(10-06-2019 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There have been no true Republicans since the Contract with America.

Which worked famously, giving republicans their biggest electoral success since Reagan, taking back both houses of congress. So republicans promptly forgot about it and abandoned it.

Republicans do best when the contest is about issues. Democrats (helped in no small measure by their fawning, slobbering MSM buddies) do best when the contest is about personalities. But republicans have abandoned issues. I'm totally disgusted with them.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I wish my enemies had better enemies.

And H.W. Bush and proxy W, the Clinton's, and the Obama's worked damned hard to avoid that contract. Again sir you are too willing to throw a party under the bus instead of the cuckoos who kicked the legitimate chicks out of the nest so they could rule the roost. It's no small wonder that the same corporations heavily backed those 4 administrations and have spent oodles against Trump, and before Trump spent 8 years trying to subvert Reagan whom they were stuck with after a populist Democrat (Carter) and a failed assassination attempt (Reagan).

The leader's that many of your posts laud are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people. It's no accident they went after Gingrich so hard after they came to power. For them money was earned and acclaim won by business as usual for their multi-national overlords.

It took me a while to prove this point to my father who as a retired Air Force officer was reluctant to see the connections, and I fear your years of service and past loyalties, as much as I appreciate them, are blinding you to the same reality.

(10-06-2019 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There have been no true Republicans since the Contract with America.

Which worked famously, giving republicans their biggest electoral success since Reagan, taking back both houses of congress. So republicans promptly forgot about it and abandoned it.
Republicans do best when the contest is about issues. Democrats (helped in no small measure by their fawning, slobbering MSM buddies) do best when the contest is about personalities. But republicans have abandoned issues. I'm totally disgusted with them.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I wish my enemies had better enemies.

And H.W. Bush and proxy W, the Clinton's, and the Obama's worked damned hard to avoid that contract. Again sir you are too willing to throw a party under the bus instead of the cuckoos who kicked the legitimate chicks out of the nest so they could rule the roost. It's no small wonder that the same corporations heavily backed those 4 administrations and have spent oodles against Trump, and before Trump spent 8 years trying to subvert Reagan whom they were stuck with after a populist Democrat (Carter) and a failed assassination attempt (Reagan).
The leader's that many of your posts deride are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people. It's no accident they went after Gingrich so hard after they came to power. For them money was earned and acclaim won by business as usual for their multi-national overlords.
It took me a while to prove this point to my father who as a retired Air Force officer was reluctant to see the connections, and I fear your years of service and past loyalties, as much as I appreciate them, are blinding you to the same reality.

I guess I'm confused because I don't see where our disagreement lies. You say "leaders that many of your posts deride are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people." I agree, that's why I deride them.

(10-06-2019 04:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There have been no true Republicans since the Contract with America.

Which worked famously, giving republicans their biggest electoral success since Reagan, taking back both houses of congress. So republicans promptly forgot about it and abandoned it.
Republicans do best when the contest is about issues. Democrats (helped in no small measure by their fawning, slobbering MSM buddies) do best when the contest is about personalities. But republicans have abandoned issues. I'm totally disgusted with them.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I wish my enemies had better enemies.

And H.W. Bush and proxy W, the Clinton's, and the Obama's worked damned hard to avoid that contract. Again sir you are too willing to throw a party under the bus instead of the cuckoos who kicked the legitimate chicks out of the nest so they could rule the roost. It's no small wonder that the same corporations heavily backed those 4 administrations and have spent oodles against Trump, and before Trump spent 8 years trying to subvert Reagan whom they were stuck with after a populist Democrat (Carter) and a failed assassination attempt (Reagan).
The leader's that many of your posts deride are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people. It's no accident they went after Gingrich so hard after they came to power. For them money was earned and acclaim won by business as usual for their multi-national overlords.
It took me a while to prove this point to my father who as a retired Air Force officer was reluctant to see the connections, and I fear your years of service and past loyalties, as much as I appreciate them, are blinding you to the same reality.

I guess I'm confused because I don't see where our disagreement lies. You say "leaders that many of your posts deride are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people." I agree, that's why I deride them.

The brain drain was from an interruption of my post by my wife. I started to write about those that you deride and changed the sentence to have the subject be those you have touted (Bushes, Clintons, etc.). I'll amend my original post. My dad was the same way until one day things I had been telling him because of my political connections made his light bulb go off about H.W.'s faction within the RNC, as opposed to Reagan who had no faction but the people who voted him in, much like Trump and Carter. All three came under constant pressure of a negative press, but none so great as that of Trump. We agree Trump is a bit crude for a world leader, but probably no more so than Andy Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt, and probably no where near as crude as LBJ. Those 3 however didn't exist in the era of totally partisan media, nor did the media of their era risk total disfavor of the white house and the constituency by targeting a duly elected president.

We are in a different era in which radical politics have been permitted to foment dissention, disregard for decorum, disregard for civil rights, and which insinuate a level of discord heretofore unseen in our political structure and having been there for the 60's and 70's from a media perspective it is at all time low today.

Therefore I see Trump as the last line of defense before totally partisan elections lead to civil war, which is the goal of those backing the media. And it plays into the hands of the globalists and at the expense of the taxpayer and citizen.

The mere presence of President Trump is exposing the swamp that is the Democratic Party. They are pure corruption and we are seeing it on display 24/7.

He's doing exactly what he said he'd do.

(10-06-2019 06:14 PM)450bench Wrote:  The mere presence of President Trump is exposing the swamp that is the Democratic Party. They are pure corruption and we are seeing it on display 24/7.

He's doing exactly what he said he'd do.

which is all I wanted in that spot in today's version...

(10-06-2019 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 04:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 04:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  There have been no true Republicans since the Contract with America.

Which worked famously, giving republicans their biggest electoral success since Reagan, taking back both houses of congress. So republicans promptly forgot about it and abandoned it.
Republicans do best when the contest is about issues. Democrats (helped in no small measure by their fawning, slobbering MSM buddies) do best when the contest is about personalities. But republicans have abandoned issues. I'm totally disgusted with them.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I wish my enemies had better enemies.

And H.W. Bush and proxy W, the Clinton's, and the Obama's worked damned hard to avoid that contract. Again sir you are too willing to throw a party under the bus instead of the cuckoos who kicked the legitimate chicks out of the nest so they could rule the roost. It's no small wonder that the same corporations heavily backed those 4 administrations and have spent oodles against Trump, and before Trump spent 8 years trying to subvert Reagan whom they were stuck with after a populist Democrat (Carter) and a failed assassination attempt (Reagan).
The leader's that many of your posts deride are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people. It's no accident they went after Gingrich so hard after they came to power. For them money was earned and acclaim won by business as usual for their multi-national overlords.
It took me a while to prove this point to my father who as a retired Air Force officer was reluctant to see the connections, and I fear your years of service and past loyalties, as much as I appreciate them, are blinding you to the same reality.

I guess I'm confused because I don't see where our disagreement lies. You say "leaders that many of your posts deride are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people." I agree, that's why I deride them.

The brain drain was from an interruption of my post by my wife. I started to write about those that you deride and changed the sentence to have the subject be those you have touted (Bushes, Clintons, etc.). I'll amend my original post. My dad was the same way until one day things I had been telling him because of my political connections made his light bulb go off about H.W.'s faction within the RNC, as opposed to Reagan who had no faction but the people who voted him in, much like Trump and Carter. All three came under constant pressure of a negative press, but none so great as that of Trump. We agree Trump is a bit crude for a world leader, but probably no more so than Andy Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt, and probably no where near as crude as LBJ. Those 3 however didn't exist in the era of totally partisan media, nor did the media of their era risk total disfavor of the white house and the constituency by targeting a duly elected president.

We are in a different era in which radical politics have been permitted to foment dissention, disregard for decorum, disregard for civil rights, and which insinuate a level of discord heretofore unseen in our political structure and having been there for the 60's and 70's from a media perspective it is at all time low today.

Therefore I see Trump as the last line of defense before totally partisan elections lead to civil war, which is the goal of those backing the media. And it plays into the hands of the globalists and at the expense of the taxpayer and citizen.

Reagan very much had a faction. Maybe you weren't a Republican back then. They stayed at home in '76 and gave us Carter. A fringe of his faction followed Buchanan and helped get us Billy. That same group is the Freedom Caucus cut off your nose to spite your face faction. HW got hit by hostile press every bit as much as Reagan. W perhaps more than either of them because the Dems became sore losers.

HW and W didn't get undermined by the bureaucracy the way Trump has. and so I agree with the rest of your 1st paragraph and all of your 2nd. As for the 3rd, I think President Trump, of all people, is necessary to return professionalism to the bureaucracy.

And I don't think President Trump can destroy the radicalism of the Democrats. But he must defeat it to keep it from spreading. It will be someone like a President Haley that can win 45+ states and destroy the new McGovernites.

(10-06-2019 08:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 05:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 04:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 04:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2019 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which worked famously, giving republicans their biggest electoral success since Reagan, taking back both houses of congress. So republicans promptly forgot about it and abandoned it.
Republicans do best when the contest is about issues. Democrats (helped in no small measure by their fawning, slobbering MSM buddies) do best when the contest is about personalities. But republicans have abandoned issues. I'm totally disgusted with them.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But I wish my enemies had better enemies.

And H.W. Bush and proxy W, the Clinton's, and the Obama's worked damned hard to avoid that contract. Again sir you are too willing to throw a party under the bus instead of the cuckoos who kicked the legitimate chicks out of the nest so they could rule the roost. It's no small wonder that the same corporations heavily backed those 4 administrations and have spent oodles against Trump, and before Trump spent 8 years trying to subvert Reagan whom they were stuck with after a populist Democrat (Carter) and a failed assassination attempt (Reagan).
The leader's that many of your posts deride are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people. It's no accident they went after Gingrich so hard after they came to power. For them money was earned and acclaim won by business as usual for their multi-national overlords.
It took me a while to prove this point to my father who as a retired Air Force officer was reluctant to see the connections, and I fear your years of service and past loyalties, as much as I appreciate them, are blinding you to the same reality.

I guess I'm confused because I don't see where our disagreement lies. You say "leaders that many of your posts deride are the very ringers who destroyed the social contract which focused on too many rights being returned to the people." I agree, that's why I deride them.

The brain drain was from an interruption of my post by my wife. I started to write about those that you deride and changed the sentence to have the subject be those you have touted (Bushes, Clintons, etc.). I'll amend my original post. My dad was the same way until one day things I had been telling him because of my political connections made his light bulb go off about H.W.'s faction within the RNC, as opposed to Reagan who had no faction but the people who voted him in, much like Trump and Carter. All three came under constant pressure of a negative press, but none so great as that of Trump. We agree Trump is a bit crude for a world leader, but probably no more so than Andy Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt, and probably no where near as crude as LBJ. Those 3 however didn't exist in the era of totally partisan media, nor did the media of their era risk total disfavor of the white house and the constituency by targeting a duly elected president.

We are in a different era in which radical politics have been permitted to foment dissention, disregard for decorum, disregard for civil rights, and which insinuate a level of discord heretofore unseen in our political structure and having been there for the 60's and 70's from a media perspective it is at all time low today.

Therefore I see Trump as the last line of defense before totally partisan elections lead to civil war, which is the goal of those backing the media. And it plays into the hands of the globalists and at the expense of the taxpayer and citizen.

Reagan very much had a faction. Maybe you weren't a Republican back then. They stayed at home in '76 and gave us Carter. A fringe of his faction followed Buchanan and helped get us Billy. That same group is the Freedom Caucus cut off your nose to spite your face faction. HW got hit by hostile press every bit as much as Reagan. W perhaps more than either of them because the Dems became sore losers.

HW and W didn't get undermined by the bureaucracy the way Trump has. and so I agree with the rest of your 1st paragraph and all of your 2nd. As for the 3rd, I think President Trump, of all people, is necessary to return professionalism to the bureaucracy.

I've been a Republican since High School. I remember it very well. If Reagan had had a faction he wouldn't have been forced by the RNC to choose between Gerald Ford and H.W. Bush for his V.P. to unite the party and receive the RNC's endorsement. It was Reagan as the nominee that had the faction hold a gun to his head for VP.

I was not a Nixon guy per se but there was no other alternative. I'd say philosophically I was more of a lean to the Goldwater faction than to the Buckley way of looking at things, but understand back then there wasn't that great of a distinction between Goldwater and Buckley like there is between McCain and Trump. And the extremes in the Democratic party would have been mainstream by today's standards.

As to your distinction about what Trump is trying to do I agree completely. Were I see a gray area is with the Foreign Service. I do believe that business is fundamental concern that must be kept free of political machinations as much as is practical. Diplomacy needs to try to stay out of business as much as possible, but where the two meet the POTUS should take the deciding hand and when he/she does the career diplomats should follow suit without getting lippy about it. IMO too man career diplomats today forget who it is that they serve, and whose discretion it is to replace them.

A united front before adversaries and trade partners is essential to keep them out of our politics and the current mess is a direct result of politicizing everything that is done for our country as a whole. To betray the united front is narcissistic malfeasance at the best, and treason at the worst.

This is what nearly 80 years without a World War does to every free country. We forget the necessity of a united front and are too easy to forgive transgressions of this nature. After a while the effect of long standing policy is eroded by non compliance and worse by no disciplinary or punitive action for those who breach etiquette or protocol.

This goes double for House and Senate etiquette and it's a damned shame that several generations have now only known the norm of constant partisan buffoonery. It has been permitted to slide so far that now each side tries to criminalize the other like a damned banana republic, but that is who we are letting in illegally across our borders so that people like AOC get elected and then act like Carmen Miranda on the House Floor. Actually that's an insult to Carmen due apologies to her memory.

(10-06-2019 06:14 PM)450bench Wrote:  The mere presence of President Trump is exposing the swamp that is the Democratic Party. They are pure corruption and we are seeing it on display 24/7.

He's doing exactly what he said he'd do.

They're so predictable. They pick a subject about which to bash Trump and then almost inevitably it turns out it's them who are the guilty ones. But never mind that, focus on Trump. Don't concern yourselves with Uranium sales, don't concern yourself with a sitting VP injecting himself into Ukraine and enriching his family in the process, don't worry about the Speaker of the House allowing her son to capitalize on her name and position. Those are just a few of the higher profile events, there's no telling what we don't know about.

If not mentioned already, additional people coming forward. Not sure what to make of it yet, but first instinct is to see this in a similar light to the "unnamed sources" the media outlets ran with frequently over the Trump-Russian interference stories...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorneys-f..._lead_pos2

Quote:At least one additional whistleblower with firsthand knowledge of the circumstances around President Trump’s July call with his Ukrainian counterpart has come forward, according to lawyers representing both the individual and the CIA officer whose initial complaint helped spark an impeachment inquiry.

The existence of a second whistleblower comes as Mr. Trump repeatedly has sought to attack the credibility and motive of the first individual, whose whistleblower complaint in August details efforts by the president to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

“I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers,” Andrew Bakaj, the lead attorney for the first whistleblower, wrote in a tweet. “No further comment at this time.”

Quote:Mr. Trump and his allies have said it is proper for him to ask foreign leaders to investigate corruption broadly. Democrats have cited the allegations as evidence that the president and his administration were willing to use the power of his office to persuade a foreign country to undertake a probe designed to damage a political opponent, thus helping his re-election campaign.

The text messages released last week indicate that U.S. officials coordinated with aides to the Ukrainian president and Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, on a draft statement in which Kyiv would announce an investigation into Mr. Biden and the 2016 U.S. election—at the same time as announcing a visit by the Ukrainian president to the White House.

The emergence of at least one additional whistleblower “demonstrates that there was a view by more than one civil servant that this behavior by the president was inappropriate, unprofessional and possibly impeachable,” said Bradley Moss, a whistleblower attorney who is a partner in Mr. Zaid’s firm but who isn’t involved in the Ukraine case. “More importantly, this ensures that the ultimate factual record will be more complete and comprehensive.”

(10-07-2019 07:09 AM)miko33 Wrote:  If not mentioned already, additional people coming forward. Not sure what to make of it yet, but first instinct is to see this in a similar light to the "unnamed sources" the media outlets ran with frequently over the Trump-Russian interference stories...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorneys-f..._lead_pos2

Quote:At least one additional whistleblower with firsthand knowledge of the circumstances around President Trump’s July call with his Ukrainian counterpart has come forward, according to lawyers representing both the individual and the CIA officer whose initial complaint helped spark an impeachment inquiry.

The existence of a second whistleblower comes as Mr. Trump repeatedly has sought to attack the credibility and motive of the first individual, whose whistleblower complaint in August details efforts by the president to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

“I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers,” Andrew Bakaj, the lead attorney for the first whistleblower, wrote in a tweet. “No further comment at this time.”

Quote:Mr. Trump and his allies have said it is proper for him to ask foreign leaders to investigate corruption broadly. Democrats have cited the allegations as evidence that the president and his administration were willing to use the power of his office to persuade a foreign country to undertake a probe designed to damage a political opponent, thus helping his re-election campaign.

The text messages released last week indicate that U.S. officials coordinated with aides to the Ukrainian president and Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, on a draft statement in which Kyiv would announce an investigation into Mr. Biden and the 2016 U.S. election—at the same time as announcing a visit by the Ukrainian president to the White House.

The emergence of at least one additional whistleblower “demonstrates that there was a view by more than one civil servant that this behavior by the president was inappropriate, unprofessional and possibly impeachable,” said Bradley Moss, a whistleblower attorney who is a partner in Mr. Zaid’s firm but who isn’t involved in the Ukraine case. “More importantly, this ensures that the ultimate factual record will be more complete and comprehensive.”

This is the Kavanaugh attack all over again. Thwy keep bringing people out of the bull pen. We have the transcript.

(10-06-2019 06:14 PM)450bench Wrote:  The mere presence of President Trump is exposing the swamp that is the Democratic Party. They are pure corruption and we are seeing it on display 24/7.

He's doing exactly what he said he'd do.

You found the swamp.

(10-07-2019 07:12 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  This is the Kavanaugh attack all over again. Thwy keep bringing people out of the bull pen. We have the transcript.

Yeah, I don't get this. We know exactly what was said. We don't need the opinions of 'witnesses'. Nobody is denying what was said and when.

(10-07-2019 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 07:12 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  This is the Kavanaugh attack all over again. Thwy keep bringing people out of the bull pen. We have the transcript.

Yeah, I don't get this. We know exactly what was said. We don't need the opinions of 'witnesses'. Nobody is denying what was said and when.

Um, no, we don't know this for a certainty. The released report of the call even says that.

Quote:On September 25, the White House released what it called a “full, unredacted transcript” of US president Donald Trump’s phone call with president Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. In the fine print, though, it specifies that it’s “not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”

Two linguists explain why calling the Ukraine memo a “transcript” is so wrong

(10-07-2019 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 07:12 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  This is the Kavanaugh attack all over again. Thwy keep bringing people out of the bull pen. We have the transcript.

Yeah, I don't get this. We know exactly what was said. We don't need the opinions of 'witnesses'. Nobody is denying what was said and when.

Um, no, we don't know this for a certainty. The released report of the call even says that.

Quote:On September 25, the White House released what it called a “full, unredacted transcript” of US president Donald Trump’s phone call with president Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. In the fine print, though, it specifies that it’s “not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”

Two linguists explain why calling the Ukraine memo a “transcript” is so wrong

Wow.. You use some of the weirdest sites to make your point.. Even though you're not a Democrat, you sure do pull for them.. AS much as you detest Schiff you sure are defending him..

(10-07-2019 07:09 AM)miko33 Wrote:  If not mentioned already, additional people coming forward. Not sure what to make of it yet, but first instinct is to see this in a similar light to the "unnamed sources" the media outlets ran with frequently over the Trump-Russian interference stories...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/attorneys-f..._lead_pos2

Quote:At least one additional whistleblower with firsthand knowledge of the circumstances around President Trump’s July call with his Ukrainian counterpart has come forward, according to lawyers representing both the individual and the CIA officer whose initial complaint helped spark an impeachment inquiry.

The existence of a second whistleblower comes as Mr. Trump repeatedly has sought to attack the credibility and motive of the first individual, whose whistleblower complaint in August details efforts by the president to pressure Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

“I can confirm that my firm and my team represent multiple whistleblowers,” Andrew Bakaj, the lead attorney for the first whistleblower, wrote in a tweet. “No further comment at this time.”

Quote:Mr. Trump and his allies have said it is proper for him to ask foreign leaders to investigate corruption broadly. Democrats have cited the allegations as evidence that the president and his administration were willing to use the power of his office to persuade a foreign country to undertake a probe designed to damage a political opponent, thus helping his re-election campaign.

The text messages released last week indicate that U.S. officials coordinated with aides to the Ukrainian president and Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s private lawyer, on a draft statement in which Kyiv would announce an investigation into Mr. Biden and the 2016 U.S. election—at the same time as announcing a visit by the Ukrainian president to the White House.

The emergence of at least one additional whistleblower “demonstrates that there was a view by more than one civil servant that this behavior by the president was inappropriate, unprofessional and possibly impeachable,” said Bradley Moss, a whistleblower attorney who is a partner in Mr. Zaid’s firm but who isn’t involved in the Ukraine case. “More importantly, this ensures that the ultimate factual record will be more complete and comprehensive.”

To paraphrase James Carville, drag a go-fund-me account through a Democratic Party meeting, you'll never know what you'll find.

(10-07-2019 10:54 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 07:12 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  This is the Kavanaugh attack all over again. Thwy keep bringing people out of the bull pen. We have the transcript.

Yeah, I don't get this. We know exactly what was said. We don't need the opinions of 'witnesses'. Nobody is denying what was said and when.

Um, no, we don't know this for a certainty. The released report of the call even says that.

Quote:On September 25, the White House released what it called a “full, unredacted transcript” of US president Donald Trump’s phone call with president Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. In the fine print, though, it specifies that it’s “not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”

Two linguists explain why calling the Ukraine memo a “transcript” is so wrong

Wow.. You use some of the weirdest sites to make your point.. Even though you're not a Democrat, you sure do pull for them.. AS much as you detest Schiff you sure are defending him..

So you agree he is correct you just don't like the site used just want to be clear here.

(10-07-2019 11:02 AM)tennis2k4 Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 10:54 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 10:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 07:12 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  This is the Kavanaugh attack all over again. Thwy keep bringing people out of the bull pen. We have the transcript.

Yeah, I don't get this. We know exactly what was said. We don't need the opinions of 'witnesses'. Nobody is denying what was said and when.

Um, no, we don't know this for a certainty. The released report of the call even says that.

Quote:On September 25, the White House released what it called a “full, unredacted transcript” of US president Donald Trump’s phone call with president Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. In the fine print, though, it specifies that it’s “not a verbatim transcript of a discussion.”

Two linguists explain why calling the Ukraine memo a “transcript” is so wrong

Wow.. You use some of the weirdest sites to make your point.. Even though you're not a Democrat, you sure do pull for them.. AS much as you detest Schiff you sure are defending him..

So you agree he is correct you just don't like the site used just want to be clear here.

Did I say that?

Tom used a site to make his point.. I didn't say it was correct.. Reading is fundamental.

Before you start saying my intent, point it out in my statement.

The actual recording is clearly available... just not to the general public. Not a transcript, but the actual recording.

(10-07-2019 12:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The actual recording is clearly available... just not to the general public. Not a transcript, but the actual recording.

Really? Do you have a source for that?

I thought presidential communications with foreign leaders were not recorded on our end. Perhaps the Ukrainians have a recording though.