The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[Skjellyfetti]

'acting' ambassador

are you not self aware to realize how much of a pedantic d-bag that makes you sound?

"excuse me, we actually refer to the 'acting ambassador' as 'Charges d'Affaire.' and make sure to pronounce it correctly."

You calling someone a pedantic douchebag is the piece de la resistance of lack if self awareness

He is NOT the Ambassador to Ukraine and you have no standing to call out anybody for being persnickety. Just take the dose of your own elixir

The reason we do not say “acting Ambassador” is because nobody who is not accredited to a host country as an ambassador can act as an ambassador. It is one of the oldest rules of diplomatic affairs

If you send a demarche to your host government with “acting Amb” instead of “CDA” they’ll return the damn thing

lol.

every other secretary is 'acting' if he hasn't been confirmed in the Senate.

an 'acting' secretary is the 'guy holding down the fort while there is no confirmed secretary' as you defined 'Chargé d’Affaires.'

but, i get it. you are right. the state department uses the term 'Chargé d’Affaires' and not 'acting secretary.' if i wanted to be as precise as possible, i should have said 'Chargé d’Affaires.'

but, my post wasn't sending a fucking demarche to my host government.

[CID1990]

You calling someone a pedantic douchebag is the piece de la resistance of lack if self awareness

He is NOT the Ambassador to Ukraine and you have no standing to call out anybody for being persnickety. Just take the dose of your own elixir

The reason we do not say “acting Ambassador” is because nobody who is not accredited to a host country as an ambassador can act as an ambassador. It is one of the oldest rules of diplomatic affairs

If you send a demarche to your host government with “acting Amb” instead of “CDA” they’ll return the damn thing

lol.

every other secretary is 'acting' if he hasn't been confirmed in the Senate.

an 'acting' secretary is the 'guy holding down the fort while there is no confirmed secretary' as you defined 'Chargé d’Affaires.'

but, i get it. you are right. the state department uses the term 'Chargé d’Affaires' and not 'acting secretary.' if i wanted to be as precise as possible, i should have said 'Chargé d’Affaires.'

but, my post wasn't sending a fucking demarche to my host government.

Wikipedia and Salon are no substitute for actually knowing stuff, Reek


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Taylor was on the calls. That’s not 4th hand.


You gotta get away from Gateway Pundit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What calls was Taylor on? Which calls was he on, in which he heard Trump offer a quid quo pro?

Dude - why don't you do some reading then ask questions. It's clear you haven't read his testimony.

I know, I know. Trump picked yet ANOTHER Republican that seems to have a backbone and is therefore not a real Republican. Another deep stater, am I right?

[AZGrizFan]

lol.

every other secretary is 'acting' if he hasn't been confirmed in the Senate.

an 'acting' secretary is the 'guy holding down the fort while there is no confirmed secretary' as you defined 'Chargé d’Affaires.'

but, i get it. you are right. the state department uses the term 'Chargé d’Affaires' and not 'acting secretary.' if i wanted to be as precise as possible, i should have said 'Chargé d’Affaires.'

but, my post wasn't sending a fucking demarche to my host government.

Wikipedia and Salon are no substitute for actually knowing stuff, Reek


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He just never knows when to put down the shovel.

[SeattleGriz]

What calls was Taylor on? Which calls was he on, in which he heard Trump offer a quid quo pro?

Dude - why don't you do some reading then ask questions. It's clear you haven't read his testimony.

I know, I know. Trump picked yet ANOTHER Republican that seems to have a backbone and is therefore not a real Republican. Another deep stater, am I right?

Exactly as I expected. Taylor has no first hand information on a quid quo pro.

[houndawg]

Taylor was on the calls. That’s not 4th hand.


You gotta get away from Gateway Pundit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What calls was Taylor on? Which calls was he on, in which he heard Trump offer a quid quo pro?

Has the person who reads for you not been available lately or are you really that out-of-touch?

[houndawg]

Dude - why don't you do some reading then ask questions. It's clear you haven't read his testimony.

I know, I know. Trump picked yet ANOTHER Republican that seems to have a backbone and is therefore not a real Republican. Another deep stater, am I right?

Exactly as I expected. Taylor has no first hand information on a quid quo pro.

Weren't you the one talking about smoke and fire back when Hillary was testifying at the Benghazi witch hunt? (That's what you do when you don't have anything to hide, SG. You show up and testify).

[JohnStOnge]

Dude - why don't you do some reading then ask questions. It's clear you haven't read his testimony.

I know, I know. Trump picked yet ANOTHER Republican that seems to have a backbone and is therefore not a real Republican. Another deep stater, am I right?

Exactly as I expected. Taylor has no first hand information on a quid quo pro.

You're in the cult.

[CID1990]

Wikipedia and Salon are no substitute for actually knowing stuff, Reek


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He just never knows when to put down the shovel.

That's because he doesn't know the key difference between an Ambassador and a department Secretary, obviously. Hence the false comparison.

[SeattleGriz]

Exactly as I expected. Taylor has no first hand information on a quid quo pro.

Weren't you the one talking about smoke and fire back when Hillary was testifying at the Benghazi witch hunt? (That's what you do when you don't have anything to hide, SG. You show up and testify).

Actually no. Never really jumped on that one. Too busy to care.

[houndawg]

Weren't you the one talking about smoke and fire back when Hillary was testifying at the Benghazi witch hunt? (That's what you do when you don't have anything to hide, SG. You show up and testify).

Actually no. Never really jumped on that one. Too busy to care.

Bullshit, you can't resist anything to do with Hillary.

[∞∞∞]

Exactly as I expected. Taylor has no first hand information on a quid quo pro.

Weren't you the one talking about smoke and fire back when Hillary was testifying at the Benghazi witch hunt? (That's what you do when you don't have anything to hide, SG. You show up and testify).

No subpoenas necessary either.

[Ibanez]

Dude - why don't you do some reading then ask questions. It's clear you haven't read his testimony.

I know, I know. Trump picked yet ANOTHER Republican that seems to have a backbone and is therefore not a real Republican. Another deep stater, am I right?

Exactly as I expected. Taylor has no first hand information on a quid quo pro.

So you have no desire to do independent reading...got it.

Trump says people who are against him are scum...sounds like someone with a complex

[SeattleGriz]

Exactly as I expected. Taylor has no first hand information on a quid quo pro.

So you have no desire to do independent reading...got it.

Trump says people who are against him are scum...sounds like someone with a complex

I read to page 10 and at that point, he had no new information, nor did he have first hand knowledge of a quid quo pro.

I don't get too worked up over this whole deal. Never do. We have all seen what happens. Lots of hand wringing and nobody of importance goes to jail or is held accountable.

[UNI88]

Weren't you the one talking about smoke and fire back when Hillary was testifying at the Benghazi witch hunt? (That's what you do when you don't have anything to hide, SG. You show up and testify).

No subpoenas necessary either.

Trump is a scumbag and his people should testify but Donks complaining about it and using Hillary as the counterpoint is ironic. What about Holder, Lerner, etc.

[SDHornet]

Ruh roh...

[houndawg]

Ruh roh...

Hey! Look over there!

[css75]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Ruh roh...

That’s odd

Staffdels are not privately sponsored. They’re junkets and paid for by the CBO, I believe

Something doesn’t add up there- either it’s bad info or a misunderstanding of what those entities were actually “sponsoring”

Unless it means the staffdel participated in a NGO sponsored event


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

I'm hopeful that this is hurting Trump's position. I've been watching the RCP job approval polling average and I think it's to the point where we can say there is a trend. The image below includes a line indicating September 26. September 26 was when the whistleblower report became available to the general public. Right now the flipping Rasmussen poll has Trump 13 percentage points underwater. Of course I think abandoning the Kurds is probably also a factor. But he's not doing well.

[AZGrizFan]

Good lord. Caring what the polls say week to week is absolutely retarded.

[JohnStOnge]

Good lord. Caring what the polls say week to week is absolutely retarded.

It's not week to week. This is a trend over a month since the Whistleblower report was released. Yes, one has to be cognizant of the fact that there is noise. But you can indeed see how different things are playing with the public. For example: One could tell from the polls that Trump was losing the PR battle over the late 2018/early 2019 government shutdown. And one can tell from the polls that Trump is losing the PR battle now.

Trump actually beat Clinton among independents in 2016. Right now the majority of independents think he should be impeached and removed from office. He's not doing well.

Of course, things can change. People in the middle swish back and forth all the time. Right now, though, his approach is not working.

[SDHornet]

Good lord. Caring what the polls say week to week is absolutely retarded.

Shut up you, it worked for hillary.


Oh wait...

[css75]

Good lord. Caring what the polls say week to week is absolutely retarded.

It's not week to week. This is a trend over a month since the Whistleblower report was released. Yes, one has to be cognizant of the fact that there is noise. But you can indeed see how different things are playing with the public. For example: One could tell from the polls that Trump was losing the PR battle over the late 2018/early 2019 government shutdown. And one can tell from the polls that Trump is losing the PR battle now.

Trump actually beat Clinton among independents in 2016. Right now the majority of independents think he should be impeached and removed from office. He's not doing well.

Of course, things can change. People in the middle swish back and forth all the time. Right now, though, his approach is not working.

You are right,it isn’t week to week, it is any poll out there at anytime that is anti Trump.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Good lord. Caring what the polls say week to week is absolutely retarded.

Shut up you, it worked for hillary.

As you may recall, I was on this board on 2016 election eve saying that the polls did not support the widespread belief that Hillary was a lock to win. My comments are on page 104 of the thread at https://www.championshipsubdivision.com ... start=2575.

I was referencing the 538 "polls plus" forecast and there is more involved in that than polls. But it's mostly polls and it's not much difference. Also, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the final Real Clear Politics tabbed 14 States, including Michigan and Pennsylvania, as toss ups. Trump ended up winning 8 of the toss ups and Clinton ended up winning 6; which is very consistent with rating them as toss ups. For someone properly interpreting polls, the polls were "wrong" for only one State. That was Wisconsin.

As I've tried to get you some of you guys to understand for a couple of years now: The polls just prior to the election did not provide sufficient evidence to say Hillary was going to win. They did provide sufficient evidence to say she'd win the popular vote. And she did. But they indicated that the electoral college was too close to call. The fact that media pundits didn't understand that doesn't change it. But I guess that some of you guys just have the "the polls were way off in 2016" myth so firmly established in your brains that you're never going to realize that it is false regardless of how much objective information is provided to demonstrate to be such.

Sometimes I look at that Real Clear Politics election even display and just wonder, "What is it about the terminology 'Toss Up' that so many people don't understand?"