╌>

Newt Gingrich's Unintentional Burn Of Donald Trump Is Priceless | HuffPost Latest News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  pat-wilson  •  last year  •  223 comments

By:   HuffPost

Newt Gingrich's Unintentional Burn Of Donald Trump Is Priceless | HuffPost Latest News
The former GOP speaker tried to praise Trump's communication skills but it backfired on Fox News.

“One of Trump’s great advantages is he talks at a level where third, fourth and fifth grade educations can say, ‘Oh yeah, I get that. I understand it.’


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich suggested Wednesday that Donald Trump communicates better than Ron DeSantis ― but it didn't come off as complimentary to many. (Watch the video below.)

"One of Trump's great advantages is he talks at a level where third, fourth and fifth grade educations can say, 'Oh yeah, I get that. I understand it.'" Gingrich told host Laura Ingraham on her Fox News show.


Gingrich: One of Trump's great advantages is he talks at a level where 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade educations can say "oh yeah, I get that." pic.twitter.com/wigU4DJmHZ
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 25, 2023

The comment drew mockery from online critics. "The fact that [Trump] speaks to the children says everything you need to know about the educational level the Right is shooting for," one person on Twitter wrote. "I don't see where that's good for somebody that's running a country. SMH," another commented.

Gingrich was assessing the strengths of the two leading Republican candidates for president after DeSantis officially entered the race on Wednesday. He praised the Florida governor's intelligence but questioned his communication skills after Ingraham played a clip of DeSantis making a convoluted comparison involving financial institutions and elections.

Gingrich, a Fox News contributor, recommended that the Florida governor boil down the message to a slogan.

Here are other reactions to Gingrich's remarks about Trump:


He appeals to the lowest common denominator. #math
— Lorne Freund (@VonVonTheNutGuy) May 25, 2023


I really don't think that plays like they think it does♀️
— Juanita Deckard @☮️ (@pennysalsa) May 25, 2023


pic.twitter.com/ono6b3a0tf
— baffled (@farrellbruce2) May 25, 2023


https://t.co/0ZXt8YaSbJpic.twitter.com/SXXNkoW8Of
— JessicaUSAF (@JessicaUSAF) May 25, 2023


Makes sense why the GOP is banning books.
— Tgage (@tgagemurphy) May 25, 2023

Go To Homepage

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here's how.

Suggest a correction

Popular in the Community


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
1  seeder  pat wilson    last year

Newty can crawl back into the swamp now.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @1    last year
“One of Trump’s great advantages is he talks at a level where third, fourth and fifth grade educations can say, ‘Oh yeah, I get that. I understand it."

= the vast majority of his base...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @1    last year

there's a lot of 'unintentional burns' of the former 'president'

I remember one guy talking about him and he said -'president fraud - I mean president trump'

it was freaking hilarious

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2  Gsquared    last year

"I love the poorly educated."

-- Donald Trump 2/23/2016

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @2    last year

Democrats repeated use of that quote gives the distinct impression that the Democrats don't give a shit about the poorly educated.

Considering the make up of the Democratic Party's base, I am a little surprised that Democrats would aim that rhetoric at their own base.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    last year

That quote highlights the total disrespect Trump has for his voters.  

Considering the level of intellect of MAGA Republican cultists, Trump has a valid point.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    last year
Democrats repeated use of that quote gives the distinct impression that the Democrats don't give a shit about the poorly educated.

No, Texan, the Ds (and those who are against Trump) use that quote to illustrate Trump's Freudian slip.   He loves people he can manipulate.   His whole campaign is based on telling people what they want to hear and getting them emotionally charged.   He relies on supporters who will simply accept what he says as truth and will not fact check (for example,  blindly accepting his utterly false claim that the PRA allows him to take classified documents).    His choice of words and simplistic points suggest that he is not targeting a highly educated crowd.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    last year

He has words, the most beautiful words

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.4  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    last year

“His choice of words and simplistic points suggest that he is not targeting a highly educated crowd.”

”Exactly” (tee hee).

Evidence of the codependent relationship is displayed by the minute hereabouts. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.3    last year

He has the best words.   jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

Nobody has ever had better words.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    last year
Considering the make up of the Democratic Party's base, I am a little surprised that Democrats would aim that rhetoric at their own base.

They count on their base being too obtuse to understand they are dissing them to.

And they are ...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.1    last year

It’s fun watching liberals underestimate those they oppose.

Very quaint ....

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.7    last year

No, we see them for exactly what they are.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.9  afrayedknot  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.7    last year

“It’s fun watching liberals underestimate those they oppose.”

It’s disturbing watching conservatives undervalue those they oppose. 

Very fearful. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.9    last year

Yeah...never underestimate your opponent

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.11  George  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.9    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.8    last year

I believe you think you do.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.9    last year

You shouldn’t go through life being afraid of inconsequential things

I know I don’t.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  George @2.1.11    last year

AI will have a tough time flipping out with machete when someone comes to your door.    So there is that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @2.1.1    last year

[deleted

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    last year
No, Texan, the Ds (and those who are against Trump) use that quote to illustrate Trump's Freudian slip.   He loves people he can manipulate.   His whole campaign is based on telling people what they want to hear and getting them emotionally charged.   He relies on supporters who will simply accept what he says as truth and will not fact check

So, Trump did what Democrats do.

And??

Democrats overuse of it really spells out the 'respect' they have for their base, huh?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.17  George  replied to  George @2.1.11    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Gsquared @2    last year

Meaning he doesn't discriminate just because people aren't as "enlightened" as others. Too bad a lot of liberals look down their noses at those people unless it requires a big dose of virtue signaling. Otherwise pfffft "let them eat cake".

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2    last year

No, he does discriminate. He looks at his base as the people that do all the hard work he could never stoop to do. He considers working with hands to be beneath him.

I don't believe that most of his base is poorly educated. I just think they've been brainwashed.

He doesn't appreciate the blue collar people of this country

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.1    last year

I shouldn't admit this yet I never went to college. Barely got through High School.  Haha

I ain't one of those edumacated ones...Then again, I had jobs when I was 15.

I agree with you though. He looks down his nose at the working class in general. Pay some lip service.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.2.3  afrayedknot  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.1    last year

“He doesn't appreciate the blue collar people of this country”

He doesn’t appreciate, much less understand all the facets and intricacies that make this country great, nor the resolve it takes to keep it so. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @2.2.2    last year

He looks down on everyone, nobody is better than Trump himself.   He knows more about war than generals, more about pandemics than PhD/MD career specialists, more about politics than career politicians, etc.   And he builds the best walls ... nobody builds walls better than Trump ... believe him.

He is an asshole.  Amazing that so many are so willing to follow such an asshole.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.5  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2    last year

LOL ... of course the defense of Trump ensues.   Sure, Jim, Trump holds the working class in great esteem.   He would never consider exploiting them in any way.  

Good grief.   jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @2.2.4    last year

A string of little assholes follows him around. I believe that they are known as a gaggle, yes that's the ticket, ''A gaggle of little assholes''...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
2.2.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.1    last year
"He doesn't appreciate the blue collar people of this country"

That's where most of his support come from.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.7    last year

Correct.   Do you think Trump is NOT manipulating his base as described?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Gsquared  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2    last year

You can't seriously believe that Trump doesn't consider himself to be the elitist of the elites and superior to everyone.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.7    last year

There's an echo in here

I know that, Greg, I just said so. And he's got them so brainwashed they don't which is up and which is down. That has nothing to do with their education level or their intelligence level. IT has everything to do with their gullibility and how easy is it is to manipulate people

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.9    last year

Any different than any other PotUS you can think of? Or even any Congressperson...........

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.11    last year

Why, no Democrat would ever do anything wrong, just ask one!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.13  Gsquared  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.11    last year

Well, you were correct that Trump doesn't discriminate.  He regards everyone with absolute contempt and loathing, whether they support him or oppose him, and no matter what their station in life might be.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.13    last year

Wrong but you be you................

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.15  Gsquared  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.14    last year

And here I was giving you credit for being correct.

Can you provide even one example of Trump exhibiting an ounce of warmth and human kindness?  An actual example from real life?  A compassionate gesture towards anyone that wasn't totally self-serving?  Go ahead and try.  We'll wait.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.16  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.15    last year

Read 'em and weep.....................................and that is just a few.

And some more.....................

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.17  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.16    last year

Lol, your first link contradicts your second one.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.18  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.17    last year

I think you have that backwards. the first is legit.....................

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.19  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.18    last year

You've got two links, Snopes and presidency.ucsb. Where is the AP link ?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.19    last year

AP is at the bottom of the second discrediting the rest of the story. And excuse me it was APP

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2.21  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.18    last year

Jim, Snopes claims the one where the president paid a mortgage for a couple who helped him when his limo broke down is false. The other claims in Snopes say they are true or mostly true

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.21    last year

I am aware of that. He asked for one example. He got a bonus..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.23  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.22    last year

Yes you delivered three examples that were fact checked as true.   Personally, I find this to be inconsistent with Trump's behavior.   It is possible he did this altruistically;  it is also possible that this was done for PR reasons (not at all uncommon).   To me (logically) the latter is more likely.   Regardless, you delivered so you get credit for same.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.24  Gsquared  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.22    last year

Shocking, and it seems completely out of character for that sick bastard.  It's almost more shocking that you bothered to spend any time looking it up.   I thought you had a job!

Oh, by the way, citing the fraudulent Jerry Falwell, Jr. as a source for anything is a total non-starter.

As TiG said, due credit to you.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.2.25  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.24    last year

I do have a job. It took all of 15 seconds to find, copy, and paste. Less time than it takes to get another cup of coffee. As far as Falwell goes, there is no source  you would believe as long as they were glorifying that which you disdain. Not my problem.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.26  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.24    last year
citing the fraudulent Jerry Falwell, Jr. as a source for anything is a total non-starter.

I disagree, he's the leading expert on being a conservative xtian cuckold...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.27  Gsquared  replied to  devangelical @2.2.26    last year

There's that.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.2.28  Right Down the Center  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2    last year
Meaning he doesn't discriminate just because people aren't as "enlightened" as others.

Anyone with a sixth grade comprehension level would see that is what he meant.  Unless of course they suffered from a certain disease that does not allow them to see Trump in anything other that _ _ _ tinted glasses.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.29  Gsquared  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2.28    last year

Anyone who made it past the sixth grade, or doesn't have their nose completely up Trump's ass, knows that Trump regards the "poorly educated", and everyone else, with total contempt and disdain.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.30  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.29    last year

he couldn't even respect his 3 wives, and his 5 kids are still iffy...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.2.31  Right Down the Center  replied to  devangelical @2.2.30    last year

That is almost as bad as pretending a grandchild doesn't exist.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.32  George  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2.31    last year

The longer Biden stays away the safer the child will be while showering.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
2.2.33  Right Down the Center  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.29    last year

It is cute when someone thinks they know what is going on in trumps head. Maybe the disease we can't mention includes some weird mind meld

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.34  Gsquared  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2.33    last year

It's really pathetic when someone defends a low-life like Trump and ignores Trump's blatant and well-documented contempt for his base voters.  Probably someone like that, having their nose permanently planted in Trump's ass, is dealing with deep-seated psychological issues that would lead them to support him in the first place.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.35  devangelical  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.2.33    last year
when someone thinks they know what is going on in trumps head

I can guess...

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
2.2.36  Gsquared  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.2.25    last year
As far as Falwell goes, there is no source  you would believe as long as they were glorifying that which you disdain. Not my problem.

Apparently, then, you believe someone as fraudulent as Falwell, and you and he both glorify Trump.  Objectively, that would be your problem.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.39  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @2.2.37    last year

I agree that Harris is not suitable to be PotUS (way above her competence and maturity IMO).

I disagree that she is less appealing than Trump.   Trump is the only PotUS in our history who exploited the power and influence of the presidency in an attempt to steal a US election.   He is a despicable human being who should never be allowed political power, much less the presidency.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
2.2.40  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.39    last year

Absolutely ! trump has soiled our democracy and has caused damage that unfortunately will last long after his filthy "presidency".

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.2.41  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.40    last year

he's definitely emboldened the most ignorant scum of the earth in this century.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2.42  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Gsquared @2.2.15    last year

When our military personnel who were killed in Afghanistan were flown home to the US, Trump met the planes at the  Dover AFB runway and solemnly and respectfully waited for the caskets to be unloaded. When Biden did that he just stood there and stared at his watch. Yep, Biden was a real class act on that one.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.2.43  George  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.2.42    last year

Honestly, Trump probably knew where he was, Biden was probably trying to figure out why his ice cream was taking so long to arrive.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.44  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2.1    last year

he considers the majority of his base as beneath him - doesn't even want to be in the same room with them

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.45  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    last year

some must be wearing blinders

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.46  Tessylo  replied to  pat wilson @2.2.17    last year

what a shocker!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    last year

Good find, Pat. Thanks for seeding it

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
3.1  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    last year

I thought it was hilarious.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @3.1    last year

he's ready for a padded room...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
4  sandy-2021492    last year

There should be a category here for "That's not the flex you think it is."

Thanks for the chuckle, Pat.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5  Kavika     last year

Newt could add 1st and 2nd graders as well, oh hell probably kindergarten would understand babble as well.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6  Jeremy Retired in NC    last year
He appeals to the lowest common denominator.  #math
— Lorne Freund (@VonVonTheNutGuy) May 25, 2023

So THAT is why the left is so infatuated with him.  And here we thought that it was he did something wrong that they just can't find proof of.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6    last year
And here we thought that it was he did something wrong that they just can't find proof of.

It is very much because Trump did something wrong , he did many things that were wrong .

Apparently you have forgotten Trump's Big Lie campaign:

Was it   wrong (not a question of legal guilt, but right vs. wrong for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution?  Was it wrong for Trump to:

  • claim that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system?
  • agitate his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised?
  • try to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)?
  • try to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)?
  • try to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors?
  • try to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states?
  • encourage his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)?
  • tweet that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection?
  • refuse to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours?

Your refusal to acknowledge these items is an implicit denial of reality.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    last year
It is very much because Trump did something wrong , he did many things that were wrong .

And the evidence is where again?  Oh that's right...

Apparently you have forgotten Trump's Big Lie campaign:

Much like I haven't forgotten the Democrats Big Lie that spawned improper investigations. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.1    last year
And the evidence is where again?

Right in front of your nose.   Impossible to miss.   Immediately, you can watch Trump as he emits lies to the planet as PotUS.    Here, 9 minutes long.  You are unable to stand up and acknowledge that Trump lied to the world that the USA electoral system was rigged, that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS and that the US electorate was disenfranchised!  

Further ...

Trump tried to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:

  • He lied claiming that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud.
  • He tried to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — tried to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states.
  • He tried to get officials to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia).
  • He tried to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)
  • He encouraged his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election).

Denying facts that do not fit your desires is confirmation bias which leads to living in a false reality and, thus, being wrong most of the time.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    last year
Denying facts that do not fit your desires is confirmation bias

Much like your denying the Democrats big lie.  Gotcha.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.3    last year

Deflection.   

The evidence is right in front of your nose and your response is a feeble bullshit claim about me denying something you label the 'Democrats big lie' as if I am a D.   Pathetic.

What do you think you are accomplishing by denying the blatantly obvious?    It is foolish.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.4    last year
Deflection.   

Not a deflection.  Just truth you, apparently, not ready to acknowledge.  As you said, The evidence is right in front of your nose.  When you are ready to acknowledge it, then we'll talk.  

Now this is where you start the trolling about "defending Trump" and some other nonsense.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.5    last year

Who do you think is buying your vague bullshit deflection?   

You asked for evidence of Trump's wrongdoing and I delivered plenty of it @6.1.2 (as if anyone with a heartbeat is unaware of this).

You cannot even bring yourself to acknowledge the evidence.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.7  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    last year

no official directive has been issued to move away from the witch hunt theme yet...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.6    last year

I see you chose to go with the "some other nonsense" option.  All you provided in 6.1.2 is that Trump is just like every other politician.  When you have evidence that can result in something actionable, then we'll talk.    

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.9  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.8    last year

Bullshit! No Presidents were impeached twice, had criminal indictments and were found responsible for a sexual assault...

Except Trump!

Trump is in a league of his own, all alone!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @6.1.9    last year
No Presidents were impeached twice

1 Impeachment based on the Democrats "Big Lie".  1 Impeachment based on a partisan hissy fit.  Neither came back with a guilty verdict.

had criminal indictments and were found responsible for a sexual assault

There was no criminal indictment for sexual assault.  It was a civil suit that found him liable for Civil Battery and Defamation.  

You should really do your research before spitting out misinformation.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.11  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.10    last year

Excuses Excuses Excuses! Trump Sucks!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.10    last year
Impeachment based on the Democrats "Big Lie". 

What was the Democrats Big Lie?  Be as specific as you can manage. 

There was no criminal indictment for sexual assault. 

On the jury form there was a specific question about Donald Trump sexually abusing the woman and the jury answered "yes" . 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.13  George  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.10    last year

Bill Clinton impeached under 2 articles of impeachment and he actually paid for a civil suit for sexual assault, he paid for raping a woman.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.12    last year
What was the Democrats Big Lie?

Which one? Russia, Russia, Russia couldn't get him so Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine which didn't get him convicted either. then 1/6, 1/6, 1/6 which may be found to be a lie also when all the smoke clears and didn't get him either. BTW, where is that special investigator?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.8    last year

Of course, nobody is buying your ridiculous bullshit.  

There is no denying Trump’s wrongdoing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.14    last year

What was the Democrats Big Lie?  Can you not articulate it ?

Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine is not only not a big lie, it is not even what any Democrats said. 

What about what the Democrats alleged about Trump regarding Ukraine was a lie? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.17  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.10    last year

Was it wrong for Trump to engage in battery and defamation of E. Jean Carroll?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.12    last year
What was the Democrats Big Lie?  Be as specific as you can manage. 

Russia Collusion.  Then we can't forget the Ukraine hoax, then calling for riots on Jan 6.  Take your pick.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.19  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @6.1.11    last year

Sorry, not proof he did anything.  Just hurt your precious feelings.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.15    last year
Of course, nobody is buying your ridiculous bullshit.

So you are going to deny fact that is in your face.  Kind of hypocritical of you.

There is no denying Trump’s wrongdoing.

And yet you haven't proven it.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.21  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.20    last year

There are crocodiles in that Egyptian river!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.16    last year
What about what the Democrats alleged about Trump regarding Ukraine was a lie? 

Lets start with the call.  You remember that don't you?  That's the whistleblower (Vindman) that altered official documents then went running to the Democrats.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.16    last year

What don't you understand about the Russia hoax? What don't you understand about not being convicted in the Ukraine deal?

If it wasn't a lie, why no conviction? And don't give me GOP majority bullshit...........NOT impeachable offense as found by a  Senate "of his peers".

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.17    last year

Changing gears I see.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.24    last year

Testing to see if you will even admit wrongdoing by Trump after a trial found him liable.

You will not.   

You cannot admit Trump lied about the 2020 election being rigged, etc. and even deny the findings of a legal trial.

How foolish.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.23    last year

I asked you very specifically what the Democrats Big Lie was. Evidently you dont know. Or cant put it into words. Simply saying he wasnt convicted doesnt tell us anything about what you think the Democrats said about Trump and Ukraine that was a lie. And also, what the Democrats said about Trump and Jan 6th ( the 2nd impeachment) that was a lie. 

Since you seem unable to put it into words I will leave you alone before you bore me to death. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.25    last year
esting to see if you will even admit wrongdoing by Trump after a trial found him liable.

There it is.  The trolling I was talking about.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.28  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.26    last year

The big lie was Russia to begin with. When that didn't work, they made up another that didn't pan out. And then, 1/6. If you were paying attention, doesn't need any more specificity than that.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.29  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.26    last year
I asked you very specifically what the Democrats Big Lie was. 

And he specifically answered you.  You're willful ignorance isn't his problem.  But you did cover the Democrats "Big Lie" quite extensively.  Just go back and read all your "Smoking Gun" articles.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.28    last year

[deleted] Jeremy said both impeachments were the result of the Democrats Big Lie. The so called "Russia hoax" was not an impeachment article. 

One last chance. Tell us what the Big Lie by the Democrats concerning Trumps impeachment over Ukraine and his impeachment over Jan 6th. 

You guys are starting to make me believe you cant answer the question. If you call something a Big Lie, surely you must know what it is. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.29    last year

[deleted] Be glad people like you are protected on Newstalkers. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.32  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.31    last year
Removed for context - sandy Be glad people like you are protected on Newstalkers. 

And there's the personal attack that comes when you don't have a goddamn thing to say.  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.33  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.16    last year
What about what the Democrats alleged about Trump regarding Ukraine was a lie?

Attempted extortion and it was bullshit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.34  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.32    last year

[deleted] you could explain for us what the Democrats Big Lie was about Trump's two impeachments. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.35  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.30    last year
Jeremy said both impeachments were the result of the Democrats Big Lie.

[Deleted]

If the Democrats didn't lie about the Russia Collusion then there would be no investigation and not OBSTRUCTION "impeachment".  

When that didn't work, a TDS driven clod altered official documents and ran to the Democrats with it.  Like the Russia Collusion lie, it failed.

Then there was the false claim (a lie) that Trump instigated the Jan 6th protests.  When that failed (like the Ukraine call before it and the Russia Collusion lie), then the second "impeachment" come.  Based, again, on lies.

Again, you know all this.  Just go back and read all your "we got him now" and "smoking gun" articles that pushed all these lies.

The so called "Russia hoax" was not an impeachment article. 

I never said it was.  Get your shit straight.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.36  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.34    last year

And the House, the Democrat controlled House, found that he incited J6 which, so far, is bullshit. happy?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.37  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.33    last year

www.rollingstone.com   /politics/politics-news/ukraine-quid-pro-quo-impeachment-testimony-evidence-909873/

Was There a Quid Pro Quo With Ukraine? A Guide to All the Evidence

Ryan Bort 14-18 minutes   11/11/2019


Skip to main content

All the Evidence of Trump’s Ukraine Quid Pro Quo, Together in One Place

The impeachment inquiry has left little doubt that the president attempted to extort Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election
GettyImages-1186351842W.jpg?w=1581&h=1054&crop=1https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/GettyImages-1186351842W.jpg?w=1581&h=1054&crop=1&resize=300%2C200 300w" >
President Trump talks to reporters before boarding Marine One and departing the White House, November 8th, 2019.   Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
House Democrats’ impeachment case hinges on whether the Trump administration pursued a quid pro quo with Ukraine, withholding military aid and a White House invitation in order to extort new President Volodymyr Zelensky into investigating Joe Biden and the 2016 election.

If President Trump did engage in such a quid pro quo, it would amount to precisely the type of abuse of power the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the impeachment clause into the Constitution. But after a month of damning testimony from an array of witnesses with first-hand knowledge of Trump’s Ukraine policy, there’s a preponderance of evidence that that’s exactly what Trump did.

Public impeachment inquiry hearings kicking off on Wednesday may add to the pile, but in the meantime, we’ve put together a guide to the mountain of evidence suggesting Trump leveraged military aid to push a foreign regime to meddle in the 2020 U.S. presidential election on his behalf.

Who is he? The U.S. ambassador to the European Union, Sondland was a central figure in the Trump administration’s efforts to extort Ukraine into investigating Biden. He is also most definitely not a Never Trumper. The founder of a hotel company, he was awarded his ambassadorship after donating $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

What did he say? Sondland’s testimony has been inconsistent. He initially said he wasn’t aware of a quid pro quo, but prior to his testimony being made public earlier this month, submitted an addendum in which he admitted he told Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Zelensky, that a quid pro quo was in place:

“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”

Multiple witnesses corroborated that Sondland told Ukraine the release of aid was conditional.

Sondland also testified that he was directed by the president to insist to concerned State Department officials that there wasn’t quid pro quo.

How did Trump respond?

Who is he? Taylor is the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. He took over the post this summer after the U.S. ambassador to the nation, Marie Yovanovitch, was relieved of her duties following a right-wing smear campaign. Taylor previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

What did he say? Taylor didn’t mince words when he was asked directly if Ukraine receiving military assistance and Zelensky receiving an invitation to the White House were “conditioned” on Ukraine launching investigations into Biden and the 2016 election:

“The was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President committed to pursue the investigation.”

He clarified this point in responding to multiple follow-up questions. “Yes, sir,” he said when asked again if military aid was contingent upon a commitment to pursue an investigation. “I am,” he said when asked if he was aware “quid pro quo literally means this for that.”

Taylor also confirmed that Trump himself wanted Zelensky to announce an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election publicly. “But President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference, and that President Zelensky should want to do this himself,” he said.

This was corroborated by other witnesses, including George Kent, the deputy assistant to the secretary of state. “POTUS wanted nothing less than President Zelenskyy to go to microphone and say investigations, Biden and Clinton,” Kent testified of an exchange between Sondland and Tim Morrision, which was then relayed to Taylor.

How did Trump respond? The day after Taylor’s testimony, Trump tweeted that “Never Trumper Republicans are “human scum.” Hours later he referred to Taylor as a “Never Trumper Diplomat.”

Who is he? Morrison was a National Security Council director specializing in Russia and Europe. He assumed the post after Fiona Hill resigned in August of this year, and resigned himself prior to testifying on October 31st.

What did he say? Bill Taylor also testified that Sondland told Yermak military aid was contingent upon a public announcement from Ukraine that it would launching investigations into Biden and the 2016 election. Morrison testified this was “accurate,” only correcting that he believed “it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general — not President Zelensky — would commit to pursue the Burisma investigation.”

Nevertheless, Morrison corroborated that an investigation was required before military aid would be released.

He later elaborated that he first became aware of the quid pro quo during a September 1st conversation with Sondland. “I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland,” the transcript of his testimony read. “Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland’s strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders in the Administration and Congress.”

Though Morrison said at the time he hoped Sondland’s strategy was his own, Sondland has testified that it came directly from Trump.

How did Trump respond? Trump tried to paint Morrison’s testimony as a win, focusing on when he said he “was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” on Trump’s July 25th call with Zelensky. “But the Crooked Democrats don’t want people to know this!” Trump tweeted in response. “Thank you to Tim Morrison for your honesty.”

Who is he? Vindman is an Army lieutenant colonel, Purple Heart recipient, and the the top Ukraine adviser at the National Security Council.

What did he say? In his late-October testimony, Vindman also pointed to Sondland, particularly his involvement in a chaotic July 10th White House meeting with Ukrainian officials in which he laid out the terms of the quid pro quo. “When the Ukrainians raised this issue of trying to figure out what the date would be for the presidential meeting, Ambassador Sondland proceeded to discuss the deliverable required in order to get the meeting, and he alluded to investigations.”

“My visceral reaction to what was being called for suggested that it was explicit,” Vindman said of the idea that a White House invitation for Zelensky was contingent upon the investigations being launched. “There was no ambiguity.”

How did Trump respond? Trump and his allies attacked Vindman following his testimony, with the president telling reporters on multiple occasions that he would “very soon” be releasing information proving Vindman was an illegitimate witness who is biased against the president.

On November 10th, two days after the transcript of his testimony was released, National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien told CBS News that Vindman will be removed from the National Security Council. Vindman’s lawyer later confirmed that his detail will end next July.

Who is she? Hill was the top Russia and Europe expert in the National Security Council before stepping down in August.

What did she say? Hill also described the July 10th meeting in which Sondland laid out the quid pro quo to Ukrainian officials. She corroborated Vindman’s testimony that Sondland made clear that the launch of investigations into the 2016 election and Biden was required before Zelensky would be invited to the White House.

Sondland’s behavior in the meeting was so alarming that then-National Security Adviser John Bolton told Hill to alert White House lawyers. “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Hill recalled Bolton telling her.

How did Trump respond? Trump did not attack Hill by name but a day after her testimony railed against the “selective leaks” coming out of the hearings “Let the facts come out from the charade of people, most of whom I do not know, they are interviewing for 9 hours each, not selective leaks,” he tweeted.

Hill’s complete testimony was released on November 8th.

Who is he? Mulvaney is Trump’s acting chief of staff. Multiple witnesses suggested he played a prominent role in the administration’s attempt to extort Ukraine.

What did he say? Mulvaney flatly admitted a quid pro quo was in place while speaking with reporters October 17th. Here’s his exchange with ABC’s Jonathan Karl:

Karl: “So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered you to withhold funding to Ukraine?”

Mulvaney: “’Look back to what happened in 2016,’ certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with the nation. And that is absolutely equivalent.”

Karl: “What you described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democrats’ server happens as well.”

Mulvaney: “We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.”

Hours later, Mulvaney released a statement attempting to walk back the comments, arguing there was no quid pro quo and that the media “decided to misconstrue my comments to advance a biased and political witch hunt against President Trump.”

How did Trump respond? Though he did not comment on Mulvaney’s press conference publicly, it was reported that Trump was “not happy” with it. He later refused to comment on whether he was pleased the job Mulvaney was doing as chief of staff, according to the Washington Examiner.

Who is he? A U.S. senator from Wisconsin.

What did he say? Ron Johnson told the Wall Street Journal that in August, Sondland informed him of the quid pro quo with Ukraine. Johnson described Sondland telling him of a desire to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending.”

How did Trump respond? The day after speaking with Sondland, Johnson asked the president about it. He told the Journal the president denied any connection between investigations and the release of the aid.

Who is he? Parnas is a Ukranian-born associate of Rudy Giuliani’s who along with Igor Furman, another associate of Giuliani’s, was indicted in October on campaign finance charges.

What did he say? The New York Times reported that after Zelesnky was elected in May, Parnas told a representative of the incoming government that it would need to launch an investigation into Biden or the Trump administration would freeze U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Furman and Giuliani both disputed Parnas’ claim, with Giuliani telling the Times he “did not tell [Parnas] to say that” to the Ukranian government.

How did Trump respond? Trump has yet to respond to Parnas’ claim that he informed the Ukranian government of a quid pro quo in May, but in the wake of Parnas’ arrest, Trump said he “doesn’t know” him, despite several pictures of them together surfacing.

Who is he? The president of the United States.

What did he say? Though Trump has repeatedly directed Americans to “READ THE TRANSCRIPT” of his July 25th call with Zelensky, the partial readout of the call released by the White House in September is actually pretty damning. After Zelensky mentions that Ukraine is willing to “cooperate” regarding military aid, Trump says, “I want you to do me a favor though,” before detailing the investigations he wants carried out. The “though” is a pretty explicit indication that the aid in question is contingent upon Ukraine launching the investigations details by the president.

In other words, it was a quid pro quo.

halo_match?id=AU1D-0100-001684368494-MF3HGM26-BB4D&halo_id=060dg9iefi9ld8dfc9glgge7hc6bjaiica7kq6umou60k4koi6q0qqm2si0gweuui
 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.38  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.36    last year

No, because a bipartisan majority of both Houses of Congress found Trump guilty!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.39  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @6.1.38    last year

Wasn't enough now was it.................

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.40  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.37    last year

Bolton’s acc, across several pages of his book, squarely addresses these parts of the record. A few examples.

1. Only “circumstantial evidence” of what Trump said or did?  Bolton provides direct evidence.

“I took Trump’s temperature on the Ukraine security assistance, and he said he wasn’t in favor of sending them anything until all the Russia-investigation materials related to Clinton and Biden had been turned over.” John Bolton, The Room Where It Happened

2. Trump’s actions were to pursue anti-corruption, not to help his campaign?  Bolton confirms it was the latter, unequivocally.

“When, in 1992, Bush 41 supporters suggested he ask foreign governments to help out in his failing campaign against Bill Clinton, Bush and Jim Baker completely rejected the idea. Trump did the precise opposite.” John Bolton, The Room Where It Happened

3. No evidence of a quid pro quo for military assistance?   That’s what Bolton’s direct evidence establishes (see #1 ).

4. The White House suspended aid to Ukraine as part of a general review of foreign economic assistance?   Bolton writes that this was a false cover.

“Mulvaney and others later argued that the dispute over Ukraine’s security assistance was related to rescinding the economic assistance, but this was entirely an ex post facto rationalization.” John Bolton, The Room Where It Happened

As for the infamous phone call with Ukraine’s president, Bolton thought it simply fit into the ongoing scheme. “Nor, at the time, did I think Trump’s comments in the call reflected any major change in direction; the linkage of the military assistance with the Giuliani fantasies was already baked in. The call was not the keystone for me, but simply another brick in the wall,” the former national security advisor writes.

Bolton also corroborates details in congressional testimony by Fiona Hill, Ambassador Bill Taylor, and Tim Morrison.

Bolton’s account is damning of Rudy Giuliani’s role in polluting the president’s mind with conspiracy theories about Ukraine, and paints a largely favorable picture of Vice President Mike Pence. Which brings us full circle to Bolton’s credibility among some audiences.

The Ukraine chapter is the final one in Bolton’s book, and by that point one already anticipates the chapter’s contents because it fits completely with a series of other actions by President Trump that involve serious abuses of office. The chapter’s contents are also likely no surprise to Senate Republicans. The question is whether Bolton’s account will reach and inform more of the American electorate. It will certainly inform how history records what happened to our republic.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.41  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @6.1.38    last year

There was nothing bipartisan about the process.

There was no guilty verdict. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.42  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.40    last year


 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.43  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.42    last year

I could go on and on and on with this. There was overwhelming evidence that Trump tried to "extort" Ukraine. 

He wasnt impeached over it because the Republican position was that , even though Trump committed this wrong doing, it wasnt sufficient to rise to an impeachable offense. 

So, in other words, there was no Democratic "Big Lie" over Ukraine. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.44  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.39    last year

Just admit there was no "Big Lie" by the Democrats and I will stop making you look foolish. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.45  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.44    last year

Nope and when did you start? Not seeing it.....................

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.46  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.44    last year

So you want us to forget the Mueller report and the Durham report found that there was no collusion and the Durham report went a step further and questioned the validity of the Mueller report due to it being based on false information and lies?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.47  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.46    last year
1 Impeachment based on the Democrats "Big Lie".  1 Impeachment based on a partisan hissy fit.  Neither came back with a guilty verdict.

This is , exactly , what you said. impeachment based on the Democrats "Big Lie". 

So what was the lie?

Trump's phone call with Zelensky was incriminating enough, but that information was further fleshed out and buttressed by the testimony to the impeachment committee, and after the fact by Bolton, who was told by Trump there was a quid pro quo. 

I know it is a waste of time to expect answers from you, but I guess now and then I am required to waste my time. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.43    last year

he wasn't impeached for it because of Republicans?

gee, I wonder why they allowed him to be impeached ever?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.49    last year
Some fail to accept that innocent until proven guilty is the standard

Forget about guilt and consider wrongdoing.

Was it   wrong (not a question of legal guilt, but right vs. wrong for Trump to try to overturn the results of the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution?  Was it wrong for Trump to:

  • claim that he won the election but was cheated due to fraud in the US electoral system?
  • agitate his supporters into falsely thinking their votes were disenfranchised?
  • try to get officials (e.g.  Raffensperger) to 'find votes' so that he could win states he lost (e.g. Georgia)?
  • try to get state legislators to override the votes in their states (e.g. Michigan)?
  • try to get the Speaker of the AZ House (Bowers) to authorize fake electors?
  • try to suborn an unconstitutional act from his own V.P. — to get Pence to table counts of select states he lost to try to win through all other states?
  • encourage his supporters to fight against the 'fraud' and to protest the count (after months of working them up with lies of a fraudulent election)?
  • tweet that Pence had let them down in the middle of the insurrection?
  • refuse to take action to stop the insurrection for 3 hours?
 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.51  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.49    last year

Hell, for many of them they don't need evidence, or a trial.  The Court of Public Stupidity at it again.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.52  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.51    last year

now, now, I'm sure there's still plenty of time to order a new 3per teeshirt and maga hat online, get your camo all cleaned and pressed, and polish up the the old AR before driving to DC to face down the national guard with the rest of the unamerican insurrectionists when your scumbag hero finally faces the music for his crimes, for the first time in his worthless privileged life.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.53  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @6.1.52    last year
finally faces the music for his crimes

You mean the crimes that the left and several investigations can't find evidence of?  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.54  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.53    last year

Yep, those are the ones ....

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.55  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.54    last year

And all based on the lie the Democrats spit out when they lost to the FNG.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.56  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.53    last year

just how far down does that delusional rabbit hole descend?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.57  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.51    last year
Hell, for many of them they don't need evidence, or a trial. 

You ignore blatant evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.   You will not even acknowledge that it was wrong for Trump to announce as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.   You have Trump on video @6.1.2 making these claims (about as much proof as one can get) yet you claim no evidence.   And then you emit:  "The Court of Public Stupidity at it again.".

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.58  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @6.1.56    last year

After looking at what you and TiG have provided, it must go down pretty far.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.59  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.57    last year

Again, the only thing you have proven to me is that the former POTUS is no different than any other politician.  

There have been no criminal indictments (despite all the fabricated hoaxes) so there have been no trials and no convictions.  And this is spanning several "investigations" over almost a decade.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.60  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.59    last year
Again, the only thing you have proven to me is that the former POTUS is no different than any other politician.  

There has never, in our history, been a PotUS who has deemed the USA electoral system to be rigged and that as a result there was mass voter disenfranchisement and that the USA has an illegitimate PotUS.   These are not normal acts of a politician ... especially a sitting president.

You (and apparently Just Jim) continue to foolishly deny reality. 

800

You (and apparently Just Jim) cannot bring yourself to admit even the most obvious wrongdoing of Trump.

There have been no criminal indictments ...

Again with the obtuse moving of the goalpost from wrongdoing to crime.

Pathetic.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.61  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.60    last year
There has never, in our history, been a PotUS who has deemed the USA electoral system to be rigged and that as a result there was mass voter disenfranchisement and that the USA has an illegitimate PotUS.

Again, no different than any other politician.

Again with the obtuse moving of the goalpost from wrongdoing to crime.

I've made the same statement over and over.  I haven't changed a damn thing about it.  Reality is, the only thing that changed was the level of TDS you have displayed.  And all because I won't capitulate to your nonsense.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.62  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.61    last year
Again, no different than any other politician.

Something that has never been done in our history yet you claim it is normal politics.

You are, however, implicitly admitting Trump's wrongdoing in spite of yourself.

I haven't changed a damn thing about it. 

Correct.  When I speak of wrongdoing, you speak of crimes.   You move the goalpost from wrongdoing to crime.

See?   Get it?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.63  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.62    last year

WTF????

what other politician declared the election was rigged and this his opponent was not legitimate???

                    NONE

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.64  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.63    last year
NONE

ONE.

How soon Democrats forget poor little Hillary.

She claimed Trump was an illegitimate President.

That is an undeniable FACT.

Hillary Clinton Labels Trump an ‘Illegitimate President’ (yahoo.com)

...

Video Hillary Clinton calls Donald Trump an ‘illegitimate president’ - ABC News (go.com)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.65  Trout Giggles  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.64    last year

you got one right for a change

are you following me around again?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.65    last year
you got one right for a change

And you got one wrong again.

Saw this post and had to set the record straight.

You aren't opposed to me introducing the truth here, are ya?

If you are, don't make false statements and I won't have anything to correct!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.67  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.62    last year
You are, however, implicitly admitting Trump's wrongdoing in spite of yourself.

I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

Correct.  When I speak of wrongdoing, you speak of crimes.

I never said "crimes".  That's YOUR statement.  I said EVIDENCE.  Remember, all those investigations come up just like you are when it comes to evidence - flat.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.68  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.67    last year
I never said "crimes".  That's YOUR statement.  I said EVIDENCE.

Now you deny the meaning of your own words:

Jeremy @66.1.59 - There have been no criminal indictments (despite all the fabricated hoaxes) so there have been no trials and no convictions

You expect people to buy the idea that you are NOT talking about crimes here?

You ignore blatant evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.   You will not even acknowledge that it was wrong for Trump to announce as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.   You have Trump on video  @6.1.2  making these claims (about as much proof as one can get) yet you claim no evidence.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.69  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.68    last year
You expect people to buy the idea that you are NOT talking about crimes here?

What I expect is people to use their comprehension skills.  Notice in the comment you quoted I said "criminal INDICTMENTS".  You seem to ignore that second word there.  Hell you seem to be clueless about the entire statement you quoted.  Wonder why that is?  

The rest of 6.1.68 is just further blathering on about something you have no proof of.  Just hurt feelings.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.70  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.69    last year
Notice in the comment you quoted I said "criminal INDICTMENTS". 

That's right, Jeremy, a criminal indictment is a reference to crime.   The word criminal indicates crime and the pairing criminal indictment indicates crime.   Thus you were referring to crime.    You move the goalposts from wrongdoing (my allegation) to crime.

Your continue to put forth utter nonsense as deflection for your absurd refusal to acknowledge even the most basic of Trump's wrongdoing ... announcing on video @6.1.2  as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.   

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.71  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.70    last year
That's right, Jeremy, a criminal indictment is a reference to crime.   The word criminal indicates crime and the pairing criminal indictment indicates crime

And of which there is no evidence of.  But don't let that stop your from spreading your fiction.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.71    last year

You again resort to lying.   I have never stated Trump is guilty of a crime.   I have stated that Trump has done wrong ... that he has wrongfully announced on video @6.1.2   as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.   

The video of Trump speaking is the evidence of his wrongdoing.

You cannot even acknowledge Trump's most basic wrongdoing. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.74  sandy-2021492  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.73    last year

It's not a deflection.  It was in Jeremy's original statement.

And here we thought that it was he did something wrong that they just can't find proof of.

Evidence of such is irrefutable, but Jeremy chooses to ignore it.  Limiting it to criminal convictions (because there have been civil ones) is an attempt by Jeremy to backpedal while wearing blinders, not an attempt by TiG to deflect.  TiG has given proof of wrongdoing.  Jeremy refuses to accept the truth.  Calling that a deflection is dishonest.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.75  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.74    last year

Evidence of such is irrefutable, but Jeremy chooses to ignore it.

Hard to ignore something that hasn't been presented.  To date, the only evidence shown is that Trump is a liar just like every other politician.  7 years of investigations by several DA's and the FBI that are based on fiction and hurt feelings hasn't produced anything to show wrong doing.  So what make you think anything you or TiG have would amount to anything more than wasting time?

Limiting it to criminal convictions 

"Criminal" is TiG's claim.  I'm merely asking for the proof that Mueller couldn't seem to find.  And on the civil side, there is no "conviction".  

(because there have been civil ones)

You obviously don't know the results of a civil case.  "Guilty" isn't an outcome of ANY civil suit.  Recommend you do some research. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.76  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.75    last year

You asserted he did nothing wrong.  He has, and proof has been provided.  You still choose to ignore it, and ask for more evidence.  That's dishonest.  It's sealioning, a form of trolling.

He was found civilly liable.  Yes, we all know.  You hang your position on semantics and trolling if you like, Jeremy.  The rest of us recognize the dishonesty in that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.77  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.76    last year

[removed][.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.78  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.76    last year
You asserted he did nothing wrong.

I asserted that no evidence has been provided.  Get your bullshit straight.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
6.1.79  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.77    last year

removed for context ny charger

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.80  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.73    last year
Deflection noted. 

Good grief man, pay attention to what has been written.    I have not claimed guilt of a crime, I have always stated wrongdoing.

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.81  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.75    last year
"Criminal" is TiG's claim.  I'm merely asking for the proof that Mueller couldn't seem to find.  And on the civil side, there is no "conviction".  

A flat out lie.   I have never claimed Trump's wrongdoing IS criminal.   The designation of a crime is done by legal authority.   The guilt of a crime is done via the legal system.

I have always focused on wrongdoing ... the question of right vs. wrong.

You know this since I have asked you about wrongdoing every time I have seen you defend Trump.   So now instead of merely deflecting, you choose to repeatedly lie.   Probably in the Trump esque hope that lying repeatedly will eventually cause people to believe the lie.

To date, the only evidence shown is that Trump is a liar just like every other politician.

Never has a sitting PotUS claim that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that his successor is not the legitimate PotUS.    And that is just for starters.

Watch this on the video @6.1.2 .    You will never find any other PotUS come close to this level of shitting on our nation.    

And, again, you just tacitly admitted that Trump lied and thus engaged in wrongdoing.   You know it, we all know it, but you cannot bring yourself to honestly acknowledge it.   And apparently you think this does not make your comments look foolish?

800

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.82  TᵢG  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.78    last year
I asserted that no evidence has been provided. 

And I have submitted plenty of evidence starting @6.1.2 and repeated in this thread.   Evidence including Trump himself speaking the starting lies I have focused on.

How absurd to try to pretend this evidence has not been presented when everyone can see that it has.   Other than appear foolish, what could you possibly hope to gain by this ridiculous pretense?

You ignore blatant evidence of Trump's wrongdoing.   You will not even acknowledge that it was wrong for Trump to announce as PotUS that the USA electoral system was rigged, that voters were disenfranchised and that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.  

Yet here he is spewing these very lies to the world.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.83  sandy-2021492  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.78    last year
I asserted that no evidence has been provided

Which is a lie.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.84  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1.83    last year

he was trained to believe them all...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.86  devangelical  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.85    last year

... sort of like it's legal as long as you don't get caught. sounds familiar...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1.87  sandy-2021492  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.85    last year

So, helping to move the goalposts?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.88  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.85    last year
I choose to recognize the difference between guilty and wrongdoing.

Yeah, Dennis, so do I.   That is why I consistently write of Trump's wrongdoing and many times explicitly state that I am not talking about his guilt.  

But even so, people like you find a way to get it totally wrong.

Guilty requires breaking the law, wrongdoing is not breaking the law.

Wrongdoing could involve breaking the law but that is not a defining characteristic.   Wrongdoing is not about crimes but rather morality ... a question of right vs. wrong.

So when I ask people if it was wrong for Trump to, as PotUS, announce to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that tens of millions of citizens were disenfranchised, and that Biden is NOT the legitimate PotUS, I am asking about a wrongdoing, not a crime.


So, Dennis, are you able to stand up and answer the question that Jeremy refuses to answer?:

Was it wrong for Trump to, as PotUS, announce to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that tens of millions of citizens were disenfranchised, and that Biden is NOT the legitimate PotUS?

Further, do we have evidence of Trump doing this?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.89  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.53    last year

You mean those on the hard liberal left that refuse to accept the concept in our Constitution that says everybody is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. And that does not include the court of public opinion some here seem to go by and seem to prefer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.90  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.89    last year

Given the context is my question of wrongdoing not legal guilt there is no constitutional question here.

The question was about right vs. wrong, not guilt.

Seems like a very easy question to answer:

Was it wrong for Trump to, as PotUS, announce to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that tens of millions of citizens were disenfranchised, and that Biden is NOT the legitimate PotUS?

One should not have to falsely pretend that this is a question of guilt instead of a question of wrongdoing and, in particular, a question of personal judgment. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.91  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.90    last year

With respect, you and I have had this conversation several times in the past already and we both know and respect each other's feelings on this. Therefore, let us just agree to disagree and go on.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.92  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.90    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.93  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.91    last year

On what do we disagree?   

I am under the impression that you do indeed consider it wrong for Trump to announce to the planet that the USA electoral system was rigged, that tens of millions of citizens were disenfranchised, and that Biden is NOT the legitimate PotUS.   I also am under the impression that you too recognize that a personal assessment of wrongdoing is different than a legal finding of guilt.

Have I read you wrong?   If not, where do we disagree?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.94  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @6.1.92    last year

I disagree, unlike select others Ed strikes me as a stand-up guy.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.95  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.93    last year

Yes, I do consider that much of what he did was wrong and illegal, but like any other citizen of this country, he is still entitled to due process in a court of law from the lowest in society to the highest. The law has to apply to all or not at all. In addition, I have never said Biden was not the legitimate president. I think he won fair and square.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.96  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.94    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.97  TᵢG  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.95    last year
Yes, I do consider that much of what he did was wrong and illegal, ...

As do I, but the determination of legal is by legal authority.   Wrongdoing is a moral question (right vs. wrong) that each individual can determine (for themself).

... he is still entitled to due process in a court of law from the lowest in society to the highest ...

I expect that you are fully aware that I have never suggested that Trump be deemed guilty outside of legal due process.   In fact I have taken rather extreme steps to distinguish wrongdoing from guilt.

In addition, I have never said Biden was not the legitimate president. I think he won fair and square.

I agree, I have never read you even hint that Biden is not the legitimate PotUS.


Seems to me that we are in full agreement on this point.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.98  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.97    last year

Yes we are. In spite of snarky pointless comments by others.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.100  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.99    last year

Do you understand that when one asks if Trump has engaged in wrongdoing that this is not a question of legal guilt but rather a question of right vs. wrong?

Do you understand that substituting 'legal guilt' for 'wrongdoing' is moving the goal posts (and is a dishonest / slimy tactic)?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.103  TᵢG  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.101    last year

By this you illustrate yet again that you have no idea what we were discussing.   Get a clue.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.104  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @6.1.52    last year

BRAVO

I DON'T THINK I'VE TOLD YOU LATELY THAT I LOVE YOU HAVE I - FOR THE TRUTH/REALITY RATHER THAN WHAT'S PROVIDED IN SOME OF THESE ALTERNATE UNIVERSES HERE ON NT

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.105  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @6.1.56    last year

certain members are on ignore - my high blood pressure just can't take the profound agorance

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.106  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.1.53    last year
You mean the crimes that the left and several investigations can't find evidence of? 

3d6dcbfb-2e86-4510-bae0-82dc20b72dab.d8e217e544bedc6441086db223c874ff.jpeg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.107  Tessylo  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.73    last year

Nope, you just deflected

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.108  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.104    last year

thanks. time is running out on their "where's the proof, where's the indictments" excuses...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8  Sean Treacy    last year

So Trump communicates at the level of the poet who wrote Biden's inauguration poem, per the left. 

What an insult of the poet. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    last year

jesus sean...just make shit up why don't you?

Show us how you came up with that. Quote any person here

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1    last year

Aren’t you mad the school decided the poet’s work was at a junior high level and not that of a  fourth grader? 

according to the outraged left, she apparently communicates on a fourth grade level too, just like trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    last year

Your obsessions are getting more bizarre by the day. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.2    last year

256

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.2    last year

You are the one angry that a local school library placed a book on one shelf and not another, not me.  The [deleted] online left is outraged that a school decided a poet doesn’t communicate at a third grade level. That’s  really funny when you think about it.

I can’t help it if the left’s arguments are so easy to mock.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.5  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.1    last year
Aren’t you mad the school decided the poet’s work was at a junior high level and not that of a  fourth grader? 

Aren't you glad that FL schools are saying their grade school kids are stupid?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @8.1.5    last year
ou glad that FL schools are saying their grade school kids are stupid?

You have Florida on the brain. This is one school. 

But if you want to argue the poet Biden selected to read a book communicates at a third grade level and isn't worth the time of older kids, I guess no one is stopping you. I've given her the benefit of the doubt and believe she's not that simple and childish a writer.  Until I hear from someone who read the book at issue and creates a compelling argument that the writing is so simple and  basic that's is accessible to most seven year olds, I'm going to assume the professionals who read the book put it where it will draw the interest of the appropriate age group. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.4    last year
The entire very online left is outraged that a school decided a poet doesn’t communicate at a third grade level.

What a ridiculous statement. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.8  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.6    last year
You have Florida on the brain.

They do make the news for spreading idiocy. 

This is one school.

This singular issue does effect 3 books in one school, but the issue of a single parent flagging books works across the state. This particular parent admitted this week to not to understand English well enough not to post anti-sematic ideas on Facebook. She says she needs others to read for her and translate it into Cuban Spanish. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @8.1.8    last year
She says she needs others to read for her and translate it into Cuban Spanish. 

So what? You want literacy tests before parents are allowed to have a say?  Only native English speakers?   

The school decided the book was not written at a little kid level, not the parent.  You think mistakes shouldn't be corrected by a school if a native Spanish speaker is the one who brings it to the school's attention?

Shouldn't books be placed at the appropriate level? 

Again, if you think this poet is writing below a sixth grade level, I'd love to hear the case for it, because otherwise what the school did is unobjectionable.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.9    last year

as long as its conservatives doing the "restricting" or determining age appropriate material

but get your knickers in a twist over Tipper Gore

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.10    last year
ong as its conservatives doing the "restricting" or determining age appropriate material

First, the book was not restricted by the school. It's available to all students.   

But sure, education and educational policy is controlled by conservatives and has been for generations.  You got me. And I'm sure you have evidence the school officials making this decision are conservative agents, desperate to ensure this book is placed at a level in the library where the students are too old and advanced to bother with it since its' written for 10 years olds like you believe.   You've figured out the conspiracy. 

But go ahead, make the case the poet writes below a sixth grade level. I'll wait. 

kers in a twist over Tipper Gore

Lol. Desperation has set in, huh?  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.11    last year

[removed]  I can't take your hysterical nonsense any longer

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.13  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.9    last year
So what? You want literacy tests before parents are allowed to have a say?  Only native English speakers?   

Perhaps they should have actually asked the women what specifically fit her claim before they moved it? Or better yet the state shouldn't have passed the stupid law to allow this to begin with.

Shouldn't books be placed at the appropriate level? 

Who defines appropriate? It used to be a conservative's idea to let the parent speak for their own child, but now it's other parents that make those determinations for all children. Talk about the nanny state!

Again, if you think this poet is writing...

Again my argument has nothing to do with Ms Gorman or her poem.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @8.1.13    last year
Or better yet the state shouldn't have passed the stupid law to allow this to begin with

Yeah, can't have spanish speakers asking questions.  Parents should have no say in education, right? 

Who defines appropriate? 

The school did. 

but now it's other parents that make those determinations for all children.

what strawman are you flailing against now? Parents don't make the determination.  

rgument has nothing to do with Ms Gorman or her poem.

You are attacking a school for how it handled her book. How you think you can criticize the school's handling of her book while ignoring the book itself is beyond me.  

Either you think the book is written for small kids and the school should have left the book in the section of the library for kids learning the basic of reading, or you think it's initial placement was wrong and the school correctly moved the book to the section where it will attract kids who can read books more complicated than Dr. Suess.  If the poems are simple concepts designed for beginning readers, the school should have left it where it was. If not, the school acted correctly. That's all there is to this. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.12    last year

The woman who made the complaint all but admitted she is an ignoramus who posted an anti-semitic link on Facebook because she saw the word "communist" in the material and that she didnt read the poem she wanted banned from all schools, and yet all Sean can do is endlessly try to make the case that the school did the poet a favor by removing her book. 

We are in bizarro world with these people right now. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.15    last year

I had to quit this conversation. The stupidity was making my eye twitch

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
8.1.17  Hallux  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.16    last year

Me too and I just got here.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.18  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.14    last year
Yeah, can't have spanish speakers asking questions.

Trying to turn this from pointing out the person who said she has trouble understanding English into a sweeping generalization of "Spanish speakers" is on you. 

Parents should have no say in education, right?

I've already stated my opinion is for the parents to police what their own kids read, or don't read.  

How you think you can criticize the school's handling of her book while ignoring the book itself is beyond me.  

Because that doesn't fit your narrative, obviously. 

Either you think the book is written...

Parent your own fucking child and stop trying to parent mine - the rest of your shitty narrative has nothing to do with me.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @8.1.18    last year
this from pointing out the person who said she has trouble understanding English into a sweeping generalization of "Spanish speakers" is on you. 

You specified  that a Spanish speaker complained, not me. The parent's identity is absolutely irrelevant to where the school placed the book.   Unless you don't think Spanish speakers have a right to complain, there was no reason  for you to make her linguistic history relevant. I assume people include things because they think they are relevant. 

ated my opinion is for the parents to police what their own kids read, or don't read.  

So that has no relevance to anything happening here. No one is policing what kids read. You understand libraries do try to place books to achieve the maximum utility for the users, right?  Organizing books is not policing them. 

Parent your own fucking child and stop trying to parent mine 

Who are you even arguing with?  DO you just have generic arguments that you throw out that bear only tangential  relevance to what's going on?  

 If me pointing out that not a single person here has a made an argument that the school acted incorrectly in moving the book to the areas of the library for older kids make you think "I'm trying to parent your child" than you really should think twice about claiming anyone else  has "trouble understanding English".   

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
8.1.20  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  Hallux @8.1.17    last year

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

You and Trout Are killing me !

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
8.1.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.19    last year

And the cherry on top, the book's publisher categorizes the book as "young adult"

So now even the publisher is in on the conspiracy. It categorizes her works as being aimed at teenaged readers and young adults.  How dare a school move it from the area of the library  with books geared towards six years olds!  I'm sure teenagers will happily go into the area with Dr. Suess books to find it. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.22  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.21    last year
the book's publisher categorizes the book as "young adult"

time to snatch all those bibles out of the hands of young kids at the local xtian madrasas ...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
8.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @8.1.22    last year

What are you waiting for?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.23    last year

maybe he is waiting like the Lion in Wizard of Oz?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.25  devangelical  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.23    last year
What are you waiting for?

for them to escape the basement of the thumper madrasa...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1.26  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @8.1.25    last year

when those thumpers drop their pants around their ankles, run kids run ...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.27  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @8.1.10    last year

Tipper Gore?  JFC!  Some folks really reside in the past along with their alternate reality/universe

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @8.1.26    last year

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.2  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    last year

that's a multi-galactic stretch...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @8.2    last year
that's a multi-galactic stretch...

That would be a vast understatement.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9  devangelical    last year

poor newt, totally irrelevant. maybe if he shaved his wife's head, dyed her blue, and claimed he'd been contacted by aliens...

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
9.1  seeder  pat wilson  replied to  devangelical @9    last year

He needs another mistress/whore to schtup.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.1  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @9.1    last year

toxic jello wrestling...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.2  devangelical  replied to  pat wilson @9.1    last year

she plays the french horn, let your imagination run with that visual...

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
10  Freewill    last year
... he talks at a level where third, fourth and fifth grade educations can say, ‘Oh yeah, I get that. I understand it.

I've been saying that for years now, but not as a compliment.  The ability to communicate in a manner that is on the level with your audience's ability to comprehend is admirable for a grade school teacher.  But the inability to communicate at a higher level, especially for a POTUS, is not.  He should never have been nominated.

When I hear him speak, I often think of this from Billy Madison: 

 May God have mercy on his soul! jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 

Who is online