A simple counterexample would suffice and I will admit my hasty generalization. — NOS4A2

Trump was accused of firing James Comey because of Comey's role in the investigation. Turns out that was true.

Trump was accused of personally writing a letter in Trump Jr.s name, which contained several false claims. He initially lied about this, then later admitted it.

Of course there is the entire Cohen business, which Trump lied about, only to be contradicted by Rudy Guliani on TV.

Trump fired James Comey on the advice of Sessions and Rosenstein. Given the recent IG report on Comey’s careless behavior, it seems it was the right call.

The rest are media accusations, not rising to any meaningful level of concern.

Trump fired James Comey on the advice of Sessions and Rosenstein. Given the recent IG report on Comey’s careless behavior, it seems it was the right call.

The rest are media accusations, not rising to any meaningful level of concern. — NOS4A2

Trump himself admitted publicly he fired Comey because of his role in the russia investigation.

I guess you concede the other two examples though. So do you admit your hasty generalization?

Let's take one at a time:

1. Presidents have vast constitutional powers.

Powers to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival? You ok with that?

The other two examples are not the type of accusations I was talking about. The media’s whining and word-policing do not quite rise to that level.

Comey deserved to be fired and it was a good thing he was fired.

Let's take one at a time:

1. Presidents have vast constitutional powers.

Powers to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival? You ok with that?

Investigate corruption. Indeed he has that power and the duty to protect America’s interests.

Agreed. Isn't that why the public should be just as concerned with Trump asking for dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government?

This is a very important question to you: Are you OK with any President doing that? Be honest with us and yourself.

(Arguably, there's not necessarily a right answer-at this point anyway, but this will tell us a little bit how you, his base, or the GOP now thinks ethically.)

Agreed. Isn't that why the public should be just as concerned with Trump asking for dirt on a political opponent from a foreign government?

This is a very important question to you: Are you OK with any President doing that? Be honest with us and yourself.

(Arguably, there's not necessarily a right answer-at this point anyway, but this will tell us a little bit how you, his base, or the GOP now thinks ethically.)

It’s not dirt on a political opponent. It’s possible corruption by the previous administration. Corruption is a crime. One of them happens to be political rival, and yes it would damage his campaign if he were to be discovered to be corrupt. Then again it could help him if it is found he is innocent.

I’m suspicious of you always saying “us” as if I’m speaking to a panel. These are your own question, a single individual, so continually saying “us” is quite fallacious.

As to your question, yes I am ok with a president requesting the aid of foreign governments to investigate corruption between the two countries.

Then again it could help him if it is found he is innocent. — NOS4A2

Oh yeah, it’s great PR to be accused of a crime and then found innocent. :roll:

I thought the Biden thing was already adjudicated, no? Regardless sure it's not right agreed, but you are not consistent with your logic.

1. Then were you OK with the Mueller report? (At least 6 people from the campaign guilty of wrongdoing some of which are in jail.)

2. Your answer tells me that the GOP is no longer a conservative party. Case in point, I asked you about the deficit which you refused to answer; the GOP used to be fiscal hawk's, but you don't even care. What do you think of Rand Paul? John Kasich? Not extreme enough for you?

But wow, it took courage for you to answer that the way you did. Unfortunately your answer indicates you would endorse any President asking a Foreign Government for political favors.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to wonder whether your party has lost its sense of moral and ethical righteousness. Like when Reagan was President. Hence, I dare you to prove me wrong:

If you discovered your wife payed off several men for hush money purposes, would you be ok with that? (And are you ok with the vulgar language Trump uses to refer to women?) Should that be the new normal?

Be honest with us.

The other two examples are not the type of accusations I was talking about. The media’s whining and word-policing do not quite rise to that level.

Comey deserved to be fired and it was a good thing he was fired. — NOS4A2

Haha, ok then. "Give me examples! No not those examples!"

You also asked this:

What was inappropriate in the transcript? — NOS4A2

Using a call, made in your official function as president, to ask a foreign leader to meet with your personal attorney to discuss investigations, the topics of which you also personally specify.

1. Then were you OK with the Mueller report? (At least 6 people from the campaign guilty of wrongdoing some of which are in jail.)

I think the Mueller report was an anti-Trump witch hunt. I’m not ok with it because no one was convicted of the non-crime of Russian collusion for which they were being investigated. It was an unjust fishing expedition.

2. Your answer tells me that the GOP is no longer a conservative party. Case in point, I asked you about the deficit which you refused to answer; the GOP used to be fiscal hawk's, but you don't even care. What do you think of Rand Paul? John Kasich? Not extreme enough for you?

I don’t care about the GOP nor their political leanings. Completely irrelevant.

But wow, it took courage for you to answer that the way you did. Unfortunately your answer indicates you would endorse any President asking a Foreign Government for political favors.

That would be a misrepresentation of my argument, a lie. Your assumption, without evidence, is that it was a political favor.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm beginning to wonder whether your party has lost its sense of moral and ethical righteousness. Like when Reagan was President. Hence, I dare you to prove me wrong:

My party? I am unaffiliated to any party.

Haha, ok then. "Give me examples! No not those examples!"

I didn’t ask for examples of the media word-policing.

Using a call, made in your official function as president, to ask a foreign leader to meet with your personal attorney to discuss investigations, the topics of which you also personally specify.

The Ukrainian president brought up Guilliani and the investigation. Trump only said he would get Guilliani to call the Ukrainian president.

Here’s the Biden sentence. Where does it mention Guilliani?

“The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son,. that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.”

I'm a little confused with some of those answers, LOL , I'll ask again:

1. If you discovered your wife payed off several men for hush money purposes, would you be ok with that? (And are you ok with the vulgar language Trump uses to refer to women?) Should that be the new normal? If you were a teacher, what would you tell young kids, is that OK?


2. Why were at least 6 people from his campaign convicted of wrong doing?

3. I thought you voted for the GOP/Trump, no? Is there a distinction?

4. Asking a Foreign Government to perform a "favor", which was the word used from the first transcript is ok to you? Rudy G. confirmed that no?



Be honest with us.

I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means?

Sorry, your questions are borderline ridiculous, especially if you’re just going to dismiss my answers and reframe the questions with weird and loaded hypotheticals and counterfactuals.

I didn’t ask for examples of the media word-policing. — NOS4A2

"Whatever facts conflict with my worldview are merely media word-policing"

The Ukrainian president brought up Guilliani and the investigation. Trump only said he would get Guilliani to call the Ukrainian president. — NOS4A2

And also that it would be great if the Ukrainian president would talk to Guiliani. But you're right that the Ukrainian President did bring up Guiliani.

Here’s the Biden sentence. Where does it mention Guilliani? — NOS4A2

It doesn't. I don't think it's necessary to repeat "and also speak with Guiliani about that" in every sentence though.

But see, you're already busy doing exactly what I outlined above. Focusing solely on the transcript, and not the things implied by it, while intepreting all of Trumps statements in the most positive light.

So rather than noting that Trump sent his lawyer to Ukraine beforehand, and then followed that up with bringing that topic up again - immediately after Zelenskyy talked about military aid - on an official congratulatory phone call, you merely note that Zelenskyy brought up Guiliani. But according ot the whistleblower complaint, the only reason Zelenskyy immediately thought about Guiliani and mentioned him was that the phone call was only part of a concerted effort.

"I’m an unaffiliated voter. Do you know what that means?"

"Sorry, your questions are borderline ridiculous, especially if you’re just going to dismiss my answers and reframe the questions with weird and loaded hypotheticals and counterfactuals. "


It's Ok, take a deep breath, we are all just trying to get to the truth.

1. Ok, yes I know what that means. Are you a moderate independent like me then?

2. Please try to answer these questions. They are very important particularly for those who may want to vote in 2020:

A. If you discovered your wife payed off several men for hush money purposes, would you be ok with that? (And are you ok with the vulgar language Trump uses to refer to women?) Should that be the new normal? If you were a teacher, what would you tell young kids, is that OK?


B. Why were at least 6 people from his campaign convicted of wrong doing?

C.. Asking a Foreign Government to perform a "favor", which was the word used from the first transcript is ok to you? Rudy G. confirmed that no?

D. Is Mexico paying for the wall yet?


Please be honest with us if you can.

"Whatever facts conflict with my worldview are merely media word-policing"

Pure fantasy.

It doesn't. I don't think it's necessary to repeat "and also speak with Guiliani about that" in every sentence though.

But see, you're already busy doing exactly what I outlined above. Focusing solely on the transcript, and not the things implied by it, while intepreting all of Trumps statements in the most positive light.

You left out that he specifically said “so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great”. So not only did he not mention Guilliani in relation to Biden, he was speaking about working with the Attorney General.

How will you spin that?

Asking a Foreign Government to perform a "favor", which was the word used from the first transcript is ok to you? Rudy G. confirmed that no?

As you might be aware, there is a current investigation into Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election. It is not only appropriate, but prudent to ask the Ukrainian president questions regarding that episode.

You left out that he specifically said “so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great”. So not only did he not mention Guilliani in relation to Biden, he was speaking about working with the Attorney General.

How will you spin that? — NOS4A2

I think it's unlikely he'd want Zelenskyy to only talk with Guiliani about the DNC server, but not the Biden investigation. I can think of no reason he'd want Guiliani involved in one investigation, but not in the other. It's not like Guiliani is a technical expert related to one of the topics but not the other.

I think the Mueller report was an anti-Trump witch hunt. I’m not ok with it because no one was convicted of the non-crime of Russian collusion for which they were being investigated. It was an unjust fishing expedition. — NOS4A2

This is feckless. The title of of the report is: "Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election". There was ample evidence of Russian interference. There were convictions based on the investigation, including close associates of Trump. The introduction to V olume II makes clear why Trump was not indicted. Contrary to what Trump claimed, he was not exonerated. To the contrary, the report states:

The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.

If it were a witch-hunt they would not have been prevented from reaching the conclusion that he was guilty. Mueller played by the book, providing information and leaving it to others to reach conclusions. That is not how a witch-hunt works. But Trump without any evidence declares it a witch-hunt and you as a true believer repeat his words as if they are an incantation to ward off evil. Never mind what the report actually says, Trump declares it a "witch-hunt", "fake news", "a hoax", "a fishing expedition", and the faithful repeat his words and believe that to be the end of the matter. In the words of your lord and savior: sad.

I think it's unlikely he'd want Zelenskyy to only talk with Guiliani about the DNC server, but not the Biden investigation. I can think of no reason he'd want Guiliani involved in one investigation, but not in the other. It's not like Guiliani is a technical expert related to one of the topics but not the other.

Again, the Ukrainian president brought up Gulliani.

I· wili. personally tell you that one of my assistants· spoke with Mr. Giuliani just.recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and. we will meet once
· he co�es to Ukraine.

Trump on Giuliani.

Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_ mayor of New York Ci:ty, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great.

The Ukrainian president brought up Giuliani, expressing that “we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet”

Trump responds, saying he will get Giuliani to call. Nothing about an investigation in regards to Giuliani.

Your night in shining armor, Mueller, waged a massive fishing expedition, and arrested exactly zero Americans for the crimes of Russian collusion to influence the election, any crimes related to helping Russia, which you conspiracy theorists went on about for years.

Ok folks, it's official, he can't answer my questions! The dude can't man-up!!!

Is he scared, I wonder? Would you care to debate me one on one? I think the voters deserve the truth!!

LOL

You won’t respond to my answers. Scared I wonder? Can’t man up?

I challenge you to debate me one on one!!!! Start a thread. You did NOT answer my questions, well ok maybe one. LOL

Put up or shut up LOL

I challenge you to debate me one on one!!!! Start a thread. You did NOT answer my questions, well ok maybe one. LOL

Put up or shut up LOL

If our resolution is about Donald Trump, it should remain right here. What resolution do you propose?

Again, the Ukrainian president brought up Gulliani. — NOS4A2

Because Trump had sent Guiliani to talk with Zelenskyys assisstant beforehand. Or do you think the two just randomly met?

Nothing about an investigation in regards to Giuliani. — NOS4A2

Nothing except the entire context of that part of the conversation. As this sentence towards the end illustrates:
" I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it."

But it's par for the course for you to focus on individual sentences in order to obfuscate the actual communication going on.

I wish to uncover the truth about your Donald Trump. The reason is because I want people of this great country to be informed and ready for 2020.

Through our discussion and debate, I predict there will be contradictions, lies, and unethical behavior unbecoming of the Republican Party/Trump. It may even mirror other Presidents like Nixon and Clinton. I will cross over to any and all relevant domains, including the religious-right who also supports him. It will cover all topics of relevant to Philosophy, Psychology and Political Philosophy.

It will also uncover truth about his business dealings, track records as a slum lord, taxes, and ethical behavior unbecoming of what we deserve as a President.

I assert he has not drained the Swamp. He is part of the Swamp.

Can you deal with that tough guy?

Because Trump had sent Guiliani to talk with Zelenskyys assisstant beforehand. Or do you think the two just randomly met?

That might be an issue. According to Giuliani it was the state dept. that requested he travel to Ukraine. I think if Trump personally requested him to do it, Trump might be in trouble.

Nothing except the entire context of that part of the conversation. As this sentence towards the end illustrates:
" I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it."

But it's par for the course for you to focus on individual sentences in order to obfuscate the actual communication going on.

Trump’s favor was in regards to Ukrainian meddling in the US elections, crowdstrike. It wasn’t until after the Zelensky brought up Giuliani, expressed hope for a meeting, that Trump mentioned getting Giuliani to call him. That’s the context.