US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[CountValentine]

This article reinforces my expectation that this "bombshell" will turn out to be fake news (as have countless others in the past few years). My guess is that Bolton wrote something that can be interpreted/misread the way it's being reported, but full context will show that is not what it meant.

That would be a good move. Give them Bolton but no one else.

[good sam]

Where have I heard these words before
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-reelection-is-risk-for-markets-economist-220530643.html

[whYME]

If you didn't get the first 100 times the next 100 times won't help.

Ok, I'm gonna give this one more shot.

Since you refuse to spell it out, (this was the closest you've come

Are you joking? I have said over and over he abused his power by withholding aid/meetings in return for dirt on a political opponent.

) I'll spell it out for you and you tell me if I got it right.

You're saying that the honest case for impeachment is that Trump committed an impeachable abuse of power by withholding aid and/or meetings unless Ukraine would (dig up? make up?) political dirt on his rival, Joe Biden.

Did I get it right?

[dealfinder11]

betting odds on who wins the nomination tell a pretty interesting story

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/democratic_2020_nomination/

[Luvisrael]

Anyone going to the NJ rally tomorrow?

[ExGingi]

I haven't been following the circus, but happened to spend some time in the car when Dershowitz was up. Very impressive! I wonder how many impartial Ds we have in the senate who will be convinced by his well articulated arguments to vote against the articles of impeachment.

[CountValentine]

I haven't been following the circus, but happened to spend some time in the car when Dershowitz was up. Very impressive! I wonder how many impartial Ds we have in the senate who will be convinced by his well articulated arguments to vote against the articles of impeachment.

He did a good job but flipped flopped on crime/no crime needed and lost credibility.
Many legal scholars disagree with him. If they wanted to use him as a legal expert he should have been called as a witness. Open arguments gives his views as much weight as all the others.

[whYME]

Ok, I'm gonna give this one more shot.

Since you refuse to spell it out, (this was the closest you've come ) I'll spell it out for you and you tell me if I got it right.

You're saying that the honest case for impeachment is that Trump committed an impeachable abuse of power by withholding aid and/or meetings unless Ukraine would (dig up? make up?) political dirt on his rival, Joe Biden.

Did I get it right?

Is that a pin I hear dropping?

[CountValentine]

Is that a pin I hear dropping?

More like 100+ pins. 

For the record and I said it 100+ times, you finally are now understating the other side.

[CountValentine]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-poll-idUSKBN1ZL33O

About 72% agreed that the trial “should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify,” including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. And 70% of the public, including 80% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans, said senators should “act as impartial jurors” during the trial.

[whYME]

For the record and I said it 100+ times, you finally are now understating the other side.

1. For the record, you haven't said it once since I've been in the thread.

2. So does this mean you do agree that

You're saying that the honest case for impeachment is that Trump committed an impeachable abuse of power by withholding aid and/or meetings unless Ukraine would (dig up? make up?) political dirt on his rival, Joe Biden.

?

[CountValentine]

1. For the record, you haven't said it once since I've been in the thread.

Are you joking? I have said over and over he abused his power by withholding aid/meetings in return for dirt on a political opponent.

[whYME]

That's once, not 100 times. But regardless, that was a vague statement and I asked you to confirm that the specifics as I laid them out is what you meant and you keep refusing to commit.

So once again, are you saying that you do agree that

the honest case for impeachment is that Trump committed an impeachable abuse of power by withholding aid and/or meetings unless Ukraine would (dig up? make up?) political dirt on his rival, Joe Biden.

?

[CountValentine]

That's once, not 100 times.

You claimed I never said it. That was the first one I found going back a couple pages. If you want I can go back more pages and find the same thing over and over. I don't know what game you are playing but I am done.

You know understand the honest argument from the other side.

I want a fair trial which can't happen without relevant witnesses. R's, D's, I's and the whole country understands that. Do you understand that?

[CountValentine]

Fox News poll finds independents want the Senate to convict and remove Trump by 19-point margin

[Toasted]

Fox News poll finds independents want the Senate to convict and remove Trump by 19-point margin

Still have the 12 pt and bold on from the Kobe thread?

[Jellybelly]

Still have the 12 pt and bold on from the Kobe thread?

No i think he just learned a new trick

[whYME]

I don't know what game you are playing

The "game" I'm playing is trying to get you to confirm that the specifics as I said them is what you meant with your vague, general statement.

If you want I can go back more pages and find the same thing over and over.

if you go back more you'll find it only gets more vague. For example this is the first time you mentioned  "withholding aid/meetings" rather than the generic "abuse of power"

I want a fair trial which can't happen without relevant witnesses. R's, D's, I's and the whole country understands that. Do you understand that?

That's a totally different discussion, it's completely irrelevant here.

[CountValentine]

if you go back more you'll find it only gets more vague. For example this is the first time you mentioned  "withholding aid/meetings" rather than the generic "abuse of power"

You said you understand the other side so what is the issue? Anyone that doesn't understand my position by now never will because they don't want to.

Something is very telling here. Members here love to jump on me every chance they get and come to their fellow Jews defense. They are not doing it this time. That's because I answered your question 100+ times and you lost your mine. Now face the facts and move on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[yossig]

You said you understand the other side so what is the issue? Anyone that doesn't understand my position by now never will because they don't want to.

Something is very telling here. Members here love to jump on me every chance they get and come to their fellow Jews defense. They are not doing it this time. That's because I answered your question 100+ times and you lost your mine. Now face the facts and move on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he asked a simple yes or no question,
What’s the big deal to answer?