KRC

Charge him a fare and take off. No need to hold the other passengers back from getting to their destination.

The "Party of Tolerance" strikes again.

So, did they answer her question in the apology? (Rhetorical}

Feed the media a story, then use the media story to confirm that you are telling the truth. That is how you prove that you are correct.

Let's be real here. He is not a reliable source for what happened on the call. I need second or third-hand information before I can believe anything.

Same happened to me. Lots of threats. I wouldn't put up with it. The problem is that outside of a moral victory, you are not going to get much else out of it. Depending on the laws in your area and the amount, you may only be able to place a levy and not a lien. Therefore, you will have to constantly renew it and will probably never see it. My contractor was also a politician (his wife was also running for office). That added a few wrinkles. He never paid, but I won in other ways. ?

Been there. Done that. Take him to court.

Maybe it's your delivery.

Those whistleblowers are coming out fast and furious.

Ukraine: I just re-read the transcript. He asked for a favor of looking into the Crowdstrike server. I did not see where he said he would hold up money unless Ukraine looked into it. Biden came up later. Would it benefit him politically? Yes. Do I think that he did it specifically to benefit him politically? No. His main focus was the Crowdstrike server. That is a Clinton thing (someone who is not running). Biden came up later. If it was about re-election, Biden would have been the first thing he wanted. Trump is not a subtle person. If he wants something, he will flat out tell you and it will be the first item on his agenda, after the pleasantries. China: I don't remember him asking for any favors from China in exchange for money/aid/etc. He asked for an investigation into Biden and his family. So, no quid pro quo. Would it benefit him politically? Yes. Do I think that he did it specifically to benefit him politically? Possibly after he was attacked over Ukraine, but I think he would have done it regardless. Drain the swamp, etc. He just did it publicly because of the attacks. If he was not attacked, it would have been in a phone call or in a personal meeting with Xi. A continuation of the investigation into Biden. If Biden were not running, he would have still brought it up, IMO. He has worked since day one to "drain the swamp" and ran on that very topic throughout his campaign. Personally, I think that is what he is doing: looking into swampy-types of things. He is asking for investigations into Clinton, as well as Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc. That is why I do not think that it is a re-election move. Clinton, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc. are not running. Maybe Clinton does later, but she is not a candidate right now. He is also looking into the start of the investigations into him. Another swampy-type of thing. I may be wrong, but I think all of it revolves around his message of drain the swamp. Biden is part of the swamp and there was a lot of shady things done by him where his family benefitted. Just like the Clintons. I do not think that Biden's name came up because of re-election. I think that it came up because of the things that Biden bragged about regarding the Ukraine and that Trump was talking to the President of Ukraine. If Biden were not running, he would still be asking about it when talking to Ukraine. That is why I do not see it as a re-election move. Just my $0.02.

Are you talking China or Ukraine?

I would be interested in that too, because I only heard him mention the first part: "China should start an investigation into the Biden's because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine." That was from the NYT, so if he said the second part (withholding money), it is surprising that they would leave it out. I also did not hear that in any of the videos I have seen online, but I am guessing that it is just the right-wing media (YouTube) selectively editing the videos to cut that part out to protect Trump. I would be happy to be proven wrong with a link to the full, unedited quote.

Probably because it is printed on white paper.

You never go full Sumeria.

We need big government to save us from big farm.

Here's a beer to go with that pretzel.

Rasmussen: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_rhodes_cook/registering_by_party_where_the_democrats_and_republicans_are_ahead It is registered voters and not the entire population.

I blame global warming cooling climate change.

FTFY

I thought the premise was that you cannot investigate Biden because he is a candidate, but you should investigate Trump because he is a candidate...or something. They keep changing the goal posts, so it is hard to follow.

Easy explanation: The audience just did not understand the question. Notice, in typical liberal fashion, she told them what their opinion should be when they did not answer correctly.

Again. YOU ARE ALREADY IN CONGRESS AND CAN DO SOMETHING NOW. WHY ARE YOU WAITING?

A “spokesman”? I assume that means a Schiff spokesman, although that isn’t clear. A striking admission! So a great deal has been going on behind the scenes. The complaint was filed in August, so Schiff had known about it for a month and a half before it became public. This means that the leaders of the Democratic Party had lots of time to coordinate the rollout of the impeachment drama. Which, in turn, explains my observation that within hours after Nancy Pelosi announced the launching of an impeachment inquiry, I was getting emails from Democratic politicians with coordinated talking points, demanding that the president be impeached. Many have noted that the “whistleblower’s” complaint reads like a brief written by a lawyer. It turns out that his is exactly what happened. Democratic House staffers lined the “whistleblower” up with a lawyer–another Democratic Party loyalist who has worked for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer, and donated to Joe Biden–who drafted or helped to draft the complaint. The whole story stinks. Why are Schiff and the Democrats using the friendliest possible news outlet to make these facts public now? Because the “whistleblower” will testify before the House Intelligence Committee, and Republican members of the committee will bring out the history of his or her contacts with Democratic officials and staffers. The story isn’t pretty, and the Democrats are using time-honored messaging techniques–getting ahead of the news, putting out their version preemptively, and using a friendly news organ to give it a positive spin. Still, the facts are bad, mostly because the “whistleblower” was wrong. The conversation that he or she described in the complaint never happened. Trump’s discussion with President Zelensky was, in my view, blameless. In any event, no sane person could consider it grounds for impeachment. The Democrats must be frustrated about this. That frustration came out in Schiff’s bizarre committee performance, where he pretended to be quoting from the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call, but in fact made the entire thing up, along the lines of the “whistleblower’s” complaint. If only it were real, Schiff seemed to be saying! Schiff also, by the way, lied when he claimed that “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” No surprise there; the surprise would be if Schiff, for once, told the truth. More at the link: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/whither-impeachment.php . So, they told the whistleblower to get a lawyer, but are telling the people they want to depose that you should not get a personal lawyer and should not talk to the State Department lawyers. Interesting...

Rules are only for Republicans.