The Impeachment Trial

[Cow Poke]

You support for Trump is qualified only in that when accused of giving unqualified support, you will claim you don't.

Silly, silly me... I, once again, thought we could have a reasonable adult conversation.

Your posts here almost universally support Trump.

Nope. My posts here almost universally mock the Democrats' incredibly partisan impeachment sham.

AFAICT, MM is the only one posting that supports Trump in a clearly more unqualified manner than yourself.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Appearing to 'be out of touch' with reality assumes you are 'in touch' with reality.

At times, I am, Jim. I have my moments.

What standard of measure would you propose should be used to evaluate 'in touch with reality'?

Well, let's reflect.....

A) John expresses his opinion that the impeachment is a sham, while fulling admitting that Trump is a jackass.
2) Bob eagerly jumps into a local wild orgy which is published on the local evening news for all to see.

Can you tell which of these is not like the other?

[Mountain Man]

Since that manuscript will not be available till march...

The book won't be released until March, but surely the Senate could get a peek at the draft manuscript which is currently in the hands of the NSC and has been for several months.

And remember, all this is based on a "sources say" story from the disreputable New York Times.

[oxmixmudd]

Silly, silly me... I, once again, thought we could have a reasonable adult conversation.



Nope. My posts here almost universally mock the Democrats' incredibly partisan impeachment sham.



You're certainly entitled to your opinion.



At times, I am, Jim. I have my moments.



Well, let's reflect.....

A) John expresses his opinion that the impeachment is a sham, while fulling admitting that Trump is a jackass.
2) Bob eagerly jumps into a local wild orgy which is published on the local evening news for all to see.

Can you tell which of these is not like the other?

You capacity not to understand the concept of analogy never ceases to amaze me CP. If you will read the sentence, I was talking about the effect, not the act.

And indeed, the effect of Christian's support for Trump in spite of so much has caused so many I know the question the validity of Christian faith in much the same way as Jim Baker, or Jimmy Swaggart's infidelities. Actually more so, because it is easy to say Jim Baker or Jimmy Swaggart was just an anomaly, and the people that followed him ignorant or gullible, and it is therefore not fair to paint the entire church with their brush. But this isn't that. This is very large group of people claiming Christian faith (Evangelicals) supporting actions that are 100% contrary to the core elements of our faith an message. And it is hard to make a convincing argument the faith itself is untarnished when so many that hold it are making those same compromises. It reflects on the faith as whole, much more so than any individual's feaux pax.

[Cow Poke]

You capacity not to understand the concept of analogy never ceases to amaze me CP.

Have a wonderful day, Jim.

[oxmixmudd]

Have a wonderful day, Jim.

Yeah , well you too.

One day maybe you'll figure out how to actually get at the point rather than twisting the words of my posts and addressing something other than the point made. But till then, unfortunately, you can expect me to call you on it when you do. So - for future reference, if you actually are interested in having productive discussions with me, don't twist my words and act as if they said something they did not. Just address the points made as they were made and 'poof' magically a good conversation will appear.

Or alternatively, don't walk off in a huff if I happen to point out you twisted or exaggerated my words into something I didn't say.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeah , well you too.

One day maybe you'll figure out how to actually get at the point rather than twisting the words of my posts and addressing something other than the point made. But till then, unfortunately, you can expect me to call you on it when you do. So - for future reference, if you actually are interested in having productive discussions with me, don't twist my words and act as if they said something they did not. Just address the points made as they were made and 'poof' magically a good conversation will appear.

Or alternatively, don't walk off in a huff if I happen to point out you twisted or exaggerated my words into something I didn't say.

Irony at its finest.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah , well you too.

One day maybe you'll figure out how to actually get at the point rather than twisting the words of my posts and addressing something other than the point made. But till then, unfortunately, you can expect me to call you on it when you do. So - for future reference, if you actually are interested in having productive discussions with me, don't twist my words and act as if they said something they did not. Just address the points made as they were made and 'poof' magically a good conversation will appear.

Or alternatively, don't walk off in a huff if I happen to point out you twisted or exaggerated my words into something I didn't say.

This really gets old, Jim. Nobody's "walking off in a huff" --- I just don't enjoy your constant accusations of "having to walk on eggshells" and people "twisting your words" and your sense that everybody's attacking you.... It's like you have a giant chip on your shoulder and you're constantly looking for ways to blame everybody else for your own attitude.

So, "have a wonderful day" was sincere, and simply a way of trying to disengage in a peaceful manner.

[oxmixmudd]

The book won't be released until March, but surely the Senate could get a peek at the draft manuscript which is currently in the hands of the NSC and has been for several months.

And remember, all this is based on a "sources say" story from the disreputable New York Times.

"Sources say" is a dead horse at this point. Bolton does not deny it, and more importantly independent eyes have been on the source and have confirmed the reporting. You'll now need a conspiracy for that the fly.

Saying the NYT is disreputable is in reality libel. They are a reputable source, despite the hyperbole of extreme right wing pundits.

The Senate need the actual testimony MM. You know that, I know that, stop being silly. He needs to be under oath.

[oxmixmudd]

This really gets old, Jim. Nobody's "walking off in a huff" --- I just don't enjoy your constant accusations of "having to walk on eggshells" and people "twisting your words" and your sense that everybody's attacking you.... It's like you have a giant chip on your shoulder and you're constantly looking for ways to blame everybody else for your own attitude.

So, "have a wonderful day" was sincere, and simply a way of trying to disengage in a peaceful manner.

No , it's walking off in a huff. And your denials of reality do get old. And you incapacity to address the actual point gets old too. One is always having to circle back and constantly drive you back to what was actually said, while you continuously wonder off onto tangents not related to the actual words written.

And I am not the only one to have pointed this out.


Why you do it I will not speculate, but if you actually, truly care about having useful, respectful conversations with people, you need to stop.

[Cow Poke]

No , it's walking off in a huff.

You're right, Jim. I apologize.

[oxmixmudd]

You're right, Jim. I apologize.

Thanks, and accepted.

[rogue06]

"Sources say" is a dead horse at this point. Bolton does not deny it, and more importantly independent eyes have been on the source and have confirmed the reporting. You'll now need a conspiracy for that the fly.

Saying the NYT is disreputable is in reality libel. They are a reputable source, despite the hyperbole of extreme right wing pundits.

The Senate need the actual testimony MM. You know that, I know that, stop being silly. He needs to be under oath.

More than one person here (including myself) has already pointed out that while the vetting process for his book is underway, Bolton cannot confirm nor deny anything.

That said, given Trump's reaction, it does appear likely that Bolton has said something to this effect.

And with that said, saying that you want "xyz" is not the same as doing "xyz." I doubt that there is anyone reading this who at one time or another has said something to the effect that they would (or wouldn't) do something but only if (fill in the blank) was done first, and yet still did (or didn't) do it despite what you wanted in exchange never taking place.

[oxmixmudd]

More than one person here (including myself) has already pointed out that while the vetting process for his book is underway, Bolton cannot confirm nor deny anything.

That said, given Trump's reaction, it does appear likely that Bolton has said something to this effect.

And with that said, saying that you want "xyz" is not the same as doing "xyz." I doubt that there is anyone reading this who at one time or another has said something to the effect that they would (or wouldn't) do something but only if (fill in the blank) was done first, and yet still did (or didn't) do it despite what you wanted in exchange never taking place.

BZZZZT! No cigar.

No rogue. It's time for the excuse making to end. Trump wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation on Biden and held congressionally allocated aid in an effort to force them to do just that. It's what he wanted, it's what he intended. And it's a fools errand to try to paper over that reality.

[Sam]

More than one person here (including myself) has already pointed out that while the vetting process for his book is underway, Bolton cannot confirm nor deny anything.

That said, given Trump's reaction, it does appear likely that Bolton has said something to this effect.

And with that said, saying that you want "xyz" is not the same as doing "xyz." I doubt that there is anyone reading this who at one time or another has said something to the effect that they would (or wouldn't) do something but only if (fill in the blank) was done first, and yet still did (or didn't) do it despite what you wanted in exchange never taking place.

You've asserted that Bolton can't deny anything but have not grounded that in any sort of case law or contract clause. I've noted that such a prohibition doesn't make sense.

With that said, what Trump is accused of saying is that he wanted to continue the hold of security funds until he got "material" from the Ukrainian investigations. In August. When he had already ordered the hold placed since at least July.

So Trump was holding the funds, even as DoD was warning about it approaching and passing the point of being unlawful. What he reportedly said to Bolton was that he wanted to continue doing so until he got his quid quo pro for what Sondland and Volker described as "writing a big check".

What Bolton's testimony could provide a first-hand account of is Trump's motivation for doing so.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Bolton does not deny it...

So? He hasn't confirmed it, either.