John Bolton & Ukraine Aid

[BoilerMadness]

So it doesn't matter what trump allegedly said to Bolton.....yet once again you say what trump allegedly said Sondland is real? Could you directly answer that question without all the talking points?

Sondland also said," Mr. Giuliani’s requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky," he told lawmakers. "Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations. … Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president."

So since you want to rely so heavily on what Sondland said I assume you agree with him in this case? No? So you just selectively believe what he said?

There was no allegedly. Sondland said what the President told him about No QPQ. I watched him say it.

What talking points? That's Indy35's world. I tell you what I think and I don't need anyone telling me what to say. I agree with some of the things the Republicans do and I disagree with some. I'm not a mindless drone like 35 & W.

Where are you coming up with Sondland saying this about Giuliani? I watched Sondland's testimony and he said that he PRESUMED the QPQ and after he talked to the President, he was told No QPQ. I never heard Sondland say a word about Giuliani.

BTW, they tried to set up a WH visit and couldn't find a mutually agreeable time. The Ukrainian President suggested they meet in Poland and Trump agreed. Due to a Hurricane at the time, Trump stayed in the states and Pence met him in Poland. They eventually met in the UN. There was NO QPQ involved in the meeting. How many times does the Ukrainian President need to say that, or do you only rely on the hearsay evidence that makes you feel good?

 

[BoilerMadness]

Thank God there hasn't been a WHIFF of corruption in all of the worlds the Trump crew has traveled in, these past 3 years.....

Did I say that anywhere at any time? I assume that they're all corrupt. I just hope they can govern effectively and don't loot the treasury. So far, Trump's doing a great job.

If you're concerned about corruption, be glad HRC didn't get elected. She would have sold us to China by now. I do wonder if she'd try to steal the China and the silverware again, if she got a second shot at it.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Okay, I’m a bit confused. Your saying that because of the EC, presidential candidates will spend time campaigning in Vermont, North & South Dakota, Wyoming, Delaware, Alaska, and Montana? No, they’ll spend most of their time in the dozen toss up states with some EC clout. The EC just creates different flyover zones. Nobodies heading to Montana to campaign for that we gots lots of land but no peoples vote.

That is NOT what I said.

The fact that we do have an EC, the Presidential candidates will go to far more states, than if we didn't, which is the point of the EC.
There is no perfect system. The big population states want the elections decided by popular vote, since that gives them the most leverage, The low population states want the EC, because that gives them at least a little leverage. It's the fairest system for all.

 

[doubleyous]

There was no allegedly. Sondland said what the President told him about No QPQ. I watched him say it.

What talking points? That's Indy35's world. I tell you what I think and I don't need anyone telling me what to say. I agree with some of the things the Republicans do and I disagree with some. I'm not a mindless drone like 35 & W.

Where are you coming up with Sondland saying this about Giuliani? I watched Sondland's testimony and he said that he PRESUMED the QPQ and after he talked to the President, he was told No QPQ. I never heard Sondland say a word about Giuliani.

BTW, they tried to set up a WH visit and couldn't find a mutually agreeable time. The Ukrainian President suggested they meet in Poland and Trump agreed. Due to a Hurricane at the time, Trump stayed in the states and Pence met him in Poland. They eventually met in the UN. There was NO QPQ involved in the meeting. How many times does the Ukrainian President need to say that, or do you only rely on the hearsay evidence that makes you feel good?

So, desperately needing a 391 million dollar US Congressional appropriation for his country - in their military conflict with Russia - the Ukrainian President is going to take the opportunity of an interview question, to screw his American counterpart , by agreeing (obviously) that he was being pressured to announce the investigation. Bull___t. NOBODY'S that stupid.
Just hang on. Fact witnesses on their way. Then you won't feel like you have to defend White House
perfidiousness any longer.
Sincerely, Mindless Drone (?)
No....sincerely , fact-checker team

 

[BoilerMadness]

So, desperately needing a 391 million dollar US Congressional appropriation for his country - in their military conflict with Russia - the Ukrainian President is going to take the opportunity of an interview question, to screw his American counterpart , by agreeing (obviously) that he was being pressured to announce the investigation. Bull___t. NOBODY'S that stupid.
Just hang on. Fact witnesses on their way. Then you won't feel like you have to defend White House
perfidiousness any longer.
Sincerely, Mindless Drone (?)
No....sincerely , fact-checker team

Where's the FACT?
The only fact that I can find is that the Ukrainian President said that there was NO QPQ.
You're making an assumption that he's lying, because you hate Trump and that fits your narrative. That doesn't make it a fact, but apparently, you're stupid enough to believe it does.

 

[doubleyous]

Where's the FACT?
The only fact that I can find is that the Ukrainian President said that there was NO QPQ.
You're making an assumption that he's lying, because you hate Trump and that fits your narrative. That doesn't make it a fact, but apparently, you're stupid enough to believe it does.

Hey !! Zelensky mentioned " no pressure" the ONE TIME he was asked by a member of the media.
Since the Ukrainian government is not made up of complete IDIOTS.....he declined to officially implicate-for the whole world - Trump in the investigation announcement-for-aid + meeting shakedown.
If "Trump hatred" is your hole card for every indefensible claim you feel obligated to make, for your boys...
then you can just close up shop, now....It ain't flyin'...standardized

(stupid? let me know if you're interested in sitting down for 8 hours to take a battery of standardized tests...for the purpose of determining "stupidity" levels. For $10,000.....details available upon request)

 

[TMan92]

Where's the FACT?
The only fact that I can find is that the Ukrainian President said that there was NO QPQ.
You're making an assumption that he's lying, because you hate Trump and that fits your narrative. That doesn't make it a fact, but apparently, you're stupid enough to believe it does.

Because going against Donald Trump seems to work out so well. There would be no rational, strategic reason for him to rat Trump out.

 

[miksta]

So you're saying it's short sighted and selfish to want to keep more of your own money, rather than having politicians piss it away on useless programs and graft. Government is a parasite that sucks the lifeblood out of an economy. If the parasite remains small, the economy can support it. If the parasite gets too large, you become Venezuela.

Lol strange rant. It's short-sighted and selfish to not recognize that a bit more taxes are needed to enjoy the fruits and benefits of living in a dense urban area.

Weird that you randomly brought up Venezuela as though it has anything to do with this discussion.

You earlier claimed that "intelligent" people leave because of high taxes. I'd argue that people have their personal priorities significantly out of wack if taxes are the reason they're moving away from friends/family. Particularly from a place like NYC where one can demand significantly higher salaries (that, yes, easily overcome incremental taxes) than in lower tax cities.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Lol strange rant. It's short-sighted and selfish to not recognize that a bit more taxes are needed to enjoy the fruits and benefits of living in a dense urban area.

Weird that you randomly brought up Venezuela as though it has anything to do with this discussion.

You earlier claimed that "intelligent" people leave because of high taxes. I'd argue that people have their personal priorities significantly out of wack if taxes are the reason they're moving away from friends/family. Particularly from a place like NYC where one can demand significantly higher salaries (that, yes, easily overcome incremental taxes) than in lower tax cities.

As in any larger city, higher wages are a plus. But then, you have everything else like housing costing more than is reasonable.

 

[Bill4411]

Obviously , you must not be too bright

At least I’m not a miserable troll.

 

[miksta]

As in any larger city, higher wages are a plus. But then, you have everything else like housing costing more than is reasonable.

The salary I get in NYC far exceeds what I could get elsewhere, aside from possibly SF, and easily offsets cost of living differences. It also isn't a linear consideration. If I get a 10% bump in salary and move to a new city with 10% higher costs of living, I'm still pocketing more real dollars if I wasn't living beyond my means in the first place.

 

[chiefboiler23]

First, you have to understand that we are NOT a Democracy, we are a Representative Republic. This is why we have 435 Representatives in Congress, who vote for us, rather than having 330 Million citizens voting on each piece of legislation. Each state gets a number of electors in the Electoral College, which are allocated based on the population of the state, just like the representatives are. This is why we have a Census every ten years. The greater the state's population, the more electors they get.

The Founding Fathers were smart enough to realize that if they didn't do it that way, the states with the greatest population would just completely control the country and the smaller states would essentially not be represented. That's also why they assigned 2 Senators to each state, to ensure that each state would have equal representation in one of the houses of Congress. Did that help?

No, it did not help. First, I do understand the foundation for which our republic was built and how congress was laid out. My question is why the electoral college is an effective way of electing a national candidate TODAY. Why could it not be a simple popular vote? One person = one vote.

I also understand that the EC was born out of compromise, not because it was the best solution at the time. I also understand that the framers designed the system during a period when a two-party system wasn't even a thought. All but two states I believe have guidelines in place that state the winner of the popular votes gets all the electoral votes...so why not remove the middle man?

I know it won't even change due to it needing a constitutional amendment, but that doesn't mean it is still an effective tool for national elections.

 

[PUBV]

That is NOT what I said.

The fact that we do have an EC, the Presidential candidates will go to far more states, than if we didn't, which is the point of the EC.
There is no perfect system. The big population states want the elections decided by popular vote, since that gives them the most leverage, The low population states want the EC, because that gives them at least a little leverage. It's the fairest system for all.

I guess I misinterpreted you stating the small EC states would be considered irrelevant and that politicians would ignore them if it weren't for the EC. On what do you base the assumption that candidates will go to far more states because of the EC? I would guess the candidates will concentrate 75% of their time and $$$ on say 10 states, because of the EC. Take 3 of the 6 most populous states NY, CA, and ILL. Because of the all or nothing EC format and the very predictable results, candidates can virtually ignore these states and concentrate on the 10 battlegrounds. In essence, these 3 states have become flyover states.
It doesn't matter the population size or the amount of dirt the state represents. What matters is the closeness in numbers of registered Reps and Dems, the EC clout, and the all or nothing EC format. As far as fairness, what could be more fair than 1 person 1 vote? Myself, I just feel there has to be a better way than a system birthed as a pro-slavery compromise

 

[BoilerBiker]

I also understand that the EC was born out of compromise, not because it was the best solution at the time. I also understand that the framers designed the system during a period when a two-party system wasn't even a thought.

that's a key difference of then vs now.

then - without parties to dictate voters,
they anticipated more individual candidates.
with more candidates, it would be more difficult to win the majority.
without majority, the decision goes away from the people/electors and to the house/congress, with each state having 1 vote.

so that initial setup is quite contrary to many modern day talking points.