aaaaaand now trump will only release a redacted transcript.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/u...-congress.html
Printable View
aaaaaand now trump will only release a redacted transcript.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/u...-congress.html
I don't care for either of these peeps but ya just know
dish when ya said the criminal is crazy like a fox. your hayseed sound bites suck. I like a fox wearing foxes. shove it up your ass bud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Notice I didn't attack her personally (even though she'll never read any of this, nor will anyone who knows her personally).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Attacking her age is completely fair because she is incredibly young, lacks life experience, lacks education, and basically is not an expert on anything. Having an interest in climate change and learning about it from adults doesn't make you an expert on it.
Furthermore, there are many complex economic issues related to the climate change argument, as well as many scientific concepts I doubt she understands.
How young is too young to speak? What if a 10-year-old spoke? Would that be deserving of respect?
What about a 6-year-old? What about a 3-year-old?
There's obviously some point where everyone agrees that it's absurd for a child to be up there speaking to the UN. So, yes, it is fine to criticize her age, and 16 is far too young to be lecturing anyone, especially about a complex issue like this.
While I believe that climate change is a legitimate passion for this girl, it was adults who decided to allow her to come speak at the UN, and those adults allowed this for manipulative purposes.
I've heard the defense, "Well, it's her generation who will have to live with this", but why not have a 26-year-old speak -- preferably one who has extensively studied these issues as part of doctoral research? The 10 year age difference there would be mostly negligible regarding what they'll have to "live with" in their later years on this earth. So why parade a kid up there? It's because a kid speaking is more dramatic and attention-grabbing, which was the entire point of this. An innocent-looking 16-year-old chiding adults, "You stole my childhood" is a much better sound byte than a 26-year-old droning on about their climate change research.
The left needs to quit using children as frontmen for their causes-du-jour, and the whole "We're the younger generation and are going to be the agents of change" nonsense doesn't really hold up if you really think about it.
It's gotten a lot more play, then say, every single credible scientist that your team refutes with some nonsense about historical shifts or god controls the weather or one of your go-to's like 'bUt ChInA aNd InDiA dO it MorE' idiotic whatabouts.
Your chief propagandist had to compare her to Children of the Corn and your leader resorted to trolling her on Twitter, because nothing she says can be refuted.
You go after her age. Tight party.
Her understanding of climate change is far greater than yours. Druff comes across as more of a clueless idiot that would believe anything that some Republican asshole made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNotice I didn't attack her personally (even though she'll never read any of this, nor will anyone who knows her personally).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Attacking her age is completely fair because she is incredibly young, lacks life experience, lacks education, and basically is not an expert on anything. Having an interest in climate change and learning about it from adults doesn't make you an expert on it.
Furthermore, there are many complex economic issues related to the climate change argument, as well as many scientific concepts I doubt she understands.
How young is too young to speak? What if a 10-year-old spoke? Would that be deserving of respect?
What about a 6-year-old? What about a 3-year-old?
There's obviously some point where everyone agrees that it's absurd for a child to be up there speaking to the UN. So, yes, it is fine to criticize her age, and 16 is far too young to be lecturing anyone, especially about a complex issue like this.
While I believe that climate change is a legitimate passion for this girl, it was adults who decided to allow her to come speak at the UN, and those adults allowed this for manipulative purposes.
I've heard the defense, "Well, it's her generation who will have to live with this", but why not have a 26-year-old speak -- preferably one who has extensively studied these issues as part of doctoral research? The 10 year age difference there would be mostly negligible regarding what they'll have to "live with" in their later years on this earth. So why parade a kid up there? It's because a kid speaking is more dramatic and attention-grabbing, which was the entire point of this. An innocent-looking 16-year-old chiding adults, "You stole my childhood" is a much better sound byte than a 26-year-old droning on about their climate change research.
The left needs to quit using children as frontmen for their causes-du-jour, and the whole "We're the younger generation and are going to be the agents of change" nonsense doesn't really hold up if you really think about it.
Maybe Druff should just stop attacking 16 year old girls.
https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/...on-768x595.jpg
Nothing she says can be refuted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy JoeQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
It's gotten a lot more play, then say, every single credible scientist that your team refutes with some nonsense about historical shifts or god controls the weather or one of your go-to's like 'bUt ChInA aNd InDiA dO it MorE' idiotic whatabouts.
Your chief propagandist had to compare her to Children of the Corn and your leader resorted to trolling her on Twitter, because nothing she says can be refuted.
You go after her age. Tight party.
Come on. The entire speech was exaggerated histrionics, and even some on the left agree would agree. "You stole my childhood"? Huh?
One doesn't have to be a climate change denier to find that speech way over-the-top.
Even if you want to say that you agree with every word she said, that's not material here. Someone on the right could put a 6-year-old out to speak with a rehearsed speech which I'd completely agree with, but I would never make the case that we should be listening to a 6-year-old.
So, yes, I am focusing upon her age, because it's very relevant. She is not an expert on this subject. She has little life experience and little education. This is a brainwashed kid with Antifa-supporting parents who is being used as a prop in order to get attention. She has nothing to teach us.
The left should be ashamed of themselves here. Rather than allowing their views to succeed or fail on their own merits, they are now resorting to manipulative stunts like this, because their previous attempts to be taken seriously have failed. Rather than evaluating the failures in their own methods or message, they're simply swapping out the messenger. In this case, the messenger is a child whom we are supposed to feel like we have all victimized. Shameful.
Keep in mind that I'm not a climate change denier, and environmentalism is one area where I side with the left on many issues. But this is just awful emotional manipulation, and it needs to stop. First they did it with the Parkland kids, and now this crap.
“The person who appears to have been more directly involved at nearly every stage of the entanglement with Ukraine is Giuliani.
“‘Rudy — he did all of this,’ one U.S. official said. ‘This shitshow that we’re in — it’s him injecting himself into the process.’”
You're a strange guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactorHer understanding of climate change is far greater than yours. Druff comes across as more of a clueless idiot that would believe anything that some Republican asshole made up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Maybe Druff should just stop attacking 16 year old girls.
https://grrrgraphics.com/wp-content/...on-768x595.jpg
You give me a hard time for criticizing her, and then you post a (kind of funny) cartoon mocking her.
wowwwwwwww.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffNothing she says can be refuted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Come on. The entire speech was exaggerated histrionics, and even some on the left agree would agree. "You stole my childhood"? Huh?
One doesn't have to be a climate change denier to find that speech way over-the-top.
Even if you want to say that you agree with every word she said, that's not material here. Someone on the right could put a 6-year-old out to speak with a rehearsed speech which I'd completely agree with, but I would never make the case that we should be listening to a 6-year-old.
So, yes, I am focusing upon her age, because it's very relevant. She is not an expert on this subject. She has little life experience and little education. This is a brainwashed kid with Antifa-supporting parents who is being used as a prop in order to get attention. She has nothing to teach us.
The left should be ashamed of themselves here. Rather than allowing their views to succeed or fail on their own merits, they are now resorting to manipulative stunts like this, because their previous attempts to be taken seriously have failed. Rather than evaluating the failures in their own methods or message, they're simply swapping out the messenger. In this case, the messenger is a child whom we are supposed to feel like we have all victimized. Shameful.
Keep in mind that I'm not a climate change denier, and environmentalism is one area where I side with the left on many issues. But this is just awful emotional manipulation, and it needs to stop. First they did it with the Parkland kids, and now this crap.
Age doesn't seem to be an issue when your party refutes the findings of 99.8% of the world's scientists. What is their disqualifying characteristic?
She's not touting studies, she's a passionate child who gives no fucks and has your sociopathic leader spinning.
Yes, the GOP is so worried about our sweet children, provided it doesn't pertain to them getting riddled with bullets in elementary schools.
I would think you would have more respect for a person with Asperger's having a pet cause.
Did no one take you seriously with customer service complaints prior to your turning 18?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy JoeQuote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Age doesn't seem to be an issue when your party refutes the findings of 99.8% of the world's scientists. What is their disqualifying characteristic?
She's not touting studies, she's a passionate child who gives no fucks and has your sociopathic leader spinning.
Yes, the GOP is so worried about our sweet children, provided it doesn't pertain to them getting riddled with bullets in elementary schools.
I would think you would have more respect for a person with Asperger's having a pet cause.
Did no one take you seriously with customer service complaints prior to your turning 18?
Interesting how you posted a pic of the Covington MAGA hat kid. You know... the one vilified by the left until it came out that he was actually much more a victim than a perpetrator of harassment. And then people like you still bash him. And then these same people cry foul when anyone insults poor Greta. Ah, the hypocrisy.
I love how you completely ignore all of the points I made, and just revert into a climate change speech, because that's really the left can say in response to the true statement that they were being manipulative.
She isn't just "a passionate child who gives no fucks". A passionate child can't get a spot on the floor of the UN, speaking to world leaders while the mass media broadcasts it. Adults made that happen -- manipulative adults who knew exactly the heart-tugging reaction they were going for, so they dropped her front and center like a political prop.
It's also sad how you resort to repeating old, lame Jewdonk trolling against me because I'm challenging your baseless rebuttals.
Oh, and please let me know how I stole Greta's childhood in your next response. TIA
I mean, come on now, at least try to use your brain for a second.
Even if you agree 100% with her "you stole my childhood" histrionics, the least you can do is admit that the left was being manipulative here. Or are you usually unaware when people manipulate you?
Just a passionate 16-year-old giving a speech, with no adults behind it having set up the situation for political gain, right?
So kid wearing propoganda clothing should not be mocked for age, or clothing if they are supporting the president?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan DruffQuote:
Originally Posted by Sloppy Joe
Age doesn't seem to be an issue when your party refutes the findings of 99.8% of the world's scientists. What is their disqualifying characteristic?
She's not touting studies, she's a passionate child who gives no fucks and has your sociopathic leader spinning.
Yes, the GOP is so worried about our sweet children, provided it doesn't pertain to them getting riddled with bullets in elementary schools.
I would think you would have more respect for a person with Asperger's having a pet cause.
Did no one take you seriously with customer service complaints prior to your turning 18?
Interesting how you posted a pic of the Covington MAGA hat kid. You know... the one vilified by the left until it came out that he was actually much more a victim than a perpetrator of harassment. And then people like you still bash him. And then these same people cry foul when anyone insults poor Greta. Ah, the hypocrisy.
I love how you completely ignore all of the points I made, and just revert into a climate change speech, because that's really the left can say in response to the true statement that they were being manipulative.
She isn't just "a passionate child who gives no fucks". A passionate child can't get a spot on the floor of the UN, speaking to world leaders while the mass media broadcasts it. Adults made that happen -- manipulative adults who knew exactly the heart-tugging reaction they were going for, so they dropped her front and center like a political prop.
It's also sad how you resort to repeating old, lame Jewdonk trolling against me because I'm challenging your baseless rebuttals.
Oh, and please let me know how I stole Greta's childhood in your next response. TIA
A kid wearing a MAGA hat and grinning shouldn't have his face broadcast by the mainstream media as that of a racist villain, until the full story was clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by zealanddonkSo kid wearing propoganda clothing should not be mocked for age, or clothing if they are supporting the president?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Which, in this case, was the story of some crazy cultish black adults first harassing him and his friends, and then that Native American guy beating a drum in his face in order to passive-aggressively harass him for his choice in headgear.
Greta knowingly went up to speak at the UN, aware she would become a public figure and a source of world debate.
This kid was just on a Washington DC tour with his school. He didn't want any publicity. He was being harassed by various adults who should have known better, and his grin was that of someone who was uncomfortable and didn't quite know what to do. Yet the left had no problem making a national villain out of him, and we still have geniuses like Sloppy Joe trotting out his picture, as if the right was stupid to defend this kid.
Watching Trump getting impeached is going to be awesome.
Can all of Trump's tweets and statements be used against him?
Trump admitted trying to extort the Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgG8StjJQcQ
The most corrupt and mentally ill President in history.
Trump is already using the threat of impeachment to raise money.
LULZ
I think Greta is incredible and so is her message, but her parents need to take a good look at themselves.
meanwhile the senate voted 100-0 for trump to deliver the whistleblower complaint to congress, which is, you know, the lawQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
edit -- it's supposed to be turned over tomorrow
What possible downside is there for Trump on being impeached?
This muh Ukrainians episode seems like a Steve Bannon ploy.
i think just embarassmentQuote:
Originally Posted by devidee
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakemeanwhile the senate voted 100-0 for trump to deliver the whistleblower complaint to congress, which is, you know, the lawQuote:
Originally Posted by sonatine
edit -- it's supposed to be turned over tomorrow
looks like they changed their mind again and are not turning it over
well, the transcript now confirms that trump asked ukraine to investigate biden, though they still won't turnover the whistleblower complaint, which they must under the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by blakewould you have any issue with trump pressuring ukraine to investigate joe biden?Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
this is clearly impeachable, though nothing will happen with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakewell, the transcript now confirms that trump asked ukraine to investigate biden, though they still won't turnover the whistleblower complaint, which they must under the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by blake
this is clearly impeachable, though nothing will happen with it.
Fkn retard I nailed it on my first post, quit harassing meQuote:
Originally Posted by thesidedishQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
didn't the Ukraine guy already say there wasn't any quid pro quo. it's just trump talking out of his ass like usual saying "what was up with this scam with biden?"
Impeachment proceedings do two things. They end Biden’s bid to be POTUS. And they ensure Trump gets re-elected.
LULZ
4D chess from the Democrats.
this is gibberish dishQuote:
Originally Posted by thesidedishQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
Fkn retard I nailed it on my first post, quit harassing meQuote:
Originally Posted by thesidedishQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
didn't the Ukraine guy already say there wasn't any quid pro quo. it's just trump talking out of his ass like usual saying "what was up with this scam with biden?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
You seem like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future.
Lol wow so the convo started by trump asking the guy to look into the muh Russia scam cuz he might know something about it.
After reading it, there are two extremely important take-aways from the release of the transcript:
1) It is very likely that Trump is functionally illiterate, there is no way anyone who can read would fail to see that his conduct would be considered impeachable even without the clearly demonstrated quid pro quo.
2) Trump has essentially isolated himself among people who are so totally in the dark about executive law that no one spoke up about how the contents of the report could be problematic for him.
1) there is zero chance trump gets thrown out of office for this. his base would turn on any republican senator that voted for it. i think dish, devidee and druff perfectly capture what his base thinks right now.
2) that aside, the idea that you need a quid pro quo before it being impeachable is a joke. like i said before, asking a foreign government to investigate your chief political rival is horrible in and of itself.
3) also lol at no quid pro quo. the US is the only country that provides ukraine military aid. ukraine can't exactly say no to trump's request and the ukraine prime minister told trump they'll get a new prosecutor to look at the biden stuff. shocking result.
We're basically back on appeasing muh Russia donkeys by even discussing this
except there is no gray area, no investigation needed, no wiggle room, no nothing. what trump's already admitted to is impeachable. won't happen though.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
“I think one of the critical things is, what has the President said about it up until this point?” Abrams asked. “The President had initially talked about the possibility that this was a discussion about trying to root out corruption in Ukraine, trying to ensure that the money was going to the right places, et cetera. There’s almost nothing about that in this transcript.”
“This transcript is largely about the personal agenda of the president,” he continued. “I mean, when you read through it, the majority of what the president is talking about is with regard to personal agenda items. The CrowdStrike, Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden… The most important point though is the Biden piece, right? You can say that the Hillary Clinton piece is inappropriate, shouldn’t have done it, but when you’re talking about trying to get information about your potential 2020 rival, you’re now crossing into the potential legal issues. You’re now talking about the possibility of influencing an election, and that’s different than just looking back.”
“This is worse than I think people expected,” Abrams said.
https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trum...ople-expected/
Dear Republicans: You’ve come a long way, baby!
I'm talking about human nature. MUH RUSSIA was a scam. Trump and the Ukraine guy open up the conversation talking about it and the conversation flows to other corruption. So if ur a muh Russia donkey u do not grasp this cuz then u first have to admit to yourself u looked like a retard for 600 days. Human beings are selfish garbage and the ego does not allow them to do that. EVERY muh Russia donkey will SHRIEK cuz they have a brain block, that's what we're in forQuote:
Originally Posted by blakeexcept there is no gray area, no investigation needed, no wiggle room, no nothing. what trump's already admitted to is impeachable. won't happen though.Quote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
i'm not sure if you agree or disagree with me about any of thisQuote:
Originally Posted by thesidedishI'm talking about human nature. MUH RUSSIA was a scam. Trump and the Ukraine guy open up the conversation talking about it and the conversation flows to other corruption. So if ur a muh Russia donkey u do not grasp this cuz then u first have to admit to yourself u looked like a retard for 600 days. Human beings are selfish garbage and the ego does not allow them to do that. EVERY muh Russia donkey will SHRIEK cuz they have a brain block, that's what we're in forQuote:
Originally Posted by blake
Let’s not beat around the bush; the American empire is, without a shadow of a doubt, in decline. I’m not saying this because orange man bad, but it’s just so obvious at this point given the toxic discourse that’s beyond repair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blakei'm not sure if you agree or disagree with me about any of thisQuote:
Originally Posted by thesidedish
ur opinion is irrelevant if u thought "muh russia" was a gray area and not obvious political propaganda is what I'm saying
Imagine, if you will, being an intellectually functional adult responsible for the well being a nation under literal siege from a hostile power, and you get a phone call from the person you're expecting $400m in aid from, and you hear this:
Lindsey Graham@LindseyGrahamSC
Wow. Impeachment over this?
What a nothing (non-quid pro quo) burger.
Democrats have lost their minds when it comes to President @realDonaldTrump
i am shocked by this reaction