Given the number of bans in the last 36 hours for which no explanation has been given, you probably shouldn't make that comment.

aggiehawg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Not at this point and IDGAF about the Bidens. This has been under the microscope for 5 years and it's nothing more than a fringe debunked conspiracy theory at this point.

Trump has always been a dumb, bumbling, corrupt, lying, cheating, thieving fraud.

---

By whom? The Prosecutor General, Lutsenko that Joe chose to replace Shokin?

---

Disproved by any relevant measure that isn't nutso fringe conspiracy irrational. The state department's role during Biden's tenure threatened Zlochevsky, if anything. Ambassador Pyatt openly called for investigations in to Zlochevsky, as did George Kent.

This is inconsistent with the narrative Biden(and the rest of the western world) were withholding billions to protect Zlochevsky to protect Burisma to protect the board to protect a 5-6 figure board membership for crimes predating either Biden's participation.

If Trump's actions were actually in the public interest they wouldn't have been denied, conducted in secrecy, then reversed once caught red-handed. He knew it was corrupt.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Not at this point and IDGAF about the Bidens. This has been under the microscope for 5 years and it's nothing more than a fringe debunked conspiracy theory at this point.

Trump has always been a dumb, bumbling, corrupt, lying, cheating, thieving fraud.

---

Nothing has been "debunked."

You would need an actual investigation to do so.

All we have are the Dems lackeys in the media running cover for the Bidens.

Give us an actual investigation. If it clears Biden of any wrong doing, so be it. Partisan shills screaming "debunked" isnt going to convince reasonable people.

Quote:

---

Disproved by any relevant measure that isn't nutso fringe conspiracy irrational.

---

Yeah, brah.

It's a nutso conspiracy theory to suggest a guy with zero qualifications got paid millions of dollars and his dad just happened to be in position to wield tremendous power to help said company.

There is a ton evidence that Burisma was, indeed corrupt. That's a fact.

Hunter Biden got paid millions to "work" for Burisma, even though he had zero qualifications. Fact.

Joe continues to tell bold face lies about his knowledge of his son working there. Fact.

Those are all undisputed facts.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Gary Johnson said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

Not at this point and IDGAF about the Bidens. This has been under the microscope for 5 years and it's nothing more than a fringe debunked conspiracy theory at this point.

Trump has always been a dumb, bumbling, corrupt, lying, cheating, thieving fraud.

---

By whom? The Prosecutor General, Lutsenko that Joe chose to replace Shokin?

---

Disproved by any relevant measure that isn't nutso fringe conspiracy irrational. The state department's role during Biden's tenure threatened Zlochevsky, if anything. Ambassador Pyatt openly called for investigations in to Zlochevsky, as did George Kent.

This is inconsistent with the narrative Biden(and the rest of the western world) were withholding billions to protect Zlochevsky to protect Burisma to protect the board to protect a 5-6 figure board membership for crimes predating either Biden's participation.

If Trump's actions were actually in the public interest they wouldn't have been denied, conducted in secrecy, then reversed once caught red-handed. He knew it was corrupt.

---

We now live in an alternate reality where investigating corruption is corruption. I guess the never ending Democrat led investigations into Trump for political gain don't count?

AgswKids - Trump is not a conservative. Disliking corruption can be a non ideological exercise.

Quote:

---

We now live in an alternate reality where investigating corruption is corruption. I guess the never ending Democrat led investigations into Trump for political gain don't count?

---

Forrestet - Read the allegation again. Trump wasn't trying to stop corruption, he was promoting corruption. Eastern European style sham prosecutions to harm political opponents. It was conducted in secret because they knew it was wrong.

Quote:

---

Read the allegation again. Trump wasn't trying to stop corruption, he was promoting corruption. Eastern European style sham prosecutions to harm political opponents. It was conducted in secret because they knew it was wrong.

---

Total BS, links and article please.

I have known that Ukraine was a center of corruption from the oligarchs even before the 2016 election.

The amount of money they have put into US politicians and burearcrats pockets is only surpassed by China and the Saudi, before Trump and MBS turned it inside out.

Grasserly sent a letter to the DOJ long before Zelensky won asking the DOJ to open and full on investigation into Ukrainian influence in the 2016 elections and any role they may have had in the creating of dossier. Ukrainian oligarchs are some of the largest donors to the Clinton foundations, pay to play.

You are just a TDS suffer that has gone over the top.

Quote:

---

Disliking corruption can be a non ideological exercise.

---

For some Americans, yes.

But for Trump supporters, that isn't the case. They've repeatedly made that clear for the past 3 years.

Gary Johnson said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

If Trump's actions were actually in the public interest they wouldn't have been denied, conducted in secrecy, then reversed once caught red-handed. He knew it was corrupt.

---

---

---

What are you even talking about? He released the transcript?

It wasn't "conducted in secret" anymore then every other diplomatic dealing by every administration in the history of ever.

What a stupid talking point.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

For the record, Met, I'm not a "Trump supporter."

I'm an anti socialist who thinks its unconscionable the lengths the Dems are willing to go to to undue an election and force their agenda down Americas throat.

Of course you don't care, because you approve of their agenda.

The lengths the "resistance" has gone through to undue the will of the people is awful and should piss off anyone who cares about this country and the rule of law. You are not one of those people.

---

Bo Darville said:

---

agsalaska said:

---

I asked this question last night and did't get an answer so I will ask again.




This is what I don't get. Let's say it's all true. And he did everything they said he did.

Why would I support the Democrats?

---

This is where I'm at.




And it's a point that Etcetera and other liberals avoid like the plague.

---

Third.

I give zero sh^ts what trump did or didn't do here. The alternative will destroy the country. QPQ away Mr. Trump.

blindey said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Wow the delusion by liberals is deepening.

---

I would just toss GJ onto your ignore list. Trump utterly broke that poster.

---

Done! I always wait a long time to make that decision, but I should have known when GJ didn't behave in a manner that he knew the definition of "libertarian".

Safe at Home said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gary Johnson said:

---

If Trump's actions were actually in the public interest they wouldn't have been denied, conducted in secrecy, then reversed once caught red-handed. He knew it was corrupt.

---

---

---

What are you even talking about? He released the transcript?

---

You would have a point if the July 25 call was the only communication the administration and Trump representatives had with Ukraine. It was not.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

It wasn't "conducted in secret" anymore then every other diplomatic dealing by every administration in the history of ever.

What a stupid talking point.

---

In secret through trusted back channels and loyal insiders. If this was above board it would be clearly communicated to the embassy. Instead they figured out Giuliani was running an end-around.

Gary Johnson said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

It wasn't "conducted in secret" anymore then every other diplomatic dealing by every administration in the history of ever.

What a stupid talking point.

---

In secret through trusted back channels and loyal insiders. If this was above board it would be clearly communicated to the embassy. Instead they figured out Giuliani was running an end-around.

---

Are you saying:

a) Guiliani was proposing policies that Trump DID want?
b) Guiliani was proposing policies that Trump DID NOT want?

I would call it a scheme not a policy. Giuliani along with Sondland, Mulvaney et al.

I meant an end-around Taylor, the embassy, or anyone not willing to go along

Been out of touch for 4 days. Scanned the 450 post and don't see anything much, did I miss something?

With whatever happened this week will Dems even have a house vote?

Only new news is two staffers testified they heard a call between Sondland and Trump.

Gary Johnson said:

---

I would call it a scheme not a policy. Giuliani along with Sondland, Mulvaney et al.

I meant an end-around Taylor, the embassy, or anyone not willing to go along

---

That didn't answer my question.

Was Guiliani doing what Trump WANTED or DID NOT WANT?

You mean was he acting on Trump's behalf or just going rogue?

Gary Johnson said:

---

You mean was he acting on Trump's behalf or just going rogue?

---

Jesus. It's a simple question.

Why are you having such a hard time answering it?

Gary Johnson said:

---

You mean was he acting on Trump's behalf or just going rogue?

---

Since you won't answer my VERY SIMPLE question, we'll just go with your deflection here (which is not exactly what I'm asking, but it's close enough).

Which of those do you think it was?

I'm not deflecting I'm seriously trying to understand your question. You're asking whether Giuliani was acting on Trump's behalf or acting on his own, correct?

Edit: * Giuliani

Quote:

---

In tandem with Congress.

---

Not even close, bud

Gary Johnson said:

---

Only new news is two staffers testified they heard a call between Sondland and Trump.

---

Have you read the leaks?

It's even more of a nothing burger then what we have already.

Sorry bud.

I am really into politics, and I'm having a difficult time following this whole thing. The democrats need to do a much better job selling their viewpoint.

Gary Johnson said:

---

I'm not deflecting I'm seriously trying to understand your question. You're asking whether Giuliani was acting on Trump's behalf or acting on his own, correct?

Edit: * Giuliani

---

I even agreed to use your restatement of my question up above and you still haven't answered it...

I know you're being seroious, but I so want to hear the drum go.....Ba dump dump---bang.
You're reply belonged on stage!

aggiehawg said:

---

CJS4715 said:

---

I am really into politics, and I'm having a difficult time following this whole thing. The democrats need to do a much better job selling their viewpoint.

---

First they have to figure out just what is their viewpoint. When the Dems have to use focus groups to decide their narrative, you know they are hopelessly lost.

---

Yes, and bribery sounded scariest.

1st it was "quid pro quo" but most didn't understand that plus the transcript eviscerated it, then it was "campaign finance fraud" but that gained no traction, then it was "obstruction" but it fail flat. So they went and had focus groups with their ignorant base and found that "bribery" was something they could comprehend, so bribery it is.

Now we have the mind numb, share blue "concerned moderates" screaming "bribery, bribery, bribery, no really it's bribery".

Thank God I'm a deplorable!