Sondland Updates Impeachment Testimony, Describing Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
So people have testified under oath that, indeed, it was a quid pro quo. Trump and his cronies were not going to release the aid until Ukraine performed an action that would benefit Trump personally.
For my fellow Americans, I guess the question is, should a president be allowed to hijack American foreign policy for his personal benefit? In such a scenario, who is the president serving?
(Question for extra credit: what country is the primary beneficiary of chaos and weakness in Ukraine?)
as long as we get richer overall. i think it is ok for a person to aggrandize himself at the expense of others.
I don’t.
Trump’s faith advisor is now officially a staff member. A very level-headed individual with a long experience in divine matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w0kSkvusjI
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/02/us/politics/paula-white-trump.html
which would you prefer?
a corrupt man who steals from the country but whose policies made the country richer.
or an honest man that had good intentions, but whose policies made the country poorer.
at the end of the day, it’s the bottom line we should all worry about.
Holy sh!t
What would you prefer? To make $300k, but your boss abuses you, and does legally questionable things constantly, or make $150k in a respectful work environment?
Either way, wrong answer! Go make $300k (or whatever your number) in a respectful work environment where no one is breaking the law. It is not necessary to settle for corruption in order prosper.
no comment
SJW and feminist be like, #believeallwomen, still the case?
laws are ever changing. what is a rule today, may not be a rule tomorrow.
in any case consider this. an honest president with good intentions decides to raise taxes to fund medicare for all. as their old people retire, they are more healthy, and live longer. so they start running large deficits and take on unsustainable debt which causes rates to rise further destroying the federal budget. he ends up raising taxes to meet the fall, but many of the skilled workers decide to leave to greener pastures as they do not want to subsidize the unproductive individuals. as a result, your economy now relies on its natural resources, particularly oil. an economic crisis then hits, and the demand for oil drops. 60% of your government’s budget depends on oil proceeds. and now venezueal is fucked!
vs say a highly conflicted billionaire president that lowers taxes that benefits himself. before deficits ramps up from his tax cuts. he cuts social security/medicare/medical which causes a lot of unproductive people to die, but at the very least fixes any budget strain. money flows in to the country as corporation decide to invest in its infrastructure due to the lower taxes and regulation. it becomes a tech savy manufacturing hub that pulls highly skilled workers looking for opportunities. Most of the new people look around and say wow, China is magnificent!
Impeaching Trump Is Imperative to Preserving Our Democracy
Why are these the only two options available?
ceteris paribus!
Because each major party put forward one candidate.
I’m pretty sure that that isn’t it.
In the last election, neither major party put forward an _ honest _ with good intentions.
I think we should be looking at the potential candidates that the parties can put forward.
That’s exactly it. Potential pool has nothing to do with it.
Then why ask about a choice that wasn’t offered?
No . . . that’s definitely _ not _ it.
What are you on about?
You asked why those were the two options. I simply stated that we have two major parties and they each provided one candidate. It’s very simple. Then you started incoherently rambling about personal opinion and other potential blah blah blah’s.
Obviously that is why those are the two options.
