-fish-
Footballguy
Your moderation team directed a post at me, above, telling me not to address Noonan about his lies.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter snitwitch
- Start date
joffer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
One of the more recent arguments against a quid pro quo is about to be destroyed as well: for the last two days, since Taylor's testimony, we were told that there was no quid pro quo because Ukraine was never told about the quid pro quo: Tim Morrison, Taylor's aide, is going to testify that Ukraine was indeed informed about the quid pro quo, that in order to get the money released, they (Ukraine) had to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/next-shoes-drop-trump-ukraine-scandal/
In addition, this also destroys Mulaney's argument, later retracted, that the quid pro quo was about the DNC server and had nothing to do with the Bidens.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/23/next-shoes-drop-trump-ukraine-scandal/
In addition, this also destroys Mulaney's argument, later retracted, that the quid pro quo was about the DNC server and had nothing to do with the Bidens.
-fish-
Footballguy
@Joe Bryant I realize that this forum in particular is a headache to moderate. Imagine if someone in the Shark Pool kept posting the same lie that Tom Brady had a broken leg. He'd get banned immediately. But in here, we can have the same poster tell the same lie dozens of times, even with multiple other posters asking him to stop.
It serves no useful purpose, because the purpose is that of troll. It's just to get a reaction. But still, in thread after thread, the same person engages in the same strategy. And the message here is it's ok, and just don't react to him, at the same time you want this forum to be more civil. You can't have it both ways. You want civil discussion? Ban the obvious trolls. Problem solved.
It serves no useful purpose, because the purpose is that of troll. It's just to get a reaction. But still, in thread after thread, the same person engages in the same strategy. And the message here is it's ok, and just don't react to him, at the same time you want this forum to be more civil. You can't have it both ways. You want civil discussion? Ban the obvious trolls. Problem solved.
Nick Vermeil
Footballguy
...fresh... -FISH!- ...fresh... -FISH!- ...fresh... -FISH!-
timschochet
Footballguy
Trump: "There was no pressure. Never any pressure on Ukraine. None whatsoever."
https://www.apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8
AP: Ukrainian leader felt Trump pressure before taking office.
Oops.
What next? Every argument made by Republicans gets destroyed within a day or so.
https://www.apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8
AP: Ukrainian leader felt Trump pressure before taking office.
Oops.
What next? Every argument made by Republicans gets destroyed within a day or so.
timschochet
Footballguy
I have heard yet a new defense by right wing talk show hosts:
These guys testifying against Trump are all liars. They're all out to get him because they're part of the Deep State, and they're making the whole thing up.
Putting aside the problem of the phone release, this argument will be quite difficult for respectable Republicans, particularly in the Senate, to adopt: thus far in the Trump years, they have shied away from the more conspiracy-minded "deep state" arguments that sites like Breitbart have put forward. Are they really going to take it up now?
Peter King, Trump's old buddy from New York, is repeating the "5th Avenue" argument this morning: he's the President. He can do what he wants. So what?
These guys testifying against Trump are all liars. They're all out to get him because they're part of the Deep State, and they're making the whole thing up.
Putting aside the problem of the phone release, this argument will be quite difficult for respectable Republicans, particularly in the Senate, to adopt: thus far in the Trump years, they have shied away from the more conspiracy-minded "deep state" arguments that sites like Breitbart have put forward. Are they really going to take it up now?
Peter King, Trump's old buddy from New York, is repeating the "5th Avenue" argument this morning: he's the President. He can do what he wants. So what?
apalmer
Footballguy
Not sure where in that article it says that Morrison will testify that way. I read it only as repeating Taylor's testimony that Morrison said that. Let's wait to see what Morrison says before we get too excited.
Senate does not have to disclose its reasons for voting.
The most common will be something along the lines of the Garland approach - "In an election year, its best to not weigh-in until the people have spoken. If the people want to remove a president who is strong on the economy, strong on national security, and strong on religious freedoms, that is a choice they should make - not us in the Senate."
timschochet
Footballguy
That's true. I'm adding what I heard on MSNBC, but we'll see. In any event, we already have reporting from multiple sources that Ukraine knew about the quid pro quo.
timschochet
Footballguy
They don't, but in the case of impeachment every Senator (and for that matter House Representative) will be under tremendous pressure to explain their ultimate vote.
-fish-
Footballguy
This administration has demonstrated that there is no argument too absurd, and it has shown a pretty amazing ability to find proxies to push any message they want to project, no matter how ridiculous. Assuming articles of impeachment are filed, I expect that since Trump will have no way to defend the facts that they will be left with the argument that the president simply can't abuse his power. He will finally admit that he believes he is a dictator. And the GOP will leave their spines in their closets and vote party over country.
And they will do so in the most benign way possible. Anyone who is in a purple state will simply defer to the upcoming election.
I'm afraid the PSF is miles beyond "headache". It's on its last breaths.
When we put as much effort and money into the forum and I feel like I do my very best to make this a good place and it's met with accusations we're trying to subjugate the truth or constant time sink accusing us of limiting people to disagree , the reality is painfully obvious: The benefit of the forum is vastly outweighed by the negatives for me. It's not remotely close. Right or wrong, they are inextricably linked to Footballguys and to me. What's allowed here is seen as what we're cool with. That's already a huge problem and my fear is it's not solvable.
One last time.
If you see something you think is wrong, please post what you think is accurate. If you can provide a source or link for why you think what you think, that's even better.
If you see someone post something you think is an intentional lie, please report it and then definitely in the report include the link to show where it's obviously a lie and not just a difference of opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I agree, and it's something he believes in. I'm guessing he has had to be tackled and the official pardon seal had to be hidden from him on this. He hates the whole idea of political bribery being illegal.
White House delayed Ukraine trade decision in August, a signal that U.S. suspension of cooperation extended beyond security funds
The White House’s trade representative in late August withdrew a recommendation to restore some of Ukraine’s trade privileges after John Bolton, then-national security adviser, warned him that President Trump probably would oppose any action that benefited the government in Kyiv, according to people briefed on the matter.
The warning to Robert E. Lighthizer came as Trump was withholding $391 million in military aid and security assistance from Ukraine. House Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry into allegations that the president did so to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the business activities of former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. As part of the inquiry, lawmakers are closely scrutinizing the White House’s actions between July and September.
The August exchange between Bolton and Lighthizer over the trade matter represents the first indication that the administration’s suspension of assistance to Ukraine extended beyond the congressionally authorized military aid and security assistance to other government programs. It is not clear whether Trump directed Bolton to intervene over Ukraine’s trade privileges or was even aware of the discussion.
The White House’s trade representative in late August withdrew a recommendation to restore some of Ukraine’s trade privileges after John Bolton, then-national security adviser, warned him that President Trump probably would oppose any action that benefited the government in Kyiv, according to people briefed on the matter.
The warning to Robert E. Lighthizer came as Trump was withholding $391 million in military aid and security assistance from Ukraine. House Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry into allegations that the president did so to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the business activities of former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. As part of the inquiry, lawmakers are closely scrutinizing the White House’s actions between July and September.
The August exchange between Bolton and Lighthizer over the trade matter represents the first indication that the administration’s suspension of assistance to Ukraine extended beyond the congressionally authorized military aid and security assistance to other government programs. It is not clear whether Trump directed Bolton to intervene over Ukraine’s trade privileges or was even aware of the discussion.
Dickies
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Democrats indicate that they will be ready to hold public hearings around November 15 or so.
Too long. I still feel like these guys don't get the speed of public opinion these days. You can't let Trump have another 3 weeks to continue this "what are they hiding" argument. And you also cant risk the public becoming disinterested. And there's going to very likely be a government shutdown so who knows what will happen?
I've been calling for public hearings for weeks now. They need to do them yesterday.
Too long. I still feel like these guys don't get the speed of public opinion these days. You can't let Trump have another 3 weeks to continue this "what are they hiding" argument. And you also cant risk the public becoming disinterested. And there's going to very likely be a government shutdown so who knows what will happen?
I've been calling for public hearings for weeks now. They need to do them yesterday.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
That makes me sad, @Joe Bryant. This place really is the best discussion forum for political topics. So many knowledgeable people and such a long history.
-fish-
Footballguy
Just like you don’t ask a question in cross examination without knowing what answer you’re going to get, you don’t do public hearings until you’ve determined what evidence you have and how you’re going to present it for maximum impact. This would be a disastrous mistake.
KCitons
Footballguy
@Joe Bryant. I just want to say thanks for all you're trying to do. I know politics is a hot button issue for many people. It's the reason people say you don't talk about politics and religion at the family dinner table. People are resolved in their convictions. I think this sub forum is a great place for people to share their views and expand their knowledge about what's going on in our world of politics.
Ultimately, you can't please everyone all the time. You do the best you can to please most of the people, most of the time. Don't fret the small problems. They will resolve themselves in due time. Especially with this impeachment process. The outcome is going to be one of two results. We will then move on and the 2020 election will have one of two outcomes. Time will heal all wounds.
I would ask that the rest of the members use self restraint when dealing with some of the posters that they continually disagree with. You can put them on ignore or just scroll past their posts. (I do that with numerous posters). Be the bigger person. Be confident in your opinion that you don't need to refute everything or everyone. There are a lot of people that share your same opinion. Concentrate your efforts to build on that.
Joe, thanks again for your time and resources put into this forum.
Ultimately, you can't please everyone all the time. You do the best you can to please most of the people, most of the time. Don't fret the small problems. They will resolve themselves in due time. Especially with this impeachment process. The outcome is going to be one of two results. We will then move on and the 2020 election will have one of two outcomes. Time will heal all wounds.
I would ask that the rest of the members use self restraint when dealing with some of the posters that they continually disagree with. You can put them on ignore or just scroll past their posts. (I do that with numerous posters). Be the bigger person. Be confident in your opinion that you don't need to refute everything or everyone. There are a lot of people that share your same opinion. Concentrate your efforts to build on that.
Joe, thanks again for your time and resources put into this forum.
That one guy
Footballguy
Now THIS is an actual trial balloon! Publicly getting a vote on each Senator’s view on the topic of impeachment of Trump. There’s no way this isn’t related to Trump’s “human scum” tweet and behind the scenes talks revolving around it.
I’ve done this repeatedly and it seems to be ignored. I get that you don’t want to ban conservatives but there’s a pretty obvious troll on this board that continually posts false statements in order to get reactions (trolling) but for some reason you believe that it’s a difference in opinion and ignore the obvious trolling.
This is a less than stellar example of posting about substantive issues rather than about other posters.
This alone would save the forum.
Not feeding into the David Doods types of posting idiocy/wrongness and the blatant lies/trolling of the Noonan types.
We can do better.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
This alone would save the forum.
Not feeding into the David Doods types of posting idiocy/wrongness and the blatant lies/trolling of the Noonan types.
We can do better.
OK. I took a break from the forum and came back to read these posts. I can't believe the folks in here are melting down over the word transcript. All major media sources are referring to it as the transcript, CNN, CBS, included. I even acknowledged that the white house said it is not verbatim but it depicts the conversation between Trump and Zelensky perfectly fine. It is all we have at this point and many of you have stated (along with shifty Schiff) that the call itself proves Trump should be impeached (incorrectly).
I will not be called a liar when it is a false accusation. Stop crying to moderators when you don't agree with someone. The PSF forum is a safe little bubble for most of you but a lot of you need a dose of reality.
Joe has asked we provide links when folks like Fish blatantly lie so I will below.
CNN saying Transcript
CBS calling it transcript
Fox Transcript
NBC calling it a transcript
@Joe Bryant
Joe, here is evidence to support my case. Please have Fish and others stop the lying and attacks. Thanks.
John Bender
Footballguy
That didn't take long.
KCitons
Footballguy
@Don't Noonan can you see that people want to see the full, unedited transcript of the actual phone call? And that using the term transcript, while it refers to the redacted version, is not in fact the complete record of the call?
Can you find a middle ground that allows both yourself and the rest of the posters here the opportunity to "win"?
Can you find a middle ground that allows both yourself and the rest of the posters here the opportunity to "win"?
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
I agree that people here must believe a conspiracy that incriminating parts were taken out of the transcript. Yes.
KCitons
Footballguy
????
So you admit that parts were taken out of the transcript. (whether or not they are incriminating is still unknown). But, at least you admit that it's a partial transcript.
KCitons
Footballguy
I've been respectful to Noonan. I think he knows I'm not one the follows the group mentality of one side or the other. Just trying to mediate a win, win situation here.Don't feed Noonan. Save the forum.
If need be, you can put us both on ignore if helps you avoid the discussion.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Some of you guys have spent your entire day trying to force a grown man to use a word other than "transcript". Think about how ridiculous that is. I mean just come out and say you totally disagree with the guy's politics and want him banned because the ignore feature isn't good enough for you.
Don't Noonan
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Agree with that, but it drags others into it because they see your post and will lead to the shuttering of the forum.
Maybe that is okay with you, however.
KCitons
Footballguy
Why do you think it wasn't substantial? If that were true, wouldn't they have included it in what was released? What would the purpose be in not releasing everything?
Dickies
Footballguy
Regardless of whether parts were removed, the memo that was released was still inappropriate. It's telling that one side has stuck to the same story. and the new information we keep getting only strengthens that story, while the other side needs to completely re-write their story every time a new piece of information comes out. I'm probably missing 10+ here since they change multiple times a day, but they are all hilariously contradict previous excuses
No QPQ
Get over it
So what if there was QPQ?
The President cannot break the law
What's wrong with withholding aid for political favors?
We understand how serious the allegations appear, but we can't believe any of them because the accusers may have ties to Democrats
KCitons
Footballguy
You just described the problem. People can't have a conversation without being disrespectful. While I understand the frustration some may have with Noonan, it comes down to self control. The conversation is not what is shuttering the forum, it's how some posters choose to go about having that conversation.
I've been on the receiving end of what Noonan is going through. In my 10 years on this board, I haven't received so much as a warning. There is a right way to do things and a wrong way. If you're not doing it right, try something different.
I'm not following the impeachment stuff closely.
All this with fish and others today yelling about noonan for "lying" because he called it a transcript? And he posts links from CNN, CBS, FOX and NBC where they refer to it as a transcript?
sho nuff
Footballguy
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
No its about the specificity of the release which in itself says its not a transcript, but a memorandum.I'm not following the impeachment stuff closely.
All this with fish and others today yelling about noonan for "lying" because he called it a transcript? And he posts links from CNN, CBS, FOX and NBC where they refer to it as a transcript?
Similar threads
