Author Topic: The Race is On  (Read 11872 times)

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #50 on: November 01, 2019, 12:36:36 AM »
Well it's demonstrably partisan because only Democrats voted for it. Would they do it for Cruz or Rubio? More likely Cruz than Rubio and of course there's no way to be sure but I wouldn't put it past them. I wouldn't put anything past them at this point. This is just more "nuclear option" on display. It's always been about power and only about power. The Democrats feel it slipping away and they've become desperate and desperation breeds contempt. That's a good explanation for a lot of what we've seen lately. And yes I can see how that cuts both ways. Something has just snapped.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #51 on: November 01, 2019, 02:22:36 AM »
The lie is that it isn't just some partisan exercise. That's exactly what it is, and that's all it is. Even for the couple of Democrats who voted against it, it was just politics because they run in districts that Trump won.

I was going to comment the only thing bi-partisan about that vote was who voted against it. But you partially dismantled that point.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #52 on: November 01, 2019, 02:29:36 AM »
Well it's demonstrably partisan because only Democrats voted for it. Would they do it for Cruz or Rubio? More likely Cruz than Rubio and of course there's no way to be sure but I wouldn't put it past them. I wouldn't put anything past them at this point. This is just more "nuclear option" on display. It's always been about power and only about power. The Democrats feel it slipping away and they've become desperate and desperation breeds contempt. That's a good explanation for a lot of what we've seen lately. And yes I can see how that cuts both ways. Something has just snapped.

I don't think Cruz or Rubio would have pushed the envelope in anything approaching the same way that Trump has been, and they'd probably be a bit more measured in what they did go about doing. That said, they'd probably be spooking people for other reasons, but not to level of claiming criminal wrong-doing and seeking impeachment.

Dems would be going more for callous/uncaring, and possibly incompetent instead, but probably not pursuing impeachment. Trump on the other hand is all about goading people to respond to him as a tactic, as it likely worked well enough for him a business tactic, people who are kept off balance aren't going to be in top form for negotiating deals.

Neither Cruz or Rubio are known to operate that way, they're nowhere near narcissistic enough for that for one thing. They also don't have the decades of experience Trump has with his public/business persona.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #53 on: November 01, 2019, 06:40:59 AM »
That you claim to see only one reason why all the Republicans voted against, simply shows you to be transparently disingenuous, completely lacking in self-awareness, or just plain dumb.

DonaldD: Please see your email. -OrneryMod
« Last Edit: November 04, 2019, 12:22:02 AM by OrneryMod »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #54 on: November 01, 2019, 07:59:58 AM »
A completely unwarranted personal attack, nice. Not surprising but uncalled for to say the least.

smh

oldbrian

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #55 on: November 01, 2019, 08:03:58 AM »
When the senate majority leader promises that the impeachment will die a very quick death if it ever makes it that far, no matter what the evidence says, one can be very sure that something partisan is going on. 
Look at it from both directions before you accuse only one side of lowering themselves to partisan politics.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #56 on: November 01, 2019, 09:04:19 AM »
Should we conclude that the impeachment of Clinton was also partisan because of the way the votes went? And yet I have little doubt that if a Democrat somehow managed to do what trump has done, democrats would probably try to protect their president also.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #57 on: November 01, 2019, 10:50:56 AM »
When the senate majority leader promises that the impeachment will die a very quick death if it ever makes it that far, no matter what the evidence says, one can be very sure that something partisan is going on. 
Look at it from both directions before you accuse only one side of lowering themselves to partisan politics.

The house impeachment is a sham, a stunt to sway the election. Why should Republicans play along? McConnell is making it clear there will never be a conviction on this bull*censored* but Democrats are going for it anyway so it’s clearly all about the election - watch this drag on so it dominates new cycles in DNC media outlets. It’ll go a few months and, when judged to have maximum impact, will go to the senate.

But McConnell is also signaling that he could very well adopt the same tactics as Democrats. We can have the trial done in closed sessions, McConnell gets to decide who will and will not be a witness, and what questions are allowed. I suspect there will be screaming about this approach then.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #58 on: November 01, 2019, 11:00:14 AM »
Quote
McConnell is making it clear there will never be a conviction on this bull*censored* but Democrats are going for it anyway so it’s clearly all about the election
  While there's a lot not to like about the whole process, you seem to be suggesting that if the Senate is dead set against it, the house should neglect their responsibilities if they observe impeachable offenses. 

This is every bit as messed up as what's been going on with the looming impeachment process for... (fill in the blank reason) we've seen so far.  Either it's a check on executive power, or it's not.  The Senate refusing to preform that check does not dictate the House must do the same.  (even if it will go nowhere)

Arguing that it's a sham, JUST political, and so on, I can understand.  Suggesting that it's any of these things only because the Senate majority leader predetermined it will fail is crap.  It may be those things... but certainly not for that reason. 

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #59 on: November 01, 2019, 11:49:17 AM »
Quote
McConnell is making it clear there will never be a conviction on this bull*censored*

Shouldn't such a statement be a concern reference the rule of law.
He basically saying regardless of any testimony, findings, process, what have you their will never be a conviction.

I understand if someone thinks a sitting President can't be convicted or the issue at hand ins't a high crime or whatever, However for the sake of the rule of law shouldn't we allow the process to be the process.

If Moconnell is in fact making it clear that regardless there will never be a conviction. Isn't that a problem. Shouldn't he keep that to himself.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2019, 11:51:45 AM by rightleft22 »

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #60 on: November 01, 2019, 11:58:33 AM »
I heard an interesting take on the whole "quid pro quo" thing yesterday. Basically 99.9% of all political (and business for that matter) discussions have some kind of quid pro quo attached to them. Anyone who denies that has probably never had one.

The crux then becomes was the QPQ for legitimate or nefarious reasons? Trump's mistake was that he should have immediately said "Damn straight I asked Ukraine to look into the Biden situation. At the time he was leading the polls in our political process. Not only is it my job to make sure my country's political leaders aren't trying to manipulate foreign relationships for personal gain, but it is also a top priority."

The sincerity of that statement I'm sure would be hotly contested, but it kind of puts the "was there QPQ" thing to bed. Of course there was.  It's a leader's job to leverage a give-take process with friends and foes.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #61 on: November 01, 2019, 12:07:20 PM »
That makes a lot of sense ScottF.  Trump is also known for his transactional approach to... well everything. 

At issue here is the seeking of dirt on an opponent by a foreign power.  Wasn't it bad enough when non-US contractors were out dirt digging against Trump? 

General anti-corruption urging is great.  Targeted "witch hunts"?  Not so much.  :)

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #62 on: November 01, 2019, 12:14:53 PM »
Agreed, but then the conversation becomes entirely about motive, which is very difficult to sort out or prove. Now the republican's are also boxed into an unnecessary "there was no QPQ" debate.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #63 on: November 01, 2019, 12:19:01 PM »
QPQ would definitely be an additional reason for impeachment, but using the office of the president to request foreign governments to interfere in US elections and to attack political opponents is already sufficient for impeachment.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #64 on: November 01, 2019, 12:20:19 PM »
Agreed, but then the conversation becomes entirely about motive, which is very difficult to sort out or prove. Now the republican's are also boxed into an unnecessary "there was no QPQ" debate.

Well the initial concern Bill Taylor had was that a QPQ was going on specifically in terms of withholding military aid (or other agreements) in exchange for personal projects Trump wanted him to pursue. So it's not so much "was there QPQ" but rather "was Trump using the QPQ at the expense of the nation for personal purposes. It's not even exactly about motive (the why) but about what the actual trade was (the what) if you're taking Taylor's side on it. My view is the why is more important, which indeed we'll never know because even if Trump were to say it outright people would take it as a cover-up.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #65 on: November 01, 2019, 12:21:30 PM »
to interfere in US elections

This has been code word for "very bad thing!" since Trump was elected. Can you please explain what "interfere" means? It was taken before to mean something-something-Russia, but I'd like to know what it means now in context of the Ukraine adhering to Trump's requests.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #66 on: November 01, 2019, 12:32:09 PM »
Thought on the Rule of Law - My opinion had Trump ignored the Muller investigation the outcome would have been the same – minus the obstruction question and much of the excessive speculation coverage.

If we don’t trust the House or Senate to adhere to the Rule of law process’s what’s the point in the House and Senate? Are we witnessing the end of those governing bodies, is this the draining of the swamp people wanted?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #67 on: November 01, 2019, 12:34:40 PM »
to interfere in US elections

This has been code word for "very bad thing!" since Trump was elected. Can you please explain what "interfere" means? It was taken before to mean something-something-Russia, but I'd like to know what it means now in context of the Ukraine adhering to Trump's requests.

It means a high ranking Ukrainian official publicly announcing an investigation into Biden(s) at the request of Trump. Based on some reports Trump was interested in getting a public statement that there was an investigation, which only has political benefits. It is not the interest of the USA, as a country, to have public announcement of an investigation.

But hey the call was "perfect," everyone does it, but all the deep staters claiming otherwise are just out to get the "stable genius."

Imagine if instead of a retired British spy digging up dirt on Trump, it was Obama calling foreign heads of state and saying, hey this Trump (property, taxes, money laundering, ...), that seems really bad, can you open an investigation into him? Make sure you announce the investigation publicly, thanks, oh yeah, that aid you needed "do me a favor*." Can any Republican here actually say they would have been okay with that behavior?

*Yes I know the DNC server was the investigation "favor," but the entire investigations part of the conversation followed that statement.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #68 on: November 01, 2019, 12:35:35 PM »
Shouldn't such a statement be a concern reference the rule of law.
He basically saying regardless of any testimony, findings, process, what have you their will never be a conviction.

I think if a prospective juror says that, they get dismissed. Speaking of due process.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #69 on: November 01, 2019, 12:41:56 PM »
to interfere in US elections

This has been code word for "very bad thing!" since Trump was elected. Can you please explain what "interfere" means? It was taken before to mean something-something-Russia, but I'd like to know what it means now in context of the Ukraine adhering to Trump's requests.

It means a high ranking Ukrainian official publicly announcing an investigation into Biden(s) at the request of Trump. Based on some reports Trump was interested in getting a public statement that there was an investigation, which only has political benefits. It is not the interest of the USA, as a country, to have public announcement of an investigation.

Maybe I'm not being clear: I know why you think this is a bad thing. I'm specifically asking in what way it is interference, which is the same word that was used about Russia in context of them making social media posts and (possibly) doing some hacking. How does it "interfere" with U.S. elections; or do you mean "affect"?

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #70 on: November 01, 2019, 01:07:40 PM »
Shouldn't such a statement be a concern reference the rule of law.
He basically saying regardless of any testimony, findings, process, what have you their will never be a conviction.

I think if a prospective juror says that, they get dismissed. Speaking of due process.

I suspect a prospective Judge would also be dismissed

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #71 on: November 01, 2019, 01:09:54 PM »
M Gladwell made an argument that for society to function a  ‘Default to the Truth’ is required. Essentially when dealing with those we don’t know starting from a position giving them the benefit of the doubt is a better place to start for most interactions. Bad things are more likely to happen when we start from a place thinking we ‘know’ the stranger is wrong, bad, upto something.  We tend to function better not thinking everyone that walks past us is going to kill us or every person serving our food is spiting in it.

With social media my observation is that we don’t ‘Default to the Truth’ and it’s making us miserable while undermining our institutions.  To often I’m noticing that we are stating to use the expectation of the lie as an excuse to accept using the same methods of those not trusted.  An eye for a eye for a eye…. How can society function if we don’t ask better of ourselves? Assuming as it has been pointed out to me that for many on this forum 'The Rule Of Law' is what matters.



D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #72 on: November 01, 2019, 01:24:36 PM »
‘Default to the Truth’ seems more confusing than necessary when what you are talking about is rather 'Default to Trust.  At issue is the nature of anonymity online. 

In your tiny village / neighborhood / school, you learn who is and is not honest.  There are repercussions.   When dealing with strangers on a city wide level, this is strained and people become slightly less trustful of strangers, but still, you can learn to recognize individuals by name or by sight and know if you, or those you trust have a positive or negative opinion of their truthfulness. 

On the internet though?  You are best served by asking WHY someone is participating.  Genuine passion?  A desire to educate or share with others?
 Entertainment?  In order to refine their own views on a subject?  Curiosity?  Maybe they just like feeling superior to others.  Maybe they see a method to generate income.

Several of those motivations are best served by NOT being honest.  While what you describe does have some caustic impacts on our society, I would point out that 'correcting' that 'problem' leads to significant problems as well.  Those who are gullible, or duped into believing things they do not, (or perhaps cannot reasonably) verify.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #73 on: November 01, 2019, 01:29:17 PM »

It means a high ranking Ukrainian official publicly announcing an investigation into Biden(s) at the request of Trump. Based on some reports Trump was interested in getting a public statement that there was an investigation, which only has political benefits. It is not the interest of the USA, as a country, to have public announcement of an investigation.
I haven't seen evidence that Trump requested a public statement of any kind but assuming he had, it doesn't automatically mean that the request for the investigation itself was illegitimate.
Quote
Imagine if instead of a retired British spy digging up dirt on Trump, it was Obama calling foreign heads of state and saying, hey this Trump (property, taxes, money laundering, ...), that seems really bad, can you open an investigation into him? Make sure you announce the investigation publicly, thanks, oh yeah, that aid you needed "do me a favor*." Can any Republican here actually say they would have been okay with that behavior?

If Trump was a leading candidate for an upcoming general election, it would be 100% in Obama's purview to make sure he wasn't involved in foreign influence and/or corruption. If he was a private citizen, not so much.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #74 on: November 01, 2019, 01:47:49 PM »
‘Default to the Truth’ seems more confusing than necessary when what you are talking about is rather 'Default to Trust.  At issue is the nature of anonymity online. 

In your tiny village / neighborhood / school, you learn who is and is not honest.  There are repercussions.   When dealing with strangers on a city wide level, this is strained and people become slightly less trustful of strangers, but still, you can learn to recognize individuals by name or by sight and know if you, or those you trust have a positive or negative opinion of their truthfulness. 

On the internet though?  You are best served by asking WHY someone is participating.  Genuine passion?  A desire to educate or share with others?
 Entertainment?  In order to refine their own views on a subject?  Curiosity?  Maybe they just like feeling superior to others.  Maybe they see a method to generate income.

Several of those motivations are best served by NOT being honest.  While what you describe does have some caustic impacts on our society, I would point out that 'correcting' that 'problem' leads to significant problems as well.  Those who are gullible, or duped into believing things they do not, (or perhaps cannot reasonably) verify.

'Default to Truth' as a term used in a study Gladwell was referencing. I thought of it as 'benefit of the doubt'. 
Gladwell use the term in relation to strangers. People that 'pass us by' not those we will get to know or interact with on a regular bases.

My thought on social media is that due to the virtual aspect of it everyone remains a stranger while 'Social media' is the stranger we think we know where the default to distrust is locked in place and everyone who participates is painted by that brush. 
Starting with a default to distrust is reasonable however such a starting point requires a great deal of self awareness and ability to admit when we get it wrong and don't know.  The default to distrust becomes a lock

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #75 on: November 01, 2019, 01:54:19 PM »
Quote
Imagine if instead of a retired British spy digging up dirt on Trump, it was Obama calling foreign heads of state and saying
I understand this is (part of) your point, but in case it gets lost in the details: Fusion GPS was hired by political (non-governmental) entities - specifically, The Washington Free Beacon and the DNC. I don't think anybody accused Obama of being involved in contracting with Fusion GPS to acquire opposition research on Trump.

That being said, there are people posting on this thread who took a huge amount of exception to the DNC working even so indirectly with Steele, and who have no issue with what Trump has admitted to doing directly in his role as president.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #76 on: November 01, 2019, 05:22:56 PM »
Quote
McConnell is making it clear there will never be a conviction on this bull*censored*

Shouldn't such a statement be a concern reference the rule of law.
He basically saying regardless of any testimony, findings, process, what have you their will never be a conviction.

I understand if someone thinks a sitting President can't be convicted or the issue at hand ins't a high crime or whatever, However for the sake of the rule of law shouldn't we allow the process to be the process.

If Moconnell is in fact making it clear that regardless there will never be a conviction. Isn't that a problem. Shouldn't he keep that to himself.

You guys keep telling me this is not a legal proceeding but a political one. Being such, it will be resolved by political means and not legal ones. Democrats have gleefully tossed the rule of law in this to support political goals, now Republicans are perfectly free to do the same.

McConnell is doing just the right thing in letting it be known that there is nothing in the latest impeachment effort (this being the 4th one now) that is conviction worthy, that it is nothing more than the latest sham effort to overturn an election.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #77 on: November 01, 2019, 05:35:55 PM »
Two wrongs make a right is a fallacy.

Quote
Speaker A: You shouldn't embezzle from your employer. It's against the law.
Speaker B: My employer cheats on their taxes. That's against the law, too!

It's the assertion that it is okay to break the law as long as your victim is a criminal.

It's like fighting terrorists and saying, "Well damn, if they're going to cut heads off, we might as well start killing their wives and kids!"

Which, let's not forget, Trump actually advocated.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #78 on: November 01, 2019, 06:59:00 PM »
Two wrongs make a right is a fallacy.

Quote
Speaker A: You shouldn't embezzle from your employer. It's against the law.
Speaker B: My employer cheats on their taxes. That's against the law, too!

It's the assertion that it is okay to break the law as long as your victim is a criminal.

It's like fighting terrorists and saying, "Well damn, if they're going to cut heads off, we might as well start killing their wives and kids!"

Which, let's not forget, Trump actually advocated.

Obama actually did it via drone strike, and IIRC, those children were US citizens, oops.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #79 on: November 01, 2019, 08:28:44 PM »
It’s amazing how the left constantly get in a twist over Trump saying something that Obama or other Democrats have actually done.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #80 on: November 01, 2019, 09:17:08 PM »
It’s amazing how the left constantly get in a twist over Trump saying something that Obama or other Democrats have actually done.

To be fair to Obama, they were targeting the terrorist, not his family. However, the terrorist wasn't actually there--but his kids were.

The Obama Admin also bombed a wedding as I recall, thinking it was a terrorist gathering in Afghanistan, only no sign of any (known) terrorist actually having been there. But intelligence does screw up from time to time.

While what Trump was discussing was actual deliberate targeting of family members. So it isn't quite the same thing, even if the result is closely comparable.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #81 on: November 01, 2019, 09:31:51 PM »
And don't forget Bill Clinton bombing the aspirin factory on the eve of the Lewinsky hearings, either as a futile attempt at distraction or perhaps just in a fit of rage wanting to kill someone to prove how much power he still had.

Wiki: "These justifications for the bombing were disputed by the owners of the plant, the Sudanese government, and other governments. American officials later acknowledged "that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed, officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the 1980s." The attack took place a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and two months after the film Wag the Dog, prompting some commentators to describe the attack as a distraction for the public from the scandal."

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #82 on: November 02, 2019, 08:18:17 AM »
It’s amazing how the left constantly get in a twist over Trump saying something that Obama or other Democrats have actually done.

To be fair to Obama, they were targeting the terrorist, not his family. However, the terrorist wasn't actually there--but his kids were.

The Obama Admin also bombed a wedding as I recall, thinking it was a terrorist gathering in Afghanistan, only no sign of any (known) terrorist actually having been there. But intelligence does screw up from time to time.

While what Trump was discussing was actual deliberate targeting of family members. So it isn't quite the same thing, even if the result is closely comparable.

I thought you were talking about Anwar Al-awaki and his son. Both Americans, they were murdered by Obama via a drone strike. As you note, not a deliberate targeting of the child but that’s not a free pass on murder. My point stands, what Trump talks about, Obama and Democrats literally do.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #83 on: November 04, 2019, 12:32:56 PM »
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776075712/read-ex-state-department-adviser-michael-mckinleys-testimony-to-congress

This is mostly just a link to the transcript of McKinley's testimony. I haven't read it, I have no idea if it looks good or bad for Trump, probably bad since the guy recently resigned siting the treatment of diplomats but I don't have the time to read through 20+ pages of congressional testimony.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #84 on: November 04, 2019, 06:50:21 PM »
The hint was NPR as the linked source. Nobody has to read it, that tells you exactly what the story willbe.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #85 on: November 04, 2019, 08:34:59 PM »
It's a link to the transcript of his testimony, Crunch.  How can a transcription being linked from NPR change the contents of the transcription in any way? SMH

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #86 on: November 05, 2019, 07:40:48 AM »
Actually, I did not claim NPR changed the transcript. You just made that up. Why are you making things up like that? The posts are adjacent, it’s super easy to see you’re just, well, being dishonest about what I said.

The last couple of posts from you I’ve seen are completely uncalled for personal attacks on others or just outright, obvious, falsehoods.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #87 on: November 05, 2019, 08:06:36 AM »
Oh please Crunch - if you're going to try to condescend, at least have the courage of your convictions.

So, what did you actually mean to imply by the following?
Quote
Nobody has to read it, that tells you exactly what the story willbe.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #88 on: November 05, 2019, 01:32:56 PM »
Oh please DonaldD - if you’re going to just make up things at least have the courage to own it when you’re caught and called on it. It’s called intellectual honesty, you should check it out.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #89 on: November 05, 2019, 01:53:01 PM »
I will repeat - so, what did you actually mean to imply by the following?
Quote
Nobody has to read it, that tells you exactly what the story willbe.
It's a pretty simple question.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #90 on: November 05, 2019, 01:55:56 PM »
I had the same take, it sounded like you thought it wasn't worth clicking on the link or looking at any of the information because ya just can't trust that NPR.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #91 on: November 05, 2019, 02:20:39 PM »
I will repeat - so, what did you actually mean to imply by the following?
Quote
Nobody has to read it, that tells you exactly what the story willbe.
It's a pretty simple question.

It is, in fact, a simple question. Would have been so easy to ask instead of just making things up, wouldn’t it? Let me ask another simple question, do you know you weren’t honest about what I said?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #92 on: November 05, 2019, 02:22:02 PM »
So that's a "no" then - you cannot answer?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #93 on: November 05, 2019, 02:24:50 PM »
I had the same take, it sounded like you thought it wasn't worth clicking on the link or looking at any of the information because ya just can't trust that NPR.

My point is that when the primary source of “news” around this is coaching the witnesses, refusing to allow questions that conflict with a preferred narrative, and conducting this all in secret, we can be sure that whatever is reported conforms to that narrative and, when it comes to DNC media outlets, we can be sure that it’s reported as demanded by their masters so as to shape the perception.

That is exactly what was done. So you could say I totally trusted NPR to do this. They didn’t disappoint.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #94 on: November 05, 2019, 02:25:58 PM »
So that's a "no" then - you cannot answer?

so that’s a “no” then you cannot be truthful?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #95 on: November 05, 2019, 02:38:45 PM »
Being Trumpian in your level of gaslighting doesn't actually make you look good, here, you realize...

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #96 on: November 05, 2019, 02:42:53 PM »
Aha, so you trusted NPR to publish the transcript completely and unaltered because it was generated by a corrupt process that fit their nefarious narrative. Whereas a good news organization would avoid the transcript, or cherry pick items out of context to make it more balanced... ???

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #97 on: November 05, 2019, 03:16:06 PM »
I had the same take, it sounded like you thought it wasn't worth clicking on the link or looking at any of the information because ya just can't trust that NPR.

My point is that when the primary source of “news” around this is coaching the witnesses, refusing to allow questions that conflict with a preferred narrative, and conducting this all in secret, we can be sure that whatever is reported conforms to that narrative and, when it comes to DNC media outlets, we can be sure that it’s reported as demanded by their masters so as to shape the perception.

That is exactly what was done. So you could say I totally trusted NPR to do this. They didn’t disappoint.

But, since all this was done "in secret," you actually don't know any of this.  You're just hoping it's true!  ;D

Of course, if you were curious enough to test your ideas, you would look at the transcripts and see if there was any "refusing to allow questions that conflict with the preferred narrative" by the Republicans who were present in this "secret meeting" (which isn't all that secret anymore since the actual transcript--not a summary like Trump's "perfect call"--was released).

Perhaps you are waiting for the Trump version of the transcripts?

Quote
Trump has not responded well to the current turn of events. In fact, one could spend a very long time scripting a response for him, and it probably wouldn't be worse than what he actually came up with. Here it is:

Quote
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
If Shifty Adam Schiff, who is a corrupt politician who fraudulently made up what I said on the “call,” is allowed to release transcripts of the Never Trumpers & others that are & were interviewed, he will change the words that were said to suit the Dems purposes. Republicans...

74.3K
4:48 PM - Nov 3, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
31.9K people are talking about this

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....should give their own transcripts of the interviews to contrast with Schiff’s manipulated propaganda. House Republicans must have nothing to do with Shifty’s rendition of those interviews. He is a proven liar, leaker & freak who is really the one who should be impeached!

54.7K
4:48 PM - Nov 3, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
24.2K people are talking about this

First of all, the President might as well hire a skywriter to fly over Washington and write: "THIS ALL LOOKS VERY BAD FOR ME!" His response could not make that any more clear. Still, his game is clear—he wants to raise doubts about the credibility of what people are going to be reading in newspapers and on websites over the next few days. That despite the fact that if Trump's claim was true—that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) is cooking the books—the witnesses would promptly take note of that and point out the distortions.

Meanwhile, in his attempt to create "alternative facts" for his base to believe in, Trump has just publicly called for the members of Congress to falsify evidence. That is a crime, and it's surely a high crime and/or misdemeanor.

Let's see how many of the witnesses point out any distortions. ;)

That's what is so funny about Republicans like you.  You keep telling us how we can't trust the MSM, then feed us a bunch of just-so stories based on bias and wishful thinking which is even less reliable than the MSM.  ;D   TSS at it's best.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #98 on: November 05, 2019, 03:42:51 PM »
No one but you is calling the "transcript" "a fake."  I'm certainly not.  What I was pointing out is that it was not a word-for-word transcript of the conversation, which means that it is not a record of the exact wording and phrasing, and apparently is even missing portions of the call.  So it is not a transcript, and does not provide a complete record of the conversation.  It says so itself in the flag note on the first page.

As best I can tell this is a statement of faith.  If you're anti-Trumper you believe that this document leaves out material things (despite a lack of any real evidence of this).  To my knowledge this roots back to a discredited opinion piece on Vox that purported to analysis the amount of the words used and the length of the call.

The recent testimony of Vindman is the only thing that even softly supports the idea, but even there it's based on a mis-understanding of how that process works.  Vindman may have heard the words, or his notes may have reflected what he thought was said, but if the rest of the listeners disagree with him his edits get rejected. 

All we really know is that the call seems not to have been recorded, and therefore this kind of record keeping is the standard approach. 

What we don't know - and have no reason other than conspiracy theory to believe - is that the transcription fails to reflect anything material that was said.

Quote
So, yes, everyone is in on the "conspiracy," because they stated it in black and white on the very first page!  ::)

All they stated is the way they recorded the call, real time notes and general agreement among listeners.  They didn't state anything that implies that the record is misrecorded, has ommissions or otherwise is deceptive, that's all things your imagination is supplying.

Quote
The meetings are not "secret" because there are Republicans, and their staff, on every single committee, who hear the testimony at the same time as the Democrats on the committees.

They are secret because the testimony is kept under lock and key (or was).  In fact, I read that how they are keeping it is more improper and a bigger misuse than the White House keeping the President's calls on a secured server.

Quote
And you do realize that according to the rules of the House of Representatives (which were approved by vote in 2015), these hearings are supposed to be held in private?

Which hearings?  Lots of throwing around of the "rules" that is really just a misapplication of something else.  If you want to be technical, the precedent is for impeachment to be handle by the judiciary committee not the intelligence committee.  But let's not pretend the rules mean anything here.  There is no House rule that survives contact with the majority, there is no rule that requires a supramajority to change, nor anything that can be done without a majority of even open violations.

Fascinating that we have an entire thread about whether the President is above the law but completely ignore that for the most part Congressmen are even more above the law when it comes to abusing their powers.

Quote
And remember--these hearings are not a trial.  They are more like a Grand Jury investigation.

I love this lie.  These have none of the procedural protections of even a Grand Jury.  They are "more like" a witch trial than any part of the existing American justice system.

Quote
Testimony and facts are being uncovered.

Maybe, tough to actually say, even at this point.  Certainly, we are "uncovering" that a bunch of people in government hate Trump.

Quote
Hearsay is allowed.  If there are sufficient facts, they go to the Senate, where the facts are reviewed.

I guaranty the House intends to hold a trial equivalent before they turn it over to the Senate.  This process is intended for political damage, that won't happen if the issue is presented fairly to the Senate for a fair trial.  Ergo, the House with "try" the case in public before they take it to the Senate and attempt to turn the Senate into a rubber stamp.

Quote
That's where lawyers and cross-examination occurs.

Except that's not true based on historical precedent.  The House previously followed that process.

Which makes sense if you consider the point of the prior House processes was to get to the truth, letting cross examination poke holes in witnesses and call other witnesses would tend to give the whole picture to the House as it's deciding what to do.  This process, on the other hand, is not designed to get to the truth, it's designed to get to a result.  Fairness and cross examination get in the way of the "result."  Ergo, we can't have them.

Quote
So complaining that the Republicans on the committees may not have as much information or latitude as they would wish is just obfuscation.  They'll have their chance, in the chamber they control.

Which reflects a complete abdication by the House to get the facts and to treat impeachment as a serious matter.  That's purely the answer of a political calculation.

There is NO LEGITIMATE reason for the House not to be interested in exculpatory evidence.

Quote
When you have the facts on your side, you pound the facts.  When you have the law on your side, you pound the law.  When you have neither, you pound the table.  There has been a lot of table-pounding about this lately. :)

And when you have neither facts nor the law, but you do have a majority, you rig the game.  Lot's of rigging the game going on.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Race is On
« Reply #99 on: November 05, 2019, 03:49:35 PM »
Quote
Of course, if you were curious enough to test your ideas, you would look at the transcripts and see if there was any "refusing to allow questions that conflict with the preferred narrative" by the Republicans who were present in this "secret meeting"
WS, I think you are being waaaay too subtle here.  You should just point out that in this particular transcript, there at least dozens of pages of testimony (I stopped after about 40 pages, but it kept going) questions and answers, asked by the Republican representatives and answered by the ambassador.  And no, there were no interruptions from the Democratic representatives or chairman.  Which puts to the lie "refusing to allow questions that conflict with a preferred narrative"