-->
@fauxlaw
I think Dusty was being sarcastic.
When does Biden move the US Embassy out of Jerusalem?
Posts
Total:
70
-->
@dustryder
@RM
I'll offer the benefit of doubt to dusty.
-->
@ILikePie5
Perhaps not but 99% of conservatives support that...
-->
@fauxlaw
No riddle. You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is: Why isn't the Arab world pro-Israel? Why aren't the Democrats? Why isn't any nation in support of all other nations? Isn't that the goal? Then why don't we start asking ourselves those questions, and answering them? But, no, you want to prove a point. Well, my friend, that point is a little obtuse and short-sighted.
I’ll tell you what is short-sighted: to tell the Muslim world to go pound sand when their cumulative GDP and population are vastly larger than Israel’s.
You have given not one reason for this. All you have done is speak cryptically while saying nothing.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Is the following a riddle? "Why isn't any nation in support of all other nations? Isn't that the goal?"
You think I'm playing with semantics? So the Arab world out-populates Israel? Is relative population important to the discussion? Nope, it's a red herring. Isn't a world collection of nations having regard for one another and not thinking that every other one is an adversary the meaning behind "peach on Earth, goodwill to man?" That's not just a holiday slogan we drag out to deck the halls; it is the most fundamental lack we currently have. Maybe it's time we actually tried it, because every other hairbrained dick idea we've had has not worked, and we're repeating these spit-wad ideas generationally with the expected results: insanity. Isn't it time to consider it is the paradigm that is wrong?
-->
@fauxlaw
every other hairbrained dick idea we've had has not worked,
I think there are plenty of things we haven't tried. Things such as treating other countries in the Middle East with some respect so that not all of their citizens hate us.
Is the following a riddle? "Why isn't any nation in support of all other nations? Isn't that the goal?"
That's not a riddle, that is just an absurdity. "Why can't all nations get along"?????
I have some further questions: Why can't people just not commit crime? Why can't mental illness just not exist? Why can't people just stop being poor? Those are all equally valid and equally reasonable questions to the one you posed. Sure it would be fine and dandy if people all got along, but newsflash: they don't and never will beyond some small extent. Therefore, you make the best of things, and a $7 billion sunk cost per year is far from being the "best of things".
So the Arab world out-populates Israel? Is relative population important to the discussion?
Yes, it is. Would you rather have 1 friend and 2 enemies or one enemy and 2 friends? And that is assuming that Israel would become an "enemy" if we started at least pretending to care about nations other than them in the region. Already they sell our military tech to China and spit in our face while doing so. But their existence is entirely dependent on our assurances. They need us and will be forced to play along with us if we extend an olive branch to other Middle Eastern countries.
Isn't it time to consider it is the paradigm that is wrong?
I don't see how you plan to make people stop disliking each other. How do you escape that paradigm? Genocide the people who refuse to get along with your order?
-->
@bmdrocks21
Convenient to ignore the billions we have given to the Middle East. And the Middle East, including Palestinians, considers we do 't respect them for also giving aid to Israel? Why don't Arab nations do more in support of Palestinians? Your argument is a red herring.
All nations getting along is an absurdity? Nice attitude. Tell me what is better. Anarchy? Personally, I'd rather have 3 friends. What's wrong, or absurd, about that? Because you've got a hair up the arse over Israel? Get a life, bud, one that is inclusive. You've been hating Trump for so long, now that he's gone, you don't know what to do with it. It's a wish balloon. Let it go.
-->
@fauxlaw
Convenient to ignore the billions we have given to the Middle East. And the Middle East, including Palestinians, considers we do 't respect them for also giving aid to Israel? Why don't Arab nations do more in support of Palestinians? Your argument is a red herring.
Aid isn't the only measure. We have spent trillions fighting pointless wars in Iraq and elsewhere, recognized their expanding land claims, etc. Our Israeli positions are clearly not the only thing holding us back over there, but that is definitely a big one.
All nations getting along is an absurdity? Nice attitude. Tell me what is better. Anarchy? Personally, I'd rather have 3 friends
I don't know if I can have a serious conversation with you if you keep pushing this ridiculous "we can all get along if we have a good attitude" nonsense. Everyone would rather have 3 friends. Now, if two of those potential friends don't like another friend, will you make 3 friends by favoring the one the other two hate and being unfairly in favor of that one friend? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Get a life, bud, one that is inclusive. You've been hating Trump for so long, now that he's gone, you don't know what to do with it. It's a wish balloon. Let it go.
I voted for Trump in 2020 and all Republican in the 2018 midterms. I just think that it was a silly move on his part considering it gains us nothing and pisses other countries off. Israel already likes us. There are no inroads to be made with them beyond what we already have.
Just a heads up: being pro-Israel isn't a litmus test for conservatism. Neither is supporting Trump's policy failures.
-->
@fauxlaw
Because withholding previously legislated aid to a country [Ukraine] against their performing a task, the performance of which is NOT within Biden's jurisdiction to demand, is irrational.
Correct, the Vice President does not have the authority to withhold aid, which is why Biden told them in that same conversation to call the president if they had a an issue with it. In other words, he was delivering the message, not acting on his own.
-->
@coal
Why do you oppose the US embassy being in Jerusalem?
I think this question was intended for someone else, I never weighed in on where the embassy should be.
-->
@Double_R
Absolutely wrong in that case, because even Oba'a had no authority to withhold the aid to Ukraine because it was a previously legislated matter which Oba'a, himself, signed into law: The Ukraine Support Act of 2014, launched by the 113th Congress. The President had no authority to make the statement himself, nor through Biden. Period.
-->
@fauxlaw
I fail to see what this has to do with the conversation. Is the issue here Biden’s alleged impropriety, or is the right outraged because government officials did the unthinkable by failing to follow the letter of the law?
-->
@Double_R
The irrationality of Biden taking authority not granted, even by his position, since even Obama, your contribution, by the way, was not authorized to countermand the law, is sign of Biden’s incompetence. After all, y’all were willing to impeach Trump over absurd charges, but what goes around suddenly does not go around? Cheeky.
-->
@fauxlaw
Setting aside the absurdity of claiming that Biden doing what his boss (and the entire developed world) wanted is a sign of incompetence... You can’t seriously believe that threatening to withhold foreign aid to a country unless that country fixes its own corruption problem is anything remotely similar to threatening to withhold aid to a country unless that country’s president agrees to investigate your political opponent in order to help you win re-election.
-->
@Double_R
In the much-aligned 7/25 transcript of then President Trump to President Zlelennsky [Ukraine], Trump did what? He asked for a favor. One favor. Then he asked about CrowdStrike, not Biden, neither Punter, nor Joe. He asked about Mueller, not Biden, neither Punter, nor Joe.. Then he asked about Ukraine issues, not Biden, neither Punter, nor Joe. Zelensky spoke for a bit, without mention of Biden, neither Punter, nor Joe, then Trump picked up with Giuliani, Barr, and Yovanovitch [not named], but not Biden, neither Punter, nor Joe. Finally, in the eighth discussion point between them, Trump mentions Biden. So, there's your rationale, and it does not hold water. There are seven points of separation between the ask and mention of Biden, but the whole is to be deleted [as Schiff did in his parody in argument before Congress], and we go direct, by your accusation, and Schiff's, and then the entire House Democrat caucus, to an ask about Biden? In what universe? Not in my republic. Sorry about yours.
-->
@fauxlaw
Agreed - let’s look at the transcript in totality.
Trump very early in the call starts talking about how the US has been good to Ukraine and how the relationship is not “reciprocal”. Later, when Zelensky brought up the aid Trump’s immediate response was “I need you to do us a favor *though*” and then talks about crowdstrike, an issue that was of no national value but very clear personal value to Trump, so this is already an attempted quid pro quo. But then after moving onto how he plans on getting rid of his anti corruption ambassador, Trump states “The *other* thing...” and then asks for an investigation into the Biden’s.
This is a simple as it gets, and the more context added to it the worse it gets. When Zelensky tells Trump towards the end of the call that he will look into the investigations and changed the subject to working with the US on energy independence, Trump’s immediate response is to tell Zelensky he’ll have Rudy and Bill Barr get in touch with him (about the investigations) before moving on to parting pleasantries.
No where in this conversation did Trump talk about anything of interest to the US. Literally the entire call was; other countries are bad to you but the US has been good, investigate the 2016 election, I’ll have Rudy call you, our ambassador is going to go through some things, investigate the Biden’s, call Rudy, God bye.
There was one purpose to this phone call and that was to get Zelensky to acquiesce to Trump’s personal needs in exchange for the aid Ukraine was already promised. There is no rational way to spin this, that’s why the only defense anyone can make is “well Trump never said quid pro quo”. Sorry, not saying “four” doesn’t mean we can’t see what two plus two equals, and if you’re that bent on making sure you never put two and two together you really need to think about why you’re even bothering.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Already they sell our military tech to China and spit in our face while doing so.
Yes, the C.I.A. says China has been acquiring advanced military technology from Israel for more than a decade on programs for jet fighters, air-to-air missiles and tanks. The agency said the sale of Israeli military technology to China "may be several billion dollars."
-->
@FLRW
Yes, the C.I.A. says China has been acquiring advanced military technology from Israel for more than a decade on programs for jet fighters, air-to-air missiles and tanks. The agency said the sale of Israeli military technology to China "may be several billion dollars."
For sure. If that is what our "gReAtEsT aLlY" does, I'd hate to see what our enemies do!
-->
@Double_R
As I said, your "analysis" and Schiff's parody, are remarkably similar. From the time Trump mentioned "I need you to do us a favor, though" and any mention of Biden, there are seven degrees of topical separation discussed which you and Schiff completely ignore to get to Biden. The transcript just does not support that common, Democrat theory. Read the transcript again; and one without the editing suggestions of the media, nor Schiff's parody.
-->
@fauxlaw
The projection is breathtaking. I suggest you take your own advice and read the transcript before commenting on it.
Your claim that there were several degrees of separation between “do us a favor though” and “the other thing” is nonsense. In fact Trump uttered just 284 words between them. Here they are...
“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
[President Zelenskyy...]
Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing...
This isn’t complicated. Even if there was separation between these two things, that’s where the phrase “the other thing” comes in. If investigating the Biden’s is the other thing then what is the first? Trump didn’t ask Zelenskyy for anything else.
There was no US interest based reason for this call, Trump asked for nothing other than two personal favors, and made clear to Zelenskyy that he needed him to do him these favors first.
Rather then telling me about Schiff’s parody which I couldn’t care less about, do you have an actual argument for why anything I have said is not correct?
-->
@Double_R
This isn’t complicated. Even if there was separation between these two things, that’s where the phrase “the other thing” comes in.
Yes, separation. seven items of separation, and you've spelled them out:
1. Favor
2. CrowdStrike
3. Mueller
4. Ukraine
5. Zelensky talks
6. Giuliani
7. Barr
8. Yovanovitch
9. The other thing - Biden
So, which of those items, 2 - 9, is the favor? They are 7 items of discussion BEFORE "the other thing."
Tell me, does it makes sense to you that I ask you:
1. Double_R, do me a favor
2. I'm having a server issue
3. I've talked to Henry
4. I've been in your area, I see problems, there
5. "We're getting things improved here, and. blah, blah, blah" you say
6. You could talk to John
7. You could talk to Bill
8. I'm taking care of Julie.
9. There's another thing...
Which item is the favor I'm asking you help to solve? I talked to Henry. Was I talking to Henry about the server? I didn't say. Your area has issues, and you're working on them. You can talk to John and Bill, but I've handle Julie. Are we talking about the server problem, or something else? Maybe helping your area clean up. Maybe what ev er was discussed with John and Bill, which was not necessarily about either the server or your area problems.
Oh, there's another thing. Is that thing about the server, the other people, or your area clean-up? You want it to all be about the other thing, but there's no evidence that's the favor I want since it comes so distant, even by a count of words, because the subjects of those words vary too much to assume the favor only comes by 7 degrees of separation. Does that go over the head? Or can ten-minute conversations only ever be about one subject, only, because that's all Democrats can handle in 10 minutes
-->
@fauxlaw
Wow. In your desperation to make 284 words seem like nine different topics of conversation you actually stooped so low as to pretend that Trump telling Zelenskyy he will have Rudy and Bill Barr reach out to him about Crowdstrike are three different topics. You can’t be serious.
But in case you are, allow me to recap these 284 words that have you so confused.
Zelenskyy asks about the aid and Trump responds with “I need you to do us a favor though”. This means if I’m going to help you then you need to help me (since our relationship is not reciprocal).
Trump then moves on to explain how he needs the server investigated. Why? Because 2016 fraud n stuff. He then says he wants Barr to call him... about crowdstrike (since that is still the topic of conversation). He then says, “that whole nonsense ended [yesterday]. “That” in this sentence is still talking about 2016. Continuing... it ended with a poor performance by Robert Mueller, so we’re still talking about 2016 because that is what Robert Mueller was investigating. “But they say a lot of it started with Ukraine” - still talking about 2016. The “it” here is referring back to Trump’s crowdstrike conspiracy theory. So as you can see, we haven’t yet changed the topic of conversation once.
The next chance Trump gets to speak he continues “A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down” - now Trump is moving onto the Biden’s, starting off by inserting the pretense that this prosecutor was great. He then tells Zelenskyy about Giuliani calling him about this, so it’s the same topic. But then Trump switches to ‘Yovanivich was bad’, and then goes right back to the Biden’s (“the other thing...”).
So within these 284 words Trump talked about the 2016 election that he wanted investigated, and then moved onto the Biden’s. When it came to the Biden’s, he interrupted his thought to say the ambassador was bad, and then went right back into what he wanted from Zelenskyy to do. This isn’t complicated. At all.
What I just don’t understand is what you get out of this. When your position is reduced to claiming that every sentence within a conversation is it’s own topic, that should make you rethink your position.
-->
@Double_R
Says you, but the transcript does not. You are making leaps of judgment of topics of conversation; I'm merely identifying people Zelensky and Trump talk about. Your argument is convenient because you hate Trump, but Trump is gone. You cannot let go. What else do you have to bitch about?
-->
@fauxlaw
I literally took you sentence by sentence and explained to you how each sentence connected to the one before it, and all you have to say is “you just hate Trump”. Clearly you have never read the transcript and have no interest in understanding the conversation because your entire position depends on your not understanding it.
-->
@fauxlaw
Tell me, does it makes sense to you that I ask you:1. Double_R, do me a favor2. I'm having a server issue3. I've talked to Henry4. I've been in your area, I see problems, there5. "We're getting things improved here, and. blah, blah, blah" you say6. You could talk to John7. You could talk to Bill8. I'm taking care of Julie.9. There's another thing...
Sorry, but I just couldn’t help but add how amusing this is - in order to defend Trump you literally have to argue that he’s such an idiot who cannot keep his thoughts straight that no one can tell what he’s talking about. The rest of us have been saying this for years, just look at any transcript of him trying to express a deep coherent thought without a teleprompter (and sometimes even with one). But when it comes to things he actually cares about he’s not as bad, like here where he tries to extort a foreign nation. If you cannot understand this conversation you cannot argue that he ever makes sense because this is as clear as he gets for him.
-->
@Double_R
he tries to extort a foreign nation.
With the regime change in Ukraine in the June 2019 election [Zelensky had just been elected, yeah?] Trump held up the payment due for FY Q1 2020, due by Sept 30, 2019 for about 8 days, and, now assured by the phone call with Zelensky, paid it in September before it was due. The last quarter's payment, for Q4 2019, had already been paid the previous quarter, so all the hype about Ukraine urgently needing the aid rapido speedo to combat the Russians was all a Prog hoax because Ukraine already had the payment to finish out the last quarter of FY 2019. Forget that? Never knew it? Trump is not the dolt you make him out to be. As I said, your hatred blinds you to the facts. This payment schedule was set up by the Act that Oba'a set up in 2014, a payment schedule that paid for each quarter by the end of the previous quarter, but Democrats conveniently forgot the payment schedule when it came to bitching about Trump making a late payment. Do we forget Biden's story in Jan 2018 about delaying the billion dollars was, in fact, a threat to Ukraine?
-->
@fauxlaw
What Trump was actually recorded as saying was, "Someday-and that day may never come- I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day, accept this justice as a gift." You know, from The Godfather.
-->
@FLRW
You've just admitted that it was not Trump who "was actually recorded as saying..." that, but Don Corleone, the Godfather; a fictional character. You know, like all woke heroes of the left. Thanks for clarifying what I've been saying all along. Woke = pure fiction. Like Green New Deal. Like son of a bitch, they did. Like Death to America.
-->
@fauxlaw
Thanks Luca Brasi
-->
@coal
The moving of the embassy to Jerusalem signalled what COULD be on the table for peace talks between the PLO and Israel.
Not keeping the Embassy in Jerusalem would be a straight-up appeasement 101 emboldening Hamas attacks through passive consent.