Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What "change" are you referring to? Did ABC's Good Morning America apologize for its June 2019 report that Hunter Biden's business relationships were worth investigating? I didn't see that.
Actually, it's true that the House Democrats carefully shifted from "quid pro quo" to bribery, extortion, and abuse of power after some internal polling, but you're wrong about the reason.
The problem wasn't that "the uneducated left" doesn't understand what quid pro quo means; the problem was that the right is much better at getting out ahead of damaging news and re-shaping the narrative for people with limited attention spans.
Trump's team knew exactly what it was doing when it started repeating "no quid pro quo" over and over. That simple, catchy phrase stuck in people's heads and made it more difficult for Democrats to get any traction by characterizing what Trump did as a quid pro quo.
The Trump Administration did the same thing before the Mueller report came out by repeating "No obstruction, no collusion." Once that catchphrase became part of the public consciousness, few bothered to read what was in the actual Mueller report, and Republicans successfully stole the narrative.
Bingo.
Trump's defenders in the Senate are still repeating, "No collusion."
Collusion is not a legal term. Conspiracy is the legal term.
Mueller didn't exonerate Trump of being involved in a conspiracy. What the report said was that due to obstruction of justice, they were unable to determine who all was involved in trying to hijack the election.
Trump's defenders in the Senate are still repeating, "No collusion."
Collusion is not a legal term. Conspiracy is the legal term.
Mueller didn't exonerate Trump of being involved in a conspiracy. What the report said was that due to obstruction of justice, they were unable to determine who all was involved in trying to hijack the election.
Here it is people. What’s it all about. Liberals hoping to plant the seed enough to not trist election results when Republicans win. Lol
This isn't an argument rooted in any evidence; this is a right-wing talking point.
Can you cite any support for your theory that Trump is not in this for the money, aside from Trump's own unsubstantiated claim that he's losing billions?
One has to look at the evidence.
Trump was rich while going into office. I think that's a fact. Doesn't make sense he would go into it for the money.
Biden's family, was NOT rich before he went into office. 5 of his family members got HUGE sums of money after meetings with Biden doing jobs and deals in which they had zero qualifications. It may be a theory, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together. What confuses me is why leftists continue to deny that which is right in front of their face.
The idea that Trump was so rich he didn't go into being President for the money is nonsense.
First of all, how rich he is is a matter of speculation. He wealth is tied up in operations that are investment and overhead heavy. How much he owns and how much he owes is a matter of speculation.
Second, who ever heard of anyone so rich they weren't interested obtaining more money. Even Putin, who is arguably the richest man on the planet, is certainly not slowing down.
The idea that Trump was so rich he didn't go into being President for the money is nonsense.
First of all, how rich he is is a matter of speculation. He wealth is tied up in operations that are investment and overhead heavy. How much he owns and how much he owes is a matter of speculation.
Second, who ever heard of anyone so rich they weren't interested obtaining more money. Even Putin, who is arguably the richest man on the planet, is certainly not slowing down.
Get real.
You lefties just refuse to look at logic, don't you? So he was sick of being just rich...he wanted to be REALLY rich...so he decided in his 70's he needed more loot?
You lefties just refuse to look at logic, don't you? So he was sick of being just rich...he wanted to be REALLY rich...so he decided in his 70's he needed more loot?
No comment on the Biden family, eh?
Hurricane Herschmann just buzz sawed thru the Biden family, and most of the dems for that matter.
Is there need for any further comment after that display?
What "change" are you referring to? Did ABC's Good Morning America apologize for its June 2019 report that Hunter Biden's business relationships were worth investigating? I didn't see that.
How long have the republicans controlled the senate?
They didn't mention or investigate Hunter Biden in 2014. Not in 2015. 2016. 2017. 2018.
Trump became interested ONLY when Biden began running against him.
Duh.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
