President's phone call transcript

SimplyMe said:

So there has to be signs of duress?

More to the point, why did Trump want Giuliani -- his personal and campaign lawyer rather than Barr. Sure, Trump claimed he'd have Barr call the Ukraine; the issue is that Trump never told Barr to call but he did send Giuliani to the Ukraine to help get the dirt from the Ukrainians.

Further, the Ukrainians already did a full investigation of the Bidens, which ended in 2017 (after Trump was in office) that showed no wrongdoing. So why does it need to be reinvestigated now, when Biden is the Democratic Frontrunner?

Last, as I've pointed out a few times, why does Trump need the Ukraine's help at all. If Biden somehow stopped the loan on "his own" (and as VP he doesn't have that power) then the evidence of that will be here in the US -- not in the Ukraine. Instead, the evidence (at least that we've seen) shows that it was the US and our European allies that wanted that prosecutor gone because he was corrupt, and had even quit investigating the company Biden's son was working for; that Biden was sent as the envoy to deliver the message by the US government.

So why did Trump need the Ukraine's help? Why did he bring up Crowdstrike during the call as a connection to Biden, when conspiracy theories tie Crowdstrike to Russian interference in the 2016 election, which Biden was not part of? And, again, why did he never have Barr call the Ukraine, but instead did send his personal/campaign attorney to try and help dig up dirt?

I'm sorry, yes, he never explicitly made threats. OTOH, the actions by Trump make clear that this was about his campaign, to try and hurt Biden's reputation, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with justice.

Click to expand...

You strength of your argument would probably depend on how virtuous you think the democrats and the Europeans are. I do not trust secular humanists since it is all about ideologies, but anyway everyone is allowed have their opinion on this and thanks for the discussion and so I end it here.

SimplyMe said:

Well, you do have Cohen's testimony before Congress that this is exactly the way he operates.

More to the point, you can't refute what I stated -- the excuses look pretty flimsy when you start looking at all the evidence together. There was no reason for Trump to call the Ukraine, particularly since we have a treaty that sets a process for joint investigations -- a process that Barr is suppose to initiate per the treaty. Instead, for some reason, Barr was entirely removed from this process.

Click to expand...

The only other explanation I can think of is that Trump was just ignorant of the proper process. Given the man in question, it's hard to rule out. 'Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity'.

Johan_1988 said:

You strength of your argument would probably depend on how virtuous you think the democrats and the Europeans are. I do not trust secular humanists since it is all about ideologies, but anyway everyone is allowed have their opinion on this and thanks for the discussion and so I end it here.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Because the fact is, in terms of the complaint about Trump, it doesn't really matter if Biden is innocent or guilty. Even if Biden were to be guilty (which current evidence does not support), the same issues remain -- particularly since Barr was kept out of the investigation.

lasthero said:

The only other explanation I can think of is that Trump was just ignorant of the proper process. Given the man in question, it's hard to rule out. 'Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity'.

Click to expand...

Except, again, why would he never tell Barr? There is no getting around that the evidence clearly appears to be that Trump was looking for political dirt, not for justice.

You'd have to believe Trump thinking, "this Biden thing needs to be investigated" and not then thinking "I think I'll call Barr." How does he not go, "I think I'll call the Ukraine about Biden" and not think, "I should probably bring Barr in on this call." And then, after not thinking about Barr two times previously, you have to consider Trump -- who remember Barr on the phone call -- the completely forgets to tell Barr that he is supposed to call the Ukraine, but remember to sent Giuliani to the Ukraine.

Even for Trump, that is not credible.

SimplyMe said:

Well, you do have Cohen's testimony before Congress that this is exactly the way he operates.

More to the point, you can't refute what I stated -- the excuses look pretty flimsy when you start looking at all the evidence together. There was no reason for Trump to call the Ukraine, particularly since we have a treaty that sets a process for joint investigations -- a process that Barr is suppose to initiate per the treaty. Instead, for some reason, Barr was entirely removed from this process.

Click to expand...

Cohen used a typical communist accusation by calling him a racist. This is definitely a false and has been completely debunked. As to your question why he did not call Barr. Trump did in fact mentioned the attorney general Rudy. But if that's your stance and opinion on the matter, fine and thanks for the discussion.

Johan_1988 said:

Cohen used a typical communist accusation by calling him a racist. This is definitely a false and has been completely debunked.

Click to expand...

No, Trump being a racist is not debunked -- though I agree it isn't proven. And it has zero to do with what I was saying. It appears you are trying to use an ad hominem fallacy.

What Cohen said is that Trump doesn't directly tell people to do things, that he reminds you of how good he is to you, says he'd like to be good to you in the future, but that he needs a favor. That Trump tells you exactly what he wants you to do for him without ever saying that you won't be paid if you don't

Johan_1988 said:

As to your question why he did not call Barr. Trump did in fact mentioned the attorney general Rudy. But if that's your stance and opinion on the matter, fine and thanks for the discussion.

Click to expand...

And, again, he said Barr would call. In fact, it should have been Barr that made the call. But he never told Barr -- either before or after. More to the point, the Ukraine had investigated and closed the case, the Bidens were not found to have done anything wrong. He also tried to tie things to Hillary and the 2016 campaign, which even the wildest conspiracy theories don't tie to Biden. And he sends Giuliani to work without any real knowledge of the rest of the Government, such as the State department or DoJ, about what Giuliani is doing.

I suspect you are leaving the conversation because you can't legitimately argue against what the evidence shows, and you can't admit (at least to yourself) that Trump clearly was corrupt in this instance.

LostMarbels said:

View attachment 263965

Green and tan are the highest populations.
View attachment 263963
View attachment 263967

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are trying to convey.

SimplyMe said:

Except, again, why would he never tell Barr? There is no getting around that the evidence clearly appears to be that Trump was looking for political dirt, not for justice.

Click to expand...

Especially since he mention Barr several times in the conversation with Zelensky. It's like he knew Barr should have been consulted, and yet avoided consulting him.

Johan_1988 said:

Cohen used a typical communist accusation by calling him a racist. This is definitely a false and has been completely debunked. As to your question why he did not call Barr. Trump did in fact mentioned the attorney general Rudy. But if that's your stance and opinion on the matter, fine and thanks for the discussion.

Click to expand...

Belk said:

I don't understand what you are trying to convey.

Click to expand...

Ok, lemmi splain somethin...

Belk said:

Why would I doubt that? He is going to need more then 50,000 and he needs them in the correct locations. 50,000 in a state he was already likely to win is not going to get him where he needs to be.

Click to expand...

I provided the 2010 census of Asian Indian/Indo American demographics. To show the locations of those voters as opposed to the 2016 election map. Largest populations are in democrat held areas.

LostMarbels said:

Ok, lemmi splain somethin...



I provided the 2010 census of Asian Indian/Indo American demographics. To show the locations of those voters as opposed to the 2016 election map. Largest populations are in democrat held areas.

Click to expand...

Which is largely meaningless, particularly without knowing who they voted for in 2016 -- assuming they are citizens. You've basically seemed to assume they must be Democrats and voted for Hillary; but from what I heard many, if not most, are Republican.

SimplyMe said:

Which is largely meaningless, particularly without knowing who they voted for in 2016 -- assuming they are citizens. You've basically seemed to assume they must be Democrats and voted for Hillary; but from what I heard many, if not most, are Republican.

Click to expand...

That's realy got to be fun. Unfortunately I am not able to do that.

LostMarbels said:

That's realy got to be fun. Unfortunately I am not able to do that.

Click to expand...

Well, then what is the point of showing these Asians in a description of "swing voters" if you have no knowledge at all about how they vote?

SimplyMe said:

Well, then what is the point of showing these Asians in a description of "swing voters" if you have no knowledge at all about how they vote?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the ability to justify yourself in a manor that brings you emotional security no matter what is presented. Knowing full well that if they were dems, it would be awesome in your point of veiw. Now that they are not dems, it is awesome in your point of veiw. I'm not that fluid, where I am able to justify everything as a win for my own cause. It must be enjoyable to be able to perceive yourself as right 100% of the time, in every situation imaginable.

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, he’s going to have to win some new states from the Dems. Anyone see that happening? If so which states?

LostMarbels said:

I'm talking about the ability to justify yourself in a manor that brings you emotional security no matter what is presented. Knowing full well that if they were dems, it would be awesome in your point of veiw. Now that they are not dems, it is awesome in your point of veiw. I'm not that fluid, where I am able to justify everything as a win for my own cause. It must be enjoyable to be able to perceive yourself as right 100% of the time, in every situation imaginable.

Click to expand...

Since I'm not a "dem," or even a Democrat, I don't have a cause. You started this with with the inference since they were non-white that they must be "swing voters," and that it could be 50,000 votes that Trump could pick up. Yet, you state you don't know how they voted and, in fact, I've heard that many or even most Indian-Americans (and to be clear, people with lineages or from the Indian sub-continent) voted for Trump.

But it seems you don't like when your flaws are brought up. It started when it was pointed out that the 50,000 were primarily from Texas, and that swing votes or not, they were unlikely to make any difference since Texas should go for Trump again. You then expanded it to all Indo-Americans/Asians -- but that is still flawed since you don't know what their voting habits are.

I'm not claiming any type of victory, some or most might be "swing votes" -- but you don't know (and I'm not claiming to, beyond the claim I heard) so I'm not sure why you didn't just drop it.

LostMarbels said:

Ok, lemmi splain somethin...

Click to expand...

Sounds good

LostMarbels said:

I provided the 2010 census of Asian Indian/Indo American demographics. To show the locations of those voters as opposed to the 2016 election map. Largest populations are in California, and the north east from Penn to Me.

Click to expand...

Are you trying to claim the because 50K people in Texas attended a rally for a popular Indian politician that Trump also attended enough people in that demographic are going to vote for Trump to help sway the election? If so that strikes me as specious logic. If not I am afraid I need you to be more explicit in your explanation.

SimplyMe said:

I'm not claiming any type of victory, some or most might be "swing votes" -- but you don't know (and I'm not claiming to, beyond the claim I heard) so I'm not sure why you didn't just drop it.

Click to expand...

Reality is I am seeing tens of thousands come to listen to a Politician speak from all across the nation. Numbers we see at sell out concerts every single time he has a speech. The people, of foreign nations waving the American flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance. The people in Hong Kong are even shouting Trump quotes at the police, and holding banners of Pepe the frog. This is a revolution against the globalist elites. One that individuals are no longer going to be able to control with a little bit of spin, and misrepresentation.

Conservatives know this is it. So do others that are waking up. If Trump is removed from office it is politically over for good. We will never get representation again. This will never be allowed to happen again, and if they get away with all this cronyism, there will be no stopping them. They have stated flat out they are coming for the guns. They will open the borders. They will undo everything trump has done.

The amount of these fringe voters and non typical voters at these events are astounding. For a president that is posed as racist non white voters are flocking to him in droves that are not being mentioned yet alone considered by those that oppose Trump.

LostMarbels said:

Reality is I am seeing tens of thousands come to listen to a Politician speak from all across the nation. Numbers we see at sell out concerts every single time he has a speech. The people, of foreign nations waving the American flag and reciting the pledge of allegiance. The people in Hong Kong are even shouting Trump quotes at the police, and holding banners of Pepe the frog. This is a revolution against the globalist elites. One that individuals are no longer going to be able to control with a little bit of spin, and misrepresentation.

Conservatives know this is it. So do others that are waking up. If Trump is removed from office it is politically over for good. We will never get representation again. This will never be allowed to happen again, and if they get away with all this cronyism, there will be no stopping them. They have stated flat out they are coming for the guns. They will open the borders. They will undo everything trump has done.

The amount of these fringe voters and non typical voters at these events are astounding. For a president that is posed as racist non white voters are flocking to him in droverus that are not being mentioned yet alone considered by those that oppose Trump.

Click to expand...

I remember Trump supporters telling me that the polls were wrong, before the 2016 election. They claimed that since Trump was pulling in thousands, anywhere he went, for his rallies, that it indicated he'd win running away. Of course, we know now the polls were pretty accurate, Hillary won the popular vote by the margin the polls predicted -- but they polls weren't looking at the Electoral College, which is what gave Trump the win.

So forgive me if I don't think that Trump attending a rally with the Prime Minister of India, in Houston, is any sort of indicator. I suspect the polls are just as correct as they were last time around -- and that the packed rallies for Trump are more indicative of the "love" of Trump supporters than any new support.

In Houston, the people came for Modi. From what I've read, the tickets (though free) had "sold out" before Trump ever announced he would attend. Additionally, the crowd wasn't as excited by Trump as at one of his rallies -- granted, it comes from the "media," (though some of it local Houston media, that was in attendance) that the audience was polite but did not seem excited about Trump.

Beyond that, I gave you my thoughts above about how the election will play out. It's still a year away, we still need to know who the Democratic nominee will be. We also need to see what comes out, and how the public reacts, to the impeachment hearings. To be honest, though, that doesn't drastically effect my opinion (unless the impeachment hearings go really badly for Trump) -- his supports will support him, Trump haters will vote for the Democrat, and the election will come done to "swing voters" in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

SimplyMe said:

It's still a year away, we still need to know who the Democratic nominee will be.

Click to expand...

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.

SimplyMe said:

I suspect the polls are just as correct as they were last time around -- and that the packed rallies for Trump are more indicative of the "love" of Trump supporters than any new support.

Click to expand...

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

SimplyMe said:

In Houston, the people came for Modi.

Click to expand...

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?