(08-04-2023, 12:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: There was an interesting podcast a few years back about a female Australian PM. Basically saying she was the first and people were happy that that barrier had been overcame, but then there was never another one because, well, they already broke that barrier.
I'd say that applies to the POTUS too. We *might* still see a female in our lifetime win the office, but we are more likely to continue to see a string of white, male, probably protestant...definitely Christian, presidents.
Yeah let's just get all the firsts out of the way so we can get back to our comfort zone.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(08-04-2023, 09:20 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: BS, IT WAS NEVER INVESTIGATED BY THE F.B.I. THE TIMELINE OF BIDEN'S RECEIVING MONEY (GOP FOUND MONEY TRAIL), A DINNER AND BIDEN ON PHONE CALLS APPEARS TO CONTRADICT YOUR ARGUMENT. AGAIN, I ASK WHAT OTHER TIME WAS THE US SO CONCERNED ABOUT A FOREIGN PROSECUTOR THEY HELD UP AIDE AND GOT HIM FIRED? I WILL HELP YOU, NEVER UNTIL BIDEN FIRED THE PROSECUTOR GOING AFTER BURISMA.
What would the FBI investigate, here? There are numerous news articles, presidential, and congressional records discussing this dating back to 2016 when it happened. The US and many European nations worked together on ousting Shokin.
(08-04-2023, 09:20 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: PLEASE SHOW US THE PROOF. WORDS ARE NOT PROOF. WE KNOW OBAMA LIED ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS AND JOE LIED ABOUT THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN
There is mounds of evidence supporting my claim including 2016 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee describing the actions taken to have Shokin removed. You have nothing other than...what is it exactly you have for evidence supporting your claim they were lying?
(08-04-2023, 09:20 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ANYONE INVESTIGATED THE PROSECUTOR BEING FIRED, SO NOT OLD NEWS, JUST NEW INFORMATION.
As there is testimony from 2016 where it was discussed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I would say this is not the first time this has been looked into. This is absolutely old news, damn near a decade old at this point.
(08-04-2023, 09:20 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: LOOK IN THE MIRROR
Ah yes, the old "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. Your rapier wit does it again. I am devastated by your retort.
(08-04-2023, 09:20 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The evidence coming in almost daily is overwhelming. Why did Goldman lie after the Archer hearing? We have the transcript and it was Goldman who floated the illusion concept. it was Archer who disagreed with Goldman and said Joe Biden was the brand being peddled.
I see a lot of claims. I see a lot of things that could be bad if the dots are connected. The evidence connecting those dots hasn't shown up, yet. When it does, I look forward to it. In the meantime, I will continue to ignore your ludicrous claims, sorry, the ludicrous claims your are parroting from the propaganda machine that is the GOP and the right-wing media that fuels the rage sending their voters to the polls.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(08-04-2023, 02:45 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Again, I see a lot of liberal rags supporting Biden corruption, yet have yet to see one thorough investigation by any of these rags providing proof by being gret journalists. What are you afraid of with the GOP investigating Joe Biden for bribery? Surely you are not gullible enough to accept Joe Biden's word on his business dealings with his son after he lied about it since 2020.
In time either the investigation will be thorough with the F.B.I. and D.O.J. getting involved or the GOP committees will complete the investigation. They investigated Trump for Russian Collusion for 3 years, GOP has only had 6 months so very early in the 1st time the Biden bribery accusation by an F.B.I. informant has been investigated. Go ahead, cover your eyes and plug your ears, in time the GOP is going to find the money that has and is being laundered by the Biden fmily. Stay tuned, it appears a portion of the money found will be disclosed next week.
BTW, all of those sources you provided, said for 2.5 years Trump colluded with Russia. They were wrong then and will be found wrong again.
Wait, why am I the covering his eyes and plugging his when you are the one dismissing easily verifiable claims about IMF, EU and U.S.
pressure on Ukraine to fire Slokin?
What sort of "proof" would be needed to show that a VP cannot, on his own, "leverage" a billion dollars in aid controlled by not only the U.S.
but massive international organizations?
If the New York Times reports that the IMF wanted Schokin gone, you'd doubt that because it's a "liberal rag"?
You keep referencing the Russia investigation (wrongly saying it was after Trump for three years) as your model here--but though the FBI started that investigation with more evidence that Republicans have turned up on Biden after 2 1/2 yours, they still decided not to prosecute.
You told me "next week" last week, and two weeks before that. You've already convicted Biden on no proof ("next week" again), and exonerated Trump for already well documented criminality. You want a two tier justice system that protects Trump, but you aren't getting it.
(08-04-2023, 02:52 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am also still waiting for a VP that held up aide to a foreign country other than Joe Biden.
OK, at this point you've got to be kidding. I for one know of an actual president who did hold up Congress-approved aid to Ukraine. Whose condition for freeing said aid was that Ukraine announce fake investigations into Joe Biden. Unlike your whole imagined theater-drama, this is actually well-documented and proven.
How on earth could you blatantly ignore the actual deed done by Trump and instead go after a virtual deed allegedly done by Joe Biden that is not supported by any evidence. I just do not get it. You run around and demand every liberal leaning person should look into things and not believe the media and see all kinds of alleged democratic corruption and denounce democrats over it. While at the same time you make exactly zero effort to apply any critical thinking or break out of any wild GOP and FOX narratives. You just swallow them without any reflection at all. How could you expect anyone to behave any different than you yourself do.
(08-04-2023, 09:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, at this point you've got to be kidding. I for one know of an actual president who did hold up Congress-approved aid to Ukraine. Whose condition for freeing said aid was that Ukraine announce fake investigations into Joe Biden. Unlike your whole imagined theater-drama, this is actually well-documented and proven.
How on earth could you blatantly ignore the actual deed done by Trump and instead go after a virtual deed allegedly done by Joe Biden that is not supported by any evidence. I just do not get it. You run around and demand every liberal leaning person should look into things and not believe the media and see all kinds of alleged democratic corruption and denounce democrats over it. While at the same time you make exactly zero effort to apply any critical thinking or break out of any wild GOP and FOX narratives. You just swallow them without any reflection at all. How could you expect anyone to behave any different than you yourself do.
Trump never held up any aide to Ukraine. The President of Ukraine said nothing wrong with the call. On the other hand, Joe Biden in 2018 told the world he threatened the President of Ukraine he was leaving in 6 hours and with him 1 billion dollars in aide unless he fired the prosecutor investigating Ukraine and he fired the prosecutor.
This is the gaslighting proof in the transcript. Archer corrected Goldman when he floated the idea it was a HB illusion. Read the article or the transcript.
Now that we know Goldman rushed to the podium Adam Schiff style, then lied about HB illusion. Then he lied and said Joe was talking about the weather on the 20+ phone calls.
Sadly, the media are a part of the Biden reelection team so that went with that version and once the transcript was released refused to admit Goldman played them. Why? They don't want to tell the truth. Devon Archer transcript shows how Democrat Rep. Goldman spun 'illusion of access' narrative
Devon Archer said Joe Biden presence on Hunter Biden business calls was 'signal enough to be powerful'
More facts presented implementing Joe Biden was a HB partner in his foreign business deals
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
(08-04-2023, 10:41 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Trump never held up any aide to Ukraine. The President of Ukraine said nothing wrong with the call. On the other hand, Joe Biden in 2018 told the world he threatened the President of Ukraine he was leaving in 6 hours and with him 1 billion dollars in aide unless he fired the prosecutor investigating Ukraine and he fired the prosecutor.
No one disputes that Biden wanted Schokin fired too. As did many many other heads of states arund the world. Of course the US is a more effective messenger than some Austrian schmuck or anyone who doesn't have the leverage. But Biden had the broadest of support in doing so. There's nothing remarkable about it. At all. But why even bother, you don't care anyway.
Trump did hold up aid. Have you read nothing about that at all that wasn't from FOX? And you mention Selensky's response? The man was under intense pressure, as we see rightfully assumed he can not possibly afford to lose US support, of course he would say that Trump didn't do anything out of order. He had to. But the call can be read by anyone, there's no need to consider Selensky's pressured perspective. And there are several witnesses that testified to Trump holding up the aid and the conditions he set to give it free. But why... ah well.
(08-04-2023, 10:41 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Trump never held up any aide to Ukraine. The President of Ukraine said nothing wrong with the call. On the other hand, Joe Biden in 2018 told the world he threatened the President of Ukraine he was leaving in 6 hours and with him 1 billion dollars in aide unless he fired the prosecutor investigating Ukraine and he fired the prosecutor.
A POTUS has the authority to stop any type of aide to any country for any reason.
Again, show us another VP who through threats (conformed by Joe Biden) got a prosecutor fired.
Jeezus, no one doubts Biden bragged about pressuring Ukraine. Try and keep your points to what is actually contested.
The point is he had no power to do that on his own, AND he was acting on behalf of our nation and international organizations.
You think there was nothing wrong with asking Z to ANNOUNCE an investigation into Biden, Trump's #1 opponent, before an election?
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."
Another big difference between Biden's LEGAL actions regarding Ukraine and Trump's ILLEGAL actions.
This is the gaslighting proof in the transcript. Archer corrected Goldman when he floated the idea it was a HB illusion. Read the article or the transcript.
Now that we know Goldman rushed to the podium Adam Schiff style, then lied about HB illusion. Then he lied and said Joe was talking about the weather on the 20+ phone calls.
I really have trouble following you here.
Can you quote the "actual" transcript and then Goldman's "lie"?
If you cannot do that then I just don't know what you are going on about.
(08-04-2023, 10:41 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Trump never held up any aide to Ukraine. The President of Ukraine said nothing wrong with the call. On the other hand, Joe Biden in 2018 told the world he threatened the President of Ukraine he was leaving in 6 hours and with him 1 billion dollars in aide unless he fired the prosecutor investigating Ukraine and he fired the prosecutor.
A POTUS has the authority to stop any type of aide to any country for any reason.
Again, show us another VP who through threats (conformed by Joe Biden) got a prosecutor fired.
Jeezus, no one doubts Biden bragged about pressuring Ukraine. Try and keep your points to what is actually contested.
The point is he had no power to do that on his own, AND he was acting on behalf of our nation and international organizations.
You think there was nothing wrong with asking Z to ANNOUNCE an investigation into Biden, his #1 opponent, before an election?
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law."
Another big difference between Biden's LEGAL actions regarding Ukraine and Trump's ILLEGAL actions.
I saw something today that claims this is where the term "gaslighting" comes from.
I am not 100% sure that is true...but still interesting. At least to me.
Quote:Gaslight is a 1940 British film directed by Thorold Dickinson which stars Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard, and features Frank Pettingell. The film adheres more closely to the original play upon which it is based – Patrick Hamilton's Gas Light (1938) – than the better-known 1944 MGM adaptation. The play had been shown on Broadway as Angel Street, so when the film was released in the United States it was given the same name.
PLOT
Alice Barlow (Marie Wright) is murdered by an unknown man, who then ransacks her house, looking for her valuable and famous rubies. The house remains empty for years, until newlyweds Paul and Bella Mallen move in. Bella (Diana Wynyard) soon finds herself misplacing small objects; and, before long, Paul (Anton Walbrook) has her believing she is losing her sanity. B. G. Rough (Frank Pettingell), a former detective involved in the original murder investigation, immediately suspects him of Alice Barlow's murder.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(08-04-2023, 11:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I really have trouble following you here.
Can you quote the "actual" transcript and then Goldman's "lie"?
If you cannot do that then I just don't know what you are going on about.
The narrative is in the article I provided. I know you all hate facts. But, Goldman was the one who floated the idea of HB was using illusion to get paid big bucks. Archer shut him down and said no HB was selling the Biden brand (which is Je Biden). Then Goldman goes out and lies and makes it appear Archer was the one who said HB was using illusion to his dad to be paid.
A flat out lie the liberal media peddled as well.
Free Agency ain't over until it is over.
First 6 years BB - 41 wins and 54 losses with 1-1 playoff record with 2 teams Browns and Pats
CNN put out an article the yesterday that was something like "What you think about gaslighting is wrong"....I never bothered to read it because I just assumed they were trying to redefine gaslighting.
I do think people misuse the word a lot though. I'm sure I'm guilty of it too.
(08-09-2023, 08:28 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The narrative is in the article I provided. I know you all hate facts. But, Goldman was the one who floated the idea of HB was using illusion to get paid big bucks. Archer shut him down and said no HB was selling the Biden brand (which is Je Biden). Then Goldman goes out and lies and makes it appear Archer was the one who said HB was using illusion to his dad to be paid.
A flat out lie the liberal media peddled as well.
The guy who still can't admit that Biden was acting on orders, with the support of the IMF and EU, when he fired Shokin,
but thinks Trump had a legal right to withhold Congressional aid to Ukraine until the announced an investigation into Biden,
now "knows" I "hate all facts"? You're still the guy who thinks the Russia investigation was based on the Steele Dossier, right?
Your summary still clarifies nothing. How is "using illusion to get paid big" different from "selling the Biden brand"?
You are not able to present and compare quotes. That's a red flag.
(08-09-2023, 08:32 PM)basballguy Wrote: CNN put out an article the yesterday that was something like "What you think about gaslighting is wrong"....I never bothered to read it because I just assumed they were trying to redefine gaslighting.
I do think people misuse the word a lot though. I'm sure I'm guilty of it too.
Good article. And surprisingly applicable to today's politics, though that separates the term somewhat from
the "someone close" requirement for psychology.
This is the movie version you want to see, should you choose to go to the source.
Bad guy lowers the gaslights and when his wife (Bergman) notices, he acts like nothing has changed,
her perception is off, shouldn't be trusted . . . trust the bad guy's perception instead.
He wants to commit her so he can inherit her wealth.
Like some "perfect phone calls" you may have heard of.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 800px-Gaslight_%281944_poster%29.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Gaslight_%281944_poster%29.jpg/800px-Gaslight_%281944_poster%29.jpg)
