I wonder what'll happen to the plans of impeaching Trump because of his alleged (spelling?) meddling in Ukraine to investigate Biden's son? I don't doubt for a second that Trump is capable of that sort of thing, but we still don't know what really happened.
Nancy Peloci has been against impeaching Trump earlier because the Republicans in the Senate won't let an impeachment pass. so what has changed? Are the Republicans in the Senate more likely to impeach Trump on this than the Russian issue? I think the proof against Trump must be beyond any doubt for Republican senators to even think about going along with an impeachment and I don't think they'll even do it then. When Nixon had to leave the White House the American people watched the same news on TV, now most Republicans and Democrats seem to live on separate planets. Because of this I doubt his supporters will see an impeachment against him as anything other than a coup regardless of what he does and what the proof is, simply because the media they follow will tell them it's a coup. Perhaps the Peloci and Democrats know this, but sees a possible impeachment on the Ukraine story as a shot across the bows? Just a signal to Trump that there are limits to what he can do, even as president?
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Impeach him Please. The voting public will love it. A sure-fire ticket for the Dems to win in '20. Don't hesitate. Do it.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Well, as new infos came up yesterday, it's pretty obvious that Trump tried to "boil" Selenskyi prior to that telephone call and that Giuliani was approaching the Ukrains several times before that.
So the legend of a "friendly and beautiful conversation" is just that.
I agree, that impeaching Trump will bear the risk, that this will energise his base even more and that he will win the 2020 elections because the story is since 2016 "The corrupt media and the democrats are doing everything to take the popular president out who is only trying to drain the swamp".
On the other hand, and I've heard this yesterday - there is a time, where politics must end and when the checks and balances and institutions must be defended - no matter what the political outcome is.
If I was leader of the democrats, I'd have waited for the calls to impeach until more infos in this case came forward.
Imo, it was premature and it doesn't help that single democrats have constantly demanding impeachment since 2016. It wears off that way.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Now, I'm not sure Biden's son's involvement with the Ukraine isn't in need of investigation really. The question is not, did Trump launch an investigation, but rather why nobody else like the US press isn't.
The excellent book Moneyland by Oliver Bullough touches on the Biden link. It's a book about dirty money and how it is very difficult to go after because the investigators can only go as far as their borders whereas money has created its own cross-border territory. I highly recommend this book, which also references the Bond film Goldfinger (the villain's way of moving gold, for instance).
Odd is that Trump couldn't instigate this without leaving a paper trail or outsourcing the move to 'his people' so he could later disavow all knowledge. Thing is, he doesn't really have any 'people' in that he's pitted against the State or as he calls it 'the Swamp' so it's just him and his family.
Democrats have been talking about impeaching Trump from the start, that's true. It was highly likely that he's get himself into an impeachable situation or two given his inexperience and personality, but it probably wasn't that smart talking about it all the time.
The Biden's involvement in Ukraine is …. interesting. Biden jr was fired from the navy because of cocaine use, but somehow got a job on the Board of a natural gas company in Ukraine. Ukraine is massively corrupt, even more than Russia, especially anything involving petrolium. Junior got a huge amount of money for that job. His father was very much involved with the country politically at the time, so it's not a stretch to think Junior got the job because of his father's position at the time. This doesn't have to mean his father was involved in getting Hunter the job, it could just mean the company hoped Hunter had useful contacts.
VP Biden helped fire a prosecutor in Ukraine. Many think the prosecutor was corrupt, but there is a suspicion from some that he was fired for investigating Biden jr.
Given the levels of corruption in Ukraine it would be apropriate if Trump pushed the Ukrainian PM (who is a former TV star like Trump) to fight corruption harder. Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption policy after all. The HUGE problem is that we now know Trump spesifically asked Zelensky to investigate Biden jr and his father, the most likely oponent for Trump next year. This is a good reason to impeach Trump even if it'll probably strenghten the world view of his supporters. I really want to see how this ends.
BTW: I'm not sure Biden is the best candidate against Trump in 2020. The Democrats nominated their biggest available symbol of establisment, forgetting that Trump was running on a campaign against the establisment. Is nominating their second nominatable (is that a word?) against Trump next year really that smart?
Now, I'm not sure Biden's son's involvement with the Ukraine isn't in need of investigation really. The question is not, did Trump launch an investigation, but rather why nobody else like the US press isn't.
Sorry, Nap, but I disagree here.
The prosecutor Viktor Shokin that has been fired on Biden's demand (and many other organisations and countries demanded his firing) because was not investigating enough - also when he investigated the company that Biden's son worked for.
The new Ukrainian general prosecutor already said, that Hunter Biden‘s involvement was not unlawful, but as far as I know, they are reinvestigating now just to be sure.
If Hunter Biden's involvement needs to be investigated again, I am all for it. And it could be started with an official request by the US foreign minister and not by strongarming a weak new elected president.
We all know Trump enough that he's not interested in corruption or wrongdoing at all, his personal involvement and the month long activities by Giuliani (who has no official role in the US gouvernemnt) had only one goal:
To weaken his strongest his strongest political opponent in the upcoming elections by strongarming a weak country and with US tax money. And that's the issue - not the fight against corruption.
If Trump would be seriously interested in fighting corruption, he could start by ordering his hotels to stop accepting bookings from other heads of states - just look how the Ukrainian president bragged that he staid in a Trump hotel when he was in New York.
Having said all this, Joe Biden should have never allowed his son accepting a job in an Ukrainian Gas company when he (Joe) was in office.
But that's easier said and done* because parents usually have not much saying in the professional choices of their kids.
But that will fall onto his feet prior to the 2020 elections, the Trump camp will ride on this on and on, no matter what really happenend.
*If my father would have demanded that I should not accept a certain job offer, I'd have told him to mind his own business.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I agree with Higgins on this one.
Trump didn't "launch an investigation". He sent his personal lawyer to Ukraine to dig up dirt on his most likely oponent in the next election, then he pressured the Ukrainian PM to investigate Trump's most likely rival in 2020 and his son. It would be perfectly OK if Trump opened up an investigation of US citizens who are likely suspects of corruption (but not mentioning Hunter Biden by name) in Ukraine or helped and pushed Ukraine to rid themselves of corruption, but singeling out the Bidens is a very serious mistake and worthy of an impeachment. What if Obama had sent his personal lawyer to Russia to dig up dirt about Trump in 2016, then phoned Putin and pushed him to investigate Trump? Would that have been OK?
I'd like to say I was very impressed by Greta Thunberg's pashionate speech at the UN. It was very emotional, but if you read the most recent climate report from the UN expert panel (and nearly all meterologists, osceanographist and experty on climathology) there is every reason to be pashionate about this subject. I'm not alone in wondering how her speech will rank along with Marin Luther King's "I have a dream" and other famous speeches in the future.
I have to say I'm not convinced by the Democrats top candidates so far. Warren comes over as an angry woman, sort of a a right-wing clishe of a liberal. Bernie is old, has a failing heart and like Warren I think she's too far to the American left. There is a debate if the Democrats should go for a centerist candiate or someone to the left. I think the center is the way to go. People to the left will vote and vote Deomcrat no matter what, because this time they know Trump can actually win. A centerist candidate can win back traditional voters they lost to Trump in 2016.
Biden? He's the obvious candidate and the party establishment candidate. Let's look back on how candidates the public and the party saw as obvious winners in the past:
1992: Bill Clinton. A candidate few belived would win before he ran and won.
2000: Al Gore. Former VP who lost … sort of.
2004: John Kerry. Party establishment candidate. Lost.
2008: Barach Obama. Surprise winner.
2016: Hillary Clinton. It was "her turn". Lost.
I'm not saying people like Obama were anti-establisment, but he wasn't the prefered candidate of the party leadership when he decided to run. The Democrats should be careful betting on candidates who look like the obvious choice, especially when the mood with large groups of voters still is anti-establishment and anti-Washington.
Any thoughts?
The British government and the EU has negatiated a new deal for Brexit! I have to admit I didn't see this coming. If both the Parliament and the remaining EU members actually accept the deal, this will be a big win for Boris Johnson.
Wouldn't this be a great time to re-open the Brexit thread?
Interesting will be, in how far the new deal differs to the one made with Theresa May which has been refused in the parliament.
And it will be interesting to see if and how that all passes thru House of Parliament.
If Labour votes for it, they can hardly campaign against Johnson in the upcoming elections
The Brexit Party will be obviously obsolete, so lots of voters will move back to Tory.
Libdems will lose because their position against Brexit becomes obsolete.
If Johnson does not get the majority, it‘ll likely be a Hard Brexit ( I still don‘t believe that he‘ll ask for an extension) and he‘ll blame the opposition for it and for all the bad consequences.
I can see the end of Corbyn ( and I‘ll not be sorry about that) and a new referendum in Scotland soon.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'm not sure the Brexit Party will become absolete if the new deal goes through Parliament. I think it is a symptom of a larger movement that includes anti-globalization, anti-elites, anti-immigration and probably more "antis". The party can get a new name and do well.
I also think getting the new deal through Parliament will be hard, but perhaps more MPs understand this time it's this deal or a hard Brexit and vote yes. Comentators on this side of the North Sea believed Johnson would be forced to ask for another extension at the end of this month, but now he may not have to. If the Parliament says no to his deal and he has to ask the EU for more time it'll be an enormous loss for Johnson. Perhaps he'll even resign? On the other hand if both the Parliament and the EU members say yes he'll have another election and he can do very well.
But no idea why Piers Morgan is coming up on that - oh, hang on! Now I do! It's because I misspelt the Sex Pistols' Pretty Vacant with "-unt" at the end, who arranged that? )
I just wanted to recap the Brexiteer's accusations, that the EU "won't let us leave anyhow".
Some members here stated that the Backstop - the Irish border Issue was just a madeup vehicle to force UK remaining in the EU by giving them choices
1- accept inacceptable Backstop and the negotiated deal
2- leave without a Deal and harm the UK economy severely.
3- scratch everything and stay in the EU
The recent events show - and I have stated that before several times - that the Ireland/Northern Ireland issue is a centre point for the EU and if there was an alternative solution, the EU would agree on it - which they did.
So all accusations from the Brexiteers - including from those here on the board - where wrong!
Time for a reality-check!
Personal apologies in Brussels are accepted from 9:00 to 5:00
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
So I m not able to confirm any names or twitter accounts -yet
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Obviously from the same artist who has created this particular masterpiece....
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I wonder what works of art the police would find if they raided TP's house, not to mention if I've managed to hide my colection well enough ...
No, this was not on Donald Tusk‘s twitter account
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Just check the black line, which only coincidently covers Alabama
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
https://www.boredpanda.com/trump-sharpiegate-fake-hurricane-map-memes/
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Nancy Peloci has been against impeaching Trump earlier because the Republicans in the Senate won't let an impeachment pass. so what has changed? Are the Republicans in the Senate more likely to impeach Trump on this than the Russian issue? I think the proof against Trump must be beyond any doubt for Republican senators to even think about going along with an impeachment and I don't think they'll even do it then. When Nixon had to leave the White House the American people watched the same news on TV, now most Republicans and Democrats seem to live on separate planets. Because of this I doubt his supporters will see an impeachment against him as anything other than a coup regardless of what he does and what the proof is, simply because the media they follow will tell them it's a coup. Perhaps the Peloci and Democrats know this, but sees a possible impeachment on the Ukraine story as a shot across the bows? Just a signal to Trump that there are limits to what he can do, even as president?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
So the legend of a "friendly and beautiful conversation" is just that.
I agree, that impeaching Trump will bear the risk, that this will energise his base even more and that he will win the 2020 elections because the story is since 2016 "The corrupt media and the democrats are doing everything to take the popular president out who is only trying to drain the swamp".
On the other hand, and I've heard this yesterday - there is a time, where politics must end and when the checks and balances and institutions must be defended - no matter what the political outcome is.
If I was leader of the democrats, I'd have waited for the calls to impeach until more infos in this case came forward.
Imo, it was premature and it doesn't help that single democrats have constantly demanding impeachment since 2016. It wears off that way.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The excellent book Moneyland by Oliver Bullough touches on the Biden link. It's a book about dirty money and how it is very difficult to go after because the investigators can only go as far as their borders whereas money has created its own cross-border territory. I highly recommend this book, which also references the Bond film Goldfinger (the villain's way of moving gold, for instance).
Odd is that Trump couldn't instigate this without leaving a paper trail or outsourcing the move to 'his people' so he could later disavow all knowledge. Thing is, he doesn't really have any 'people' in that he's pitted against the State or as he calls it 'the Swamp' so it's just him and his family.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The Biden's involvement in Ukraine is …. interesting. Biden jr was fired from the navy because of cocaine use, but somehow got a job on the Board of a natural gas company in Ukraine. Ukraine is massively corrupt, even more than Russia, especially anything involving petrolium. Junior got a huge amount of money for that job. His father was very much involved with the country politically at the time, so it's not a stretch to think Junior got the job because of his father's position at the time. This doesn't have to mean his father was involved in getting Hunter the job, it could just mean the company hoped Hunter had useful contacts.
VP Biden helped fire a prosecutor in Ukraine. Many think the prosecutor was corrupt, but there is a suspicion from some that he was fired for investigating Biden jr.
Given the levels of corruption in Ukraine it would be apropriate if Trump pushed the Ukrainian PM (who is a former TV star like Trump) to fight corruption harder. Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption policy after all. The HUGE problem is that we now know Trump spesifically asked Zelensky to investigate Biden jr and his father, the most likely oponent for Trump next year. This is a good reason to impeach Trump even if it'll probably strenghten the world view of his supporters. I really want to see how this ends.
BTW: I'm not sure Biden is the best candidate against Trump in 2020. The Democrats nominated their biggest available symbol of establisment, forgetting that Trump was running on a campaign against the establisment. Is nominating their second nominatable (is that a word?) against Trump next year really that smart?
Sorry, Nap, but I disagree here.
The prosecutor Viktor Shokin that has been fired on Biden's demand (and many other organisations and countries demanded his firing) because was not investigating enough - also when he investigated the company that Biden's son worked for.
The new Ukrainian general prosecutor already said, that Hunter Biden‘s involvement was not unlawful, but as far as I know, they are reinvestigating now just to be sure.
If Hunter Biden's involvement needs to be investigated again, I am all for it. And it could be started with an official request by the US foreign minister and not by strongarming a weak new elected president.
We all know Trump enough that he's not interested in corruption or wrongdoing at all, his personal involvement and the month long activities by Giuliani (who has no official role in the US gouvernemnt) had only one goal:
To weaken his strongest his strongest political opponent in the upcoming elections by strongarming a weak country and with US tax money. And that's the issue - not the fight against corruption.
If Trump would be seriously interested in fighting corruption, he could start by ordering his hotels to stop accepting bookings from other heads of states - just look how the Ukrainian president bragged that he staid in a Trump hotel when he was in New York.
Having said all this, Joe Biden should have never allowed his son accepting a job in an Ukrainian Gas company when he (Joe) was in office.
But that's easier said and done* because parents usually have not much saying in the professional choices of their kids.
But that will fall onto his feet prior to the 2020 elections, the Trump camp will ride on this on and on, no matter what really happenend.
*If my father would have demanded that I should not accept a certain job offer, I'd have told him to mind his own business.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Trump didn't "launch an investigation". He sent his personal lawyer to Ukraine to dig up dirt on his most likely oponent in the next election, then he pressured the Ukrainian PM to investigate Trump's most likely rival in 2020 and his son. It would be perfectly OK if Trump opened up an investigation of US citizens who are likely suspects of corruption (but not mentioning Hunter Biden by name) in Ukraine or helped and pushed Ukraine to rid themselves of corruption, but singeling out the Bidens is a very serious mistake and worthy of an impeachment. What if Obama had sent his personal lawyer to Russia to dig up dirt about Trump in 2016, then phoned Putin and pushed him to investigate Trump? Would that have been OK?
Biden? He's the obvious candidate and the party establishment candidate. Let's look back on how candidates the public and the party saw as obvious winners in the past:
1992: Bill Clinton. A candidate few belived would win before he ran and won.
2000: Al Gore. Former VP who lost … sort of.
2004: John Kerry. Party establishment candidate. Lost.
2008: Barach Obama. Surprise winner.
2016: Hillary Clinton. It was "her turn". Lost.
I'm not saying people like Obama were anti-establisment, but he wasn't the prefered candidate of the party leadership when he decided to run. The Democrats should be careful betting on candidates who look like the obvious choice, especially when the mood with large groups of voters still is anti-establishment and anti-Washington.
Any thoughts?
We're so Priti, oh so Priti....
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Wouldn't this be a great time to re-open the Brexit thread?
And it will be interesting to see if and how that all passes thru House of Parliament.
If Labour votes for it, they can hardly campaign against Johnson in the upcoming elections
The Brexit Party will be obviously obsolete, so lots of voters will move back to Tory.
Libdems will lose because their position against Brexit becomes obsolete.
If Johnson does not get the majority, it‘ll likely be a Hard Brexit ( I still don‘t believe that he‘ll ask for an extension) and he‘ll blame the opposition for it and for all the bad consequences.
I can see the end of Corbyn ( and I‘ll not be sorry about that) and a new referendum in Scotland soon.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I also think getting the new deal through Parliament will be hard, but perhaps more MPs understand this time it's this deal or a hard Brexit and vote yes. Comentators on this side of the North Sea believed Johnson would be forced to ask for another extension at the end of this month, but now he may not have to. If the Parliament says no to his deal and he has to ask the EU for more time it'll be an enormous loss for Johnson. Perhaps he'll even resign? On the other hand if both the Parliament and the EU members say yes he'll have another election and he can do very well.
Sorry Number24, here you go:
Priti Vacunt - and we don't care!
But no idea why Piers Morgan is coming up on that - oh, hang on! Now I do!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
He neither wants it, nor wants to eat it - Boris Johnson after the Queens Speech.
Some members here stated that the Backstop - the Irish border Issue was just a madeup vehicle to force UK remaining in the EU by giving them choices
1- accept inacceptable Backstop and the negotiated deal
2- leave without a Deal and harm the UK economy severely.
3- scratch everything and stay in the EU
The recent events show - and I have stated that before several times - that the Ireland/Northern Ireland issue is a centre point for the EU and if there was an alternative solution, the EU would agree on it - which they did.
So all accusations from the Brexiteers - including from those here on the board - where wrong!
Time for a reality-check!
Personal apologies in Brussels are accepted from 9:00 to 5:00
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!