.

I had a conversation about hate, more specifically using the word "hate,"  with my youngest daughter and my eldest granddaughter on the roof of their home in DC a few weeks back.  Don't get me wrong, it was a celebratory day with no hatred in the air, other than what might have been wafting from the big white house 7 blocks away from where we were.   Fortunately the wind was blowing to the east at the time...  

We were discussing the current political situation, and I mentioned to my girls that, as much as I was reluctant to use the word, that I truly hated 45.  Not only the things he had done, but what he was continuing to do to our nation.

I saw a flinch on the face of my granddaughter, and asked her what was up.  She said (paraphrasing here) "Mom says I shouldn't use that word unless I am prepared to explain such a strong feeling."  My daughter chimed in, and we all agreed that expressions of hatred should be very carefully doled out. We all agreed that in the case of 45, it was a reasonable emotion for those who cared about our fellow citizens, those who dreamed of becoming our citizens and the millions of people who have looked to the USA as an inspiration for free thought, good governance and the rule of law.  So, yeah...

I fucking hate him too.  

PH

 

billhike posted:

PH, you obviously did a great job raising your daughter, and based on the exchange described above she is passing that on.

Agree on use of the word, but I’m very comfortable with it in this situation. Some will lazily assume that means something about my political leanings or ideology. Oh well.

Agree on the first count. An A+ for parenting. 

Not sure re the second. It's not a word I use for anything but certain vegetables, winter, bugs, and wines under $20. 

First, I emailed Board-O and he said that he hasn't posted since around March due to his opinion that the boards are "dead" and due to a brouhaha with Rbt. Taylor.  He thought it was funny that someone thought he was posting under an alias to an alias.

And I can tell you that Board-O would  not eat curried goat with Shiraz and post about it.  Zero chance.

Not sure how many people are on the forums these days, or how many lurk. But it is not shocking that there are one or two or three, or maybe even more Trump supporters here.  We are a diverse country. There are people in our country who like NASCAR, and there are people who have never seen it. There are people who like ballet, and people who've never been.  I suppose there are people who like both NASCAR and ballet, and watch NASCAR on TV while listening to ballet music on their headphones.

In Maryland, the President has about a 24% approval rating, according to the most recent poll I saw.  That's pretty low, but it means, I think, that around 1 in 4 people like the guy.  I might question those folks, but they are entitled to their opinion. 

Me personally? I'm pretty much with PH on this, except I don't use the word "hate"..I'm with his daughter and grandchild on this.  I hate many of his policies.....I think running up the deficit to record amounts is terrible policy.  (As big of a jerk and criminal Bill Clinton was, he helped the US economy by enacting welfare reform and cutting the deficit substantially).  I think eliminating environmental regulation is a bad idea, particularly for people like PH's grandchild, who will have to live with the climate change consequences for many years to come more than I.  His embrace of N. Korea and Russia, together with his rejection of friendship with traditional allies is misguided and reflects little understanding of global politics.  The tariffs have been quite harmful to our economy.  Some taxpayers have benefited from the tax relief law, and now they are paying what they saved by virtue of that legislation in the form of higher consumer costs due to tariffs.  Thinking that imposing a tariff on foreign goods is going to make textile companies move to the US to make shirts again? Wharton should revoke his degree.  Let's get real.

Even many Republicans agree that it is not proper for a US President to reach out to foreign governments to get assistance to attack a political rival.  (Suppose they comply and it works? Do you owe the foreign government something in return?)  But the President fails to recognize that this should not have been done.  He has no remorse..  This means that he may do it again.

The next president will have a great deal of repair work to do.

The President has demonstrated that he is about as compassionate as a concrete cinder block. Every President since Kennedy had Casals over to the White House to perform has demonstrated an interest in art and music, save for the current President.  And, of course, Pres. Trump is the first President in awhile not to have a dog (unless you count Giuliani).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

purplehaze posted:

Also, his last post mentioning curry was over 7 years ago.  Somehow, based on my recollections of his taste in food and wine, goat curry and Shiraz aren't coming up as high-probability.  

PH

If he had said Ribeye and Salad, with one of his many well-aged Bordeaux, I would be more inclined to agree with Bomba. 

According to Trump, he had been withholding money to Ukraine because of concerns of corruption and inappropriate dealings within the Ukrainian government.  Anyone that has followed their actions would have to agree this is a concern.  It should be noted that the government did not know of the withholding of aid until a month after the conversation with the Ukrainian president.

During the phone conversation in question, Trump raised the issue of corruption and asked as a favor for the Ukrainian president to look into it, which he agreed to do.  After that, Trump then brought up the issue of Biden's son's involvement in Burisma and investigations into that company.  He noted that there had been reports about Hunter's involvement and Biden's withholding of $1B of aid to Ukraine unless a prosecutor was fired.  The Ukrainian president agreed to look into that also.

The US has an agreement with Ukraine regarding the provision of information regarding investigations of wrongdoing by citizens of each country.  If Ukraine has information of wrongdoing by a US official, they are obligated to provide that to the US.  The prosecutor that was fired by Ukraine has signed an affidavit that he was fired because he was looking into the issue of Hunter's involvement with Burisma.

One must agree that Hunter's being hired by Burisma looks very suspicious. I contend he was hired because his last name was Biden and they expected benefits from that. On top of that having Joe Biden withholding aid if a prosecutor involved in investigating Burisma makes things appear suspicious.  That Trump requested the Ukrainian president look into the matter is not illegal.

I do agree that Trump asking the President of Ukraine to look into this matter is not wise and is inappropriate due to Biden running for President.  But this does not raise to the level that should require impeachment proceedings.  That the Democrats have continually mischaracterized the conversation and actions taken regarding the conversation shows that they feel the situation for impeachment is weak.  Adam Schiff rephrasing the conversation during a hearing to make it sound much worse than it was  is deceitful and disgusting.

An impeachment of a president is very serious and can be very damaging to the country.  It should involve something much more than what Trump requested of the Ukrainian president.  If Pelosi is really serious about having an impeachment investigation on Trump, then she should have a house vote on it.  That is what has been done historically and should be done now.  By not having a vote, it appears that she is using this investigation in order to damage Trump politically without putting her own party on the line by committing to a vote.

 

As a note, I avoid having political conversations on boards and Facebook as I have friends on both sides of the aisle and I don't want to create issues with them.  There are too many political postings as it is on social media.  I do not mind having one to one conversations regarding politics if I feel that it can be a civil conversation.  As I was asked politely on my views on this current topic, I provided some thoughts.  Generally, I do not comment much on this thread as it seems pointless as most of the posts are rants and not discussions.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×