|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Sondland testimony /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1574265966 Message started by Serowbot on 11/20/19 at 08:06:06 |
|
Title: Sondland testimony Post by Serowbot on 11/20/19 at 08:06:06 Sondland seems to be making it very clear, that Trump was only interested in a public announcement of investigation rather than any actual investigation. It is then very clear that Trump was after dirt on Biden, not any routing of corruption... He's also making it clear that there was a Quid pro quo... ...for both a WH meeting and the military aid. Repub's only option is to say he's lying. A billionaire Trump doner, appointed by Trump. He's a "Never Trumper"... |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 09:04:03 Direct quote from this morning: Sondland: "I've never heard from President Trump that the aid was conditioned on the investigations." |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 09:16:50 Fron Sondland, he asked Trump a direct question. "What do you want from Ukraine?" He said Trump had a very short, abrupt answer. Trump's response direct from Sondland: "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelinsky to do the right thing" |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 09:26:00 I am listening to this now and Sondand is repeatedly saying I think I perceive this is what I understood the message to be etc. etc. When asked directly was he told a quid pro quo was in place, his answer is no. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 09:34:27 Exact quote from Sundland five seconds ago, “that was the problem Mr. Goldman, no one told me the aid was tied directly to anything, I was presuming it was |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 09:42:18 Ambassador Taylor from a text message to Sondland: “as I said on the phone I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” Sondland’s response: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intention. The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quos of any kind. The president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zalensky promised during his campaign.” I have not watched Taylor’s testimony so I don’t know where he got the idea that security assistance was being with held for help with a political campaign. My belief is he inferred that after the fact. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 10:01:12 I wonder if this is how those around Jeffrey Epstein justified their enabling his crimes? "I didn't know he was raping children- we just held the door open and turned the key. Those screams could have been anything." |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 10:04:06 Sondland seems like a decent and honest guy but the Republican counsel is making excellent points about the gaps in his testimony. And Sunland has no choice but to agree. It’s a friendly exchange. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by T And T Garage on 11/20/19 at 10:05:02 Context is key. trump is guilty. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 10:14:31 I wasn't talking about Sondland, Mark. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 10:14:45 Context confirms he is not. As the Republican council is pointing out to Sundland who has agreed with it, one of trumps primary believes is foreign aid to corrupt nations is intolerable. Sondland testified that as an ambassador he was fully aware of this. Ukraine is a corrupt nation and Hunter Biden was involved with one of the more well known corrupt companies already under investigation. If you remember, the ambassador who was fired, in her Senate testimony preparation was asked how she would respond if a reporter or senator asked her about Hunter Biden’s involvement in the corrupt company. That’s context. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 10:19:20 "He said she tripped and fell down the stairs- case closed." -Mark |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by T And T Garage on 11/20/19 at 10:32:40 754740515647506F435049220 wrote:
Go ahead and try and mix the word salad to your liking. At the end of the day, all evidence, testimony, witnesses point to trump withholding aid in order to smear the Bidens. Case closed. Articles of impeachment will be drawn up. If pompeo leaves trump's side - game over. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 11:11:53 At the end of the day, all evidence, testimony, witnesses point to trump withholding aid in order to smear the Bidens. No, it does not. All evidence? All testimony? I’ve given you exact quotes from witnesses today that clearly call that into question. Absolutely no one has testified Trump looked them in the eye, sent them a message etc and said “withhold the aid until I have dirt on Joe Biden.” In fact, I’ve given you exact quotes where Trump said the exact opposite of that. How can you say all evidence, all witnesses point to a fact that none of the witnesses have testified to directly? |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 11:13:37 "I mean, he said 'I wish she was dead'- but it wasn't an order -that's just the way he talks." -Mark |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by T And T Garage on 11/20/19 at 11:14:35 615354454253447B57445D360 wrote:
Nope, trump probably never said that verbatim. But anyone - and I mean anyone can see that's exactly what he wanted and that was his intent. If anyone believes that he wasn't - they are either willfully ignorant or just plain stupid. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by raydawg on 11/20/19 at 11:23:49 Read it again....... “We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani,” Sondland said, explaining he believed State Department officials should take the responsibility for Ukraine matters. “Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the president’s orders.” So lets understand this better, he still thought this was a : “We would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the president’s orders.” Again..... A quid pro quo, or any other forms of "pressuring" the Ukraine, is NOT a good OPPORTUNITY, to cement a relationship....... You can't say it any other way.... |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 11:29:45 74677F62677161060 wrote:
“I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo? With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.” -Gordon Sondland, United States ambassador to the European Union, today Predicating understanding on Trump's actions being in service to US National interest is nonsensical, given all that is known. As reported by those serving under Trump, he doesn't care about Ukraine. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Serowbot on 11/20/19 at 12:22:01 Funny how you can see Hillary's private server as the worst thing ever,... ...when Trump is calling Sondland from an unsecured phone... to an unsecured phone in a public restaurant in the Ukraine, where Russians own the cell companies and are certain to be listening in... and discussing criminal extortion, and then the three stooges are chatting about it on What's App... It's like a joke... It's like a story on the Onion... |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 12:38:09 594F58455D48455E2A0 wrote:
That strikes me as an incomplete list. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Serowbot on 11/20/19 at 12:54:47 505C4B545A525A48533D0 wrote:
That strikes me as an incomplete list.[/quote] Well,.. yeah... they own Trump... ;D They probably own the restaurant where Sondland's phone was blaring out Trump's big mouth to everyone near the table. ...and tonight, Trump will probably get another "Lock her up!" chant going at another rally... While the Russians and the Chinese and N Koreans listen in through the unsecured i-phone in his pocket. The only thing in the WH that is secure the actual full transcript of his Ukraine call... |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 12:57:18 4650475A42575A41350 wrote:
What does that have to do with anything? If Trump wanted a quid pro quo, Sondland would have been a key if not the key person to land the deal yet when Sondland asked Trump said “I want nothing, no quid pro quo....” |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 13:08:07 Regardless, the weak case with zero direct evidence will never convince enough Senators to remove a sitting President for the very first time. This is another version of the Democrat’s desperate attempt to overturn an election. As unpatriotic a move as imaginable. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 13:08:26 "When you say you want me to lube the rail and spread marbles on the stairs, give her a good push- are you saying... are you saying you want me to kill her? Please, lean in close and say it clearly into the microphone so Mark can understand exactly what's going on- he likes to 'play' dumb." --- Impeachment is designed to remove a duly elected President from office- it's why the founders contrived it in the first place. At least Mark understands something- but certainly not patriotism: Mark hopes his support of Trump will lead to a war in which his ilk reign supreme. Mark, the anti-Republic, anti-democratic recreant. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Serowbot on 11/20/19 at 14:00:30 437176676071665975667F140 wrote:
I don't really want Trump out,... Pence might stand a chance in the election. I just want the fact that he's a lyin' cheatin' scumbag fool to come out. Every day,... more people are realizing it. This whole election turns a few percent. Trump ain't helping himself. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by eau de sauvage on 11/20/19 at 14:08:34 6D5F58494E5F48775B48513A0 wrote:
what was said was 'withhold the aid until the investigations are announced publicly by Zelenskiy' |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by eau de sauvage on 11/20/19 at 14:12:27 The amusing irony of WM claiming that Sonderland is making assumptions, is that the WH is preventing Sonderland from being any more clear than he has been by not allowing Sonderland access to his own emails or memos, and this then becomes the classic definition of 'obstructions of justice'. Which will surely be one of the articles of impeachment. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 14:53:00 6E786F726A7F72691D0 wrote:
I don't really want Trump out,... Pence might stand a chance in the election. I just want the fact that he's a lyin' cheatin' scumbag fool to come out. Every day,... more people are realizing it. This whole election turns a few percent. Trump ain't helping himself. [/quote] Oh Sew..... you cannot be serious. Pence is practically a guaranteed loss against virtually anyone. Many of the people in those 5 or so key states who swung the election to Trump are not going to get excited about Pence. Never. Seriously, if you can't see that, if TDS were alcohol, you'd blow 3 times the legal limit! Trump right now wins against virtually anyone. I just want the fact that he's a lyin' cheatin' scumbag fool to come out. Every day,... more people are realizing it. 1) Every presidential candidate fits that description, it's just a matter of degrees. 2) Everyone knew that about Trump in 2016 and he still beat Hilary and he'll likely beat Warren, Biden, Sanders, etc.... by a greater margin. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 14:55:54 2E3C282B3C3A385D0 wrote:
what was said was 'withhold the aid until the investigations are announced publicly by Zelenskiy'[/quote] Who heard Trump say that? |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 15:16:12 1F2D2A3B3C2D3A05293A23480 wrote:
As though you care. Back in April of 2016, Mark wrote: "I'm torn between demanding an all out culture war and continuing this 'media war' so as to preserve 'the Union'." Since then, Mark resolved against preservation of the Union, writing: "I ultimately decided on Trump because I wanted to go ahead and pull the curtain back; to start a culture war. And that's what we have. Wars force people to do things they would never do otherwise. So that's what we see now." Mark sees himself as a culture warrior- he's not interested in truth, or any other civil order. Mark is at war- lying is just another weapon in his tool kit; he can't be a regarded as a good-faith participant in any discussion. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by eau de sauvage on 11/20/19 at 15:29:13 @WM, Who heard Trump say that? Basically everyone heard Rudy G say it explicitly, and Trump then appointed RG to say what Trump wanted. This Lawfare post cuts through all the bullshit for you if you're interested... https://www.lawfareblog.com/gordon-sondland-accuses-president-bribery What you see Trump doing is like a typical mob boss he insulates himself and that is the role that Guiliani played. Instead of Trump saying the words directly to Sonderland, he tells Sonderland that Guiliani will tell him what is needed. In other words, behind the exchange with Schiff is a specific claim that Trump personally directed Sondland to Giuliani, who then made substantive demands on Trump’s behalf for the investigations he wanted. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 15:39:33 OK so nobody heard Trump say it. Nobody read where Trump typed it. This sounds familiar . I seem to recall Adam shift swearing he had irrefutable evidence Russian collusion which of course he was lying through his teeth and he didn’t. So why would I believe all of these people saying this is what Trump instructed them to do through some secret handshake apparently....? |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by thumperclone on 11/20/19 at 15:40:57 rudi is going to be the fall guy to save the don weeks ago rudi said he would be the hero in all this very unlikely the senate will do much they're too scared |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/20/19 at 15:46:01 Scared of what? |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 15:50:25 586A6D7C7B6A7D426E7D640F0 wrote:
No one expects or cares what you believe. A while back, a more restrained voice than mine suggest it didn't matter if you were stupid, insane, or just evil- engaging your inanity made no sense. I don't need to determine which is the case- as testified to by yourself and quoted above, your goal, Mark, is the fall of the Republic. Resolving what is best for our Union is none of your concern- we'd be just as ill advised to listen to what Putin thinks. Or Trump. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by eau de sauvage on 11/20/19 at 17:26:56 your goal, Mark, is the fall of the Republic. This. You know there is an amusing irony in that WM, Mn and JoG like to disparage me being Australian as we are not yet a Republic, however the Queen has no jurisdiction over Australia and the House of Lords has long ceased to be the ultimate legal arbiter. Yet, WM appears to desire that Trump assume the privileges of a Monarch, with ultimate power to do whatever the fcuk he wants, which is not, as they say, 'what the Founding Fathers intended'. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by eau de sauvage on 11/20/19 at 19:47:08 @Serowbot ... to an unsecured phone in a public restaurant in the Ukraine, where Russians own the cell companies and are certain to be listening in... Imagine if none of this came out then the Russians would certainly have a tape recording of this conversation which they could use to further blackmail Trump. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/20/19 at 19:56:04 Sondland destroyed you lefties https://pjmedia.com/trending/amb-sondland-admits-he-has-no-evidence-trump-tied-ukraine-military-aid-to-investigations-other-than-his-own-presumption/ https://pjmedia.com/trending/amb-sondland-admits-he-has-no-evidence-trump-tied-ukraine-military-aid-to-investigations-other-than-his-own-presumption/ |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by raydawg on 11/20/19 at 20:31:13 I don't think anything changed, not in this forum, or with any swing/undecided voters Jog... If you look at the ratings, of who even watches, I think the WEATHER CHANNEL gets more viewers. Me thinks the libs got pulled into this by their left flank, knowing it was not going to bear fruit, but they had to silence those radical influences, as they were very disruptive. When you have to trot out President Obama to "shush them up" with his gentle chiding, you know sumtins up with their internals.... And even Bernie, the ring leader to many of these vocal dissidents, made reference tonight that we (they, the party) will LOSE TO TRUMP, AGAIN.... if all they do is focus on Trump..... :o DUDE....you were the one who told them to go after Trump, now.....???? I saw a very cleaver post here a while back, about assumptions, which is all I heard today, was assumptions, no facts that are verifiable and provable....just hunches and guesses, and maybes, and well, its possible... The person said assumptions make (a) ass-u-me Lots of them round here.......BINGO! ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 20:41:03 2F3C24393C2A3A5D0 wrote:
-clear abuses of power, violations of the Constitution and our shared ethics. (When I say "shared", I don't mean you, Ray- so calm down, no one is accusing you of inclusion in that group.) |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/20/19 at 20:47:18 Justin clearly didn't actually watch Sondland's testimony, accepting pre-digested pablum from Pajamas Media instead. [I couldn't have made that up!] Still, it saved him the tedium of thoughtful consideration; we can only hope he used the resources to go for a ride. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by WebsterMark on 11/21/19 at 05:39:32 In the long run, none of this matters. Trump's support remains more or less the same. Very few are watching this debacle and changing their minds. A big downside to the news network picking sides is that most conservative who vote either don't watch network news or view it with extreme suspicion. I know we have a few on here who love to post clips from some late night English comedian or Bill Mahre etc.. but conservatives don't watch that garbage so it doesn't matter. Who watches SNL other than lefties? Late Night? Most unfunny show ever. Point is, when both sides are preaching to the choir, no one is saved. Once the election comes down to Trump against a socialist, his support will go up and enough normal, sane Democrats will not pull a lever for Warren or Sanders. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/21/19 at 05:51:57 414D5A454B434B59422C0 wrote:
625057464150477854475E350 wrote:
What the actual fuqk is wrong with you, Mark? The back story must be a real horror story- though likely the sad pedestrian narrative of other would-be insurrectionists. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/21/19 at 14:26:16 525E49565850584A513F0 wrote:
Ok, how about cspan? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MAyFkQCjaA[/media] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MAyFkQCjaA 'It is my presumption'... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Serowbot on 11/21/19 at 14:39:49 How about Republicans for the Rule of Law?... [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tDlGHsqI0Y[/media] |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/21/19 at 14:48:54 7066716C74616C77030 wrote:
I will admit I was busy the last two days and didn't see much of the proceeding. However, I didn't see any good headlines. With that said, all the Dems have is 2nd & 3rd hand information, presumptions, and worthless antidotes that constitute an opinion. Where is the first hand accounts of impeachable offences? :-X Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Serowbot on 11/21/19 at 15:01:55 594E48444B5B290 wrote:
For that,... Giuliani would have to agree to testify,.. and tell the truth. ... maybe Bolton... ...or of course,... Trump himself. Crooks don't usually discuss criminal activity with honest people. Although, there have been many that directly heard what the President said,.... they may not have been a part of the conversation... |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/21/19 at 15:15:24 6C7B7D717E6E1C0 wrote:
Really, you have to review it yourself. Do you really want some other person's interpretation? Probably not. Where is the first hand accounts of impeachable offences? Though abridged, it was right there in the transcript of the phone call. Let's remove the teams from what happened. It's like this- it's Winter, temperatures are dropping to life-threatening lows- and your power company cuts your power. You call the power company and talk to the engineer, saying how you'd like to buy some more power. The engineer says that he'd like that too- but he'd like you to commit to perpetrating a crime with him first. Say that isn't what happened? Trump agrees... with me. Every time he orders one of our civil servants not to testify, every time he orders the withholding of documents, he confirms his guilt. You know he's a crook. You know he's a liar. Why don't you start acting on what you know? Let what you know inform your assessment- not some non-sequitur abridged version that doesn't exist in the real world. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by raydawg on 11/21/19 at 15:34:37 4156505C5343310 wrote:
I will admit I was busy the last two days and didn't see much of the proceeding. However, I didn't see any good headlines. With that said, all the Dems have is 2nd & 3rd hand information, presumptions, and worthless antidotes that constitute an opinion. Where is the first hand accounts of impeachable offences? :-X Best regards, [/quote] In Russia.....maybe? :-/ Oh, about yesterday and this Sondland guy..... The unbiased media reorts: Jeffrey Toobin, CNN legal analyst: Now we know that every fantasy about how corrupt this administration was is actually true. Me, I think I'll stick to Maryann and Ginger, in my fantasies ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/21/19 at 18:10:24 45495E414F474F5D46280 wrote:
He is the antithesis of the Marxist agenda and I believe in much of his platform. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by eau de sauvage on 11/21/19 at 20:10:23 @PG With that said, all the Dems have is 2nd & 3rd hand information, presumptions... We do have first hand information of the information is required in specific instances, plus plenty of corroborating evidence that adheres to a tight timeline. It is this timeline that cannot be squeezed through. For example Trump's latest bit of reality twisting is to come out with his handwritten sharpie notes (which btw have been set to music https://tinyurl.com/wed7x5f) but this is just Sondland quoting Trump himself *After* the whistleblower report was ordered to be investigated by Congress. For the week before the DOG was trying to keep it away from Congress. Not to forget the irony that the final pieces of the puzzle are being held back by the White House, they can let Mulvaney, Bolton and even Trump himself testify. If they had any exculpatory excuses they'd be saying them to the committee. Although the whistleblower is not necessary at all now, it's worth pointing out that had he not blown the whistle at that moment, then within a day or two Zelenskey had *already agreed* to make a public announcement and Trump would have gotten away with corrupting a foreign power in an emerging democracy. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/21/19 at 20:33:23 687F79757A6A180 wrote:
That's like saying "sure, he's a child molester- but Trump's the best wrestling coach available." |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/22/19 at 11:26:59 535F48575951594B503E0 wrote:
That's like saying "sure, he's a child molester- but Trump's the best wrestling coach available." [/quote] Not when you believe in conservative values. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/22/19 at 11:33:36 ...and there you have it. Doesn't care what crimes Trump perpetrates, just so long as his agenda is advanced. You can label that many things- but "values"? No. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/22/19 at 11:43:44 3A36213E3038302239570 wrote:
He hasn't been indicted let alone convicted of anything.... Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/22/19 at 12:17:40 2136303C3323510 wrote:
No doubt a common utterance of those attaching themselves to Epstein, too. Every honest person knows Trump is being shielded by his office and the GOP Senate- dishonest people, too -the difference being character, and what they're willing to say. We know Trump swindled students. We know he stole from a charity for veterans. We know he cheated on his pregnant wife and committed campaign finance violations in attempt to cover it up. We know he schemed to violate our Constitution and corrupt an ally state. We know that he stood before the world and denounced our own intelligence agents' reports in favor of Putin. Those are YOUR values. You own them now. You are no better than that. "Conservative values"? Don't flatter yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/22/19 at 12:49:53 636F78676961697B600E0 wrote:
Hello, he was a convicted felon and the people he surrounded him with were left leaning democrats. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/22/19 at 13:27:16 342325292636440 wrote:
Eventually, yes. Before conviction, he was still surrounded by enablers who can not hide behind 'but he hadn't been convicted when I was securing children for him'. This is the parallel circumstance I spoke to. I reckon you already understood that. -and the people he surrounded him with were left leaning democrats. All sorts of people, actually- including, topically, Trump; I don't have praise for any of them. It is a broken moral compass that considers party when weighing child rape. Curious that the limit of your protest did not touch on the substance of my post, proffering instead to run away to play semantic games. Watch out- if you look, you might catch your reflection: Every honest person knows Trump is being shielded by his office and the GOP Senate- dishonest people, too -the difference being character, and what they're willing to say. We know Trump swindled students. We know he stole from a charity for veterans. We know he cheated on his pregnant wife and committed campaign finance violations in attempt to cover it up. We know he schemed to violate our Constitution and corrupt an ally state. We know that he stood before the world and denounced our own intelligence agents' reports in favor of Putin. Those are YOUR values. You own them now. You are no better than that. "Conservative values"? Don't flatter yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/22/19 at 13:49:24 333F28373931392B305E0 wrote:
If you don't believe I am a concervative, where do you think rest on the political spectrum? Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by T And T Garage on 11/22/19 at 13:58:00 485F59555A4A380 wrote:
If you don't believe I am a concervative, where do you think rest on the political spectrum? Best regards, [/quote] "Conservative values" is the problem. What "values"? Party over everything? Profit over all else? Hypocrisy? Small government, yet they want to rule over a woman's right? How many prosecutions from the trump administration so far? See, that's the problem with "conservative values". |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/22/19 at 14:00:35 5E404F4E435E45582A0 wrote:
If you don't believe I am a concervative, where do you think rest on the political spectrum? Best regards, [/quote] "Conservative values" is the problem. What "values"? Party over everything? Profit over all else? Hypocrisy? Small government, yet they want to rule over a woman's right? How many prosecutions from the trump administration so far? See, that's the problem with "conservative values".[/quote] Please note I responded to mavigogun… Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/22/19 at 14:05:11 7C6B6D616E7E0C0 wrote:
"Since", not "if"- you've most definitely not demonstrated "conservative values". You sought to claim unearned validation from the moral touchstone of Conservatism. You're no better than the company you keep, the crap you support- you can pretend otherwise, but it is absurd to expect anyone else to pretend along with you. What's the point in being a Conservative-in-name-only? An ideological poser? "When I'm in church, I'm a Christian- but out here in the world, I play the Devil's game." No one respects that- atheist or believer. You're not the first person to tell themselves they are righteous to justify deplorable acts- it's a common recourse of those who have accepted moral failure. That mirror you're avoiding: Every honest person knows Trump is being shielded by his office and the GOP Senate- dishonest people, too -the difference being character, and what they're willing to say. We know Trump swindled students. We know he stole from a charity for veterans. We know he cheated on his pregnant wife and committed campaign finance violations in attempt to cover it up. We know he schemed to violate our Constitution and corrupt an ally state. We know that he stood before the world and denounced our own intelligence agents' reports in favor of Putin. Those are YOUR values. You own them now. You are no better than that. "Conservative values"? Don't flatter yourself. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/22/19 at 14:14:01 5B57405F5159514358360 wrote:
"Since", not "if"- you've most definitely not demonstrated "conservative values". You sought to claim unearned validation from the moral touchstone of Conservatism. You're no better than the company you keep, the crap you support- you can pretend otherwise, but it is absurd to expect anyone else to pretend along with you. What's the point in being a Conservative-in-name-only? An ideological poser? "When I'm in church, I'm a Christian- but out here in the world, I play the Devil's game." No one respects that- atheist or believer. You're not the first person to tell themselves they are righteous to justify deplorable acts- it's a common recourse of those who have accepted moral failure. That mirror you're avoiding: Every honest person knows Trump is being shielded by his office and the GOP Senate- dishonest people, too -the difference being character, and what they're willing to say. We know Trump swindled students. We know he stole from a charity for veterans. We know he cheated on his pregnant wife and committed campaign finance violations in attempt to cover it up. We know he schemed to violate our Constitution and corrupt an ally state. We know that he stood before the world and denounced our own intelligence agents' reports in favor of Putin. Those are YOUR values. You own them now. You are no better than that. "Conservative values"? Don't flatter yourself. [/quote] Other than posting some very unflattering comments, you still did not answer my question 'where do you think I rest on the political spectrum?' Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/22/19 at 14:28:09 6A7D7B7778681A0 wrote:
They were unflattering observations. You can call yourself an astrophysicist, or a Girl Scout, or a dolphin, or any number of things you clearly are not- it ain't my job to put you in the box you prefer. If you want to be a Conservative, have at it, and good luck- but it's not what you've demonstrated here. It seems you want to feel "Conservative" without being conservative. What are you? You want me to categorize you? I reckon I've made that explicitly clear already. We know Trump swindled students. We know he stole from a charity for veterans. We know he cheated on his pregnant wife and committed campaign finance violations in attempt to cover it up. We know he schemed to violate our Constitution and corrupt an ally state. We know that he stood before the world and denounced our own intelligence agents' reports in favor of Putin. Those are YOUR values. You own them now. You are no better than that. "'Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding", as the song goes. You can aspire to be whatever you choose- if "Conservative" is that thing, we'd probably all be a fare bit better off if you were to walk that walk. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by T And T Garage on 11/22/19 at 15:13:42 2136303C3323510 wrote:
If you don't believe I am a concervative, where do you think rest on the political spectrum? Best regards, [/quote] "Conservative values" is the problem. What "values"? Party over everything? Profit over all else? Hypocrisy? Small government, yet they want to rule over a woman's right? How many prosecutions from the trump administration so far? See, that's the problem with "conservative values".[/quote] Please note I responded to mavigogun… Best regards,[/quote] So? Am I not allowed to comment? Is this your first time in a forum? LOL |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by eau de sauvage on 11/22/19 at 15:40:13 Conservative values is close to an oxymoron. The GOP has long ditched any pretence to conservative values, free market economy and reduction of deficit are two obvious examples. @Mavigogun, in your list of Trumpian malfeasance a few posts ago I was at that very moment pondering the meta plot that was going on in all this and it is more insidious to me. Roll this around in your brain for a while... the over riding international mission of the US would be to promote democracy and democratic values as opposed to totalitarianism. I think that we can all agree that fundamentally that is the crucial dividing line. So the meta story is that the President of the US is actively engaged in injecting endemic corruption directly into the veins of a brand new reformist govt. To me this is what the GOP have to gloss over in order to continue their path of the last few years. And this is not surprising because their path appears to be gradually building towards a totalitarian regime but maybe with a Western tilt. It started in earnest with the illegitimate blocking of Merrick Garland. This is key to the plan which to be fair has worked better than they could have dreamed. One more term for the GOP and the plan is complete because they will have the Supreme Court in their pocket for 30 years, as well as the bulk of the appeal courts. Their Gerrymandering would be safe, and corruption would by then be an accepted part of the US govt. Once the Executive had the Judicial branch in their pocket all three branches can collude in plain sight. This is the vision that Trump has for the future of America. Look at Barr's speech to the Federalist Society las week... https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-19th-annual-barbara-k-olson-memorial-lecture https://theweek.com/articles/879112/william-barrs-chilling-vision-unchecked-presidential-power A Republic if you can keep it. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/22/19 at 20:38:55 The start is a difficult thing to find. I'd go back a bit farther- The Contract with America was the first overt public announcement that the GOP were retreating from the democratic process. Then the propaganda network, Fox, prepared the groundwork. Their first bald salvo was the Redmap Project- an open attack on the structure of democracy. The New Civil War was already underway; though we had grown accustomed and inured to petty Republican malfeasance, this last transgression was viewed with a degree of disreality- our neighbors had betrayed us, and we had let them, failing to imagine their willingness to dispose of our egalitarian principles so completely. Ever since, the pretense of caring for the rule of law has grown thinner and thinner, until now their clumsy lack of effort amounts to a sneering spit in the face of the Republic. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/23/19 at 10:29:58 3A242B2A273A213C4E0 wrote:
No forum rules exist that prevent you from posting. However, interceding in that manner demonstrates a lack of decorum and civility. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by eau de sauvage on 11/23/19 at 14:33:18 6D7A7C707F6F1D0 wrote:
You are Devin Nunes and I claim my five quid. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/24/19 at 04:25:38 4F585E525D4D3F0 wrote:
As if you cared- even a tiny bit -about "decorum and civility". No one actually possessing those values could stand with Trump. Such an overt non sequitur is nothing less than a declaration that you don't give a dammn about the truth, and won't be acting in good faith- poor pretending with no attempt made to hide the sneer underneath. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by pg on 11/24/19 at 08:04:35 4945524D434B43514A240 wrote:
As if you cared- even a tiny bit -about "decorum and civility". No one actually possessing those values could stand with Trump. Such an overt non sequitur is nothing less than a declaration that you don't give a dammn about the truth, and won't be acting in good faith- poor pretending with no attempt made to hide the sneer underneath. [/quote] If your so concerned about the truth and a champion of justice, do you support an investigation into the Bidens? He was on national TV bragging about a true abuse of power and quid pro joe. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Serowbot on 11/24/19 at 08:18:29 Biden's withholding of $1B funds was in agreement with US policy and Europe. 100% proper and approved. No one thinks Trump's action was proper. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by thumperclone on 11/24/19 at 08:45:11 Biden's motivation was NOT for personal gain Trumps motivation was |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by raydawg on 11/24/19 at 09:16:40 No one thinks Trump's action was proper. No, lots of people do. Why do you speak as absolute? Have a investigation into Biden then, let the facts speak. Why did he resign, why did others say his role was improper, another word might be, it was wrong..... |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by raydawg on 11/24/19 at 09:17:31 Biden's motivation was NOT for personal gain I disagree...his son made lots of money, and other remarked it was wrong too. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Serowbot on 11/24/19 at 09:28:17 Just coincidentally,... Obama, the US Congress, military intel, and the EU, were all in agreement with Biden's action. How unfortunate for Trump that all these people think his action was completely wrong, and in his own self interest. Just bad luck I guess... ::) |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by T And T Garage on 11/25/19 at 05:53:16 4156505C5343310 wrote:
No forum rules exist that prevent you from posting. However, interceding in that manner demonstrates a lack of decorum and civility. Best regards, [/quote] LOL. OK..... like you're one to talk? Really? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/25/19 at 06:21:27 However, interceding in that manner demonstrates a lack of decorum and civility. LOL. OK..... like you're one to talk? Really? I know, right? The guy sold his integrity to Trump to validate his pride, and now has the audacity to pretend to value decorum and civility. It's nothing less than a highly worded spit in the face. He has the gall to take umbrage at having his Conservative badge questioned- but shrinks from confronting the response, instead preferring to engage in this decorum game. No convictions, no courage. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by T And T Garage on 11/25/19 at 07:29:20 12011904011707600 wrote:
This is the problem when dealing with the republican mindset. It's always a deflection. trump abused his power - that's been testified to how many times now, 10? End of story. But the pubs are like "Yeah, but what about Biden?" Fair point - so go after him. But don't think that makes trump any less guilty. Plus - he's a sitting president - huge difference. So own it all or disown it all. Just because you think Biden is guilty of something doesn't make trump innocent. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by Mavigogun on 11/25/19 at 07:46:35 485659585548534E3C0 wrote:
This may hurt, as the bandage is pulled off, exposing a lack of skin: They. Don't. Care. Morality; corruption; ethics; integrity of ideals, thought, principle- they just don't care. |
|
Title: Re: Sondland testimony Post by T And T Garage on 11/25/19 at 07:57:42 5955425D535B53415A340 wrote:
This may hurt, as the bandage is pulled off, exposing a lack of skin: They. Don't. Care. Morality; corruption; ethics; integrity of ideals, thought, principle- they just don't care. [/quote] Amen. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |