President's phone call transcript

[SimplyMe]

A woman of color. I do not see the Democratic party nominating a white male, or even A male.. So in my mind Tulsi, or Kamala. I think it will be all identity politics as usual regardless of the platform.



I bet I know a couple of people that would "love" to pack arenas like that.



Ok. I'll buy it. What did Modi come for? And why did he give Trump an almost 5 minute introduction to the cheering crowd?

Modi came for the UN General Assembly session, my recollection is he addressed the General Assembly, like Trump did. As for why he held a rally, maybe because he is treated a lot like Trump is -- even when Trump isn't there. It is the third time he has done it; the first time was at Madison Square Garden in 2014 and the second was in Silicon Valley in 2016; both drew over 20,000. The Houston event was larger because 1) it was in a larger arena (Madison Square Garden only has a capacity of 20,789 and 2) the large number of Indian-Americans in South Texas.

As for the the people coming for Modi, tickets for the event opened up in mid-August, went quickly, and you had to be signed up for the waitlist by Aug 29. The White House announced Trump would attend on Sunday, Sept. 15; meaning the people who signed up did so before hearing Trump would be attending.

 

[LostMarbels]

Modi came for the UN General Assembly session, my recollection is he addressed the General Assembly, like Trump did. As for why he held a rally, maybe because he is treated a lot like Trump is -- even when Trump isn't there. It is the third time he has done it; the first time was at Madison Square Garden in 2014 and the second was in Silicon Valley in 2016; both drew over 20,000. The Houston event was larger because 1) it was in a larger arena (Madison Square Garden only has a capacity of 20,789 and 2) the large number of Indian-Americans in South Texas.

As for the the people coming for Modi, tickets for the event opened up in mid-August, went quickly, and you had to be signed up for the waitlist by Aug 29. The White House announced Trump would attend on Sunday, Sept. 15; meaning the people who signed up did so before hearing Trump would be attending.

I thought you said they were mostly republican anyways. That's odd. There mostly republicans and only came to see Modi. I guess that's just how it goes huh?

By a huge majority, swing voters say they are unlikely to support 2020 presidential candidates who want more illegal and legal immigration to the United States, according to a new poll.

The latest Harvard/Harris Poll shows that around 69 percent of swing voters said they are “somewhat unlikely” or “very unlikely” to support a 2020 presidential candidate who supports allowing more illegal and legal immigration into the United States.

About 64 percent of said they would be “more unlikely” to vote for a 2020 presidential candidate that backs raising illegal and legal immigration rates.

New Poll: Swing Voters Overwhelmingly Reject 2020 Dems Who Promise More Immigration

You watch. You watch how this goes with this post. Twisting everything posted on this forum as a negative towards Trump has truly become an artform.

 

[SimplyMe]

I thought you said they were mostly republican anyways. That's odd. There mostly republicans and only came to see Modi. I guess that's just how it goes huh?

What I said is that I "had heard" that many, if not most, were Republican -- and from reports I read yesterday afternoon/evening it appears around 25% are Republican. Of course, the article goes on to state that most live either in the Northeast, California, and more recently Texas, so they are unlikely to make any real difference in the election (unless they push Texas to the Democrats).

View attachment 264096
By a huge majority, swing voters say they are unlikely to support 2020 presidential candidates who want more illegal and legal immigration to the United States, according to a new poll.

The latest Harvard/Harris Poll shows that around 69 percent of swing voters said they are “somewhat unlikely” or “very unlikely” to support a 2020 presidential candidate who supports allowing more illegal and legal immigration into the United States.

About 64 percent of said they would be “more unlikely” to vote for a 2020 presidential candidate that backs raising illegal and legal immigration rates.

New Poll: Swing Voters Overwhelmingly Reject 2020 Dems Who Promise More Immigration

Actually, that isn't what the poll states -- you might want to use better sources. What the question actually asks is, "Opening our borders to many more immigrants." I'd claim that "many" makes the question much different than what is being portrayed.

Of course, getting into the poll was quite interesting when you started looking at how they answered the various positions that might make them vote, or not, for a candidate. For example, of these "swing voters" (Independents), 62% were likely or very likely to vote for a candidate who supports the Green New Deal, 61% were likely or very likely to support a candidate who supports Medicare for All, and 53% likely or very likely for Free College Tuition -- so it isn't all good news for either party.

You watch. You watch how this goes with this post. Twisting everything posted on this forum as a negative towards Trump has truly become an artform.

As has the defenses of Trump, the pretzels some twist themselves into is quite remarkable.

 

[LostMarbels]

Oh... I get it. The fact check of a topic is a more reliable source than the poll in question. Got it. I should use something better than the actual poll. More reliable like a 'fact check'.

The little blue words are links. Just in case you didn't read my post or see the link.

Ok... next reason this is all bunk...

 

[SimplyMe]

Oh... I get it. The fact check of a topic is a more reliable source than the poll in question. Got it. I should use something better than the actual poll. More reliable like a 'fact check'.

The little blue words are links. Just in case you didn't read my post or see the link.

Ok... next reason this is all bunk...

No, I didn't say anything about how reliable the poll is. The fact check was about the "report," by Political Insider, you used about the poll -- that did not accurately represent what the poll actually asked (which is a big reason they are rated poorly).

Again, I looked at the actual poll -- which is where I found the actual information (not the misrepresentation of what the poll stated).

 

[LostMarbels]

No, I didn't say anything about how reliable the poll is. The fact check was about the "report," by Political Insider, you used about the poll -- that did not accurately represent what the poll actually asked (which is a big reason they are rated poorly).

Again, I looked at the actual poll -- which is where I found the actual information (not the misrepresentation of what the poll stated).

Oh... do know where about it would be in the poll? It is 272 pages long. Doing some fact checking myself, yeah.

Aaaah... you are referencing the Marist poll. I couldn't find any 62% concerning green new deal for any Harris polls. You might have made a mistake and quoted the wrong poll. That is probably what happened. You read thru a couple hundred pages and thought you were on a differnt poll.

Still, I'm going to finish reading this poll. And since I do believe you maybe referring to a differnt poll any comments of how I am doing this wrong thus far?

 

[LostMarbels]

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-con...ll_Written-Summary-of-Findings_1907191005.pdf

Six Easy Pieces

Just so it is out there this is the poll I am referencing to:

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-co...HHP_July2019_Crosstabs_RegisteredVoters-1.pdf

Im kinda linking both of them so I do not lose the links.

 

[LostMarbels]

Actually, that isn't what the poll states -- you might want to use better sources. What the question actually asks is, "Opening our borders to many more immigrants." I'd claim that "many" makes the question much different than what is being portrayed.

Of course, getting into the poll was quite interesting when you started looking at how they answered the various positions that might make them vote, or not, for a candidate. For example, of these "swing voters" (Independents), 62% were likely or very likely to vote for a candidate who supports the Green New Deal, 61% were likely or very likely to support a candidate who supports Medicare for All, and 53% likely or very likely for Free College Tuition -- so it isn't all good news for either party.

Ok what poll did you get this from? Can you cite your source please?

Because one of the places I found your stats has a

That information can be edited. By anyone and reposted under the same license as long as it is credited to the progenitor.

 

[SimplyMe]

Ok what poll did you get this from? Can you cite your source please?

Because one of the places I found your stats has a View attachment 264103

View attachment 264102

That information can be edited. By anyone and reposted under the same license as long as it is credited to the progenitor.

View attachment 264104

I got it from the link you have in post #182, which takes you to the harvardharisspoll.com website (also the poll you say you are using in post #187). It is in the same general area of the poll as the immigration poll that thepoliticalinsider.com was referencing -- the part where it asks, "Are you likely or unlikely to vote for a presidential candidate that stands for...?" which starts at page 181. The immigration question is page 186, the Green New Deal is page 183, with Medicare and Free College Tuition on the next two pages.

I'm not surprised you got lost in all of that -- with as long as it is, I'm not sure how they managed to get people to complete that poll.

 

[KCfromNC]

The thing is that he did not say anything like that he is going to withhold military aid if the president of Ukraine does not give him what he wants.

I guess technically true, but only because he already withheld it. And then after doing so, in a conversation discussing those weapons he mentioned he wanted a favor - one where a foreign government starts investigating a political rival. And then his employees worked to cover up the conversation and the subsequent whistle-blower report outlining the problematic nature of yet another case of Donald asking a foreign government to interfere in our elections.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's your interpretation of it.

I notice a consistent pattern of posts implying that there are other reasonable interpretations of Donald's actions and then failing to actually enumerate them.

 

[KCfromNC]

You strength of your argument would probably depend on how virtuous you think the democrats and the Europeans are.

Not in any way that I can see. Perhaps you can explain what you mean - and how they the virtue of, say, Democrats in any way figures into Donald's decision to have his personal attorney hold secret meetings with government officials from a country he asked to investigate one of his election opponents.

 

[KCfromNC]

Trump is deep underwater in statewide polling of states he unexpectedly won last time and which handed him the White House. Unless he has some trick up his sleeve to turn around those numbers

"Russia, if you're listening..."

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I thought you said they were mostly republican anyways. That's odd. There mostly republicans and only came to see Modi. I guess that's just how it goes huh?

Just pointing out that those two things are not contradictory. The event sold out on the basis of Modi's appearance - that's a fact, because it was sold out a month before Trump's appearance was announced. That doesn't preclude the possibility that the majority of the people at that rally were also Republicans (I don't know the answer to that, and I don't think anyone does). Voting Republican doesn't mean that you only go to political rallies if President Trump is known to be attending.

 

[Johan_1988]

I notice a consistent pattern of posts implying that there are other reasonable interpretations of Donald's actions and then failing to actually enumerate them.

I can't enumerate much on both arguments since really what you call to evidence is subjective to doubt since there are no real conclusive evidence that he did or didn't. I see it from a legal perspective where there is not enough legal evidence to draw a conclusion for either for or against Trump, you saying that it is obvious that Trump withheld aid to get Zelensky to get what he want's is not a valid legal argument and I do see people prejudices against Trump, not that I say you have one, I can just see it in this thread aw well we'll see what happens. I think he'll overcome it personally. You can have your opinion too on that. So here I end. Nice debating with you. Like to see what constitutes peoples opinions.

 

[KCfromNC]

I can't enumerate much on both arguments since really what you call to evidence is subjective to doubt since there are no real conclusive evidence that he did or didn't. I see it from a legal perspective where there is not enough legal evidence to draw a conclusion for either for or against Trump, you saying that it is obvious that Trump withheld aid to get Zelensky to get what he want's is not a valid legal argument and I do see people prejudices against Trump, not that I say you have one, I can just see it in this thread aw well we'll see what happens. I think he'll overcome it personally. You can have your opinion too on that. So here I end. Nice debating with you. Like to see what constitutes peoples opinions.

That's a lot of words to not actually lay out an alternative explanation. Guess I'll stick with my conclusion that this is pretty clear evidence of Donald breaking the law.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Pompeo now admits he was on the call. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's someone Congress can ask about it. (His answers so far have been evasive -- he talked about it all day on Sunday without mentioning that he was a participant.)

 

[SimplyMe]

Pompeo now admits he was on the call. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's someone Congress can ask about it. (His answers so far have been evasive -- he talked about it all day on Sunday without mentioning that he was a participant.)

Even more interesting, he acted as if he'd never heard about the call, at all.

 

[SLP]

The whole thing's really bizarre anyway. The opposition political party's Congressional spokesmen have made clear, many times, that they can impeach for any reason they choose.

I think you are referring to Lindsey Graham -

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article230606129.html

There have already been articles of impeachment introduced in the House of Representatives by a member who openly says that impeachment is in order because they don't like the president, that's all.

Citation?

Now that they have hit on a new gimmick (Ukraine), nothing actually changes, but we will go on talking here as though there are legitimate reasons for impeachment--or not--as each poster wants to argue it.

According to right winger Graham, all the dems need to want to do is "cleanse the office", and there is plenty needing cleaning up in this pig's office.

 

[SLP]

The congress won't impeach Trump, it's a numbers game after all. The Republicans are not going to support an impeachment because they will forfeit their chances in the next election.

So, Party first.