- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/10/19 at 11:26 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
And this means what exactly? The phone call didn’t really happen?
Tell me, Mickey. What in that phone call was incriminating, illegal, or unethical? Please quote it.
Posted on 10/10/19 at 11:44 pm to gthog61
quote:Wait! This article makes you actually believe that the whistleblower, in real life, flew to Ukraine on the same plane with Biden?
This a-hole flew WITH Biden TO Ukraine.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:29 am to VOR
You are a bad person VOR
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:34 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
And this means what exactly? The phone call didn’t really happen?
Are you retarded?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 12:43 am to texridder
You have a fascinating stance when it comes to every scandal/political fodder type issue. You basically push the idea that everything the left says, no matter where it comes from or how incredible the source may be, is 100% unquestioned and irrefutable while anything in defense of the President is always to be discredited and tainted, no matter how credible or obviously concrete it is. This is why even if you have good intel or a solid argument nobody can ever take you seriously.
This post was edited on 10/11/19 at 12:46 am
Posted on 10/11/19 at 1:44 am to Madking
quote:
No matter where it comes from or how incredible the source may be, is 100% unquestioned and irrefutable while anything in defense of the President is always to be discredited and tainted, no matter how credible or obviously concrete it is.
Here's a hint for you. I pick my poison. When a Trump-backing argument is outlandish and unbelievable, I assume there is a better, more solid, argument on the other side. I'm rarely disappointed.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 1:50 am to texridder
@ Texridder questioning the sources And articles that somebody else believes? 
well, since you obviously “BELIEVE” the WBs report to be totally authentic, as it appears you are relying on its veracity as your sole argument, maybe you can explain how the whistleblower could possibly know that the supposed “WH official” was “visibly shaken” if the two were talking on a phone call—as the WB wrote in his report?!
WB complaint
quote:
The following is a record of a conversation I had this afternoon with a White House official about the telephone call yesterday morning between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The official who listened to the entirety of the phone call was visibly shaken by what had transpired and seemed keen to inform a trusted colleague within the U.S. national security apparatus about the call. After my call with this official I [redacted] returned to my office, and wrote up my best recollection of what I had heard.
Seems like a strange “misstatement” for the WB to write in his “own” complaint, no?
Now, the most plausible explanation for such a discrepancy would be that more than one person wrote the complaint- and that at least one of those persons embellished a few “details” to make the report sound more damning.
2) Since these reports of the WB having close ties to Biden Came out, have the attorneys For the WB come out and refuted the Biden claims?? (And no I’m not referring to their response dismissing the relevance of his “political bias” or party affiliation a few days ago) —bc Ive yet to see one if so... however, they did issue a conveniently timed letter today-suddenly requesting that the WB’s testimony to Congress be done via written responses to questions, rather than appearing in person.
awfully Convenient timing for that sudden “shift” in plans, huh??
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:03 am to CheniereTiger108
quote:
awfully Convenient timing for that sudden “shift” in plans, huh??
You post the link to where you got this crap, and I'll figure it out for you.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 2:09 am to rds dc
The whole WB hysteria is likely the single most ridiculous theme or creation in American history. Who is he or she that their politics magnifies itself or takes precedent or even matters anymore than any other American. It's a created hysteria signifying NOTHING! This jaybird's political view is no more or less than any poster on this board. A sign of the ignorance of modern day America. Kind of like the old television show show ""Queen For A DAY".
The Russians at least know who is KING there. If a whistleblower is gonna be king here at least let the people vote on several and bring his or her arse out in public and let us meet our new king and policy maker. Frick he or she and frick congress for saddling the people and taxpayers with yet another Trojan Horse diversion. Reality is this is no more than another dirty trick shot by the most slovenly group of trick shot artists in creation: paid politicians.
The Russians at least know who is KING there. If a whistleblower is gonna be king here at least let the people vote on several and bring his or her arse out in public and let us meet our new king and policy maker. Frick he or she and frick congress for saddling the people and taxpayers with yet another Trojan Horse diversion. Reality is this is no more than another dirty trick shot by the most slovenly group of trick shot artists in creation: paid politicians.
Posted on 10/11/19 at 7:04 am to texridder
quote:
The funny thing is that you never actually try to refute anything. You just stand on the sideline and post stupid, useless crap like this.
SHIDDER!! YOU FINALLY RESPONDED, BRO!!
Does this mean we are on speaking terms again!?!
Okay, cool.
What are we talking about? How bout where you linked to an article in this thread which you claimed conclusively demonstrated the veracity of the WB's claims. Now according to your cited article, the statements highlighted in blue [which will be italicized for our purposes on TD] are those that have been "confirmed or corroborated," and those in regular font, have not been confirmed or corroborated. Example, the following text in the WB complaint were highlighted blue in your article as having been confirmed or corroborated:
quote:
the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy
Now Shidder, come on. Wouldn't you agree that, from the transcript of the call, there is nothing said of Trump's personal interests, but that the President actually discusses his interest obtaining in Ukraine's assistance in investigating the hoax played upon our country during the 2016 election, i.e. the spying that occurred on his campaign [commonly referred to by most people with pulse as 'Spygate']? Would you not also agree that there would be a public interest in finding out what occurred in that regard? I am certainly interested.
Also, where in the transcript is there any mention of the 2020 election? Also, how is the claim that Zelenskyy was pressured corroborated? Wouldn't you agree that Zelenskyy's own statement that he was NOT pressured tend to refute such assertion. To confirm and corroborate most of these assertions would require definitive proof of Trump's and Zelenskyy's subjective intent. Requires much circumstantial evidence that is nonexistent.
On the other hand, here is an example from the article of a statement that has not been corroborated:
quote:
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries
So we cannot corroborate that there are multiple officials with direct knowledge that informed the WB of the contents of the call, or even that there was an exchange of pleasantries. I guess not, if you want to go with Schitts version of the call that sounded like a bad impression of a Sopranos episode.
On another note, we could talk about when you thought Mueller was going to bring Trump down. Do you still think he will? I don't. Member this, it was my favorite scene:
Anyway, what's your prediction on LSU-UF?
Posted on 10/11/19 at 7:08 am to rds dc
Where was Hunter? 
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News