Will Trump win again???

[Matty44]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Hmmmn, I find it interesting that you cherry pick a Rassmussen, aka, known as the pollsters to the R, when a combined poll (Of over a dozen polls) done by 538 had results that were more closely bunched at 8-9 points lower and making your poll an outlier and aberration.

Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Hmmmm, I find it interesting that this average of polls still shows increased approval since the impeachment began....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

Also....

“Rasmussen Reports says it was the closest of all major pollsters in predicting the presidential election's popular vote, pointing to final results posted by RealClearPolitics... No other pollster tracked by RealClearPolitics came as close to the final results.”

So there’s that....

Redirect Notice

 

[BoolaHI]

Hmmmm, I find it interesting that this average of polls still shows increased approval since the impeachment began....


View attachment 286607


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm, an approval rating that you had to improve to 44 percent is nothing to brag about. Further, your brag about being higher than Obama is disapproved even with the most favorable of numbers.

So, there were over 15 polls in the 538:sample and you picked the ONLY one with favorable numbers and then suggest that’s the one true one, even though it’s methodology has been categorically been suggested to be dubious. You are not a man of science or even discernible objective rather just some fellow that will believe in whatever supports preexisting views and perspectives.

 

[Matty44]

Hmmm, an approval rating that you had to improve to 44 percent is nothing to brag about. Further, your brag about being higher than Obama is disapproved even with the most favorable of numbers.

So, there were over 15 polls in the 538:sample and you picked the ONLY one with favorable numbers and then suggest that’s the one true one, even though it’s methodology has been categorically been suggested to be dubious. You are not a man of science or even discernible objective rather just some fellow that will believe in whatever supports preexisting views and perspectives.

My main point was that it’s gone up since the impeachment hearings started. And that has shown to be true over multiple polls. Don’t get so butt hurt my friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

Also....

“Rasmussen Reports says it was the closest of all major pollsters in predicting the presidential election's popular vote, pointing to final results posted by RealClearPolitics... No other pollster tracked by RealClearPolitics came as close to the final results.”

So there’s that....

Redirect Notice

And you love to cherry pick, and it’s not even the most recent. Here is the most recent and as many others have reported, Rasmussen was the LEAST accurate during the most recent cycle.....your a dull sort, huh?

Trump's favorite pollster was the least accurate in the midterms | CNN Politics

First things first: The theme song of the week is the theme to Love, American Style composed by Charles Fox and Arnold Margolin.

www.cnn.com

 

[BoolaHI]

My main point was that it’s gone up since the impeachment hearings started. And that has shown to be true over multiple polls. Don’t get so butt hurt my friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Every time, and it’s quite numerous, you get called on a half-truth or a not very research point, you pivot and deflect.....and we are not friends.

 

[BoolaHI]

Also....

“Rasmussen Reports says it was the closest of all major pollsters in predicting the presidential election's popular vote, pointing to final results posted by RealClearPolitics... No other pollster tracked by RealClearPolitics came as close to the final results.”

So there’s that....

Redirect Notice

Pollster: Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias

Rasmussen Reports uses research techniques that make its polls favor Republicans, Ipsos Public Affairs research director Mallory Newall said Monday during an appearance on “What America’s Thin…

thehill.com

 

[Matty44]

Every time, and it’s quite numerous, you get called on a half-truth or a not very research point, you pivot and deflect.....and we are not friends.

Well, I’ll still trust a poll that was most accurate in the trump election. You can look at whatever polls you like.

Speaking of deflecting, you (and others) still haven’t answered my simple question of whether or not what Biden and son did was corrupt/illegal/unethical.

And cmon, I thought you were my boo?!

No? [emoji22]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DrGasPasser]

Like many others, you're confusing impeachment with removal. Impeachment is just an indictment by the House, forwarded to the Senate which sits trial. He absolutely deserves to be impeached (i.e. censoring); not sure about removal. I would prefer that the American people decided about the latter.

Also, an attempt to bribe is considered equal to bribery in many jurisdictions. It's the intent (mens rea) that matters.

The House has the option to pass a vote of censoring the President instead of impeachment. I honestly think that impeachment carries more risk for the Dems than any upside of causing real damage to Trump’s campaign (the real purpose of this effort).

First, the GOP will get to set the rules in the Senate and theirs will almost certainly be a much wider probe than the House’s performance. For example, Joe and Hunter Biden should not make any Holiday plans as they will almost certainly be subpoenaed since Senators will want to determine if Trump had a reason to suspect that the Bidens were involved in corruption. Rudy claims to have evidence of DNC-Ukrainian collusion that will get explored no matter how compromised the Mayor has become. In fact, Adam Schiff will also probably be subpoenaed to determine if his office coordinated with the whistleblower.

Next, the timing is horrible. The DOJ IG report of FISA abuse will be hitting the press around that time; some think Schiff is in a race against its release. If the rumors are true, it could be a doozy for the Dems. Moreover, every day spent listening to testimony is a day lost for Warren, Sanders, and the other Dem candidates in the Senate.

 

[pgg]

Hearsay” has a precise legal definition, and hearsay rules apply only during civil or criminal trials, but Republicans are using the term in a much looser sense. When they say “hearsay,” they seem to hope that Americans will hear “rumor.”

None of this makes much sense. The first problem with the Republicans’ hearsay defense is that the White House’s rough transcript confirmed much of what the whistleblower was told by several officials. But even if that memo had not been released, the complaints about hearsay would be missing the mark. Hearsay does not mean “unreliable information,” and it can play an important and legitimate part in many kinds of investigations and legal proceedings. So while Trump and his allies are correct that the whistleblower report could not, by itself, be introduced as evidence in a criminal trial, that’s entirely beside the point.

Hearsay — to simplify a bit — refers to statements made outside of court. If a witness sees a truck hit a car, and his sister tells him that she saw the truck run a red light immediately beforehand, the witness can testify only to the accident. If he repeats what his sister told him about the red light, that is hearsay. The sister would have to come in to tell the jury directly what she saw.

These are important rules for trial lawyers, but they have little to do with the whistleblower complaint, which was not introduced at a trial. And using hearsay is entirely acceptable in all sorts of contexts, including formal investigations.
Law enforcement is expected to use hearsay to lead to more direct sources of information. If police are trying to solve a murder, and a woman tells them she has heard from several people that her neighbor was the culprit, they don’t discount that statement because it isn’t firsthand; they follow that lead in search of direct evidence. That’s pretty much what happened with the whistleblower complaint: It prompted officials to seek the rough transcript, which is not hearsay. And on Thursday, the House deposed the former special U.S. envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, who provided incriminating text messages, among other evidence.

Grand juries, which decide whether formal criminal charges can be brought against a suspect, can also rely on hearsay — weighing things a police officer testifies she heard during her investigation, for instance. The impeachment inquiry in the House will determine whether the Senate should proceed with a trial, making it analogous to grand jury proceedings. So there would logically be no ban on hearsay in that context. What’s more, impeachment trials in the Senate don’t follow the rules of criminal trials, so hearsay could be introduced there, too, if the Senate chose to allow it.

Which exceptions and/or exemptions might be relevant to the Ukraine scandal?

Statements “made by the party’s co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy” are not hearsay. A person's own previous incriminating statements are not hearsay, either, as conservative attorney and frequent Trump critic George Conway noted after South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham began griping about hearsay a few months ago. Any impeachable offenses to which Trump admits on the White House lawn, then, would be fair game.

Impeachment trials are not the same as criminal trials, and a special set of rules exists for removal proceedings in the Senate. These rules give senators wide latitude to determine what evidence they do and don't want to hear, literally by voting on it. If the Senate's 53-member Republican majority decides it doesn't want to consider hearsay evidence—even if an exception or exemption would otherwise apply in a non-impeachment proceeding—they'll be able to use the process to exclude it. It’s also why 6th amendment and rules of evidence are not entirely applicable at present.

I know I gave you some crap earlier in the thread, but I'd just like to say I appreciate the precision of your comments here. Nice to have an attorney's input.

 

[vector2]

Speaking of deflecting, you (and others) still haven’t answered my simple question of whether or not what Biden and son did was corrupt/illegal/unethical.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong again, mattyboy.

 

[deleted171991]

The Art of Mind Control

Everyone by a supreme law of nature is master of his own thoughts.1 ~Baruch Spinoza It’s the one thing they can’t do. They can make you say...

quillette.com

One will recognize parts of this being true, both among democrats and republicans.

 

[Matty44]

Wrong again, mattyboy.View attachment 286609

Great, you posted something about it over a month ago before I even posted on this thread. Congrats. But not surprising that a craven, liberal sycophant fanboy like you would ignore the blatant quid pro quo and corruption by Joe and his son while at the same time cry treason against the man who says, ‘hey, let’s look into that corruption.’

Thanks for confirming what I already knew you’d say.




Oh, btw, did I do that personal insult thing right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[d9sccr]

The House has the option to pass a vote of censoring the President instead of impeachment. I honestly think that impeachment carries more risk for the Dems than any upside of causing real damage to Trump’s campaign (the real purpose of this effort).

First, the GOP will get to set the rules in the Senate and theirs will almost certainly be a much wider probe than the House’s performance. For example, Joe and Hunter Biden should not make any Holiday plans as they will almost certainly be subpoenaed since Senators will want to determine if Trump had a reason to suspect that the Bidens were involved in corruption. Rudy claims to have evidence of DNC-Ukrainian collusion that will get explored no matter how compromised the Mayor has become. In fact, Adam Schiff will also probably be subpoenaed to determine if his office coordinated with the whistleblower.

Next, the timing is horrible. The DOJ IG report of FISA abuse will be hitting the press around that time; some think Schiff is in a race against its release. If the rumors are true, it could be a doozy for the Dems. Moreover, every day spent listening to testimony is a day lost for Warren, Sanders, and the other Dem candidates in the Senate.

Allegedly the report comes out next Wednesday.

Anyone interested in the entire series of events is more interested in the Senate hearing. I fully expect all the Democratic witnesses to be recalled and cross examination will actually occur. We’ll also see Hunter and the whistleblower for sure and maybe Joe plus Schiff being subpoenaed along w some combo of Rudy, Mulvaney, and perhaps Bolton. The entire thing is going to come down to whether it was a hit on Biden or whether Biden was part of the Crowd Strike and 2016 election interference stuff. It’s all still ugly. I think most Americans would want to know if Joe/Hunter are/were using their public position to self enrich themselves in Ukraine, China, and I believe Romania was the latest country w some questions.

 

[deleted171991]

Allegedly the report comes out next Wednesday.

Anyone interested in the entire series of events is more interested in the Senate hearing. I fully expect all the Democratic witnesses to be recalled and cross examination will actually occur. We’ll also see Hunter and the whistleblower for sure and maybe Joe plus Schiff being subpoenaed along w some combo of Rudy, Mulvaney, and perhaps Bolton. The entire thing is going to come down to whether it was a hit on Biden or whether Biden was part of the Crowd Strike and 2016 election interference stuff. It’s all still ugly. I think most Americans would want to know if Joe/Hunter are/were using their public position to self enrich themselves in Ukraine, China, and I believe Romania was the latest country w some questions.

The Eastern border of Eastern Europe is a corrupt place (and probably so is China), so simply doing business there as an American is a bad reference. I hope the democrats will come up with a better candidate than Biden. Now the Trump organization is also doing business in some corrupt countries, and we know their modus operandi... There is a reason Trump is so obsessively hiding his tax returns, and it's not a positive one.

 

[Mikkel]

Allegedly the report comes out next Wednesday.

Anyone interested in the entire series of events is more interested in the Senate hearing. I fully expect all the Democratic witnesses to be recalled and cross examination will actually occur. We’ll also see Hunter and the whistleblower for sure and maybe Joe plus Schiff being subpoenaed along w some combo of Rudy, Mulvaney, and perhaps Bolton. The entire thing is going to come down to whether it was a hit on Biden or whether Biden was part of the Crowd Strike and 2016 election interference stuff. It’s all still ugly. I think most Americans would want to know if Joe/Hunter are/were using their public position to self enrich themselves in Ukraine, China, and I believe Romania was the latest country w some questions.

I'm eagerly anticipating the report, but especially I'm looking forward to the Durham investigation and prosection.

It could all be some small people, maybe just underlings at CIA and FBI breaking the law. Maybe it could involve Brennan (boy he sure seems to be the most political CIA director in US history).

Maybe it involves the Obama White House directly? Who there signed off on using entrapment and foreign intelligence assets like Mifsud? There were some bad dudes in that administration doing all kinds of illegal and corrupt stuff, would their anticipation of a Clinton presidency cause them to go far and above illegality because they knew they wouldn't get caught?

 

[BoolaHI]

Well, I’ll still trust a poll that was most accurate in the trump election. You can look at whatever polls you like.

Speaking of deflecting, you (and others) still haven’t answered my simple question of whether or not what Biden and son did was corrupt/illegal/unethical.

And cmon, I thought you were my boo?!

No? [emoji22]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So let us ALL get this correct, I provide binary evidence that in the most recent and current congressional cycle of 2018 that it was the LEAST accurate, as well as your current conscripted cherry picking about the popularity of Trump, you choose out of 20 polls, the one that is the lone blimp of saying what you want to hear, but ignore every other poll that on average had him 8 points below for a cumulative average approval rating at just 42?

That by definition means you a non-objective ideologue—so don’t ever come here and tell everyone, I’m open minded and receptive to new views if they are based on fact, you are not. You scrub the bottom looking for some shred of evidence that either conforms or supports your world view, that’s not intelligence, that’s not objective, that’s not open minded, that is the exercise and folly of a town fop.

And finally, word to the wise (obviously, I am now speaking to others) even a blind squirrel finds a nut....

 

[Mikkel]

So let us ALL get this correct, I provide binary evidence that in the most recent and current congressional cycle of 2018 that it was the LEAST accurate, as well as your current conscripted cherry picking about the popularity of Trump, you choose out of 20 polls, the one that is the lone blimp of saying what you want to hear, but ignore every other poll that on average had him 8 points below for a cumulative average approval rating at just 42?

That by definition means you a non-objective ideologue—so don’t ever come here and tell everyone, I’m open minded and receptive to new views if they are based on fact, you are not. You scrub the bottom looking for some shred of evidence that either conforms or supports your world view, that’s not intelligence, that’s not objective, that’s not open minded, that is the exercise and folly of a town fop.

And finally, word to the wise (obviously, I am now speaking to others) even a blind squirrel finds a nut....

If the Democrats' actions in the 2016 election and post-2016 election are as bad as they're looking, with criminal investigations starting and expanding, and criminal abuse of power at the CIA, FBI, and White House, Hunter getting paid off, then Trump will win 2020 on an anti-corruption ticket. Easily.

 

[Matty44]

So let us ALL get this correct, I provide binary evidence that in the most recent and current congressional cycle of 2018 that it was the LEAST accurate, as well as your current conscripted cherry picking about the popularity of Trump, you choose out of 20 polls, the one that is the lone blimp of saying what you want to hear, but ignore every other poll that on average had him 8 points below for a cumulative average approval rating at just 42?

That by definition means you a non-objective ideologue—so don’t ever come here and tell everyone, I’m open minded and receptive to new views if they are based on fact, you are not. You scrub the bottom looking for some shred of evidence that either conforms or supports your world view, that’s not intelligence, that’s not objective, that’s not open minded, that is the exercise and folly of a town fop.

And finally, word to the wise (obviously, I am now speaking to others) even a blind squirrel finds a nut....

Nah, not really. The truth is that I saw an article that contained that poll and I thought it was interesting that his approval rating had gone up since the impeachment started, so I shared it. Then you come on ranting about this and tell me why “my” poll is crap, so I post an average of polls that shows the same point I was trying to make. That’s about it.

I don’t have a thousand resources/links on hand to reply to every post like you seem to have, nor did I research a hundred polls and nefariously cherry pick one to throw at you. But whatever you wanna believe is fine with me friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

Nah, not really. The truth is that I saw an article that contained that poll and I thought it was interesting that his approval rating had gone up since the impeachment started, so I shared it. Then you come on ranting about this and tell me why “my” poll is crap, so I post an average of polls that shows the same point I was trying to make. That’s about it.

I don’t have a thousand resources/links on hand to reply to every post like you seem to have, nor did I research a hundred polls and nefariously cherry pick one to throw at you. But whatever you wanna believe is fine with me friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look at who is near the bottom of polling for the last two years, this same firm, before correcting right before the election, had Rs winning both Kennedy and Louisianas gubernatorial race.

Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

fivethirtyeight.com

 

[BoolaHI]

Majority of Americans support ousting Trump from office, new poll shows

The poll also found that 70 percent believe that the president was wrong to pressure Ukraine to launch a probe into his political rivals.

www.politico.com

 

[vector2]

Great, you posted something about it over a month ago before I even posted on this thread. Congrats. But not surprising that a craven, liberal sycophant fanboy like you would ignore the blatant quid pro quo and corruption by Joe and his son while at the same time cry treason against the man who says, ‘hey, let’s look into that corruption.’

Thanks for confirming what I already knew you’d say.




Oh, btw, did I do that personal insult thing right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, your "I know you are but what am I" rehashing of things I already said to you falls pretty little flat. I dont give two shts about Biden nor would I vote him, but that doesn't change the fact he followed the official policy of the US govt and of our NATO allies when it came to Ukraine, and his son wasnt found to have done anything criminal, regardless of the appearance of him serving on a board just like a thousand other no talent VIPs on various boards around the world. Try again, dunce.

 

[Matty44]

Lol, your "I know you are but what am I" rehashing of things I already said to you falls pretty little flat. I dont give two shts about Biden nor would I vote him, but that doesn't change the fact he followed the official policy of the US govt and of our NATO allies when it came to Ukraine, and his son wasnt found to have done anything criminal, regardless of the appearance of him serving on a board just like a thousand other no talent VIPs on various boards around the world. Try again, dunce.

Oh yeah, sorry. I guess he is just like all the other no talent board members across the world whose daddies have massive political control over the countries in which they work.



Oh wait, that was just him. My bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

:troll:

 

[BoolaHI]

Oh yeah, sorry. I guess he is just like all the other no talent board members across the world whose daddies have massive political control over the countries in which they work.



Oh wait, that was just him. My bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, these are just a bunch of no talent people.

Apple Leadership

Apple leadership biographies include Apple’s executive team responsibilities and experience. Learn more about Apple’s leadership team.

www.apple.com

Leadership - Source

news.microsoft.com

Corporate Governance | Tesla Investor Relations

The Board of Directors of Tesla, Inc. sets high standards for the Company's employees, officers and directors.

ir.tesla.com

 

[d9sccr]

The Eastern border of Eastern Europe is a corrupt place (and probably so is China), so simply doing business there as an American is a bad reference. I hope the democrats will come up with a better candidate than Biden. Now the Trump organization is also doing business in some corrupt countries, and we know their modus operandi... There is a reason Trump is so obsessively hiding his tax returns, and it's not a positive one.

I don’t really dispute the issues with Eastern Europe or even China. I don’t think an American doing business there is necessarily corrupt. The issue with Hunter is he’s not just unqualified for these positions, but incredibly unqualified and in many instances there’s a pretty direct line to Joe as looking to have had a hand in the thing. There may be nothing there, no one in this forum knows, namely bc there’s not been much if any investigation into Hunter. There are reports from Ukraine saying it was and wasn’t corrupt, there are reports from the WH that it was swept under the rug, Joe openly saying he did nothing wrong, etc, etc. No one knows. If this were generic Republican may-nominee’s son, everyone would want to know. I don’t understand why anyone gets worked up with the other direction.

Trump could very well be hiding his tax returns for nefarious reasons. He’s slimy, we all know it. There’s literally zero doubt he’s using every real estate tax loophole imaginable to reduce his tax burden, for that reason alone, I’d love for them to be released, if only to highlight the BS real estate tax loopholes. He may also not be releasing them bc he’s an incredibly shallow person and his returns will reveal he’s not actually as rich as everyone think. Both are plausible reasons imo

 

[Matty44]

Yeah, these are just a bunch of no talent people.

Apple Leadership

Apple leadership biographies include Apple’s executive team responsibilities and experience. Learn more about Apple’s leadership team.

www.apple.com

Leadership - Source

news.microsoft.com

Corporate Governance | Tesla Investor Relations

The Board of Directors of Tesla, Inc. sets high standards for the Company's employees, officers and directors.

ir.tesla.com

Dude, I love it. You seriously miss the point of almost everything said here and then respond like Don Quixote.

I’m not your windmill.

Who is attacking Apple’s board? [emoji23]

And you DO understand that Mr Vector called em ‘no talent’ in the post I was responding to yeah???

I hate to keep stating the obvious, but reading comp is not your strong suit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gern Blansten]

Elon Musk is unique. I haven’t evaluated the wealth tax closely, but I’m not advocating taxing someone until they no longer have their wealth. However, the fact that I’m in the same tax bracket as Jeff Bezos seems a little wrong to me.

I am way behind on reading this thread so this may have been addressed already. You may be in the same tax bracket as Bezos, but I suspect you are not paying the same in total amount, likely not even in the same ballpark. This is why many advocate for a flat tax rate where everybody pays the same rate, but the total amount paid will be vastly different depending on your income. I just don't agree with the way you look at it, which is a fundamental difference in philosophy for people prefer the flat tax vs those who are against it.

 

[Leon'sMom]

Consider this a public service post or ignore (your choice):

Have you ever heard of David Brock or Act Blue? Ever hear of George Soros or his son Alex Soros or The Open Society Foundation? What do these 2 entities (and others) have in common? They have paid digital shills who have prepared talking points that seek out forums where there are any political discussions and they post. They are paid. This is a job to them. They get paid to post, and they get paid based on how many people reply to their posts. Their job is to sway public opinion by flooding a forum with certain biased info, to negate the opinions of others, and to change the subject when someone is above the target.

How do you recognize a paid shill? What are some characteristics to look for? They post a lot. Remember, they get paid based on how much they post. They bait others into replying and engaging with them. Remember, they get paid based on how many replies they get. They post often, almost as if they are waiting in the wings. That's because they are. They may have multiple forums that they are assigned to/posting on, and it is their job to be ready to jump in whenever somebody questions the narrative. When someone makes a point or shares a statistic/article, the paid shill seems to reply with lightning speed with sources/links/data. How is it done so quickly? Because they have files of prepared links/articles for every talking point they need to hammer home. Some legitimate posters will take the time to make a lengthy post or one with multiple sources to support their stance, but a shill tends to spring back almost immediately with a response chock full of links. Does a regular poster do this? Not usually. A paid shill uses emotion to manipulate people. They try to manipulate you into supporting them by using emotional triggers and they try to insult you/bully you as a way to get a response out of you. It is human nature to reply to an insult and attempt to defend yourself, even if you do it calmly with contrary evidence. But, don't do it. You are only putting money into that shill's pocket. Your reply is money to them. Why do you think they are so relentless in their goading? They try and try. Don't give them the satisfaction nor the money. They frequently try to paint an image of themselves as educated, successful, and of some sort of standing. Why? To position themselves as an authority or expert on a subject as opposed to you (an average American who works long hours and wants to be an engaged citizens but admittedly doesn't know every detail about every political/legal topic). This tactic is designed to diminish your own thoughts, ideas, awareness, and opinions and make you question yourself. It is human nature to realize that you don't know everything about everything and to defer to a specialist/expert. People do this in medicine all of the time. Building this authority/expertise takes details--the shill posts about their education, profession, standing, life experiences. Does an average poster on an Internet forum divulge so much personal information about themselves? Occupation, family details, schooling, who they know, where they live... Most people are protective of such personal information and wouldn't put all that out there in the cybersphere. Based on what some of us have read from some people, I bet we could pin point them on a google map right this very minute.) That is, if all of what they have shared is true. Over sharing is a trait of a liar. When a person (or patient) is trying to manipulate you into something, it is very common for them to share more information than is truly necessary. They think they are schmoozing you, so they paint elaborate stories with all kinds of details, in order to build some kind of a relationship/camaraderie with you on some level. If they throw out enough details in enough directions, they are bound to find a common link to someone (religion, race, background, geographical...) We tend to be more sympathetic to those who are similar to ourselves, or give them the benefit of the doubt. And lastly, they change the subject whenever someone makes a valid, but opposing point against their narrative. This can be done by negating, deflecting, changing the topic, spinning your post. A shill's response to your post may take the conversation in a different direction or off onto a tangent. You may feel frustrated that they are missing your main point or that they are lacking in reading comprehension because of this. But it's a tactic that they are using to shut you down, to muddy the waters, to conflate the topic, and to minimize the impact of your post. They are paid shills and this is their job.

Use this post to reflect on what you have seen or experienced here or on other forums, or don't. Your choice.

 

[Matty44]

Consider this a public service post or ignore (your choice):

Have you ever heard of David Brock or Act Blue? Ever hear of George Soros or his son Alex Soros or The Open Society Foundation? What do these 2 entities (and others) have in common? They have paid digital shills who have prepared talking points that seek out forums where there are any political discussions and they post. They are paid. This is a job to them. They get paid to post, and they get paid based on how many people reply to their posts. Their job is to sway public opinion by flooding a forum with certain biased info, to negate the opinions of others, and to change the subject when someone is above the target.

How do you recognize a paid shill? What are some characteristics to look for? They post a lot. Remember, they get paid based on how much they post. They bait others into replying and engaging with them. Remember, they get paid based on how many replies they get. They post often, almost as if they are waiting in the wings. That's because they are. They may have multiple forums that they are assigned to/posting on, and it is their job to be ready to jump in whenever somebody questions the narrative. When someone makes a point or shares a statistic/article, the paid shill seems to reply with lightning speed with sources/links/data. How is it done so quickly? Because they have files of prepared links/articles for every talking point they need to hammer home. Some legitimate posters will take the time to make a lengthy post or one with multiple sources to support their stance, but a shill tends to spring back almost immediately with a response chock full of links. Does a regular poster do this? Not usually. A paid shill uses emotion to manipulate people. They try to manipulate you into supporting them by using emotional triggers and they try to insult you/bully you as a way to get a response out of you. It is human nature to reply to an insult and attempt to defend yourself, even if you do it calmly with contrary evidence. But, don't do it. You are only putting money into that shill's pocket. Your reply is money to them. Why do you think they are so relentless in their goading? They try and try. Don't give them the satisfaction nor the money. They frequently try to paint an image of themselves as educated, successful, and of some sort of standing. Why? To position themselves as an authority or expert on a subject as opposed to you (an average American who works long hours and wants to be an engaged citizens but admittedly doesn't know every detail about every political/legal topic). This tactic is designed to diminish your own thoughts, ideas, awareness, and opinions and make you question yourself. It is human nature to realize that you don't know everything about everything and to defer to a specialist/expert. People do this in medicine all of the time. Building this authority/expertise takes details--the shill posts about their education, profession, standing, life experiences. Does an average poster on an Internet forum divulge so much personal information about themselves? Occupation, family details, schooling, who they know, where they live... Most people are protective of such personal information and wouldn't put all that out there in the cybersphere. Based on what some of us have read from some people, I bet we could pin point them on a google map right this very minute.) That is, if all of what they have shared is true. Over sharing is a trait of a liar. When a person (or patient) is trying to manipulate you into something, it is very common for them to share more information than is truly necessary. They think they are schmoozing you, so they paint elaborate stories with all kinds of details, in order to build some kind of a relationship/camaraderie with you on some level. If they throw out enough details in enough directions, they are bound to find a common link to someone (religion, race, background, geographical...) We tend to be more sympathetic to those who are similar to ourselves, or give them the benefit of the doubt. And lastly, they change the subject whenever someone makes a valid, but opposing point against their narrative. This can be done by negating, deflecting, changing the topic, spinning your post. A shill's response to your post may take the conversation in a different direction or off onto a tangent. You may feel frustrated that they are missing your main point or that they are lacking in reading comprehension because of this. But it's a tactic that they are using to shut you down, to muddy the waters, to conflate the topic, and to minimize the impact of your post. They are paid shills and this is their job.

Use this post to reflect on what you have seen or experienced here or on other forums, or don't. Your choice.

Now who was it that I had pointed out earlier today that always has a bunch of links ready to go, and responds ALMOST as if not reading the post itself, just latching on to certain key words.....


😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵😵

 

[deleted643396]

I am way behind on reading this thread so this may have been addressed already. You may be in the same tax bracket as Bezos, but I suspect you are not paying the same in total amount, likely not even in the same ballpark. This is why many advocate for a flat tax rate where everybody pays the same rate, but the total amount paid will be vastly different depending on your income. I just don't agree with the way you look at it, which is a fundamental difference in philosophy for people prefer the flat tax vs those who are against it.

No, I do not support a flat tax. The poor or working class spend a higher percentage of their income on basic survival needs...food, clothing, shelter.

 

[vector2]

Oh yeah, sorry. I guess he is just like all the other no talent board members across the world whose daddies have massive political control over the countries in which they work.



Oh wait, that was just him. My bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My god, I'm trying not to engage in whataboutism but are you really that much of a hypocrite (or that blinded by the personality cult of Trump) that you can't see the contradiction between your "concern" about Hunter Biden and your obliviousness to China granting Ivanka patents in the midst of a trade war, the failsons Eric and Jr pimping out Trump DC hotel to every foreign country and lobbyist under the sun, and big daddy trump making the air force land near his Scottish resort and stay there, trying to host G7 at his shtty Miami resort, and not separating himself financially from his company? Who in their right mind would take you seriously if you're trying to sell us that you're worried about generalized corruption?

Regardless, I know that wherever you're drifting out in the Fox News Ether is telling you that Joe and Hunter did something really bad. Back here on plant earth, here's what really happened

---------------
What the evidence shows about Biden’s actions
Paul’s reference to Biden threatening aid stems from when Biden called for Ukraine to fire prosecutor general Viktor Shokin.

Biden assumed a lead role in U.S. diplomacy toward Ukraine after a popular revolution in early 2014 that led to pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country. Shokin became top prosecutor in 2015.

Many Western leaders and institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, viewed Shokin as corrupt and ineffective for failing to prosecute anybody of significance, and for protecting members of the ruling class.

A frustrated Biden in December 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Shokin was fired, in hopes that a new prosecutor would do more to enforce the law. According to Biden, it worked.

At a Jan. 23, 2018, event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden recounted his threat to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and from then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

"I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours," Biden recounted. "If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

The big point: On top of the international support for what he did, Biden was representing the views of the U.S. government and its foreign policy analysts.

Rand Paul’s false equivalence about Trump, Biden on Ukraine

President Donald Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president "sounds exactly like what Joe Biden did."

www.politifact.com

-------------------

 

[vector2]

Consider this a public service post or ignore (your choice):

Have you ever heard of David Brock or Act Blue? Ever hear of George Soros or his son Alex Soros or The Open Society Foundation? What do these 2 entities (and others) have in common? They have paid digital shills who have prepared talking points that seek out forums where there are any political discussions and they post. They are paid. This is a job to them. They get paid to post, and they get paid based on how many people reply to their posts. Their job is to sway public opinion by flooding a forum with certain biased info, to negate the opinions of others, and to change the subject when someone is above the target.

How do you recognize a paid shill? What are some characteristics to look for? They post a lot. Remember, they get paid based on how much they post. They bait others into replying and engaging with them. Remember, they get paid based on how many replies they get. They post often, almost as if they are waiting in the wings. That's because they are. They may have multiple forums that they are assigned to/posting on, and it is their job to be ready to jump in whenever somebody questions the narrative. When someone makes a point or shares a statistic/article, the paid shill seems to reply with lightning speed with sources/links/data. How is it done so quickly? Because they have files of prepared links/articles for every talking point they need to hammer home. Some legitimate posters will take the time to make a lengthy post or one with multiple sources to support their stance, but a shill tends to spring back almost immediately with a response chock full of links. Does a regular poster do this? Not usually. A paid shill uses emotion to manipulate people. They try to manipulate you into supporting them by using emotional triggers and they try to insult you/bully you as a way to get a response out of you. It is human nature to reply to an insult and attempt to defend yourself, even if you do it calmly with contrary evidence. But, don't do it. You are only putting money into that shill's pocket. Your reply is money to them. Why do you think they are so relentless in their goading? They try and try. Don't give them the satisfaction nor the money. They frequently try to paint an image of themselves as educated, successful, and of some sort of standing. Why? To position themselves as an authority or expert on a subject as opposed to you (an average American who works long hours and wants to be an engaged citizens but admittedly doesn't know every detail about every political/legal topic). This tactic is designed to diminish your own thoughts, ideas, awareness, and opinions and make you question yourself. It is human nature to realize that you don't know everything about everything and to defer to a specialist/expert. People do this in medicine all of the time. Building this authority/expertise takes details--the shill posts about their education, profession, standing, life experiences. Does an average poster on an Internet forum divulge so much personal information about themselves? Occupation, family details, schooling, who they know, where they live... Most people are protective of such personal information and wouldn't put all that out there in the cybersphere. Based on what some of us have read from some people, I bet we could pin point them on a google map right this very minute.) That is, if all of what they have shared is true. Over sharing is a trait of a liar. When a person (or patient) is trying to manipulate you into something, it is very common for them to share more information than is truly necessary. They think they are schmoozing you, so they paint elaborate stories with all kinds of details, in order to build some kind of a relationship/camaraderie with you on some level. If they throw out enough details in enough directions, they are bound to find a common link to someone (religion, race, background, geographical...) We tend to be more sympathetic to those who are similar to ourselves, or give them the benefit of the doubt. And lastly, they change the subject whenever someone makes a valid, but opposing point against their narrative. This can be done by negating, deflecting, changing the topic, spinning your post. A shill's response to your post may take the conversation in a different direction or off onto a tangent. You may feel frustrated that they are missing your main point or that they are lacking in reading comprehension because of this. But it's a tactic that they are using to shut you down, to muddy the waters, to conflate the topic, and to minimize the impact of your post. They are paid shills and this is their job.

Use this post to reflect on what you have seen or experienced here or on other forums, or don't. Your choice.

This is pure lies. George said my shill $$$$$ was gonna hit my direct deposit last Friday and it still hasn't arrived. Hell, I'm still waiting on my Obama cellphone which was promised to me 7 years ago. Lousy lyin' democrats

 

[BoolaHI]

Dude, I love it. You seriously miss the point of almost everything said here and then respond like Don Quixote.

I’m not your windmill.

Who is attacking Apple’s board?

And you DO understand that Mr Vector called em ‘no talent’ in the post I was responding to yeah???

I hate to keep stating the obvious, but reading comp is not your strong suit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My god, I'm trying not to engage in whataboutism but are you really that much of a hypocrite (or that blinded by the personality cult of Trump) that you can't see the contradiction between your "concern" about Hunter Biden and your obliviousness to China granting Ivanka patents in the midst of a trade war, the failsons Eric and Jr pimping out Trump DC hotel to every foreign country and lobbyist under the sun, and big daddy trump making the air force land near his Scottish resort and stay there, trying to host G7 at his shtty Miami resort, and not separating himself financially from his company? Who in their right mind would take you seriously if you're trying to sell us that you're worried about generalized corruption?

Regardless, I know that wherever you're drifting out in the Fox News Ether is telling you that Joe and Hunter did something really bad. Back here on plant earth, here's what really happened

---------------
What the evidence shows about Biden’s actions
Paul’s reference to Biden threatening aid stems from when Biden called for Ukraine to fire prosecutor general Viktor Shokin.

Biden assumed a lead role in U.S. diplomacy toward Ukraine after a popular revolution in early 2014 that led to pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country. Shokin became top prosecutor in 2015.

Many Western leaders and institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, viewed Shokin as corrupt and ineffective for failing to prosecute anybody of significance, and for protecting members of the ruling class.

A frustrated Biden in December 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Shokin was fired, in hopes that a new prosecutor would do more to enforce the law. According to Biden, it worked.

At a Jan. 23, 2018, event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden recounted his threat to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and from then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

"I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours," Biden recounted. "If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

The big point: On top of the international support for what he did, Biden was representing the views of the U.S. government and its foreign policy analysts.

Rand Paul’s false equivalence about Trump, Biden on Ukraine

President Donald Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president "sounds exactly like what Joe Biden did."

www.politifact.com

-------------------

This is pure lies. George said my shill $$$$$ was gonna hit my direct deposit last Friday and it still hasn't arrived. Hell, I'm still waiting on my Obama cellphone which was promised to me 7 years ago. Lousy lyin' democrats

Yup, indeed. What next some Rothschild global conspiracy and Jews are running the central bank, it would be hilarious except it’s scary how gullible and dim-witted some folks are in their evangelism of propaganda.

 

[deleted171991]

Consider this a public service post or ignore (your choice):

Have you ever heard of David Brock or Act Blue? Ever hear of George Soros or his son Alex Soros or The Open Society Foundation? What do these 2 entities (and others) have in common? They have paid digital shills who have prepared talking points that seek out forums where there are any political discussions and they post. They are paid. This is a job to them. They get paid to post, and they get paid based on how many people reply to their posts. Their job is to sway public opinion by flooding a forum with certain biased info, to negate the opinions of others, and to change the subject when someone is above the target.

How do you recognize a paid shill? What are some characteristics to look for? They post a lot. Remember, they get paid based on how much they post. They bait others into replying and engaging with them. Remember, they get paid based on how many replies they get. They post often, almost as if they are waiting in the wings. That's because they are. They may have multiple forums that they are assigned to/posting on, and it is their job to be ready to jump in whenever somebody questions the narrative. When someone makes a point or shares a statistic/article, the paid shill seems to reply with lightning speed with sources/links/data. How is it done so quickly? Because they have files of prepared links/articles for every talking point they need to hammer home. Some legitimate posters will take the time to make a lengthy post or one with multiple sources to support their stance, but a shill tends to spring back almost immediately with a response chock full of links. Does a regular poster do this? Not usually. A paid shill uses emotion to manipulate people. They try to manipulate you into supporting them by using emotional triggers and they try to insult you/bully you as a way to get a response out of you. It is human nature to reply to an insult and attempt to defend yourself, even if you do it calmly with contrary evidence. But, don't do it. You are only putting money into that shill's pocket. Your reply is money to them. Why do you think they are so relentless in their goading? They try and try. Don't give them the satisfaction nor the money. They frequently try to paint an image of themselves as educated, successful, and of some sort of standing. Why? To position themselves as an authority or expert on a subject as opposed to you (an average American who works long hours and wants to be an engaged citizens but admittedly doesn't know every detail about every political/legal topic). This tactic is designed to diminish your own thoughts, ideas, awareness, and opinions and make you question yourself. It is human nature to realize that you don't know everything about everything and to defer to a specialist/expert. People do this in medicine all of the time. Building this authority/expertise takes details--the shill posts about their education, profession, standing, life experiences. Does an average poster on an Internet forum divulge so much personal information about themselves? Occupation, family details, schooling, who they know, where they live... Most people are protective of such personal information and wouldn't put all that out there in the cybersphere. Based on what some of us have read from some people, I bet we could pin point them on a google map right this very minute.) That is, if all of what they have shared is true. Over sharing is a trait of a liar. When a person (or patient) is trying to manipulate you into something, it is very common for them to share more information than is truly necessary. They think they are schmoozing you, so they paint elaborate stories with all kinds of details, in order to build some kind of a relationship/camaraderie with you on some level. If they throw out enough details in enough directions, they are bound to find a common link to someone (religion, race, background, geographical...) We tend to be more sympathetic to those who are similar to ourselves, or give them the benefit of the doubt. And lastly, they change the subject whenever someone makes a valid, but opposing point against their narrative. This can be done by negating, deflecting, changing the topic, spinning your post. A shill's response to your post may take the conversation in a different direction or off onto a tangent. You may feel frustrated that they are missing your main point or that they are lacking in reading comprehension because of this. But it's a tactic that they are using to shut you down, to muddy the waters, to conflate the topic, and to minimize the impact of your post. They are paid shills and this is their job.

Use this post to reflect on what you have seen or experienced here or on other forums, or don't. Your choice.

Poor, poor Leon. Poor, poor, poor Leon!

 

[Matty44]

Anyone who thinks the Biden and son operation was clean and upstanding is 100% disingenuous. Go on the street and ask anyone if a son of a Vice President getting paid $1M a year to do nothing on a foreign company BOD and getting $1.5 B in investments from China while his dad is arguably the 2nd most powerful man in the world is shady at all. I can predict what every honest persons answer will be. And if you take your blue glasses off for a second, you’ll see it too.

If it was Don Jr on Burismas board it’d be headline news 24/7 and probably the center of an impeachment trial. You know it. I know it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

Yup, indeed. What next some Rothschild global conspiracy and Jews are running the central bank, it would be hilarious except it’s scary how gullible and dim-witted some folks are in their evangelism of propaganda.

I’d rather have some one argue for their agenda than have you who argues with ghosts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

I’d rather have some one argue for their agenda than have you who argues with ghosts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was I talking to you- oh I forgot I am part of some large army of bots working under the auspices of a WeWork in Odessa Ukraine as We develop a sophisticated subterfuge of penetration via student doctor.net Sad sad sad and incredibly stupid.

 

[vector2]

70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong

An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, which sits at the heart of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, was wrong, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds.

70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL

A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Angus Avagadro]

Consider this a public service post or ignore (your choice):

Have you ever heard of David Brock or Act Blue? Ever hear of George Soros or his son Alex Soros or The Open Society Foundation? What do these 2 entities (and others) have in common? They have paid digital shills who have prepared talking points that seek out forums where there are any political discussions and they post. They are paid. This is a job to them. They get paid to post, and they get paid based on how many people reply to their posts. Their job is to sway public opinion by flooding a forum with certain biased info, to negate the opinions of others, and to change the subject when someone is above the target.

How do you recognize a paid shill? What are some characteristics to look for? They post a lot. Remember, they get paid based on how much they post. They bait others into replying and engaging with them. Remember, they get paid based on how many replies they get. They post often, almost as if they are waiting in the wings. That's because they are. They may have multiple forums that they are assigned to/posting on, and it is their job to be ready to jump in whenever somebody questions the narrative. When someone makes a point or shares a statistic/article, the paid shill seems to reply with lightning speed with sources/links/data. How is it done so quickly? Because they have files of prepared links/articles for every talking point they need to hammer home. Some legitimate posters will take the time to make a lengthy post or one with multiple sources to support their stance, but a shill tends to spring back almost immediately with a response chock full of links. Does a regular poster do this? Not usually. A paid shill uses emotion to manipulate people. They try to manipulate you into supporting them by using emotional triggers and they try to insult you/bully you as a way to get a response out of you. It is human nature to reply to an insult and attempt to defend yourself, even if you do it calmly with contrary evidence. But, don't do it. You are only putting money into that shill's pocket. Your reply is money to them. Why do you think they are so relentless in their goading? They try and try. Don't give them the satisfaction nor the money. They frequently try to paint an image of themselves as educated, successful, and of some sort of standing. Why? To position themselves as an authority or expert on a subject as opposed to you (an average American who works long hours and wants to be an engaged citizens but admittedly doesn't know every detail about every political/legal topic). This tactic is designed to diminish your own thoughts, ideas, awareness, and opinions and make you question yourself. It is human nature to realize that you don't know everything about everything and to defer to a specialist/expert. People do this in medicine all of the time. Building this authority/expertise takes details--the shill posts about their education, profession, standing, life experiences. Does an average poster on an Internet forum divulge so much personal information about themselves? Occupation, family details, schooling, who they know, where they live... Most people are protective of such personal information and wouldn't put all that out there in the cybersphere. Based on what some of us have read from some people, I bet we could pin point them on a google map right this very minute.) That is, if all of what they have shared is true. Over sharing is a trait of a liar. When a person (or patient) is trying to manipulate you into something, it is very common for them to share more information than is truly necessary. They think they are schmoozing you, so they paint elaborate stories with all kinds of details, in order to build some kind of a relationship/camaraderie with you on some level. If they throw out enough details in enough directions, they are bound to find a common link to someone (religion, race, background, geographical...) We tend to be more sympathetic to those who are similar to ourselves, or give them the benefit of the doubt. And lastly, they change the subject whenever someone makes a valid, but opposing point against their narrative. This can be done by negating, deflecting, changing the topic, spinning your post. A shill's response to your post may take the conversation in a different direction or off onto a tangent. You may feel frustrated that they are missing your main point or that they are lacking in reading comprehension because of this. But it's a tactic that they are using to shut you down, to muddy the waters, to conflate the topic, and to minimize the impact of your post. They are paid shills and this is their job.

Use this post to reflect on what you have seen or experienced here or on other forums, or don't. Your choice.

LOL! At first I thought Boo was a Ukrainian Troll Farm. I mean, why is a lawyer in a forum advising med students and resident on how to be successful doctors? Then he used words in a unique fashion that didnt follow normal dictionary definitions. Example his use of the word ****hold. This led me to think he wasnt a Ukrainian troll farm.as Ukrainians speak English very well. Then I called him out on his interpretation of an article.by Andy McCarthy which he posted and got completely wrong. He had no response. Which is very uncharacteristic for him on this thread. My guess is Ukrainian troll farm. But, since this thread has crushed the former record for posts within a thread, and I'm not very interested in politics I am leaving
Good luck and best wishes to all!

 

[Matty44]

Was I talking to you- oh I forgot I am part of some large army of bots working under the auspices of a WeWork in Odessa Ukraine as We develop a sophisticated subterfuge of penetration via student doctor.net Sad sad sad and incredibly stupid.

Again, I’m not your windmill Don.

And yeah, usually when you respond quoting someones post, your comment is directed toward that person.

Never said anything about bots. But it only makes sense that you’ll try to attack me for something I never referenced. You are very good at the status quo my good friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong

An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, which sits at the heart of the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, was wrong, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds.

View attachment 286688

70% of Americans say Trump’s actions tied to Ukraine were wrong: POLL

A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office.

abcnews.go.com

Well then, if that poll is trustworthy, why not just drop the impeachment and let him get crushed in a democratic landslide next November?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

My god, I'm trying not to engage in whataboutism but are you really that much of a hypocrite (or that blinded by the personality cult of Trump) that you can't see the contradiction between your "concern" about Hunter Biden and your obliviousness to China granting Ivanka patents in the midst of a trade war, the failsons Eric and Jr pimping out Trump DC hotel to every foreign country and lobbyist under the sun, and big daddy trump making the air force land near his Scottish resort and stay there, trying to host G7 at his shtty Miami resort, and not separating himself financially from his company? Who in their right mind would take you seriously if you're trying to sell us that you're worried about generalized corruption?

Regardless, I know that wherever you're drifting out in the Fox News Ether is telling you that Joe and Hunter did something really bad. Back here on plant earth, here's what really happened

---------------
What the evidence shows about Biden’s actions
Paul’s reference to Biden threatening aid stems from when Biden called for Ukraine to fire prosecutor general Viktor Shokin.

Biden assumed a lead role in U.S. diplomacy toward Ukraine after a popular revolution in early 2014 that led to pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country. Shokin became top prosecutor in 2015.

Many Western leaders and institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, viewed Shokin as corrupt and ineffective for failing to prosecute anybody of significance, and for protecting members of the ruling class.

A frustrated Biden in December 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Shokin was fired, in hopes that a new prosecutor would do more to enforce the law. According to Biden, it worked.

At a Jan. 23, 2018, event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden recounted his threat to then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and from then-Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

"I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours," Biden recounted. "If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a b----. He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."

The big point: On top of the international support for what he did, Biden was representing the views of the U.S. government and its foreign policy analysts.

Rand Paul’s false equivalence about Trump, Biden on Ukraine

President Donald Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president "sounds exactly like what Joe Biden did."

www.politifact.com

-------------------

You can say the prosecutor was corrupt and that’s why Biden threatened Ukraine.

I can say Bidens son was corrupt, hence why DJT wanted him investigated.

You can say Bidens view was representing the US governments interests.

I can say the government has a strong interest in investigating Biden and burisma and that will be shown in senate testimony (if we get there).

Needless to say, your summary didn’t do much other than recount how Biden threatened Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was investigating his son. So thanks for summing that up again.




Also, why you so mad bro? Always so vicious in your retorts. Who hurt you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

LOL! At first I thought Boo was a Ukrainian Troll Farm. I mean, why is a lawyer in a forum advising med students and resident on how to be successful doctors? Then he used words in a unique fashion that didnt follow normal dictionary definitions. Example his use of the word ****hold. This led me to think he wasnt a Ukrainian troll farm.as Ukrainians speak English very well. Then I called him out on his interpretation of an article.by Andy McCarthy which he posted and got completely wrong. He had no response. Which is very uncharacteristic for him on this thread. My guess is Ukrainian troll farm. But, since this thread has crushed the former record for posts within a thread, and I'm not very interested in politics I am leaving
Good luck and best wishes to all!

Perhaps you need the English lesson. ****old is a usual term frequently used in political circles as a metaphor.

 

[Matty44]

Perhaps you need the English lesson. ****old is a usual term frequently used in political circles as a metaphor.

Kinda like ‘peep-squeak’ and ‘effete’?

[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

Kinda like ‘peep-squeak’ and ‘effete’?

[emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hear the cry for help, I’ll round up a go-fund-me, so that we can purchase you a new dictionary to assist in your greater trolling objectives.

 

[Matty44]

I hear the cry for help, I’ll round up a go-fund-me, so that we can purchase you a new dictionary to assist in your greater trolling objectives.

K, I’ll share it with you so you can learn how to spell common English words like pip-squeak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vector2]

You can say the prosecutor was corrupt and that’s why Biden threatened Ukraine.

I can say Bidens son was corrupt, hence why DJT wanted him investigated.

You can say Bidens view was representing the US governments interests.

I can say the government has a strong interest in investigating Biden and burisma and that will be shown in senate testimony (if we get there).

Needless to say, your summary didn’t do much other than recount how Biden threatened Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that was investigating his son. So thanks for summing that up again.




Also, why you so mad bro? Always so vicious in your retorts. Who hurt you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess I’m mad cause you’re some wicked combination of incredible hypocrisy, stupidity, cynicism, and shameless trolling

And what in the hell are you rambling about? *I* am not the only one saying that Biden was representing US government and international consensus on Ukraine and policy toward Shokin. Again, very slowly for you dumbdumb: the *US government and international community* had a consensus (which Biden was representing) that stated that Shokin was unbelievably corrupt and had to go. Unlike you, I’m not making things up out of thin air. Believe me, I know it’s hard to grasp from Trumpland, but get it through your thick skull that a US and intl consensus effort against Shokin is a historical fact as much as anything can be called a fact. I’m sure it’s difficult to accept that there’s not some equivalent whataboutism you can use to deflect from Trump’s abject criminality, but facts hurt sometimes.

——
But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.

In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Services report.

Shokin served as prosecutor general under Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after he was removed from power in 2014 and was later found guilty of treason. Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”

In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.”

In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.

“After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the PGO itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,” the CRS report said. Shokin submitted his resignation in February 2016 and was removed a month later.

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, on Sept. 20 tweeted that the “Obama administration policy (not just ‘Biden policy’) to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go” was “a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society

Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine - FactCheck.org

President Donald Trump once again twisted the facts to claim that Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold "billions of dollars to Ukraine" unless it removed the prosecutor general who "was prosecuting" Biden's son, Hunter.

www.factcheck.org

——

 

[Matty44]

I guess I’m mad cause you’re some wicked combination of incredible hypocrisy, stupidity, cynicism, and shameless trolling

And what in the hell are you rambling about? *I* am not the only one saying that Biden was representing US government and international consensus on Ukraine and policy toward Shokin. Again, very slowly for you dumbdumb: the *US government and international community* had a consensus (which Biden was representing) that stated that Shokin was unbelievably corrupt and had to go. Unlike you, I’m not making things up out of thin air. Believe me, I know it’s hard to grasp from Trumpland, but get it through your thick skull that a US and intl consensus effort against Shokin is a historical fact as much as anything can be called a fact. I’m sure it’s difficult to accept that there’s not some equivalent whataboutism you can use to deflect from Trump’s abject criminality, but facts hurt sometimes.

——
But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.

In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Services report.

Shokin served as prosecutor general under Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after he was removed from power in 2014 and was later found guilty of treason. Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”

In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.”

In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.

“After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the PGO itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,” the CRS report said. Shokin submitted his resignation in February 2016 and was removed a month later.

Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, on Sept. 20 tweeted that the “Obama administration policy (not just ‘Biden policy’) to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go” was “a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society

Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine - FactCheck.org

President Donald Trump once again twisted the facts to claim that Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold "billions of dollars to Ukraine" unless it removed the prosecutor general who "was prosecuting" Biden's son, Hunter.

www.factcheck.org

——

The fact the dude was corrupt doesn’t change the fact that he was investigating Bidens corrupt son. And Biden just so happened to want him to stop. Or is that all just a perfect little coincidence in your mind? Why can’t you just admit that it was at the very best a shady arrangement with Burisma? It’s not that hard.

Also, please tone down the hateful rhetoric. I’m feeling like a need a safe space from your posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vector2]

The fact the dude was corrupt doesn’t change the fact that he was investigating Bidens corrupt son..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol, what??? Uhhhh, yes, genius, it does, since the motivations and target selection of a thoroughly corrupt prosecutor are essentially worthless in regard to any real judicial value. Like...do I really need to explain to you why corrupt judges have their verdicts and sentences overturned? Let me know...I can go back to language meant for a 7 yr old if needed.