President's phone call transcript

Belk said:

This is a historically disliked president...

Click to expand...

...and the vast majority of dissenters are white democrats. Who are these swing votes you are talking about?

LostMarbels said:

(not all muslim, better state that before I get 'fact checked')

Click to expand...

Good thing, since most Indians are Hindu.

essentialsaltes said:

Good thing, since most Indians are Hindu.

Click to expand...

Well ya know what? Whoops, I'll edit it just because it is the right thing to do... it still isn't white liberals now is it? I think this is a bit outside of forecast demographics for such a 'racist' President, and is not the only swing group supporting Trump.

Hence the need to act fast. Every demographic Trump changes towards himself is less 'swing' votes for the Dems. Even if the votes do not carry him they will greatly affect the outcome. Rumor has it less dead people, and illegals will vote in this election as well.

LostMarbels said:

Who exactly do you call swing voters?

Click to expand...

The people whom can be swayed to vote for Trump or one of his opposites in the election.

LostMarbels said:

non-white, Indian Americans perhaps? Here are 50,000 + of them.


You have any doubts watch from 4:28.

Click to expand...

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.

LostMarbels said:

...and the vast majority of dissenters are white democrats. Who are these swing votes you are talking about?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I do not understand your question. The vast majority of dissenters from what? I'm not sure I understand your confusion on swing voters, how can I make my meaning clear?

Belk said:

The people whom can be swayed to vote for Trump or one of his opposites in the election.




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...

Green and tan are the highest populations.

LostMarbels said:

Who exactly do you call swing voters? non-white, Indian Americans perhaps? Here are 50,000 + of them.


You have any doubts watch from 4:28.

Click to expand...

You seriously should have just checked Wikipedia: "A swing voter or floating voter is a voter who may not be affiliated with a particular political party (Independent) or who will vote across party lines. In American politics, many centrists, liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats are considered "swing voters" since their voting patterns cannot be predicted with certainty."

Race, religion, sexual preference or other similar types of civil rights categories have nothing to do with Swing Voters.

SimplyMe said:

Race, religion, sexual preference or other similar types of civil rights categories have nothing to do with Swing Voters.

Click to expand...

I do not necessarily agree. I definitely do not think you are way off base, my reasoning is a lot of people that have been traditionally Dem are voting Trump. Im literally asking who these swing voters are?

The loss of traditionally dem votes is going to have an impact.

LostMarbels said:

I do not necessarily agree. I definitely do not think you are way off base, my reasoning is a lot of people that have been traditionally Dem are voting Trump. Im literally asking who these swing voters are?

The loss of traditanly dem votes is going to have an impact.

Click to expand...

But again, look at the definity, particularly, "liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats are considered "swing voters."" So, yes, a particular group of conservative Democrats voted for Trump in 2016 -- largely the typical union voter who is a middle aged white male.

And the question exists of who they'll vote for in 2020. Some analysts claim that they voted for Trump because of "Hillary" -- the whole "slimy-ness" some felt about her, the fact she didn't court union voters with no real campaign stops in the Midwest, etc.

I suppose you could also say that the Bernie voters were, in a sense, "swing voters" last time, since many allegedly stayed home. And if they vote in greater numbers than last election, that could be real trouble for Trump (where he won key states by very narrow margins.

There are the liberal Republicans -- though that may not be a good gauge for 2020 as my thought is liberal Republicans are likely quite happy with Trump. If there are defections, my thought is it would be members from groups like the Log Cabin Republicans (though they already have endorsed Trump), seeing how Trump broke pretty much all the promises he made to the LGBT community -- or other groups that feel that Trump has not served them (such as farmers).

In some ways, I feel the 2020 election may be a "backwards" 2016 election -- with Trump playing the role of Hillary. Trump will get the "party loyalists," or in this case maybe they should be called "Trump loyalists." Of course, Democrats will likely be more motivated this time and come out and vote heavily -- barring DNC screw ups like 2016. And then I think you'll have a large number of people that try to decide to "hold their nose" and vote for Trump, vote for the Democrat, or vote third party. And, of course, some will depend on who the Democrats nominate.

What is interesting about Trump is that his polling has been fairly constant, unlike other Presidents, who see much greater variability in their polling numbers. It appears Trump has a rather firm 40+% support, and a roughly equal number that have consistently disliked him -- the country is very polarized. So the swing would likely be that last 10-15% that at times has thought he's done a decent job and at times not liked him, and how they vote in each state. My personal guess is Trump once again gets close to 50% of the vote, though slightly less, and that the results will depend on if Trump can again take Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

LostMarbels said:

I do not get how you come to that point of veiw.

Click to expand...

By looking at the facts :

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

LostMarbels said:

Ok. This was a private, classified conversation that was never going to see the light of day, right?

Click to expand...

Yes, the attempted coverup and obstruction is likely to be part of the impeachment discussion.

So where is the overt threat that Trump was going to stop aid, or arms deals?

Click to expand...

He had already held it up for a few months prior to the call. And then mentioned that a condition for it going forward was a foreign power investigating one of his political rivals.

LostMarbels said:

Ok let's be honest here... this is Trump. It is odd for him to do something for no reason at all?

Click to expand...

He didn't do it for no reason. He did it just before using it as leverage to get a foreign power to investigate the leading opposition candidate in an upcoming election.

dogs4thewin said:

You would think after his term is over halfway done and they have tried and tried and tried they would if anything give up and try to pour those resources into getting him VOTED out of office.

Click to expand...

I guess some people prioritize punishing criminal behavior higher than you wish they did. Oh well, what can you do?

Johan_1988 said:

Well let me put it this way, if you judge him by that standard, it can be used to impeach the others on the same grounds

Click to expand...

I'm OK with setting a precedent that we should remove people from office if they attempt to OK weapons deals in exchange for foreign government interfering in our election process.

But again, I notice that instead of finding way to explain why Donald's actions were legal, we get talk about other politicians. That's pretty telling.

KCfromNC said:

I'm OK with setting a precedent that we should remove people from office if they attempt to OK weapons deals in exchange for foreign government interfering in our election process.

But again, I notice that instead of finding way to explain why Donald's actions were legal, we get talk about other politicians. That's pretty telling.

Click to expand...

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. Him asking for investigating his political opponent is his only wrong doing. I've read the transcript there is no duress that Pres Trump applied.

Johan_1988 said:

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. Him asking for investigating his political opponent is his only wrong doing. I've read the transcript there is no duress that Pres Trump applied.

Click to expand...

Let me use this analogy again. Let's say your company has authorized that you are to receive a bonus, and you were looking forward to it. At the last minute, your boss puts a hold on your bonus without really giving a reason.

A week later he calls you into his office. His first comments are that the company has been really good to you. Since you like your paycheck, you agree.

He then immediately switches into the idea that he needs a favor. At one point he mentions the bonus that is held up, saying he is worried about your job performance. He also repeats eight times during your conversation the favor he wants you to do.

Would you come out of that meeting with the idea you need to do the favor if you want your bonus?

Yes, he never explicitly stated any quid pro quo. At the same time, he clearly sent the message that the Ukraine needed to do the favor or they would not get the money.

childeye 2 said:

I study semantics. It doesn't have anything to do with how I look at President Trump. It has to do with what Trump says and whether his reasoning ends in a contradiction.

Click to expand...

What I mean is that there is no sign of any duress in that transcript that suggests that he was threatening to withhold military aid if the Ukrainian president did not investigate Biden's son. He'll likely survive this and if there was misconduct with Biden it might be a win for Trump in the end.

Johan_1988 said:

What I mean is that there is no sign of any duress in that transcript that suggests that he was threatening to withhold military aid if the Ukrainian president did not investigate Biden's son. He'll likely survive this and if there was misconduct with Biden it might be a win for Trump in the end.

Click to expand...

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.

SimplyMe said:

Let me use this analogy again. Let's say your company has authorized that you are to receive a bonus, and you were looking forward to it. At the last minute, your boss puts a hold on your bonus without really giving a reason.

A week later he calls you into his office. His first comments are that the company has been really good to you. Since you like your paycheck, you agree.

He then immediately switches into the idea that he needs a favor. At one point he mentions the bonus that is held up, saying he is worried about your job performance. He also repeats eight times during your conversation the favor he wants you to do.

Would you come out of that meeting with the idea you need to do the favor if you want your bonus?

Yes, he never explicitly stated any quid pro quo. At the same time, he clearly sent the message that the Ukraine needed to do the favor or they would not get the money.

Click to expand...

That's your interpretation of it. To make it like it's obvious is wrong. What you are saying is a opinion not a fact and would probably be reasonable if you can prove that Trump is a corrupt individual and that he has done such things in the past to presume that that is his MO with this big debacle.

Johan_1988 said:

That's your interpretation of it. To make it like it's obvious is wrong. What you are saying is a opinion not a fact and would probably be reasonable if you can prove that Trump is a corrupt individual and that he has done such things in the past to presume that that is his MO with this big debacle.

Click to expand...

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.