master, slave

Most of the morons here agree with Nancy.

the story.

e.

He did do that, but didn't raise taxes anywhere else, so the US budget went even further into deficit.

Great election slogan. Silly idea.

Make NATO spend more on the pro9dcuts of the US military-industrial complex .

Nice idea. He might try to negotiate that, but his ideas about "negotiation " suck.

Every patient is different.

He done so well so far.

Sadly, John Larkin is a sucker for denialist propaganda about climate chang e, and entirely blind to the reality of what's happening and what needs to be done.

Climate change is making them worse.

Ask any other gullible twit.

el.

He didn't. He had it ghostwritten for him.

Nobody is all that confident about the amount of money he has actually got.

He is the current president of the US, which is unfortunate.

They do. The problem is not that they don't spend enough money, but rather that the US spends way too much. Historically, the top dog spent as much as the next two countries below it combined. The US is currently spending as much as the combined expenditures of the next seven countries down the peck ing order.

This is widely seen as welfare for the US defense industry, and the US want s its allies to spend more on their own defense by buying more of the outpu t from the US military-industrial complex.

They will have been written by James Arthur style conservative non-thinkers .

tegy.

Wishful thinking.

Donald Trump isn't any kind of "hungry tiger". He's a greedy buffoon, and t he Ukraine phone-call made that even more obvious.

Donald Trump is a crook, and his approach to climate change is to sell out the US national interest (not to mention the interest of the rest of the wo rld) in favour of people who are currently making a lot of money out of dig ging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and who want to keep on doing it right up to the moment that climate change kills off their every last c ustomer.

he

suggestion that the Ukraine investigate Joe and Hunter Biden.

There was no no A.G.Barr Biden investigation.

If there had been, Trump might legitimately have used the the Ukraine to co operate with it. As it was, Trump was after a cheap headline squeezed out o f people he could put more pressure on than he could apply to A.G.Barr.

Except that there isn't any criminal corruption investigation going on.

So he made an implied threat that he couldn't risk following through on.

He's not only crook, but also a crook with poor judgement (as if we didn't know that already from his business career).

If Joe Biden had acted corruptly, the US would be able to prosecute him for it. They haven't, so it seems likely that the claimed "corruption" is one more bit of lying Republican propaganda.

But looking for electoral advantage by claiming to be looking into corrupti on that doesn't actually exist isn't part of the presidential job descripti on.

Some presidents have indulged in similar scams.

hase

Mueller noticed them, after the event

Trump lost the popular vote, but won the presidency by a 78,000 vote margin in the three three states that turned out to be crucial. There were a lot more than 78,000 fake posts on social media.

James Arthur may not have noticed, but Putin is a Russian imperialist rathe r than a communist. Today's situation may look a bit like the Cold War, but today's Russia isn't the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (not that they were actual socialists) and is offering rather different inducements to rather different people (who seem to include Trump).

lain' that claim is.

Mostly by people like James Arthur, who think that being a Democrat is crim inal behaviour.

That particular Prosecutor General was fired for the prosecutions he hadn't undertaken. Joe Biden was doing what a lot of people - including the Inter national Monetary Fund - wanted him to do. It's not the kind of self-intere sted activity that Trump is likely to get impeached for.

To any mindlessly pro-Republican (actually pro-Tea Party) ditto-head.

How would you know? Just making things up, I guess.

Innocent until proven guilty, and that 'corruptly' word doesn't support any kind of indictment. You're talking about a witchhunt, not an investigation. Nancy Pelosi's thoughts don't show up in testimony on the impeachment, so that's just a red herring.

A stinky dead fish that you wave around... silly.

Not silly in the least.

Karl Rove was a master of the art.

Sadly, this generation of Republicans - aka the Koch brothers asto-turfed Tea Party ring-ins - aren't nearly as skillful in exploiting their opponents virtues, but they are confident that it can be done.

And they aren't inhibited by any need to appear honest or consistent.

Krw's definition of a moron is "somebody who disagrees with him" which more or less reverses the commonly accepted understanding of the word.

Krw isn't a moron - his intellectual problem is more disabling, since he has lost the capacity to recognise when his ideas are out of touch with reality, and correct them.

increased debt to little effect

increased debt to little effect

make noise

make imports and exports and domestic manufacturing more expensive

I've not heard of that one

I bet he chose badly.

no evidence of that

no evidence of that

sucker.

You mean Tony Schwartz's book?

He claims to be very rich but at the same time refuses to share the documents he promised, I think he's lying.

Zelensky and others -- they said so publicly.

But there would've been nothing wrong with making Ukraine's aid contingent on their investigating corruption, such as that which Biden seemed to boast of.

It's all rather silly. Democrats had no problem with eight years of Obama denying Ukraine lethal military aid entirely, even as Russia rolled over and annexed the Crimea. Now they're saying a tiny delay is impeachable?

The complaint is laughable on its both of its two faces.

Cheers, James Arthur

e.

y.

ent is authorized to

All money is allocated by Congress. All bills for spending money must, under the Constitution, originate in the House of Representatives.

The statute says

"The President is authorized to furnish military assistance, on such terms and conditions as he may determine, to any friendly country or international organization, the assisting of which the President finds will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace and which is otherwise eligible to receive such assistance, by? (1) acquiring for any source and providing (by loan or grant) any defense article or defense service;"

So, you're wrong.

Logically, this president withholding something for 50-odd days that the previous president denied for eight years should trouble you (50 days / eight years) as much as the previous president denying that same aid entirely for eight years, when it was needed most.

Maybe that was part of the "more flexibility" Mr. Obama promised Mr. Putin?

Cheers, James Arthur

What they said is diplomacy. What they thought is inaccessible.

Except that if there really was corruption going on. Trump could have got the FBI to investigate it - it's a crime under American law wherever it happens.

He didn't bother even trying to to get them to look into it, so even he thinks that it is a fantasy, on the same level as the claim that it was the Ukraine that intervened on his behalf in the 2018 elections, as opposed to the Russians that Mueller named.

Did they ask for it then? The Crimean annexation came as something of a surprise.

It's not the tiny delay that's problem, it's Trump wanting them to do something that might help his election chances in 2020, and threatening to delay the aid until they did it.

James Arthur is being even more than usually disingenuous here, though bare-faced lying is probably a more accurate description.

For any brainwashed Tea-Party mouthpiece.

Except that congress had never authorised any such aid, so Obama was "withholding" soemthing that he hadn't been authorised to deliver.

That's the kind of intellectual sleigh of hand that James Arthur goes in for. It would be rude - if accurate - to call it lying.

Probably not, but I don't spend my free time bleating "Republicans good, Democrats bad".

How silly of you to say so! A politician in Ukraine will (and should) put his country's interests foremost, and might say ANYTHING to be diplomatic in dealing with a powerful ally. We can never put hiim under oath (and ought not to tryr) to testify. His thoughts are beyond our capability to inspect.