CNN This poll number will send Democrats into a panic

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

With all due respect, I think that there is a major difference in asking the leader of another country to lie, if it is in fact true, when there is nothing to be gained from that lie other than saving face. Biden did not break the law.If Trump asked the leader of another country to improperly help him boost his chances for reelection, that is wrong no matter how you look at it.

Saving face lol... which helps them in the next election... lol, they knew it was going to blow up just not THAT fcuking fast. Trump released the transcript of his call... d you think Beijing Biden will LOL? Get real.

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by bambino

Joe Biden goes to Delaware because there are no visitor logs there like the ones in The White House... HE'S MEETING WITH HIS REAL BO$$ES!!!

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

With all due respect, I think that there is a major difference in asking the leader of another country to lie, if it is in fact true,


I'm glad you decided to add that "observation". "IF, it is fact true". Pretty sure that case is closed so I'll ask you, "was it proved "factual beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump asked the Ukrainian President "make something up if necessary", no, that bit of thinking came form Adam Schiff when that was the story he wanted to spin and nothing, not being caught in a lie was going to stop him from putting out his lie because he knew he had Nancy's backing.



Shouldn't be that hard to prove since we have a transcript of "the call" between Trump and the President of Ukraine and the sworn statement of the President of Ukraine that no such "criminal help" was asked for and none was given I belief the final report says that. So why are you doubting what the final report says or did the impeachment documents prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump asked the Ukrainian to do something illegal? If so please show us those words in the easily accessible phone transcript of the conversation in question.




I'll wait.


One President asking another President to "look into a matter of what could be public corruption" with no quid pro quo asked for or given and you impeach a President of that but can't impeach this one for actually using the words "true or not". When you have allowed "or not" in with true, you have not only corrupted true but condoned accepting "not true" if t benefits ones political agenda



when there is nothing to be gained from that lie other than saving face.


Are you telling me that Biden had nothing to gain by getting Karzi to keep telling the same 20 year old lie, that the Afghan military could one day hold Afghanistan, if Americans and NATO forces left Afghanistan? That has now proven to be a lie by literally everybody in the Chain of Command, until that Command is whispering in Biden's ear "don't do it this way, Mr. President, please". Telling Karzi "we have to change the "perception", notice he didn't talk about the need to be upfront about the actual facts on the ground. That is the very definition of a lie when you put anywhere in your sentence "whether it is true or not".


Now, again, I'm not a lawyer but that sure sounds like it could be part of "criminal conspiracy" conduct, talk like that not caring if a thing is true or not but hell, that was the motto of the Democrat Party for the last 5 plus years



Biden did not break the law.


Says you. I say he did and my vote and opinion are equally worthy of debate as yours.

A person is guilty of suborning perjury

if he or she attempts to induce a witness to give false testimony under oath in a court or other proceeding

, and the witness actually gives false testimony (if the person is an attorney, simply knowing of the witness's plans is enough

When Biden asked another government official to consider making a statement that more favored their narrative and whether it was true or not really didn't matter because "perception needed to be changed" I believe were the exact words. But, I'll leave it up to the Senate in 2022 to decide on the guilt or innocence of Joe Biden having been impeached by the Republican House in 2022 for "dereliction of duty" as Commander in Chief and pressuring a foreign leader to change the "perception of his country and our effort" whether that "New perception" is true or not and you really, really, honestly don't see this as a problem similar to what Trump was impeached over, really?

If Trump asked the leader of another country to improperly help him boost his chances for reelection, that is wrong no matter how you look at it.


There you go hedging that bet again. You've heard the freakin phone call. Can you show me, us, the exact words that Trump used that made this a criminal offense, or in any way "helped" Trump in his re-election? but wait, it doesn't have to be a crime, I keep forgetting that part, seems like there ought to be a provable crime but that's just me I guess. So, show me the words that made what Trump said, illegal in you eyes. Drop the "IF's", there is a federal report on this isn't there? What does the final conclusion say about that phone call?


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/25/us/politics/trump-ukraine-transcript.html



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

Yeah, yeah, that "I would like you do do us a favor, doesn't look good but unless that "favor" is definable and is acted upon, it's not a criminal matter.


"I would like you to "find out what happened". Sorry, no criminal intent implied there.



"President Trump was accused of breaking the law by pressuring Ukraine's leader to dig up damaging information on a political rival.


And did he? Did he ever acknowledge in public that what you are saying is true? No? Then why are you repeating it?


In July 2019, he urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate one of the frontrunners to take him on in the 2020 presidential election. This mattered, opposition Democrats said, because it is illegal to ask foreign entities for help in winning a US election. He says he has done nothing wrong."


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49800181

And was it proven that Trump ever asked explicitly, remember, we have the transcript, that the President of Ukraine, look into a company that was already under investigation for corruption and the VP's Son is a major player in what looks like the depths of impropriety?



So let's see, "there are no words" in the phone transcript that can be shown and used to make the case that an illegal quid pro quo had taken place. Some how that all got lost in the weeds.


There was direct testimony from the President of Ukraine that there never was a deal and there never was pressure and the President of Ukraine goes from un-willing partner in crime to guilty as hell and a liar to boot according to Democrats.

[1blackman1]

Ridiculous. And tiring.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

I'm democrat, and I am panic.

[Strokey_McDingDong]

the trump collusion shit was a hoax

one of the many reasons why people don't trust the media

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Saving face lol... which helps them in the next election... lol, they knew it was going to blow up just not THAT fcuking fast. Trump released the transcript of his call... d you think Beijing Biden will LOL? Get real.

If I remember correctly, there were 2 phone calls and Trump provided the transcript of one.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-t...nd-11573738399

Biden was guilty of asking someone to lie on his behalf. Trump, if he asked Zelensky to dig up information on Biden and his son, broke the law.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And was it proven that Trump ever asked explicitly, remember, we have the transcript, that the President of Ukraine, look into a company that was already under investigation for corruption and the VP's Son is a major player in what looks like the depths of impropriety?



So let's see, "there are no words" in the phone transcript that can be shown and used to make the case that an illegal quid pro quo had taken place. Some how that all got lost in the weeds.


There was direct testimony from the President of Ukraine that there never was a deal and there never was pressure and the President of Ukraine goes from un-willing partner in crime to guilty as hell and a liar to boot according to Democrats.

We have the transcript of one of two calls. I really don't want to rehash ancient history. We will never know if Trump was guilty or not guilty because it never went to trial. I think there was at least enough evidence that it MIGHT have happened. Several credible people said it happened.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/tr...-perfect-call/

If Biden had been under oath when he made the statement he would be guilty of perjury. He wasn't therefore no perjury.

What law or laws do you think Biden broke?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Ridiculous. And tiring.

In other words, you don't have a good answer and can't show me the words that you say exist but can't be bothered to prove like 90% of everything you say.


You are tiresome with your one of two word answers to everything never explaining anything asked which is why you are also a bore.


You call yourself an attorney so I suppose you have been in an actual court of law. I was wondering what 100 different lawyers would say about a foreign leader putting pressure on another foreign leader to "change the perception of a thing, whether that thing is true or not". Does that or does that not suborn perjury?


Now if Trump had actually said the words that Adam Schiff found the need to "make up" instead of reading from the transcript, I would have voted to impeach but he did not say as Schiff "parodied" "and if you have to make it up, do that". Never said.


What happened to the FBI agent you figured he would suborn perjury because he didn't like the way an investigation was going so he changed the wording of an official document.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

We have the transcript of one of two calls. I really don't want to rehash ancient history. We will never know if Trump was guilty or not guilty because it never went to trial.


Excuse me, it most certainly did go to trial, the only place you can try a sitting President. Because you don't like the results doesn't give you the option to lie about facts. There were 2 trials and two acquittals. Those are the facts


I think there was at least enough evidence that it MIGHT have happened.



Yeah, "might have happened" usually ends in acquittal because you couldn't prove your case because it might not have happened and that is what the transcript indicates, that it never happened or SOMEBODY would be quoting me the words right now that made what was said, a criminal act. Prosecutors are not inclined to bring a case that may or may not have happened. You don't go to trial without provable evidence and the prosecution didn't have it.



Several credible people said it happened.


Did these "credible people" say that under oath in a court of law? Nah, didn't think so, kinda like all those Adam Schiff witnesses that were so, so credible until the classified documents were un-classified and nobody but nobody said anything like what Schifff had said, they said. That's called lying to the public and lying to a Congressional Committee saying you have evidence that you not only don't have but know you don't have but lie about it anyway.


Several so called "credible people", said Trump conspired with Russia to interfere in the election. Problem is, Mueller nor anybody else could prove it with witness statements because there were none of any credibility.


https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/tr...-perfect-call/

If Biden had been under oath when he made the statement he would be guilty of perjury. He wasn't therefore no perjury.



Interesting. I wonder how many time you used that argument against impeaching Trump since he never lied under oath" But hey, now we have some truth from you. You don't care if a President lies to you and me in a phone call he wants to remain secret although Biden sure wanted Trump's phone call for the world to judge huh? Going to release the full transcript President Biden like you wanted Trump to? Naw, didn't think so. Why not if there is nothing to hide, just asking another head of state to lie if he thinks it is necessary to "get on the right track" and make the perception of the war, what we want it to be, True or not.


What law or laws do you think Biden broke?

How quickly we forget. Remember Mr. Democrat, you don't need to have broken a law to be impeached just ask Nancy Pelosi, she explained it enough times.


But since you asked, it could be called "suborning perjury", asking someone to do or say something that they know to be a lie. Asking the President of Afghanistan to "change the perception of the war, for personal gain whether true or not true", is in my non-legal opinion, suborning perjury.


https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/...perjurer%20had


1752. SUBORNATION OF PERJURY

To establish a case of subornation of perjury, a prosecutor must demonstrate that perjury was committed; that the defendant procured the perjury corruptly, knowing, believing or having reason to believe it to be false testimony; and that the defendant knew, believed or had reason to believe that the perjurer had knowledge of the falsity of his or her testimony.


The legal hoops to jump through which can be read here, are to complex for me to make an accurate legal opinion so it's "just my opinion". I'm sure you disagree.


But like I said, at least we have out of the way any notion you may have had that a President is required to tell the truth whether under oath or not. You think he doesn't if not under oath. Interesting.

[VitaMan]

Just do what Trump does


If poll numbers are unfavorable, bash them as being fake and unreliable.
If polls numbers are good, refer to them over and over as evidence you are excellent.

[1blackman1]

Simply put we all know what good ole Trump was doing, what he said, and why. He wanted the Ukrainians to at least announce an investigation into Biden in order to smear Biden so that it would help his reelection chances. We know this because everyone involved, particularly Rudy and his Ukrainian cohorts have suggested that in their recorded statements and actions. Now if you actually believe Trumps reasons were somehow something different there’s nothing I can say to you that’d convince you otherwise. Hence the (what youve typed is) Ridiculous and (you arguing over known facts is) Tiring.

Now if your argument is that he did do what I stated but it’s ok for him to do so - ummmm, I’ll give you a “whatever”, because then you also have to believe that a president, using the wheels and influence of his position to go after his political rivals even by cajoling foreign govts to do the dirty work, is acceptable behavior which we should expect to be the new norm. I disagree that it should be and we’ll just agree to disagree.

In order to have a discussion we’d have to at least agree to the initial premise and some set of facts such as - Trump did what was stated above - asked the Ukrainians to make Biden look bad for his own political gain. In fact his lawyers (Dershowitz)never denied that and implied as you did that it wasn’t wrong to so and was an acceptable use of power if he believed his being president was best for the country. Trumpys like Jim Jordan tried to imply Trump’s motivation was seeking justice but no one with a lick of common sense believed that crazy shit. But everyone with sense knew exactly what he was doing.

The “real” issue was whether Trump held up funding to an ally in the midst of a conflict to pressure them to go along with his scheme wittingly or unwittingly. Now is that part arguable, sure. I personally believe he did it and did so in the most roundabout way that he could which continues to be his MO to create some plausible deniability (which I actually applaud as he’s mastered that). Could someone believe otherwise, sure. Now personally I’d think those persons are pretty dumb to really believe that but that’d be my personal opinion. I’d also put those people in the same category as the ones that believe OJ didn’t stab his ex or that Peterson’s wife was killed by someone else.

This is where debating you gets tiresome calling for dismissive responses. You refuse to concede simple facts and premises so that the focus can be on what’s actually debatable. If we can’t agree on the premise or the basic facts what’s the point of debating. What you actually have is just a discussion with a wall which is pointless

If your actual belief is that Trump had legitimate intentions for deploying Rudy and co to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden, and Trump wasn’t doing so for his own political gain, can we really have a reasonable discussion. If I believe that your beliefs are irrational, why should I waste my time trying to treat you as if you aren’t. Discussions with you would begin to rank up there with the likes of Bambino and Oeb, neither of which I perceive as rational in any way. Hence my not wasting my time being bothered entertaining the crazy shit they write in any meaningful way.

No, I won’t go outta my way to write lengthy diatribes and search for article after article and rehash hundreds of pages of text to “prove” a premise or fact that’s been proven a 10000000000 times over. This isn’t that complex and I don’t have the time nor inclination waste that much time.

Did Trump have his associates try to dig up dirt on Biden?
Did he do so for his own political gain (ie he perceived Biden as a threat to his re-election and thought having an investigation announced would give him some political advantage and a new lock him up slogan)?

If you believe neither of the above, there’s no reason to discuss anything else on the subject with you because it appears to me that delusion has set in. Now if we can agree that was what Trump was doing other matters are open for discussion.

Such as

Did he use military funding as a tool to pressure the Ukrainians in a quid pro quo scheme?

I think the circumstances taken as a whole suggest Yes, what we call circumstantial evidence. But that arguable and can be debated honestly.

Was doing so an impeachable offense?

I believe going after political enemies is impeachable, that’s what supposedly separates us from Banana Republics.

Are high crimes and misdemeanors limited only to codified crimes?

I believe no and the federalist papers are pretty clear that was not the intent.

Now, you went down this whole whataboutism ridiculous path to try to establish somehow that Biden’s actions and Trumps actions are in some way similar. They aren’t. Not even close. Trump was trying to weaken a political rival in order to help us own personal election chances. Biden was trying to ensure a troop withdrawal to end the US involvement in a 2 decade war.

This is why I often say you know better. And I’m yet to believe that you don’t. But you make it difficult.

[VitaMan]

Trump lovers are delusional. They are caught in the Trump Twilight Zone.
And very difficult to be deprogrammed. Trump is still doing one of his stunts almost weekly. And supporters keep emptying their bank accounts.......for H I M.


TTZ

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Just do what Trump does


It's what pretty much, everyone does



If poll numbers are unfavorable, bash them as being fake and unreliable.


Isn't this exactly what the Biden administration is doing? The numbers are un-favorable as reported by his own Media arms, that one can not say it's a "Republican thing" and it wouldn't matter from where you get that poll, they all say the same thing that Biden is approaching the 41% approval range.


If polls numbers are good, refer to them over and over as evidence you are excellent.

So, what's left? How about the poll numbers are bad but you just continue to lie about that as well. Pretend that you haven't heard a single begrudging word from a single ally when the British Parliament, rises as one body to condemn what Joe Biden did in Afghanistan or that our NATO allies are openly speaking of making it without the US having so much input on NATO affairs. Good job of patching up that NATO Alliance, Joe.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Simply put we all know what good ole Trump was doing, what he said, and why.


Wow! "WE" all know, do "we"? Nothing to arrogant in that huh? But the only thing you can prove, is what was said in that transcript. They couldn't prove "what he was up to because, well councilor, there are no words describing "what he was up to" other than the ones you have decided to "make up". You are guessing and yes, that is tiresome on my part as well, all this guessing that you dress up and turn into "we all know". That's just pitiful even from you.


He wanted the Ukrainians to at least announce an investigation into Biden in order to smear Biden so that it would help his reelection chances.


And there was no other plausible reason to ask for an investigation from the President of the United States, doing his due diligence in considering offering financial aid to one of the most corrupt governments on the planet? Joe Biden because he was running for President in the US is therefore "untouchable" even if having committed a crime? He gets immunity because he running for President? And what could this other "plausible" subject for investigation be? Maybe the agreed upon "look of impropriety" that was discussed at the highest levels of the Biden / Obama administration. "MR. VP, it just looks bad that your son having no experience in oil and Gas ends up sitting on one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine and you can't see any other good reason to do a "deeper dive" if you want this money, OH, wait, now I'm confusing what Biden did give Ukraine a quid pro quo to fire a government prosecutor or as Biden put it, "you don't get the 6 billion dollars, get it?



We know this because everyone involved, particularly Rudy and his Ukrainian cohorts have suggested that in their recorded statements and actions. Now if you actually believe Trumps reasons were somehow something different



I'm only interested in what can be proven in a court of law councilor. Your "feelings" mean very little to me.


there’s nothing I can say to you that’d convince you otherwise.



Sure you could, instead of using one word put downs thinking you have ended the debate is an allusion on your part. All you've done is prove once again that you don't really want to debate, you merely want to end debate thinking you have won said debate.


Hence the (what you've typed is) Ridiculous and so much easier to use just that one word, huh? and (you arguing over known facts is) Tiring.

Now if your argument is that he did do what I stated but it’s ok for him to do so - ummmm, I’ll give you a “whatever”, because then you also have to believe that a president, using the wheels and influence of his position to go after his political rivals even by cajoling foreign govts to do the dirty work, is acceptable behavior which we should expect to be the new norm. I disagree that it should be and we’ll just agree to disagree.



But we are not disagreeing on what the boundaries should be. On that we agree. I'm disagreeing, having read the transcripted call watching every single hour of both impeachments, that Trump did not say in that transcript, what you are saying, sorry, implying he said. Remember Adam's Schiff's "parody" where Schiff "made up the words "just do what you have to do, make it up if you have to but make this happen". That was a lie, why not just read the transcript instead of making shit up? Because he knew he wouldn't be held accountable, well, because he has people like you behind him.


In order to have a discussion we’d have to at least agree to the initial premise and some set of facts such as - Trump did what was stated above - asked the Ukrainians to make Biden look bad



So that's in the transcript? "I want you to make Biden look bad". You sure stated that like you actually believe that to be true, but you can't prove it councilor because those words that you have decided to accept as fact, are not fact at all, they don't even exist. Words that do not exist councilor, therefore can not be facts. You want me to believe something was said that was not said at all and I'm the bad guy here? I'm just suppose to say that you know better than I



for his own political gain. In fact his lawyers (Dershowitz)never denied that and implied as you did that it wasn’t wrong to so and was an acceptable use of power if he believed his being president was best for the country. Trumpys like Jim Jordan tried to imply Trump’s motivation was seeking justice but no one with a lick of common sense believed that crazy shit. But everyone with sense knew exactly what he was doing.



Being damn careful not to incriminate himself is what he was doing. You know it and I know it and Trump won that round but of course you couldn't let it go so you go back to what you do best, "distort the record" even one right there in front of you while you are saying "I can't see it".


The “real” issue was whether Trump held up funding to an ally in the midst of a conflict to pressure them to go along with his scheme wittingly or unwittingly. Now is that part arguable, sure.


And I did, endlessly and not to be repeated


I personally believe he did it and did so in the most roundabout way that he could which continues to be his MO to create some plausible deniability (which I actually applaud as he’s mastered that). Could someone believe otherwise, sure. Now personally I’d think those persons are pretty dumb to really believe that but that’d be my personal opinion. I’d also put those people in the same category as the ones that believe OJ didn’t stab his ex or that Peterson’s wife was killed by someone else.

This is where debating you gets tiresome calling for dismissive responses.



Who is this person or persons making you follow me around doing something you really don't want to be doing because, well, because you are so much smarter than I and your time is more valuable than mine, OK, that part is probably true. Name names and I'll do my best to get these people to stop demanding that you respond to every word I say. I promise you this. Who is doing this to 1blackman1? Damn you!


You refuse to concede simple facts and premises



As presented by you. Tell me honestly now, do you comprehend what you just wrote? You are the arbiter of "facts and premises"? I can't have a opinion different than yours even when I bring along other journalist with the same opinion and conclusion that differs from yours. Are you really that far gone?




so that the focus can be on what’s actually debatable.


Which I'm guessing, you'll be deciding. Am I right?


If we can’t agree on the premise or the basic facts what’s the point of debating.



And the other side of that coin is, if we agree on everything being a fact, what is left to debate? No, debate is for two reasonable smart people to see you can make a better argument using the law, science and some common sense.


What you actually have is just a discussion with a wall which is pointless



Then let me be the first to say, "stop doing that".


If your actual belief is that Trump had legitimate intentions for deploying Rudy and co to Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden, and Trump wasn’t doing so for his own political gain, can we really have a reasonable discussion.


If there was nothing there "to gain" and Trump never asked anybody to "make shit up to make Biden look bad ", there was no violation of law or good will between Presidents who I'll remind you doesn't favor the conclusions you came to and said so in public but you knew didn't you?

If I believe that your beliefs are irrational, why should I waste my time trying to treat you as if you aren’t.


Now that is some deep shit right there. Maybe you could bring that up with your analyst next time you go in, why you keep doing this to yourself, knowing it serves no purpose and my GOD! all the others things a man like you could be doing. I'm sorry for my part in dragging you into this hell hole!

Discussions with you would begin to rank up there with the likes of Bambino and Oeb, neither of which I perceive as rational in any way. Hence my not wasting my time being bothered entertaining the crazy shit they write in any meaningful way.



Simple solution, add me to the list or continue to complain about you really don't have time for me anymore. Don't let the door hit you in the ass as they say.


No, I won’t go outta my way to write lengthy diatribes and search for article after article and rehash hundreds of pages of text to “prove” a premise or fact that’s been proven a 10000000000 times over. This isn’t that complex and I don’t have the time nor inclination waste that much time.



I hear ya brother, gotta have your priorities straight and why this place is one of you priorities, we'll have to get into another time.


Did Trump have his associates try to dig up dirt on Biden?


Did they do and investigation, yes they did. Did Hillary associates dig up dirt on Trump? Yes they did but for one of those funny reasons again, then, it didn't bother you at all, just oppo research.


Did he do so for his own political gain (ie he perceived Biden as a threat to his re-election and thought having an investigation announced would give him some political advantage and a new lock him up slogan)?


Not if there was nothing to find. You would think a councilor would know that and repeat it often. and if nothing is found, then that is turned against the opponent and the blood letting starts again.


If you believe neither of the above, there’s no reason to discuss anything else on the subject with you because it appears to me that delusion has set in.


Yes, I can feel your lethargy almost through the keyboards. I must be this tremendous drain on you and for that I sincerely apologize



Now if we can agree that was what Trump was doing other matters are open for discussion.


So, only if we agree with your terms, will future matters be considered. Do I have that about right? Uh, no thanks, I'll pass although those are some very intriguing questions that I would ordinarily jump on but I can see the stress I'v put on you so I'm going to give you a break.


Such as

Did he use military funding as a tool to pressure the Ukrainians in a quid pro quo scheme?

I think the circumstances taken as a whole suggest Yes, what we call circumstantial evidence. But that arguable and can be debated honestly.

Was doing so an impeachable offense?

I believe going after political enemies is impeachable, that’s what supposedly separates us from Banana Republics.

Are high crimes and misdemeanors limited only to codified crimes?

I believe no and the federalist papers are pretty clear that was not the intent.

Now, you went down this whole whataboutism ridiculous path to try to establish somehow that Biden’s actions and Trumps actions are in some way similar. They aren’t. Not even close. Trump was trying to weaken a political rival in order to help us own personal election chances. Biden was trying to ensure a troop withdrawal to end the US involvement in a 2 decade war.

This is why I often say you know better. And I’m yet to believe that you don’t. But you make it difficult.

I can see, I can feel you struggle