https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4Zjtcml7lU

Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

(10-20-2019 05:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

I don't know about the douche part, but he is definitely a Democrat.

I watched the whole video. I don't think Wallace was out of line. I think he was just doing his job. I also think Mulvaney more or less explained it, but I see why what he said in the presser looked bad, too.

(10-20-2019 05:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

I thought they were fair questions. Although he did put words in his mouth sometimes. Like claiming he said it was dependent on investigating the Democrats when what he actually said was "ongoing Justice Department investigations"------<and those happen to include Russian interference in the election>.

(10-20-2019 05:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

For asking fair questions? How far we have fallen.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

(10-20-2019 06:13 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 05:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

I don't know about the douche part, but he is definitely a Democrat.

he's a huckster/prude every single day and the eighth one....he gets nothing but a 'whateverism' to the power of....

https://i.giphy.com/media/2CwGRlbHav4uA/giphy.webp

(10-20-2019 07:07 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 05:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

For asking fair questions? How far we have fallen.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

his questions always slant op-ed, chief....keep telling yourself he's one of the last true 'journos'....

(10-20-2019 06:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched the whole video. I don't think Wallace was out of line. I think he was just doing his job. I also think Mulvaney more or less explained it, but I see why what he said in the presser looked bad, too.

The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is more important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

(10-20-2019 07:11 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:07 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 05:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

For asking fair questions? How far we have fallen.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

his questions always slant op-ed, chief....keep telling yourself he's one of the last true 'journos'....

Seemed fair to me and Mulvaney's answers were fine. But if it gets you riled up, go for it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

(10-20-2019 07:58 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:11 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:07 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 05:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

For asking fair questions? How far we have fallen.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

his questions always slant op-ed, chief....keep telling yourself he's one of the last true 'journos'....

Seemed fair to me and Mulvaney's answers were fine. But if it gets you riled up, go for it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

it hardly riles my jimmies....I just think it's funny that anyone thinks there's any street cred from the left and uses Chris Wallace in any sentence of sanity....

this is how 'spanked' you are w/o a fk'n clue....

(10-20-2019 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 06:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched the whole video. I don't think Wallace was out of line. I think he was just doing his job. I also think Mulvaney more or less explained it, but I see why what he said in the presser looked bad, too.

The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

Was the President using Congressionally appropriated, taxpayer funds to extort an ally for personal, political gain?

(10-20-2019 09:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 06:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched the whole video. I don't think Wallace was out of line. I think he was just doing his job. I also think Mulvaney more or less explained it, but I see why what he said in the presser looked bad, too.

The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

Was the President using Congressionally appropriated, taxpayer funds to extort an ally for personal, political gain?

nope....nope.....and.............................nope

believe what you choose....it won't change a fk'n thingy on your fruity pebble'd end...

people like me....well, we simply don't give two fk's what you think anymore....

that's the beauty of #henceDJT

you dipshites keep playing 'right' into it.....

I just said he comes off like a douche dem. I never said his questions weren't fair or appropriate.

(10-20-2019 07:07 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 05:19 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Meh, Wallace comes off like a democrat douche here.

For asking fair questions? How far we have fallen.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No, for being a douche about it.

(10-20-2019 09:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 06:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched the whole video. I don't think Wallace was out of line. I think he was just doing his job. I also think Mulvaney more or less explained it, but I see why what he said in the presser looked bad, too.

The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

Was the President using Congressionally appropriated, taxpayer funds to extort an ally for personal, political gain?

No. First, he never said there was a quid pro quo in the Ukrainian conversation. Furthermore, even if there was---he was using Congressionally appropriated tax payer money to get an investigation into the Ukrainian role in the attempt to interfere in the 2016 election. That was the "favor". The "favor" was some thing that is of great value to the United States as everyone agrees we need the whole story on the attempted interference in the 2016 election. That said, the Trump request was NEVER linked to the aid in that phone call. Furthermore, the discussion about Biden amounted to Trump saying Ukraine "should" look into the Biden stuff because it sounds pretty bad. Again, that would be asking Ukraine (an ally) to look into a possible corruption at the highest level of US government (something that is valuable for the US to know)---Trump is NOT asking the Ukraine to investigate whether Biden hired prostitutes to pee on a bed (something that is of no use to the US government---and would only be valuable as a political weapon).

In review, there is no request for a quid pro quo---and even if there was---the quid pro quo was in return for legitimate behavior with clear valuable benefit for the US government and its citizens. Thus, the quid pro quo impeachment game is---as usual---yet another Democrat snipe hunt.

Wallace just wants to be the new Shep. We have to have fair and balanced. He's that. Maybe that's a good thing it might bring in some Libs and let them get educated. You can't have that watching the MSM.

(10-20-2019 09:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 06:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched the whole video. I don't think Wallace was out of line. I think he was just doing his job. I also think Mulvaney more or less explained it, but I see why what he said in the presser looked bad, too.

The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

Was the President using Congressionally appropriated, taxpayer funds to extort an ally for personal, political gain?

When you said "president", did you mistype "vice-president biden"?

(10-21-2019 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 09:34 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-20-2019 06:31 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I watched the whole video. I don't think Wallace was out of line. I think he was just doing his job. I also think Mulvaney more or less explained it, but I see why what he said in the presser looked bad, too.

The thing is---there is absolutely nothing wrong with quid pro quo. Every sanction we put on a country is a quid pro quo. Quit doing "X" and we will drop the sanctions. "Let us use you air base and we will send you aide." Its done all the time.

The only time quid pro quo becomes an issue is when that quid pro quo benefits nobody but Trump. An investigation into potential corruption by a US VP is most certainly of value to the American people. Having the Ukraine investgate Ukrainian involvement in the attempt to influence our 2016 election is most certainly of supreme importance to our nation (the Democrats have claimed NOTHING is important than getting to the bottom of 2016 election interference for over 3 years).

The fact is, the entire purpose of US government foreign policy is to ultimately influence events outside of the US borders so that the world environment is peaceful and works in a way that is good for the United States government and its citizens. In other words, we use carrots and sticks as quid pro quo offers all the time in an effort to mold the world outside of our borders to create a landscape that works best for the US. Thats clearly all Mulvaney was trying to say in his highly criticized press conference.

Thus, the wild eyed "gotcha" over quid pro quo is yet just another big "nothing burger".

Was the President using Congressionally appropriated, taxpayer funds to extort an ally for personal, political gain?

No. First, he never said there was a quid pro quo in the Ukrainian conversation. Furthermore, even if there was---he was using Congressionally appropriated tax payer money to get an investigation into the Ukrainian role in the attempt to interfere in the 2016 election. That was the "favor". The "favor" was some thing that is of great value to the United States as everyone agrees we need the whole story on the attempted interference in the 2016 election. That said, the Trump request was NEVER linked to the aid in that phone call. Furthermore, the discussion about Biden amounted to Trump saying Ukraine "should" look into the Biden stuff because it sounds pretty bad. Again, that would be asking Ukraine (an ally) to look into a possible corruption at the highest level of US government (something that is valuable for the US to know)---Trump is NOT asking the Ukraine to investigate whether Biden hired prostitutes to pee on a bed (something that is of no use to the US government---and would only be valuable as a political weapon).

In review, there is no request for a quid pro quo---and even if there was---the quid pro quo was in return for legitimate behavior with clear valuable benefit for the US government and its citizens. Thus, the quid pro quo impeachment game is---as usual---yet another Democrat snipe hunt.

The president, with all the authority of our government (CIA, FBI, etc.) to investigate whether Joe Biden improperly got his son a job in Ukraine while he was VP instead asks a supposedly corrupt Ukraine to do the investigating via his personal attorney and a couple Russian born thugs with a company named Fraud Guarantee.

Yeah, what could possibly not be legitimate here.

#WhatIfObamaDidThat

(10-21-2019 01:51 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The president, with all the authority of our government (CIA, FBI, etc.) to investigate whether Joe Biden improperly got his son a job in Ukraine while he was VP instead asks a supposedly corrupt Ukraine to do the investigating via his personal attorney and a couple Russian born thugs with a company named Fraud Guarantee.
Yeah, what could possibly not be legitimate here.
#WhatIfObamaDidThat

All the authority of our government doesn't exactly have jurisdiction in Ukraine. So we can have CIA do it undercover or ask Ukraine to cooperate.

And here's my question. Suppose we have reasonable cause for believing there is some corruption involving American citizens. What do we do? Do we ask Ukraine to cooperate? If not, why not?