Bloomberg's Quid Pro Quo IMPEACH HIM!

[Josiah]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/poli...bloomberg-donation-house-democrats/index.html


The zillionaire Bloomberg has promised if that if the Democrats impeach his future rival, he will donate TEN MILLION DOLLARS to their re-election campaign.

This is classic quid pro quo.

It is what the Democrats CLAIM Trump did - but have found no evidence of his doing. The thing they think makes him unfit to be president and a high crime and felony.

Let's see them denounce Bloomberg, declare him unfit to be president, and reject his quid pro quo of $10 MILLION.



- Josiah




Yeah, I know..... the press will ignore it....the press will day quid pro quo ONLY applies to Republicans.....




.

 

[Lamb]

We need to pre-Impeach him!

 

[Josiah]

My morning newspaper has not even MENTIONED this ... the evening news has not even mentioned this.....

Giving money IF politicians help you in your election bid is evidently a "HIGH CRIME," a felony violation of law(s) that mandates disqualification to serve in public office....but evidently ONLY if said candidate is a Republican.

 

[psalms 91]

Wow what great reasoning this is. I am thankful that the news does not speculate to the degree of foolishness this is.

 

[Josiah]

Wow what great reasoning this is. I am thankful that the news does not speculate to the degree of foolishness this is.

No speculation AT ALL.

He will pay TEN MILLION DOLLARS to Democrats who vote to impeach his (hopefully) future political rival for the presidency.

Quid pro quo.

Undeniable.

 

[psalms 91]

No speculation AT ALL.

He will pay TEN MILLION DOLLARS to Democrats who vote to impeach his (hopefully) future political rival for the presidency.

Quid pro quo.

Undeniable.

So with this reasoning you would indict every lobbyist and every PAC? It is not unusual to give to those who support your opinion, where the problem comes in is if you use the publics tax money to do so.

 

[Lamb]

So with this reasoning you would indict every lobbyist and every PAC? It is not unusual to give to those who support your opinion, where the problem comes in is if you use the publics tax money to do so.

You don't see an ethical issue in what he's (Bloomberg) doing?

 

[Josiah]

You don't see an ethical issue in what he's (Bloomberg) doing?

OBVIOUSLY this is EXACTLY what the Democrats accuse Trump of doing in Article 1 of their impeachment charges (it's just they have no evidence).

What Bloomberg did is EXACTLY the quid pro quo they denounced as making one unworthly of holding an office. BUT the violation only applies if one is a Republican. PURE hypocritical political games. This is undeniable proof. And have you noticed.... the press has buried it. It was not even reported on TV that I could see, not even mentioned in my morning newspaper, not mentioned on the TODAY show I watch daily. Why? Clear, gross quid pro quo is okay when it's a Democrat, not to be mentioned, and certainly not news. BUT when a Republican is accused of such (even without any evidence) it's a "HIGH CRIME" and a "FELONY" and means that person is thereby unfit for office.

This is "the swamp." This is politics that has disgusted SO MANY. The hypocritical political game (in lieu of DOING anything for our country). And we see again how the press is the puppet of the liberals in their game.

Disgusting.




.

 

[psalms 91]

You don't see an ethical issue in what he's (Bloomberg) doing?

No considering the Republicans have said they will bury anyone who supports impeachment. If you would buy into this line of reasoning then you must charge the NRA and any other lobbiist who donates to campaigns based on how they think someone will vote. In the end isnt that what we do when we vote?

 

[Lamb]

No considering the Republicans have said they will bury anyone who supports impeachment. If you would buy into this line of reasoning then you must charge the NRA and any other lobbiist who donates to campaigns based on how they think someone will vote. In the end isnt that what we do when we vote?

I asked you about Bloomberg and you say No but you back it up to say it's because of what someone else is doing?

Ethics doesn't depend on if someone else is doing it or not.

 

[Josiah]

If you would buy into this line of reasoning then you must charge the NRA

The NRA is not running for president. Their money is not directed to those trying to destroy their likely opponent also running for the same political office;.

NO one charged Trump with quid pro quo for the millions he gave to political candidates over the years. The (false) accusation (with zero evidence) is that he would give millions to Ukraine IF they investigated the son of Joe Biden - whom the Democrats conssider a likely opponent of Trumps in 2020, perhaps eliminating Biden as a threat to his election. How is that different than what Bloomberg did? Sure, he has donated MILLIONS to Democrats over the decades but now he's a candidate for president.... and he will pay TEN MILLION DOLLARS to any who attempt to eliminate his opponent in that election. The difference? Just one: Bloomberg's is undeniable and obvious with positive proof. But it seems this kind of quid pro quo in one's campaign for president ONLY applies to Republicans - there it is a HIGH CRIME, a FELONY (it would mean jail if Trump were not in office) and makes him unqualified for office. But when it's a Democrat - why, it's just politics and perfectly acceptable and wonderful - and kept out of the news.


Disgusting. Hypocritical. Revealing.



.

 

[psalms 91]

I will leave you to your blinders where trump is concerned and know that there are those with common sense about who to charge to make those decisions thankfully.

 

[Lamb]

I will leave you to your blinders where trump is concerned and know that there are those with common sense about who to charge to make those decisions thankfully.

Why don't you just address Bloomberg then?

 

[tango]

I will leave you to your blinders where trump is concerned and know that there are those with common sense about who to charge to make those decisions thankfully.

I thought this was about Mike Bloomberg. What Trump did or didn't do is nothing to do with it.

 

[psalms 91]

I thought this was about Mike Bloomberg. What Trump did or didn't do is nothing to do with it.

Seems top me that this thread was always about showing why Trump is ok and Bloomberg was just a way to show that, or is all the comparisons to Trump just a coinsidence?

 

[psalms 91]

Why don't you just address Bloomberg then?

I did and I stated why I didnt agree I have no interst in continuing this as it is just an atempt to explain Trump

 

[tango]

Seems top me that this thread was always about showing why Trump is ok and Bloomberg was just a way to show that, or is all the comparisons to Trump just a coinsidence?

It's not about showing Trump is OK at all, it's about Mike Bloomberg being brazen about doing something that Trump is only alleged to have done.

 

[tango]

I did and I stated why I didnt agree I have no interst in continuing this as it is just an atempt to explain Trump

So in other words you have no argument besides deflecting a discussion about Mike Bloomberg back onto Trump?

 

[psalms 91]

So in other words you have no argument besides deflecting a discussion about Mike Bloomberg back onto Trump?

I didnt bring Trump up if you choose to look back through the thread and this is like so many others where lets get the guy posting and never mind the facts, I am done

 

[tango]

So with this reasoning you would indict every lobbyist and every PAC? It is not unusual to give to those who support your opinion, where the problem comes in is if you use the publics tax money to do so.

I will leave you to your blinders where trump is concerned and know that there are those with common sense about who to charge to make those decisions thankfully.

Seems top me that this thread was always about showing why Trump is ok and Bloomberg was just a way to show that, or is all the comparisons to Trump just a coinsidence?

I didnt bring Trump up if you choose to look back through the thread and this is like so many others where lets get the guy posting and never mind the facts, I am done

No, obviously you didn't mention Trump at all. As you say, never mind the facts. Josial first brought him up and I responded and then I believe you joined in but my posts are in response to others. Enjoy the thread