lol. You asked where did you say it, I gave you three examples. Not all about the argument, just proving that phrase is one you often use to defend a Trump action. I don't recall if you said "No big deal"........is that really the point? By saying things have been happening for decades you are saying they are meaningless.
Earlier this year, he did then he did not pull all the troops out of Syria, remember? Who is arguing he has the right to do it? Not me. The point is he got the same backlash the first time as he is now.........from his own party.
It was his platform........and it's always been a stupid promise to make, throughout history. Obama made the same mistake and was roundly criticized by.......guess who.....Trump.
You know the circumstances on the ground should dictate military policy and strategy, not political promises. Can freakin believe you sit there and defend this move because it was a campaign promise. FFS.
With regard to the the farmers being a pawn in Trump's trade war, you said the farmers being played by the two parties has been going on for decades. Look it up.
So you're defending Trump on his public statements because.........he was open and up front about breaking campaign finance laws? I guess that's a new take, don't think that absolves him in any way.
Why don't you provide a link to what Ukraine did to help Hillary instead of vague references? I've seen the politico story from 2017. I've seen the conspiracy theories about crowdstrike and the servers.
Why did Trump stop Sondland from testifying today? Did you see the reports that Sondland was in communication with Trump after the Taylor text.......and replied 4 hours later? Just to add some question to his loyalties......FOX news style......Soundland got the job after giving a million dollars to the Trump inauguration campaign.
The QPQ will be proven but it doesn't even matter. Trump broke the law and his oath on national TV.
lol. You asked where did you say it, I gave you three examples. Not all about the argument, just proving that phrase is one you often use to defend a Trump action. I don't recall if you said "No big deal"........is that really the point? By saying things have been happening for decades you are saying they are meaningless.
Again, quote and link please. Yeah, so now you are claiming I said something to make your point(well try to), and now after getting called on it, one cannot recall, but now is that even the point. Are you serious?
And the decades part-What I am curious is about is why do people care about it now when it has been going on for decades? Were new laws written? Never said it was or was not a a big deal. It is disingenuous/hypocritical on the part of many to suddenly care.
Earlier this year, he did then he did not pull all the troops out of Syria, remember? Who is arguing he has the right to do it? Not me. The point is he got the same backlash the first time as he is now.........from his own party.
Sure. My question was the part of being overridden which was your statement. Being overriden and facing backlash are not the same thing. If a military command the President gave for overseas deployment is overridden by JCOS or intel officials, this impeachment issue is the least of America's issues.
It was his platform........and it's always been a stupid promise to make, throughout history. Obama made the same mistake and was roundly criticized by.......guess who.....Trump.
You know the circumstances on the ground should dictate military policy and strategy, not political promises. Can freakin believe you sit there and defend this move because it was a campaign promise. FFS.
That is what he ran on, that is what he is doing. If people do not like it they can vote him out. Do I wish he would make this statement elsewhere in the world? Sure. At the end of the day, if the USA deploys there, troops get killed, and it cost a lot of money, many of the same poeple/posters here will rip on a President for that as well. He/she gets voted out. A new policy is directed. I just see it as largely a waste anymore.
Why did Trump stop Sondland from testifying today? Did you see the reports that Sondland was in communication with Trump after the Taylor text.......and replied 4 hours later? Just to add some question to his loyalties......FOX news style......Soundland got the job after giving a million dollars to the Trump inauguration campaign.
The QPQ will be proven but it doesn't even matter. Trump broke the law and his oath on national TV.[
Ask Trump why he did. My guess it has to do with the letter WH Counsel sent to the Pelosi and Committe leaders. Again, I would suggest one look at how ambassadorships are often filled. Not surprised that it is an issue with you now though. Sondland was pretty clear in stating Trump said no qpq.
So you're defending Trump on his public statements because.........he was open and up front about breaking campaign finance laws? I guess that's a new take, don't think that absolves him in any way.
What campaign finance laws and what specifically are you speaking of? Trump talks a lot. Not a defense. It is just the reality of Trump.
Why don't you provide a link to what Ukraine did to help Hillary instead of vague references? I've seen the politico story from 2017. I've seen the conspiracy theories about crowdstrike and the servers.
I have linked them in the past. I do not consider quotes from people under oath or direct from politicians mouth rumor and innuendo as you put it. Anyway, in regard to Ukraine, I am not sure why so many are against an investigation. There is plenty there from Biden quotes, to prosecutor and politican quotes, to money coming back to Clinton Foundation. Could be shown to be innocent, could be guilty, Ukraine could have interfered or not. Like I have said in past, I think Ukraine will be in bed with whoever the current Admin is and whoever they think will win the future election. Why? They just want armament and money.