President Trump most admired man by Gallup poll

[Michaels153]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-obama-tied-as-most-admired-man-for-first-time-poll
Former president Obama tied President Trump as most admired man.
*News Flash: Just in. Leftyg does not agree with Gallup Poll saying President Trump is most admired man! Really shocking that one

An annual Gallup poll shows President Trump sharing the title of "most admired man" with former President Barack Obama for the first time.

The Gallup poll was conducted between Dec. 2-15 and posed open-ended questions on which living men and women participants most admire.

Opinion: The more the public becomes aware of the scandals that previous president Obama was involved in and was behind, the further Obama will slip in popularity.
This poll is not surprising. While the Left gnaw their gums over this, President Trump will continue to rise in popularity both as President and when he eventually leaves the office.

[leftyg]

*News Flash: Just in. Leftyg does not agree with Gallup Poll saying President Trump is most admired man! Really shocking that one No I concur completely. I agree with the poll because it is factual data. What does it mean though? We know that a large majority of Americans disapprove of Trump https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... l-ratings/ where he is only 42.6%. His loyalists will always like him and that is enough to get him to tie with Obama for the most admired person. Meanwhile Obama's first "retrospective" approval rating was 63% https://news.gallup.com/poll/226994/oba ... ating.aspx

Yes, the maga people love Trump, but will that be enough to get him the presidency again?

[Michaels153]

Well now this is interesting Leftyg. You are now saying that you concur completely, that you agree with the poll because it is factual data. But you did not say this nor think this when you made your post last April 19, in 2018.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3742#p44392
Large Majority of Voters Now Crediting Trump, Not Obama, For Economic Gains.
A plurality of Democrats (!) in new Quinnipiac poll say Trump is more responsible for the current economy (46%) than Obama (43%)
women split (55/32) on the same question,
with independents at (49/35)
The overall majority is correct,

No it does not. It just means most people think it is true; that is all. It is argument ad populum (the bandwagon effect), and it is preposterous to believe. Trump inherited all of this improvement from Obama, and job growth has actually slowed since he became president https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/trumps-numbers/ But what chance do facts have against Trump's big mouth?
leftyg
__________________________________________
The marines have a saying: It's hard to be humble when your number one. I am sure that the people benefiting from this economy do not really mind President Trump talking about it and giving himself some credit for it. He deserves it. And as your previous post shows, your not willing to give him any credit for it.

[Michaels153]

And Leftyg, you were the one who said that Obama was thought so highly of in Europe and here. You found a presidential poll that had Obama ranked 8th and placed Trump at 44th. Now the Gallup poll for most admired man was not taken to accept choices on president's only. Still, the presidential poll that you posted
last Oct. shows a gap of 36 between Obama and Trump. How is it then that this Gallup poll has Obama tied with President Trump as the most admired man? If Obama is so highly thought of as you said, then why is there no gap here? Why didn't Obama run away with the title as most admired man? And how is it possible that we read and hear of polls showing President Trump with higher ratings than Obama had at the same times in Obama's presidency. How is it that in comparing presidents, there could be any poll showing President Trump above Obama at any time?

[Michaels153]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3665#p43748

[quote of Michaels153]And Leftyg, most of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to anyone. The lack of evidence you show and your lack of critical reasoning skills are shameful. Everyone except you knows about the wonderful job President Trump is doing to bring this country back to greatness and you do not get it which is very sad. [/quote]
This was Leftyg's response:
[quote of Leftyg] Then I laughed my ass off. You are just pulling my leg, Right? The whole world thinks Trump is an idiot and the people who voted for him the sorriest suckers on the planet.[/quote]

[leftyg]

Michaels, sorry I have not been around the last few days. You wrote this about polls:

No it does not. It just means most people think it is true; that is all. It is argument ad populum (the bandwagon effect), and it is preposterous to believe. Trump inherited all of this improvement from Obama, and job growth has actually slowed since he became president https://www.factcheck.org/2018/01/trumps-numbers/ But what chance do facts have against Trump's big mouth?

You are absolutely right about the stuff about popularity. And all I said was that most people think about Obama and about Trump. I think the president will have a hard time getting re-elected and these poll numbers are about his popularity, not about his true worth as a person or the value of his policies; it is just what people think.

But you are way off on the jobs stuff. Thus is fact Obama created 1.5 million more jobs in his last 30 months than Trump did in his first 30 according to Forbes,. The headline reads: Trump Has Created 1.5 Million Fewer Jobs Than Obama
Here are the Labor Department numbers:
2014 total: 3.006 million
2015 total: 2.729 million
2016 total: 2.318 million
2017 total: 2.153 million
2018 total: 2.303 million (first year of tax cut)
Past 12 months: 1.782 million
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones ... ceaee027ce


I personally believe that he is a horrible president. He lies endlessly; he never takes responsibility for anything; he leashes out at others in a very personal and ad hominem way; he is a morally weak person who assails anybody who goes against him. He reminds me of a bad Roman emperor like Caligula or Nero. His cabinet and his followers are sycophants.

But the expert opinion of the experts is a different matter. These people study the presidency and what makes for a good president and what makes for a bad president This is the composition of the group:

A group of more than 170 scholars from the American Political Science Association released a survey today (on Presidents’ Day, the national holiday celebrating those who have held the office), which aims to calculate the “greatness” of every US president. Trump debuted at 44th, in last place. (There are only 44 spots, because Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms.)

https://qz.com/1210855/presidents-day-2 ... -rankings/

Now I have seen other polls that have him ranked as high as 42nd or 43rd. So hang in there

PS: You write:

And Leftyg, most of the things you believe are beyond comprehension to anyone. The lack of evidence you show and your lack of critical reasoning skills are shameful.

I would expect that from somebody who is a Trump follower. You live in Bizarro World where up is down black is white tall is short. If you thought I was smart, I would consider that an insult

[Michaels153]

agreed with your stats. I have to go by the total net jobs created. That gives Obama 11.3 million in eight years. President Trump has 4.7 million in his first two years. Of course you cant predict what the future
Will be like, but if you average his yearly totals so far and project that over 8 years, uou know that President Trump can surpass Obama's total.
I am still surprised by your characterizations of President Trump.
He has taken on the resonsibility of the whole country; and he has done a very good job overall in improving it. He is not worried about building his own personal legacy. He has confronted both leaders and policies that has been unfair to the United States and he has not backed down from his efforts to correct that unfairness. He has been patient with those that criticize and oppose policy decisions that were well within his authority. And yet because he is not a liberal Democrat you continue to criticize his every breath that he takes.
I could do a story on the reasons both libs and democrats are upset with President Trump. The short version of that story is that he is and continues to be successful. He is showing everybody that you can solve prblems that the Democrats have not been able to solve and in the saddest cases, no longer try to solve.

[leftyg]

agreed with your stats. I have to go by the total net jobs created. That gives Obama 11.3 million in eight years. President Trump has 4.7 million in his first two years. Of course you cant predict what the futureWill be like, but if you average his yearly totals so far and project that over 8 years, uou know that President Trump can surpass Obama's total.

I think you have to remmeber that Obama inherited the subprime meltdown and an economy in free fall; his policies were not the problem. As Ben Bernanke said he avoided a depression
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... a7e8d17684

The thing is that Trump has improved the economy he inherited which is good; I cannot stand when he and his surrogates, like Bob Frantz and Peter Kirsanow here in Cleveland, take credit for it
it. This recovery is the longest in American history, over 126 months. But to listen to Trump he inherited a disaster. No. he, Trump, is an ungrateful liar

I am still surprised by your characterizations of President Trump.

Michaels, I am surprised you do not see it. I mean he characterizes himself to be a self made man when he inherited 413 million dollars from his father https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+i ... e&ie=UTF-8 and likes to call himself selfmade. Again he pretends this economic growth is all his doing. What he should do is be gratefull and give credit to others for helping him. He does not know how to share success with others.

He calls the impeachment unconstitutional https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 971336002/
and he is wrong. It is based on his phone call to Zelensky and his desire to have the investigation of his shenanigans in the Ukraine squelched. His denying White House employees the right to testify makes one think he has something to hide.Ditto his trying to hide tax returns. It is not unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi brought up charges only when she had to; whe had no other recourse

He attacks sworn foreign services official like Fiona Hill and Colonel Vindiman. He made threatening comments to MS. Hill which might have inflamed members of his base. Nobody else in political life could get away with what this guys does on a daily basis the lies https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 971336002/ Serial violations of the emoluments clause https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump%2 ... e&ie=UTF-8 His lies and misconduct and inappropriate behavior are a form of white noise. There is so much of it , you cannot rightly or adequately address any of it.

[Michaels153]

agreed with your stats. I have to go by the total net jobs created. That gives Obama 11.3 million in eight years. President Trump has 4.7 million in his first two years. Of course you cant predict what the futureWill be like, but if you average his yearly totals so far and project that over 8 years, uou know that President Trump can surpass Obama's total.

I think you have to remmeber that Obama inherited the subprime meltdown and an economy in free fall; his policies were not the problem. As Ben Bernanke said he avoided a depression
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstal ... a7e8d17684

The thing is that Trump has improved the economy he inherited which is good; I cannot stand when he and his surrogates, like Bob Frantz and Peter Kirsanow here in Cleveland, take credit for it
it. This recovery is the longest in American history, over 126 months. But to listen to Trump he inherited a disaster. No. he, Trump, is an ungrateful liar. President Trump is grateful for what people should be grateful for, and he is still allowed to state his opinion. This reminds me of when Real questioned me about not agreeing with him regarding Obama's economy.

I am still surprised by your characterizations of President Trump.

Michaels, I am surprised you do not see it. I mean he characterizes himself to be a self made man when he inherited 413 million dollars from his father https://www.google.com/search? You know its one thing to have money, or inherit money, it is another thing what you do with it. How many Hollywood millionaires went broke? How many professional athletes went broke?
Here is a short list for you: Burt Reynolds , Larry King, Wayne Newton, Meat Loaf, Mickey Rooney, Pamela Anderson, Gary Busey, Sinbad, Courtney Love, Wesley Snipes, Leif Garrett, Brendan Fraser, Michael Jackson, Gary Coleman, Nicolas Cage, Lindsay Lohan, Marvin Gaye, Willie Nelson, Mike Tyson, Allen Iverson, Boris Becker, Antoine Walker, John Daly, Gordie Howe. President Trump took what he had and became a billionaire, before he became President.
q=Trump+inherited+413+million+dollars+from+his+father&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS755US755&oq=Trump+inherited++413+million+dollars+from+his+father&aqs=chrome..69i57.21018j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 and likes to call himself self made. Again he pretends this economic growth is all his doing.
Wait a minute here, President Obama came into office and shortly thereafter the stock market tanked. Your going to blame that on President Bush who was not in office then. And Harvard grad Obama could always consult with Ben Bernanke and maintain his adherence to Keynesian economics (which resulted in the worst recovery from a recession in American History https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferra ... c34cd71423 What he should do is be gratefull and give credit to others for helping him. And how do you know that he did not thank and give credit to those that worked with him on turning this economy around. Look, your own sources give him the credit for this economic turnaround. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-tru ... -fire.html

the current numbers are a uniquely Trumpian achievement and not owed to policies already set in motion when he took office.

ndeed, the economy does seem to be on fire, and it's fairly easy to draw a straight line from Trump's policies to the current trends.

He calls the impeachment unconstitutional https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 971336002/ Stop already, you know that what Pelosi is doing and trying to do did not come from following what is stated in the consitution.
and he is wrong. It is based on his phone call to Zelensky and his desire to have the investigation of his shenanigans in the Ukraine squelched. His denying White House employees the right to testify makes one think he has something to hide. He appealed to the supreme court regarding
their testimony, and he has executive privilege which he can use, but you and your sheeple deny his right to use it if he wanted do, while not complaining when Obama used it. I am not going to go into this Ukraine phone call because it is stupid. I have pointed out Ukraine before in my FBI thread. You can do a search for it.Ditto his trying to hide tax returns. More bs. You Democrats have nothing, and all your trying to do is smear this President. You blasted everyone who questioned Obama's birth certificate, and he was already president. And there is nothing different about the argument when it comes to the President's taxes. He is already the president. The argument is essentially moot. What are you hoping for here? Maybe you can appoint that tax specialist of yours, you know Harry Reid, who lied about Romney not paying his taxes for ten years. Maybe you can appoint Harry Reid to run another one of your unending committees to investigate President Trump, and have this one just focus on President Trump's taxes. It is not unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi brought up charges only when she had to; More bs. Unless you mean "only when she had to as meaning only when the Mueller report failed.when she had no other recourse. She did have another recourse. She could have admitted that President Trump did not collude with Russia on the election; that President Trump is the legal, duly elected President of the United States, and that Presient Trump has not done anything as president, that falls under the constitutional meaning of high crimes or misdemeanors to warrant an impeachment. But as we all see, she couldn't do that with your base without risking more funding being cut back.... I just dropped the rest of your crap.

[leftyg]

President Trump is grateful for what people should be grateful for, and he is still allowed to state his opinion. This reminds me of when Real questioned me about not agreeing with him regarding Obama's economy.

You can have your own opinion but not your own facts according to Daniel Patrick Moynihan https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/63402- ... ou-are-not Facts say the economy was in a disaster when Obama took office https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jo ... t-10-years Those are the facts. Obama inherited a disaster and Trump inherited a recovered economy. That is not in question. Remember, we were all there.

You wroteinaccrately that:

Wait a minute here, President Obama came into office and shortly thereafter the stock market tanked. Your going to blame that on President Bush who was not in office then. And Harvard grad Obama could always consult with Ben Bernanke and maintain his adherence to Keynesian economics (which resulted in the worst recovery from a recession in American History https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferra ... c34cd71423 What he should do is be gratefull and give credit to others for helping him. And how do you know that he did not thank and give credit to those that worked with him on turning this economy around. Look, your own sources give him the credit for this economic turnaround. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/how-tru ... -fire.html

The economy was in free fall and yes that was on Bush's watch. Did things automatically get better under Obama? Of course not. Things take time. Look how things were when he, Obama left office,

And thank john Maynard Keynes for saving our economy more than once. Supply side economics doses not work all the time.

As to Trump's financial genius, he has filed bankruptcy six times according to Fact check https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... six-times/

[leftyg]

Stop already, you know that what Pelosi is doing and trying to do did not come from following what is stated in the consitution.

As is often the case there is more to your assertions: Harvard's Laurence Tribe suggested that Pelosi hold the impeachment articles because nothing in the Constitution says she has to send them immediately to the senate. Tribre is proabably the leading constitutional scholar in America https://www.huffpost.com/entry/laurence ... 08bab3193a

You write about his withholding testimony of his staff: he has executive privilege which he can use, but you and your sheeple deny his right to use it if he wanted do, while not complaining when Obama used it. The point is not that he has the right; the point is why doesnt he let his staff testify and clear him? What is he afraid of and his taxes are a big deal. He may very well be in emoluments problems because of loans he gets from the only places that will give them to him, Russian oligarchs and Deutsche Bank . Again, what is he trying to hide The argument is not moot because his taxes may explain his deference to Putin and other powerful leaders which may involve business eals. He has to be transparent

About Pelosi bringing up charges, I said she had to and you called it bs which is nonsense. I did not want her to impeach Trump unsless they had to. And when a president engages a foreign power to surveil one of his opponents for personal gain and he admits it on the White House lawn and his Chief of staff also admits it, you have to do somethin. When I heard that, I knew she had to do something . And you seriously misstate the findings of the Mueller Report which found at least 10 instances of obstruction. Go here and read them: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ce-summary Robert Barr should be impeached for violating the Constitution.

To close this case more than meets the standard, and it is frightening to think that you and your friends cannot get it or refuse to get it. This is far worse than any of the other impeachments because it involved an attempt to get a foreign klnation to help him in a presidential campaign.

To Close I wrote this previously on another thread about Biden it goes:

The truth is that Biden served as a lead negotiator for the United States in removing Victor Shokin who would not do his job as a corruption fighter. Vice President Biden acted at the behest of President Obama and American allies. USA says this:

But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.

Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.

Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 785620002/[/size]

[Michaels153]

Leftyg,
Why is it, that in every situation, President Trump can only do what you want him to do to satisfy your allegations that he has nothing to hide? You have said this over and over again. At every event from his transportation ban to which he went to the Supreme Court, to emoluments, which I referenced already that he did not violate that clause, to campaign finance laws (ditto) and to Mueller's investigation, to which you said basically that Mueller has the Good's and that President Trump was in collusion with Russia, (No crime), and taxes. He has to file taxes and he has. If there was a problem the IRS would inform him and he would take care of it. Just like the IRS would do for you, me, or anyone else. And it is none of anybody's business except his. He paid taxes before he was President, and has since he is President. No one needs to know either of times he paid taxes. He is not hiding anything. It is none of your business.
As to the testimony of anyone at any time, President Trump is not guilty of any crime here. The President's communications are privileged. Only the leakers and Comey violated the law and both will be prosecuted for it. No crime, just endless harassment by you and others who always say when you and they don't get what you wanted, that this president must be hiding something. The only possible thing he could be hiding is his temper from being treated so outrageously by you and your ilk. And you will continue to do the same after this present impeachment farce is over. But the other side of this is coming. The people who do have something to hide wont be able to hide forever. The Durham report will expose many, and the investigation into the leakers will expose more. The prosecutions and convictions will come. But the biggest piece of this hoax, The FISA court false applications and as Mueller and others have shown no Russian collusion. Those who started and participated in this coup attempt will be exposed, and if the DOJ shows any hesitation to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law, then AG Barr will step in and make sure that the rule of law is followed.

[leftyg]

Michaels, President Trump has to demonstrate his innocence. He is not above the law and he has to show his taxes. All your assertions about his innocence do not amount to a hill of beans; they are just assertions. Nobody has vindicated him of anything. You misread the Mueller Report if you think it clears him, you misread it. Mueller followed Justice Department policy that you cannot prosecute a sitting president https://www.vox.com/2019/7/24/20708393/ ... -president

Then you do a string of snuck premises that you do not prove, claims that have no basis. YOu claim several things not enough and prove nothing. We do not know that the impeachment is a farce. Why is President Trump afraid to show a defense. Why is he against calling witnesses. What has he got to hide, and your post did not address that.

[Michaels153]

[quote [size=150]Leftyg, No one has to demonstrate his innocence where no crime has been committed. Again, In this country, One is innocent until proven guilty. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3665&p=43748&hilit=innocent+victim#p43748

Hersh says that Trump is not the villain but the victim in this story, and that the press has served as a shameful stenographer for Brennan to smear Trump. Let's repeat that Lefty, Seymour Hersh says that President Trump is not the villain, BUT THE VICTIM in this story.
You (Leftyg) said:
You know nothing and have shared nothing about how Trump is an innocent victim
Seymour Hersh - Trump is a victim. I said in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. Put the two together and you have the innocent victim.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3665#p45180 I posted this:

Washington Post national security correspondent Greg Miller spent the last 2 years writing Zilch.

You responded in the very next post:

Wait until Mueller gets his reports together after the election. Then we will talk.

March 25, 2019

Dershowitz said the job of the prosecutor is to make a binary decision, yes or no: yes means indictment and no means “shut up.” Since "Mr." Mueller's report said no more indictments forthcoming, He should have just shut up instead adding personal commentary.

Now that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report has landed on Attorney General William Barr's desk, and it has been revealed that no collusion took place between Russia and the Trump campaign,

CNN panelists are forced to say the news "vindicates" the president.

...During another segment, CNN justice reporter Evan Perez made a similar admission: Muller's report vindicates Trump.

You, the opposing party can allege anything, but without a crime, you just can't arrest somebody! And without a crime you should not waste anybody's time. The president is not above the law. No one is above the law. (No one includes you, and the Democrats - no one. President Trump does not have to show his taxes. And if he doesn't, you shouldn't imply that he is hiding something, but you will, you always have. Every time that the Democrats get information that they can not use against this President, they want more information in the hopes that more information will eventually produce something they can use to smear the president with. [From the Mueller report, they wanted the full unredacted version. When they had the opportunity to view the complete report few bothered to look at it, when the Mueller report failed when it was presented, the Democrats wanted to do the Mueller investigation all over again and interview all the witnesses over again. All this when as you cant deny it anymore, there was no crime ever committed, and no justification to even begin an investigation as they did. And again, the same holds true with the present impeachment farce! Yes farce! All your assertions about President Trump being guilty (of something) do not amount to a hill of beans; they are just assertions. Mr. Mueller, Rod Rosenstein, William Barr, all vindicated him of the Russian Collusion hoax. (And I don't know exactly how many others in the media, including CNN, after the Mueller report came out) You did not read the Mueller Report if you think it did not vindicate him. If you think that your just living in denial. Mueller was asked by Mr. Barr specifically if the policy about not prosecuting a sitting president was not there could he recommend prosecution based on evidence of wrong doing and he said he could not.

In early May, Attorney General William Barr testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mueller "reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/did-mueller-mean-trump-could-be-indicted-when-he-leaves-n1033901
Which is funny, because Mr. Mueller, knowing that policy, did not mind trying to prosecute him with his own investigation for almost two years!
You Leftyg, said you knew this, and understood the law, and then you said that President Trump is just as guilty as Jessie Smollet. - Unbelievable!

Why is President Trump is not afraid to show a defense. He had been eager to Mr Muellr (against his own counsel's advice due to what everybody knew was a setup to trap him in a process crime since they did not have anything on President Trump) President Trump has said that he is looking for a Senate trial where he would get to have his side told with a national audience. But he should not have to. That is what I have been saying all along. Going along with this farce is just like what you said about the Mueller investigation when I and others thought it should have been ended long before it finally did. Back then you said the same thing. You said if the President Trump ends the investigation it demonstrates that he has something to hide. Well everyone knows now that the President did not have anything to hide back then, and the same thing is true now. You were wrong back then just as you are wrong now. The president gave Mr. Mueller full access to his staff and Mueller interviewed them which were the president' witness back then for the investigation. That by itself proves that the President is not against calling witnesses, and it proves that he has nothing to hide. And now I have clearly addressed that in this post.

[leftyg]

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. BUT if President Trump wants to absolve himself, you would think that he would mount a vigorous defense and have a Trial in the senate. There is definitely a something very wrong with seeking aide from a foreign country to attack a political opponent. Trump had no right to ask Zelensky for help in investigating Joe Biden. And he admitted his intent on the white House lawn. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... n-n1057376

Why doesn't Preside Trump have to show his taxes. If he doesn't it looks like he is hiding something. Every president in the last 45 years has. It is important. For example example, people question why Trump sold out the Kurds to the Turks.https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-b ... ia-2019-10 You see Michaels, the President cannot put his personal interest ahead of the country. He cannot do it to line his pockets at the expense of our security, and the Kurds were our only real friends in the Middle East except for Israel.

They have all the information they need; you just will not accept it. There was no need to investigate Biden because previous investigations showed no culpability https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... t-n1057851 As a matter of fact Biden's role was laudatory USA Today said this:

But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.

Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.

Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 785620002/

Michaels, the prdesident and you should have the sense to know that going after your chief rival in a political season looks bad And again the evidence is not there from his own government. So I kndw as soon as the phone call was revealed, Nancy Pelosi would call for an impeachment vote.

Trump was not vindicated in the Russia investigation. A https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... e-summaryt least ten instances of obstruction of justice were found And the DOJ has decided that a sitting president cannot be indicted, so Mueller's hands were tied. He had to pass it off to the house for impeachment. So Michaels you vastly overstate your case; he was not found innocent. And the impeachment is no farce.

The only thing I claim is that Trump should have a senate trial so we can find out the facts. I have demonstrated that there is nothing to the Biden investigation. And Attorney General Barr gave an inaccurate summary of the Mueller Report. Mueller wrote a March 25 letter to Barr saying his summary did not capture the fully "capture the nature context and substance of the Mueller teams work https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/71888313 ... ed-context

This impeachment is not a farce; it is necessary. If it vindicates the preident, so be it (as long as it is not a partisan whitewash). Most voters want additional witnesses https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/m ... for-trial/ And 66% of all voters want John Bolton to testify.

The president's communications are privileged but not if they conceal a violation that he has committed. Remember that 54 % of Americans think Trump should be impeached as of December 15th when that was going down. Lots of people can see what you evidently cannot because you are blinded by your Trump love.

[Michaels153]

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. BUT No buts. President Trump already has had numerous people step up and say that none of the allegations that the Democrats have made have any merit. President Trump produces a transcript of the Ukraine phone call and Mr. Zelensky, the leader, said that there was no quid pro quo. The Democrats respond with a series of people who either did not hear the conversation or who (think, believe, imagine, whatever) that President Trump "meant" this, or that, or whatever." if President Trump wants to absolve himself, you would think that he would mount a vigorous defense and have a Trial in the senate. President Trump did not need a trial to deal with the Mueller report and look at the defense provided by the Republicans there. Of course in both cases, no defense was needed because NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED. There is definitely a something very wrong with seeking aide from a foreign country to attack a political opponent. When that happens we can discuss it. Since that did not occur we don't need to waste any time on it. The phone call requested help in Crowd Strike investigation which is part of the Russian Collusion conspiracy hoax and also to investigate Biden on his quid pro quo, and his son's placement in a job he knows nothing about, and in a language he does not speak, (yes many in that country do speak English as well). President Trump is seeking (he or Durham) may now have all the information they need for all three areas. Trump had no right to ask Zelensky for help in investigating Joe Biden. Yes he does. In fact he has overlapping justification for what he did, including an anti-corruption agreement made between both countries with President Obama. And he admitted his intent on the white House lawn. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... n-n1057376

Why doesn't Preside Trump have to show his taxes. There is no law, nothing in the Constitution that mandates this. What has become a practice of some to do is not a mandate. And considering what his detractors have shown thus far, the only purpose to revealing his taxes would be another attempt to destroy the President.If he doesn't it looks like he is hiding something. Only to you and his detractors, who again, have been wrong about everything else about this President, so you are not going to change in this area either. It is do what I want you to do Mr. President,or your hiding something.Every president in the last 45 years has. A practice is not a mandate. It is important. No it is not important. When dealing with foreign leaders to create new policy with Mexico and Canada, neither leader of those countries asked to see President Trump's taxes. When working on the new trade agreement with China, China did not ask to see President Trump's taxes. When working with business leaders both here and those that had previously left our country, none of those leaders asked, nor required the President to show his taxes before or after their meetings. In short simple terms, The President showing his taxes is not going to have an impact on what he has been doing for our country. And it was never
required for him to do business before he became president. For example example, people question why Trump sold out the Kurds to the Turks.https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-b ... ia-2019-10 You can keep your innuendo. You did the same all through the Russian Collusion hoax. Does President Trump have any holdings in Mexico, Canada, or China? You should check that as well.You see Leftyg, the President has not put his personal interest ahead of the country. He never has. And if he was only concerned with himself, he never had to campaign for the Presidency. Outside of the presidency, where his focus has been on the day to day needs of the country, President Trump could continue to work on new deals and diversification of his holdings. That alone is a sufficient rebuttal to uour claims of President Trump just wanting to line his own pockets with money.

They have all the information they need; you just will not accept it. No Leftyg, "they" do not have all the information. "They" only have the information released by Obama's corrupt minions as has been seen in the handling of Hilary Clinton, and in the Russian Collusion hoax. More foxes, throwing out information they manufacture, controlling the narrative they want with the assistance of their lackey's in the press. There was no need to investigate Biden because previous investigations showed no culpability https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... t-n1057851 As a matter of fact Biden's role was laudatory USA Today said this:

But sources ranging from former Obama administration officials to an anti-corruption advocate in Ukraine say the official, Viktor Shokin, was ousted for the opposite reason Trump and his allies claim. At this point Leftyg, any explanation from any source provided by the Left is going to be questioned, as it should, do to the tract record of what is being uncovered now. Consider it seeking a second opinion, as a person might regarding what a doctor might have told a patient.

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe. And through his entire term as vice president, Joe Biden went from country to country doing the same as he did in Ukraine. He didn't? Oh, what a surprise!
And there still is the matter of looking into Hunter Biden's job placement.


Leftyg, the president and I know that you and the Democrats are never going interpret any event in anything less than a negative involving or not involving President Trump. You recently said he had no justification for the recent drone attack, and you said, he was the fault of the missiles that brought down the Ukraine plane.
Trump was not vindicated in the Russia investigation. Yes he was vindicated in the Russia investigation, and I went back and added links to substantiate this. A https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... e-summaryt least ten instances of obstruction of justice were found Vox's presentation of this is incomplete and wrong just as it was wrong about the Nunes memo, which I showed already after you dumped that into my thread.And the DOJ has decided that a sitting president cannot be indicted, In spite of the DOJ having previously decided that a sitting president cannot be indicted, Mr. Barr asked Mr. Mueller pointedly, that if the DOJ did not/had not decided that a sitting president could not be indicted, could you (Mr. Mueller) indict with the evidence that you have. In other words Mr. Mueller, do you have evidence to prosecute an obstruction charge. And Mr. Mueller said he could not. That question came up in the Mueller hearing and Mr. Mueller corrected his morning testimony in the afternoon to make that clear. I provided a quote of Mr. Mueller's on this issue in my previous post.so Mueller's hands were tied. No Leftyg, Mr. Mueller's hands were not tied. He did not have the evidence to indict President Trump and he did not have the decency to do his job the way a prosecutor is supposed to.He had to pass it off to the house for impeachment. No Leftyg, Mr. Mueller's job was completed. He had failed to do what he wanted to do, and now he was hoping that the House would continue the process So Michaels you vastly overstate your case; he was not found innocent. And the impeachment is no farce. No Leftyg, I have substantiated "my case" in my thread.
President Trump was found to be innocent. And this impeachment is a farce.

The only thing I claim is that Trump should have a senate trial so we can find out the facts. I have demonstrated that there is nothing to the Biden investigation. And Attorney General Barr gave an inaccurate summary of the Mueller Report. Mueller wrote a March 25 letter to Barr saying his summary did not capture the fully "capture the nature context and substance of the Mueller teams work https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/71888313 ... ed-context

This impeachment is not a farce; Yes it isit is necessary. It is not necessaryIf it vindicates the president, It will vindicate the President but you and the Democrats will not agree nor accept that finding.so be it (as long as it is not a partisan whitewash).Which is exactly what you will claim. Most voters want additional witnesses This is just an entertaing side show, a circus show, for gossip. https://morningconsult.com/2020/01/08/m ... for-trial/ And 66% of all voters want John Bolton to testify.

The president's communications are privileged but not if they conceal a violation that he has committed. Remember that 54 % of Americans think Trump should be impeached as of December 15th when that was going down. Remember too, that a majority polled believed that President Trump was guilty of collusion with Russia before the Mueller report was finished. Lots of people can see what you evidently cannot because you are blinded by your Trump love.

Lot's of people believed that President Trump was guilty of collusion with Russia before the Mueller report was finished. So finding a lot of people to agree with you does not make your case that the President is guilty of anything. And you never change, regardless of the evidence presented because of your hatred toward President Trump.

[Michaels153]

Recirculating on the internet this evening is this article from Time Magazine
dated July 2, 2014
By Joan E. Greve

Obama is the Worst President Since World War II, Poll says

More Americans consider Barack Obama to be the worst President since World War II than they do any other President, according to a new poll.
The Quinnipiac Poll out Wednesday found that 33% of Americans see Obama as the worst post-war president, while just 8% consider him the best. Another 28 % see former President George Bush as the worst. Richard Nixon, the only American President ever to resign in disgrace, was picked the worst by 13%, according to the poll.

This just keeps getting better and better. Both Richard Nixon and George Bush were rated better as Presidents than Barack Obama.
....

Ronald Reagan was the most common answer among those surveyed for the best President since World War II, with 35% choosing the Republican Icon.....The survey of 1,446 registered voters, conducted June 24-30, had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.6 percentage points.

* On October 13, 2018 Leftyg shared a survey of economists That declared Obama's stimulus to be an unqualified success.....Okay try to stop laughing now. Leftyg was quite happy with this survey, and it had only 37 people who responded to it. A sample size of 37. This survey had a sample size of 1,446. Just wait until the public have some time to reflect on the contents of Mr. Durham's upcoming report and the other investigations that William Barr is conducting. That should have a decidedly negative impact on the way the public looks back on President Barack Obama.
Just a portent of things to come.