(OT) Quid pro quo is implied in each and every conversation of state leaders, it's always there!

[Geeam]

I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous "quid pro quo" nonsense as if quid pro quo in itself could ever be a problem. No, it's not a problem! On the contrary: All state leaders wake up with quid pro quo, and they go to sleep with quid pro quo. And when state leaders talk to each other, the only real topic is quid pro quo. I got something you want, you got something I want. That's quid pro quo! At least that's how it is with all good state leaders who put their national interests first. Good state leaders don't give money and expect nothing in return. So if president Trump gave the Ukraine what they wanted, but they didn't give the US anything in return, the president clearly would have made a big mistake. And that's what the Dems should criticize him for!

The only aspect of quid pro quo that could be problematic is when the subject of that quid pro quo was inappropriate. For example, it would have been inappropriate if president Trump never had mentioned and demanded ANYTHING ELSE than investigating the Bidens. But that's clearly NOT the case, and none of the witnesses ever heard him say or even imply that only once. It's quite the opposite: For the longest time Trump and Giuliani only seemed to be interested in getting to the bottom of Ukraine's corruption regarding the 2016 election and the DNC's attempt to dig up dirt on Trump. That was their main focus. It was only later that the reopening of investigations into the ultra-corrupt company Burisma was also mentioned, but the name Biden was hardly ever mentioned at all. For example, the only witness so far who ever spoke with the president about it, Ambassador Sondland, denied in his testimony that the President ever talked to him about the Bidens. And even if Holmes was right that Sondland mentioned the Bidens to him, that does of course not mean the president also mentioned them. Knowing Sondland, it's much more plausible that he just presumed the president was talking about the Bidens when in fact he was not. As I have said several times now, even if Trump had demanded investigations into corrupt Ukrainian 2016 election meddling and Burisma corruption, and even if there was a quid pro quo to withhold military aid until that happens, that would have been the president's job. As I understand it, Bill Clinton signed an agreement with Ukraine that requires every future US administation to look into Ukraine corruption. So it was literally Trump's obligation to condition military aid to Ukraine in exchange for fighting corruption.

In a nutshell: YOU CAN'T IMPEACH A PRESIDENT FOR DOING HIS JOB AND DOING EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS ELECTED FOR! And when in the process it would turn out that the Bidens are a very corrupt family, that's entirely their problem. The Bidens are NOT above the law, and the Dems' attempted cover-up through impeachment of the president will fail spectacularly

[Calimero]

Today I had a nice lunch here in Düsseldorf. Was extorted by the restaurant's owner. Demanded money from me for his Sushi! And later I had a quid pro quo in a jewelry store whose clerk gave me a nice Glashütte watch only when I pushed 2,500 € across the counter (close to blackmail!).


Max



--
Rep. Lee Zeldin (R): „But if I understand this correctly, you’re telling us that Tim Morrison told you that Ambassador Sondland told him that the president told Ambassador Sondland that Zelensky would have to open an investigation into Biden?’
Bill Taylor (former Ambassador to Ukraine): “That’s correct.“

[TT]

Geeam kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 19:31:
> I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous "quid pro quo" nonsense as if quid pro quo in itself could ever be a problem.

The always changing goal posts for Trump fuckers...

[Calimero]

Sleepy Joe had a quid pro pro with Ukraine in 2016.
He even bragged about that in public, this dimwit ...

But what quid pro quo did Trump do with Ukraine and when?

[Brian Lawrence]

Someone ought to have told Nunes, Jordan, et al. about that, they could
have saved a lot of time and effort. Mind you, there are precious few
members of Congress endowed with many brain cells. It seems to be a
trend in many countries.

[Sawfish]

You act like you fail to understand the quid pro quo is the very
foundation of every negotiated deal.

So, no, quid pro quo is nothing. The valid area  to explore, and perhaps
to criticize, is what was gained in the trade-off.

So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received were and
which were legitimate and which were questionable, and which were
outright unlawful, as per current US law.

At that point you'll have a bit a credibility, but Jeezus H. Christ,
you've made a lot of numbnuts pronouncements in the past that you'll
have to overcome.

But it's a worthy goal, if only you are able to recognize it, and it's
within your grasp, so get started or remain forever a whining pussyboy.

Extra credit if you can explain to us in a meaningful way why a
cocksucker from Finland should be as obsessed about US domestic politics
as you are.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" --Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Sawfish]

They are plenty smart enough, and one of their prime tricks is to get
you to underestimate them.

Add to that many of them think they're golden, and can never be touched.

Never.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"...and your little dog, too!"
--Sawfish

[*skriptis]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

> On 11/23/19 10:37 AM, TT wrote:
>> Geeam kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 19:31:
>>> I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous "quid pro quo" nonsense as if
>>> quid pro quo in itself could ever be a problem.
>>
>>
>> The always changing goal posts for Trump fuckers...
>>
>>
>
> You act like you fail to understand the quid pro quo is the very
> foundation of every negotiated deal.
>
> So, no, quid pro quo is nothing. The valid area to explore, and perhaps
> to criticize, is what was gained in the trade-off.
>
> So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received were and
> which were legitimate and which were questionable, and which were
> outright unlawful, as per current US law.
>
> At that point you'll have a bit a credibility, but Jeezus H. Christ,
> you've made a lot of numbnuts pronouncements in the past that you'll
> have to overcome.
>
> But it's a worthy goal, if only you are able to recognize it, and it's
> within your grasp, so get started or remain forever a whining pussyboy.
>
> Extra credit if you can explain to us in a meaningful way why a
> cocksucker from Finland should be as obsessed about US domestic politics
> as you are.

Good shot Safwish. :D
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[TT]

Sawfish kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 22:15:
> On 11/23/19 10:37 AM, TT wrote:
>> Geeam kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 19:31:
>>> I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous "quid pro quo" nonsense as if
>>> quid pro quo in itself could ever be a problem.
>>
>>
>> The always changing goal posts for Trump fuckers...
>>
>>
>
> You act like you fail to understand the quid pro quo is the very
> foundation of every negotiated deal.
>
> So, no, quid pro quo is nothing. The valid area  to explore, and perhaps
> to criticize, is what was gained in the trade-off.
>

It's normally used in negative context. Interesting that likes of you
and Bob pissed their pants in the past when seeing words Hillary & quid
pro quo in same sentence. That was one of Bob's claimed reasons why he
hates Hillary. Now it's suddenly ok. Of course. The changing goal posts.

Or rather Trump cock sucking.

> So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received were and
> which were legitimate and which were questionable, and which were
> outright unlawful, as per current US law.
>

Benefiting personally instead benefiting the state. The explanation that
everything is quid pro quo is for idiots really.

You can't use the power of office to benefit yourself, putting self
interest ahead of interest of the country. Shouldn't be very hard to
understand.

> At that point you'll have a bit a credibility, but Jeezus H. Christ,
> you've made a lot of numbnuts pronouncements in the past that you'll
> have to overcome.
>
> But it's a worthy goal, if only you are able to recognize it, and it's
> within your grasp, so get started or remain forever a whining pussyboy.
>

Lol. Are you drunk or a raving Trump fucker? bad day?

It's as if I insulted you personally. Fedfuckers have a tendency to take
insults on Federer also personally. Pathetic.

The true definition of Trump fucker.

> Extra credit if you can explain to us in a meaningful way why a
> cocksucker from Finland should be as obsessed about US domestic politics
> as you are.
>

There are quite a few non-Americans here and you don't attack them this
personally. Guess I exposed your thin veneer of fake impartiality... and
thin skin. LOL! :))))))))))

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

TT you know you've sunk low when Sawfish felt it's necessary to
attack you.

You didn't argue personally and he didn't attack you personally,
but he's probably been fed up with your propaganda.


You may not be aware of volume of fake news and gibberish you
produce here.

[Calimero]

Am Samstag, 23. November 2019 21:40:06 UTC+1 schrieb TT:
> Sawfish kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 22:15:
> > On 11/23/19 10:37 AM, TT wrote:
> >> Geeam kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 19:31:
> >>> I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous "quid pro quo" nonsense as if
> >>> quid pro quo in itself could ever be a problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> The always changing goal posts for Trump fuckers...
> >>
> >>
> >
> > You act like you fail to understand the quid pro quo is the very
> > foundation of every negotiated deal.
> >
> > So, no, quid pro quo is nothing. The valid area  to explore, and perhaps
> > to criticize, is what was gained in the trade-off.
> >
>
> It's normally used in negative context. Interesting that likes of you
> and Bob pissed their pants in the past when seeing words Hillary & quid
> pro quo in same sentence. That was one of Bob's claimed reasons why he
> hates Hillary. Now it's suddenly ok. Of course. The changing goal posts.
>
> Or rather Trump cock sucking.
>
> > So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received were and
> > which were legitimate and which were questionable, and which were
> > outright unlawful, as per current US law.
> >
>
> Benefiting personally instead benefiting the state. The explanation that
> everything is quid pro quo is for idiots really.
>

It benefits us all when a corrupt guy like Biden goes down, you dimwit.

[TT]

He certainly did. Amusing how he has so long pretended being impartial
and now it all comes out at once. Now THAT is one big faker...

Wonder if it was my posts on Devin Nunes. Maybe he's in love with that
crook.

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 23:11:
> Am Samstag, 23. November 2019 21:40:06 UTC+1 schrieb TT:
>> Sawfish kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 22:15:
>>> On 11/23/19 10:37 AM, TT wrote:
>>>> Geeam kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 19:31:
>>>>> I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous "quid pro quo" nonsense as if
>>>>> quid pro quo in itself could ever be a problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The always changing goal posts for Trump fuckers...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You act like you fail to understand the quid pro quo is the very
>>> foundation of every negotiated deal.
>>>
>>> So, no, quid pro quo is nothing. The valid area  to explore, and perhaps
>>> to criticize, is what was gained in the trade-off.
>>>
>>
>> It's normally used in negative context. Interesting that likes of you
>> and Bob pissed their pants in the past when seeing words Hillary & quid
>> pro quo in same sentence. That was one of Bob's claimed reasons why he
>> hates Hillary. Now it's suddenly ok. Of course. The changing goal posts.
>>
>> Or rather Trump cock sucking.
>>
>>> So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received were and
>>> which were legitimate and which were questionable, and which were
>>> outright unlawful, as per current US law.
>>>
>>
>> Benefiting personally instead benefiting the state. The explanation that
>> everything is quid pro quo is for idiots really.
>>
>
> It benefits us all when a corrupt guy like Biden goes down, you dimwit.
>
>

So does shooting elderly but it's still not right thing to do.

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

Haha haha

[Calimero]

Shooting people is against the law.
Bringing down corrupt people is not. Not even if they are D-Rats (although you seems to assume that).


Max



--
“In fact, Burisma brought Hunter Biden on board in an effort to look like it was cleaning up its act.“
(Deep State “National Public Radio“, September 24th, 2019)

[reilloc]

It's always interesting to learn how foreigners see things and the
convoluted explanations they make for their quaint perceptions. I read a
piece somewhere recently mentioning some Soviet criminal's book in which
he discussed Watergate and said that over there, the whole thing
wouldn't have even been a blip on the political radar.

So, thanks for your outside take on our business and the insight you've
provided about how all of human interaction ought to be
transactional--really, not just transactional; immediate exchange of
tangible value without a vestige or pretense of intending to benefit a
greater good.

I know. It's folly to imagine there's such a thing as "greater good" so
long as there are people who don't agree with you. Maybe where you are
you'll get your wish for an autocracy that can even control thought. I
hope you do and that you like it.

LNC

[reilloc]

On 11/23/2019 2:15 PM, Sawfish wrote:
> On 11/23/19 10:37 AM, TT wrote:
>> Geeam kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 19:31:
>>> I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous "quid pro quo" nonsense as if
>>> quid pro quo in itself could ever be a problem.
>>
>>
>> The always changing goal posts for Trump fuckers...
>>
>>
>
> You act like you fail to understand the quid pro quo is the very
> foundation of every negotiated deal.
>
> So, no, quid pro quo is nothing. The valid area  to explore, and perhaps
> to criticize, is what was gained in the trade-off.
>
> So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received were and
> which were legitimate and which were questionable, and which were
> outright unlawful, as per current US law.
>
> At that point you'll have a bit a credibility, but Jeezus H. Christ,
> you've made a lot of numbnuts pronouncements in the past that you'll
> have to overcome.
>
> But it's a worthy goal, if only you are able to recognize it, and it's
> within your grasp, so get started or remain forever a whining pussyboy.
>
> Extra credit if you can explain to us in a meaningful way why a
> cocksucker from Finland should be as obsessed about US domestic politics
> as you are.
>

Now, this sounds like an old man who's recently received an unfavorable
diagnosis of physical infirmity. Who's been weighed in the balance and
found wanting. Who's days are numbered and is using the few left to lash
out at his imagined adversaries.

Not that we couldn't always but we can simply ignore you now, right, old
man. Can I give you an "OK boomer" to consider as your epitaph? Are you
in a lot of pain? Isn't it all so unfair?

Have you undertaken the "eat shit and die" course of treatment? Do so.

LNC

[*skriptis]

reilloc <rei...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

So you admit you're a retard in front of whole rst?

Reading Soviet criminal's books and drawing your conclusions from
a criminal's book?


How about reading American elite?

Nixon thought Kennedy stole 1960 election with the help of mafia
but he didn't want to dig deep into it during heated cold war in
order not to ruin US reputation.

It's that how much of a patriot he was.

[Sawfish]

On 11/23/19 12:40 PM, TT wrote:
> Sawfish kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 22:15:
>> On 11/23/19 10:37 AM, TT wrote:
>>> Geeam kirjoitti 23.11.2019 klo 19:31:
>>>> I'm sick and tired of this ridiculous "quid pro quo" nonsense as if
>>>> quid pro quo in itself could ever be a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> The always changing goal posts for Trump fuckers...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You act like you fail to understand the quid pro quo is the very
>> foundation of every negotiated deal.
>>
>> So, no, quid pro quo is nothing. The valid area  to explore, and
>> perhaps to criticize, is what was gained in the trade-off.
>>
>
> It's normally used in negative context.

Not it's not. It is used to describe, accurately, the nature of a
transaction. Not a gift, not an award.

> Interesting that likes of you and Bob pissed their pants in the past
> when seeing words Hillary & quid pro quo in same sentence.

I can't speak for Bob, but it was solely seeing Hillary's name *in any
context* that caused me to lose bladder control; in the interest of
completeness, I also shit my pants. Had nothing to do with her business
dealings.

Seeing her picture also affects me negatively. I am unable to hold food
down for several days.

> That was one of Bob's claimed reasons why he hates Hillary. Now it's
> suddenly ok. Of course. The changing goal posts.

If this bothers you then take it up with Bob.

>
>
> Or rather Trump cock sucking.
>
>> So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received were
>> and which were legitimate and which were questionable, and which were
>> outright unlawful, as per current US law.
>>
>
> Benefiting personally instead benefiting the state. The explanation
> that everything is quid pro quo is for idiots really.

No, only negotiated transactions. Outright gifts, or damages awarded by
a governing body, like fines, are not quid pro quo.

>
> You can't use the power of office to benefit yourself, putting self
> interest ahead of interest of the country. Shouldn't be very hard to
> understand.

I do. It *may* be as you say. But it'll take more than you claiming it
because your personal credibility is non-existent. A person like Shakes
is not in the same position you are, my intrusive foreign friend. He has
demonstrated integrity and understatement for *years*; if he says
something, by default I take t as accurate until demonstrated otherwise.
Not so for you, and I wonder why.

It seems like every day, at least once, but often more frequently, you
give readers here reason to dismiss your smug pronouncements.

So, show us, don't tell us, which elements benefited Trump solely. If
the element benefited both Trump and the national interest concurrently,
it won't count.

But yeah, it could be as you say, but you've put yourself in the
position where you've got to prove every single fuckin' thing you say.

Start showin', or shut the fuck up.

>
>> At that point you'll have a bit a credibility, but Jeezus H. Christ,
>> you've made a lot of numbnuts pronouncements in the past that you'll
>> have to overcome.
>>
>> But it's a worthy goal, if only you are able to recognize it, and
>> it's within your grasp, so get started or remain forever a whining
>> pussyboy.
>>
>
> Lol. Are you drunk or a raving Trump fucker? bad day?

Well, no. If you're concerned about the "pussyboy" label, and others
I've used for you, it's because we have a saying here in the US:

"If the foo shits, wear it...".

>
> It's as if I insulted you personally. Fedfuckers have a tendency to
> take insults on Federer also personally. Pathetic.
>
> The true definition of Trump fucker.
>
>> Extra credit if you can explain to us in a meaningful way why a
>> cocksucker from Finland should be as obsessed about US domestic
>> politics as you are.
>>
>
> There are quite a few non-Americans here and you don't attack them
> this personally.

That's because they they're supporting the choice the voters of the US
made, and not advising us vote for candidates whose policies we'd have
to live under, but not them.

That's actually a silly and arrogant position that you take. Why do you
want to be so deeply involved in US domestic politics when they don't
affect you? No one here advises you how to live in Finland. No one cares.

Hey. Maybe that's it: no one gives a rat's turd about Finland, and this
is somehow troubling you.

> Guess I exposed your thin veneer of fake impartiality... and thin
> skin. LOL! :))))))))))

Oh,  also I like some of the others here, but not you. So why in the
world would I treat you the same as I treat them?

[reilloc]

On 11/23/2019 6:36 PM, Sawfish wrote:

> Oh,  also I like some of the others here, but not you. So why in the
> world would I treat you the same as I treat them?

You rapists are funny that way.

LNC

[Sawfish]

Trying to run from the issues is not congruent with addressing them
directly and thoroughly.

It's painfully obvious to all reading this.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sawfish: He talks the talk...but does he walk the walk?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Sawfish]

Colly, is this the *best* you can do?

[reilloc]

That's what my Finnish friend said: address the issue, whether using tax
money (or any money) to bribe a foreign government to get personal
political benefit to help your being elected is impeachment-worthy.
Surely, when prosecuted robbers claim others stuck up bigger banks or
shot more tellers or used the proceeds to buy worse drugs courts and
juries laugh. Are simple analogies beyond you? Has your disease spread
to your brain?

LNC

[The Iceberg]

yeah but we know all of this stuff is just another big hoax invented by dumb sour grapes Demorats like you, just like the "BIG NOTHINGBURGER" of Trump Russia Possible Collusion. You are a 1000% demmie voter, you've NEVER voted for anyone else, go on deny that?

[The Iceberg]

ermm except you know Trump won't be impeached and this is just another big hoax INVENTED by sour grapes demmies, oh no young reilloc has messed up again! LOL

[TT]

Sawfish kirjoitti 24.11.2019 klo 2:36:
>>> You act like you fail to understand the quid pro quo is the very
>>> foundation of every negotiated deal.
>>>
>>> So, no, quid pro quo is nothing. The valid area  to explore, and
>>> perhaps to criticize, is what was gained in the trade-off.
>>>
>>
>> It's normally used in negative context.
>
>
> Not it's not. It is used to describe, accurately, the nature of a
> transaction. Not a gift, not an award.
>

Have to disagree with you on the usual context then.
But that's irrelevant to the discussion.

You're changing goal posts after Trump got caught and trying to argue
that Trump's corrupt transaction was ok since everything is a
transaction in foreign politics. So you're parroting Mulvaney argument
which he walked back after the fact. Can't you think yourself...

The Trump defending arguments by partisan Republicans (which you
obviously are) were...

"Ukrainians didn't know holding back aid so it can't be quid pro quo"
...BUSTED during the hearings, many witnessed that Ukraine did know.

"Burisma doesn't mean Bidens"
...BUSTED during the hearings, it was testified that "Burisma" was a
code for "Bidens". Not to mention the phone call summary.

"There's no quid pro quo"
...BUSTED during the hearings, many witnessed that indeed there was a
qpq; white house meeting & foreign aid for investigations on Bidens and
DNC server.

So now the argument is quod pro quo doesn't matter. That's changing goal
posts. Partisan and corrupt logic.

>>> So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received were
>>> and which were legitimate and which were questionable, and which were
>>> outright unlawful, as per current US law.
>>>

One doesn't have to actually receive items for blackmail to be illegal.
If you attempt to rob the bank but the bank has no money you can't argue
in court "no harm done, I got no money". Election laws mention "solicit"
etc.

>>
>> You can't use the power of office to benefit yourself, putting self
>> interest ahead of interest of the country. Shouldn't be very hard to
>> understand.
>
>
> I do. It *may* be as you say. But it'll take more than you claiming it
> because your personal credibility is non-existent. A person like Shakes
> is not in the same position you are, my intrusive foreign friend. He has
> demonstrated integrity and understatement for *years*; if he says
> something, by default I take t as accurate until demonstrated otherwise.
> Not so for you, and I wonder why.
>

My perceived personal integrity is irrelevant to argument on "putting
self interest ahead of the country".

> It seems like every day, at least once, but often more frequently, you
> give readers here reason to dismiss your smug pronouncements.
>
> So, show us, don't tell us, which elements benefited Trump solely. If
> the element benefited both Trump and the national interest concurrently,
> it won't count.
>
> But yeah, it could be as you say, but you've put yourself in the
> position where you've got to prove every single fuckin' thing you say.
>
> Start showin', or shut the fuck up.
>

Dumb argument. Naturally investigation on Bidens and DNC server
(Crowdstrike conspiracy theory) would have benefited Trump politically.

If you argue that Trump actually tried to benefit USA with these
investigations on nothing else but his his political opponents - that's
intellectual dishonesty.

The "corruption argument" also fails because Department of Defence had
already cleared Ukraine for corruption to receive military aid. It's not
like Trump has held the aid to other nations because of corruption (for
example Israel), or in fact having been interested in any other
corruption than the alleged one related to Bidens.

And let's not forget Holmes' testimony on "big stuff"...

"In particular, I asked Ambassador Sondland if it was true that the
President did not give a shit about Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland agreed
that the President did not give a shit about Ukraine"

"why not, and Ambassador Sondland stated, the President only cares about
‘big stuff.’ Sondland replied that he meant ‘big stuff’ that benefits
the President, like the ‘Biden investigation.’"

...Only interested on "Big stuff which benefits the president".
So there.

>> There are quite a few non-Americans here and you don't attack them
>> this personally.
>
>
> That's because they they're supporting the choice the voters of the US
> made, and not advising us vote for candidates whose policies we'd have
> to live under, but not them.
>
> That's actually a silly and arrogant position that you take. Why do you
> want to be so deeply involved in US domestic politics when they don't
> affect you? No one here advises you how to live in Finland. No one cares.
>

That's bullshit argument. You're not attacking me personally because I
don't "support the choice of US" but because I disagree with you
politically.

As for US politics, obviously who sits in the white house affects the
whole world so yes it is my business as well. That means I don't have to
support blindly whatever US decides. Besides, one doesn't have to agree
with every policy and leader just because they're not in your own
country. Example; electing Hitler, Mugabe, Putin were choice of the people.

Would be pretty boring discussion if everyone agreed on everything.
Is that what you want... no one criticizing your dear leader... just
24/7 praise on Trump.

> Oh,  also I like some of the others here, but not you. So why in the
> world would I treat you the same as I treat them?

Ah, above it was because I don't "support the choice of US" - now it's
because you don't like me. Just shows lack of logic and dishonesty of
your arguments.

Well I'm not a fan of you either but that doesn't prevent me from having
a civil discussion.

[Sawfish]

TT, I'm not going to let you tell me what *my* position it. I'll tell
*you*, right now.

Quid pro quo - this is not in itself wrong doing. It is, in fact, a
definition of the outcome of any negotiated interaction, lawful or
unlawful. You seem to be confused, thinking that "quid pro quo" is
itself a description of an illegal act.

Trump's guilt/innocence - This has yet to be adjudicated. He may well be
guilty of some infraction of the law, but neither of us can know this at
this point. In short, the current debate is inchoate, and is at about
the stage where the Russian collusion/obstruction of justice probe was
one year ago.

When you claim to know, it's evident that you're claiming the gift of
clairvoyance. No one knows at this point, so it's best to withhold
judgement.

Unless, of course, you feel that extra points are to be awarded for
those who guess correctly first.

>
>>>> So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received
>>>> were and which were legitimate and which were questionable, and
>>>> which were outright unlawful, as per current US law.
>>>>
>
> One doesn't have to actually receive items for blackmail to be
> illegal. If you attempt to rob the bank but the bank has no money you
> can't argue in court "no harm done, I got no money". Election laws
> mention "solicit" etc.

Fine philosophical points: I'll keep them in mind.

But how about specifics, as I had asked for, and you evaded listing?

>
>>>
>>> You can't use the power of office to benefit yourself, putting self
>>> interest ahead of interest of the country. Shouldn't be very hard to
>>> understand.
>>
>>
>> I do. It *may* be as you say. But it'll take more than you claiming
>> it because your personal credibility is non-existent. A person like
>> Shakes is not in the same position you are, my intrusive foreign
>> friend. He has demonstrated integrity and understatement for *years*;
>> if he says something, by default I take t as accurate until
>> demonstrated otherwise. Not so for you, and I wonder why.
>>
>
> My perceived personal integrity is irrelevant to argument on "putting
> self interest ahead of the country".

Right, but not a claim I'm making. However, it *is* relevant to whether
to believe a single word you say, a single claim you make when not
accompanied by copious solid evidence.

I assume that you understand this, or is it expected of all Finnish
citizens to say any thing that jumps into their square heads, and then
be taken by all as fact.

Is it a cultural thing, then?

I'll consider it when you provide links,, bit not until then.

You've gotten yourself a very spotty track record. Can't imagine how...

>
>>> There are quite a few non-Americans here and you don't attack them
>>> this personally.
>>
>>
>> That's because they they're supporting the choice the voters of the
>> US made, and not advising us vote for candidates whose policies we'd
>> have to live under, but not them.
>>
>> That's actually a silly and arrogant position that you take. Why do
>> you want to be so deeply involved in US domestic politics when they
>> don't affect you? No one here advises you how to live in Finland. No
>> one cares.
>>
>
> That's bullshit argument. You're not attacking me personally because I
> don't "support the choice of US" but because I disagree with you
> politically.

I don't have a political keel, you stupid cocksucker!

That's the whole point. I'm a registered Democrat, yet voted for Reagan,
then for Obama. I think that one of my state's senators is a responsible
and professional representative of the electorate that voted him
in--although I didn't vote in those elections, either. The other is a
political opportunist whom I felt motivated enough to vote against.

They are both Democrats.

I think that you cannot understand this because you're an ideologue to
the core, and it's simply beyond your ken.

>
> As for US politics, obviously who sits in the white house affects the
> whole world so yes it is my business as well.

This sounds like you'd support Russian intervention in foreign
elections--perhaps in Finland, too.

> That means I don't have to support blindly whatever US decides.

You don't have to support it or oppose it. You, as a third party not
enfranchised to vote in the US can simply observe it.

You act like you want attention.

> Besides, one doesn't have to agree with every policy and leader just
> because they're not in your own country. Example; electing Hitler,
> Mugabe, Putin were choice of the people.

Seems legitimate. They are/were living with the consequences.

Seems like the natural thing to do, to allow sovereign people to choose
not only their own leaders, but their own form of government.

Is this a controversial position in Finland, allowing for national
sovereignty?

>
> Would be pretty boring discussion if everyone agreed on everything.
> Is that what you want... no one criticizing your dear leader... just
> 24/7 praise on Trump.

Nah. I don't do that, myself. I just butt out of the affairs of foreign
sovereign nations. If you oppose this, it would put you squarely in the
western imperialist camp of the post war era.Vietnam GOOD; Cuba GOOD;
Chile GOOD.

>
>> Oh,  also I like some of the others here, but not you. So why in the
>> world would I treat you the same as I treat them?
>
> Ah, above it was because I don't "support the choice of US" - now it's
> because you don't like me. Just shows lack of logic and dishonesty of
> your arguments.

Nah. They are separate issues. But *why* I don't like you is definitely
related to your avid, almost carnal willingness to butt into US internal
affairs.

>
> Well I'm not a fan of you either but that doesn't prevent me from
> having a civil discussion.

 Civil discussions rely on honesty and integrity between those engaged
in discussion.

Therefore, you portraying yourself as participating in civil discussions
is much akin to Bruce Jenner portraying himself as Caitlyn Jenner.

TT, I'll tell you one more time, in case you still haven't gotten it: at
one point I tried to extend courtesy to everyone I exchanged with here.
Sometimes I'd fuck up and be snotty and mean-spirited.

But I've come to realize that to many here, courtesy and willingness to
compromise is seen as a fatal weakness, and hence they exploit to their
own devious ends the courtesy shown by others. You're one of those, and
so you're beneath the assurance of civil exchange with me: you do not
qualify for decent treatment, d'you see? That's reserved for those whom
I respect.

And I'd earnestly urge anyone else in RST to follow my lead on this.


--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[TT]

Sawfish kirjoitti 24.11.2019 klo 17:48:
>> So now the argument is quod pro quo doesn't matter. That's changing
>> goal posts. Partisan and corrupt logic.
>
>
> TT, I'm not going to let you tell me what *my* position it. I'll tell
> *you*, right now.
>
> Quid pro quo - this is not in itself wrong doing. It is, in fact, a
> definition of the outcome of any negotiated interaction, lawful or
> unlawful. You seem to be confused, thinking that "quid pro quo" is
> itself a description of an illegal act.
>

In this case it is. That's why Trump defenders argued that it didn't
happen. Now that we know it did, they argue it doesn't matter after all.

> Trump's guilt/innocence - This has yet to be adjudicated. He may well be
> guilty of some infraction of the law, but neither of us can know this at
> this point.

It's rather clear after phone call summary and 5 days of public
hearings. Maybe you're a bit slow on intake?

>>>>> So that's your assignment, TT: identify what the items received
>>>>> were and which were legitimate and which were questionable, and
>>>>> which were outright unlawful, as per current US law.

> But how about specifics, as I had asked for, and you evaded listing?

I already listed them above. Items solicited were (announcement of)
investigation on Bidens and DNC server.

If you want to know the actual crimes there are many candidates for
Schiff to pick from...

1. CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION
2. BRIBERY
3. HONEST SERVICES FRAUD
4. EXTORTION
5. WITNESS INTIMIDATION
6. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
7. CONSPIRACY

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vb5zad/here-are-7-crimes-trump-might-have-committed-in-this-ukraine-scandal

And that's ONLY the Ukraine scandal. There must be dozens of other
crimes such as emoluments clause, all sorts of financial crimes, tax
crimes, abuse of office etc.

My personal favourite is blackmailing Qatar to buy Kushner building, 666
5th Ave.

I don't bother to answer rest of your bullshit. Get a grip.

[Calimero]

Am Sonntag, 24. November 2019 19:42:26 UTC+1 schrieb TT:
> Sawfish kirjoitti 24.11.2019 klo 17:48:

....

>
> If you want to know the actual crimes there are many candidates for
> Schiff to pick from...
>
> 1. CAMPAIGN FINANCE VIOLATION
> 2. BRIBERY
> 3. HONEST SERVICES FRAUD
> 4. EXTORTION
> 5. WITNESS INTIMIDATION
> 6. OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
> 7. CONSPIRACY

Campaign finance violation?
Witness intimidation??
Obstruction of justice???

Those three are the most funny!

And "conspiracy" means peddling alleged conspiracy theories or what?
Care to elaborate here, lolski??
Noß
Thought so ... lolski ...

And what is a "honest service" and how can you defraud it?
That "bribery" and "extortion" needs a illegal behavior by Zelensky (bribery) and knowledge of the victim of the extortion hash been explained to you a hundred times. Are you thick or what?


Max



--
„The walls are closing in“
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLEchPZm318
„Turning point“, „bombshells“ and the „beginning of the end“
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ab6uxg908

[TT]

Calimero kirjoitti 24.11.2019 klo 21:29:
> Care to elaborate here, lolski??

No, read the link.

[Calimero]

D-Rat lawyers raping US law, nothing else.
You will always find a lawyer who supports you fever dreams. Especially if he gets unpaid PR by some website.

Good luck with Weissmann or some other D-Rat shitbag attorney prosecuting the tangerine genius for that. The American people will tell them and you on November 8th, 2020, what their opinion on all those coup attempts is.

[jdeluise]

Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> writes:


>
> That's because they they're supporting the choice the voters of the US
> made, and not advising us vote for candidates whose policies we'd have
> to live under, but not them.
>
> That's actually a silly and arrogant position that you take. Why do
> you want to be so deeply involved in US domestic politics when they
> don't affect you? No one here advises you how to live in Finland. No
> one cares.
>
> Hey. Maybe that's it: no one gives a rat's turd about Finland, and
> this is somehow troubling you.
>
>> Guess I exposed your thin veneer of fake impartiality... and thin
>> skin. LOL! :))))))))))
> Oh,  also I like some of the others here, but not you. So why in the
> world would I treat you the same as I treat them?

You demean yourself with posts like this, Sawfish.

[Sawfish]

I know it.

--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would accept someone like me
as a member." --G. Marx