Hypothetically speaking, Trump supporters, what would need to happen for you to believe the...

[jc456]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

BTW, asking a foreign government to look into a political rival isn't a crime. you could post the statute that says it is. I'll wait.

Nah I'm good.

cause you know I'm right. thanks for verifying that for me.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

If he said it that way, then they might be onto something. But the fact is, if a past administration has acted in an extremely suspicious way, I think the President is asking for information on behalf of the country--not himself. If he is asking on behalf of himself, then I need to be shown that's what he was doing, by stating his interest was because he suspected that Biden will be his contender.

They might be onto something? What's really different between the following two statements?

"You better investigate....or else" and "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'll chime in here: high crimes and misdemeanors.

Asking a foreign leader to "look into" something is not a crime. Biden is not a rival of Trump until he wins the nomination. Until that time, he's just another person like any of the other 2 dozen candidates.

What I would need: To hear (or read) Trump tell Zelensky that he better investigate his political rival (yes those words exactly) or else he will never get the aid.

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

BTW, asking a foreign government to look into a political rival isn't a crime. you could post the statute that says it is. I'll wait.

Nah I'm good.

cause you know I'm right. thanks for verifying that for me.

You're welcome.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'm proud of you. You actually answered the question.

"You better investigate....or else" is what you need to hear. Exactly in those words. Got it. Seems like a really specific and unrealistic requirement, but it's at least clear. Thank you.

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

If he said it that way, then they might be onto something. But the fact is, if a past administration has acted in an extremely suspicious way, I think the President is asking for information on behalf of the country--not himself. If he is asking on behalf of himself, then I need to be shown that's what he was doing, by stating his interest was because he suspected that Biden will be his contender.

They might be onto something? What's really different between the following two statements?

"You better investigate....or else" and "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

At least "or else" is a threat of some kind; not specific, but a threat. The only person that said "or else" was Schiff Face when he lied in front of the entire world about what Trump said.

Huh? What do you mean there isn't a specific threat?

I was referring to your paraphrased statement that you believe would justify impeachment: "You better investigate my political rival or else you will never get the aid."

Clearly there's a specific threat there. The threat is that they won't get the aid.

And what the hell does Adam Schiff have to do with this?

What I was trying to get at was that you specified that you needed those exact words, as you indicated earlier in parentheses. I was trying to show you that you could phrase the statement differently while still preserving the same intent.

Your statement: "You better investigate my political rival or else you will never get the aid."

My statement: "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

They're stated differently, but both have the same basic meaning. One has "or else" in it while the other doesn't. Yet in both statements, there is a consequence for failing to comply with a request or demand. Do you consider those statements structurally equal?

That's what I was trying to get at. Instead, you went off about a lack of specific threat even though your example clearly has a specific threat. Did you forget that I was referring to the example you gave me? Maybe you didn't understand that I was using your example? And once again, this has nothing to do with Adam Schiff.

I'm not going to keep re-directing you here if you can't stay on point. I'll just thank you for actually answering the question and be done with that.

 

[XponentialChaos]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course that's what anybody should want to hear. Otherwise, what they are basing impeachment on is their ability to read Trump's mind, and their ability to see into the future to know Biden is a political rival. That's why I call this a Through Police impeachment.

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

If he said it that way, then they might be onto something. But the fact is, if a past administration has acted in an extremely suspicious way, I think the President is asking for information on behalf of the country--not himself. If he is asking on behalf of himself, then I need to be shown that's what he was doing, by stating his interest was because he suspected that Biden will be his contender.

They might be onto something? What's really different between the following two statements?

"You better investigate....or else" and "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

At least "or else" is a threat of some kind; not specific, but a threat. The only person that said "or else" was Schiff Face when he lied in front of the entire world about what Trump said.

Huh? What do you mean there isn't a specific threat?

I was referring to your paraphrased statement that you believe would justify impeachment: "You better investigate my political rival or else you will never get the aid."

Clearly there's a specific threat there. The threat is that they won't get the aid.

And what the hell does Adam Schiff have to do with this?

What I was trying to get at was that you specified that you needed those exact words, as you indicated earlier in parentheses. I was trying to show you that you could phrase the statement differently while still preserving the same intent.

Your statement: "You better investigate my political rival or else you will never get the aid."

My statement: "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

They're stated differently, but both have the same basic meaning. One has "or else" in it while the other doesn't. Yet in both statements, there is a consequence for failing to comply with a request or demand. Do you consider those statements structurally equal?

That's what I was trying to get at. Instead, you went off about a lack of specific threat even though your example clearly has a specific threat. Did you forget that I was referring to the example you gave me? Maybe you didn't understand that I was using your example? And once again, this has nothing to do with Adam Schiff.

I'm not going to keep re-directing you here if you can't stay on point. I'll just thank you for actually answering the question and be done with that.

Fine with me.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Let's try something simple then.

Suppose he said "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

Those aren't the exact words that you specified earlier. Would that no longer satisfy your requirement for impeachment? Or do you think the same meaning is still there and still meets your requirement?

If he said it that way, then they might be onto something. But the fact is, if a past administration has acted in an extremely suspicious way, I think the President is asking for information on behalf of the country--not himself. If he is asking on behalf of himself, then I need to be shown that's what he was doing, by stating his interest was because he suspected that Biden will be his contender.

They might be onto something? What's really different between the following two statements?

"You better investigate....or else" and "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

At least "or else" is a threat of some kind; not specific, but a threat. The only person that said "or else" was Schiff Face when he lied in front of the entire world about what Trump said.

Huh? What do you mean there isn't a specific threat?

I was referring to your paraphrased statement that you believe would justify impeachment: "You better investigate my political rival or else you will never get the aid."

Clearly there's a specific threat there. The threat is that they won't get the aid.

And what the hell does Adam Schiff have to do with this?

What I was trying to get at was that you specified that you needed those exact words, as you indicated earlier in parentheses. I was trying to show you that you could phrase the statement differently while still preserving the same intent.

Your statement: "You better investigate my political rival or else you will never get the aid."

My statement: "I want you to investigate my political rival. I won't give you aid until you do."

They're stated differently, but both have the same basic meaning. One has "or else" in it while the other doesn't. Yet in both statements, there is a consequence for failing to comply with a request or demand. Do you consider those statements structurally equal?

That's what I was trying to get at. Instead, you went off about a lack of specific threat even though your example clearly has a specific threat. Did you forget that I was referring to the example you gave me? Maybe you didn't understand that I was using your example? And once again, this has nothing to do with Adam Schiff.

I'm not going to keep re-directing you here if you can't stay on point. I'll just thank you for actually answering the question and be done with that.

Fine with me.

Thanks for actually answering the question.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

/——/ We don’t handle hypotheticals when they are used as hard evidence to overturn an election, you glittering jewel of ignorance.

You, hypothetically, robbed the 7-11 this morning. That’s all the evidence needed to convict you.

 

[jc456]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

we care why?

 

[XponentialChaos]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

/——/ We don’t handle hypotheticals when they are used as hard evidence to overturn an election, you glittering jewel of ignorance.

You, hypothetically, robbed the 7-11 this morning. That’s all the evidence needed to convict you.

I'm not using it as hard evidence.

If anything, you're just confirming what I already said in post 70.

 

[XponentialChaos]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

we care why?

Obviously you don't.

 

[jc456]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

we care why?

Obviously you don't.

well there are more like me. we base life off realisms and not makey uppies.

 

[healthmyths]

I would need to see evidence of real wrong doing like shipping $1.5 billion dollars in cash to a Terrorist State. Or shipping automatic weapons to the Mexican drug cartel. You know REAL wrongdoing a.k.a high crimes and misdemeanors. Does that make sense?

Correction...
$1.7-billion payment to Iran was all in cash due to effectiveness of sanctions, White House says
Treasury Department spokeswoman Dawn Selak said in a statement late Tuesday that the cash payments were necessary because of the “effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions,” which isolated Iran from the international finance system.
The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.
The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism.
Quid Pro Quo????
$1.7-billion payment to Iran was all in cash due to effectiveness of sanctions, White House says

 

[XponentialChaos]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

we care why?

Obviously you don't.

well there are more like me. we base life off realisms and not makey uppies.

We're in agreement then to some extent.

 

[jc456]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

we care why?

Obviously you don't.

well there are more like me. we base life off realisms and not makey uppies.

We're in agreement then to some extent.

except when you live in hypothetical land.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

we care why?

Obviously you don't.

well there are more like me. we base life off realisms and not makey uppies.

We're in agreement then to some extent.

except when you live in hypothetical land.

That's correct.

 

[jc456]

we care why?

Obviously you don't.

well there are more like me. we base life off realisms and not makey uppies.

We're in agreement then to some extent.

except when you live in hypothetical land.

That's correct.

I know, I don't lie. I speak truth, and you live in fantasy land. Say hi to Peter Pan.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Obviously you don't.

well there are more like me. we base life off realisms and not makey uppies.

We're in agreement then to some extent.

except when you live in hypothetical land.

That's correct.

I know, I don't lie. I speak truth, and you live in fantasy land. Say hi to Peter Pan.

Will do.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

we care why?

Obviously you don't.

well there are more like me. we base life off realisms and not makey uppies.

/——-/ Hypothetically speaking, I just won the $10 million Power Ball. Should I order the Ferrari or the Hypothetical Tesla pick up truck? Hypothetically speaking of course.

 

[XponentialChaos]

/——/ What if??? Trump didn’t say either one of those things.

Post 70: "In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

we care why?

Obviously you don't.

well there are more like me. we base life off realisms and not makey uppies.

/——-/ Hypothetically speaking, I just won the $10 million Power Ball. Should I order the Ferrari or the Hypothetical Tesla pick up truck? Hypothetically speaking of course.

"In my experience, conservatives don't handle hypothetical questions very well."

Thanks for confirming.