Author Topic: The Shampeachement Follies  (Read 34333 times)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #600 on: February 18, 2020, 02:43:36 PM »
Barr said expressly that it didn't influence the decision, which means regardless of word not an interference.  Now the media blowing it out of proportion?  That certainly is interfering in his ability to do his job, and that can be tracked back to Trump's tweet (even if the coverage is solely an act of politics).

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #601 on: February 18, 2020, 04:12:26 PM »
Quote
... and much of the deep state Bureaucrats
Boogaboogabooga

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #602 on: February 18, 2020, 04:18:26 PM »
So then you'd be cool if we replaced the entire federal work force with new workers that support Republicans 95% of the time?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #603 on: February 18, 2020, 04:20:46 PM »
The deep staters you're talking about had no problem serving in the Bush administration and in some cases going back to Reagan. They support plenty of republicans, just not lunatics that attack them on a daily basis.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #604 on: February 18, 2020, 04:31:14 PM »
Lol,  if you ignore turn over in the federal work force, that Obama was a master at embedding political appointees into career positions, and that dems have been pursuing a regulatory control strategy for decades, you could almost have a point.  But you don't, cause it's just a fact that the Bureaucracy is Dem controlled and has been ignoring their actual duties to pursue resistance at every turn (much like how they were out of control under Obama in the same Dem favoring direction) to the point of actually using multiple government agencies to attack political opponents.

Even still, in the past what they could do was far more limited, because there wasn't he same level of communications tech to make coordination not only possible, but trivially easy. 

It's just stunning, you are concerned about Trump's non-existent abuse of power, and totally ignore the rampant abuse of power by bureaucrats.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #605 on: February 18, 2020, 04:36:04 PM »
Quote
... and much of the deep state Bureaucrats
Boogaboogabooga

Deep

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #606 on: February 18, 2020, 05:08:56 PM »
Quote
it's just a fact that the Bureaucracy is Dem controlled and has been ignoring their actual duties to pursue resistance at every turn
The confirmation bias is strong in this one... (and very consistent)

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #607 on: February 18, 2020, 05:16:55 PM »
Lol, so do you have any evidence at all that the federal bureaucrats evenly support Republicans?  Or that they've not leaked and resisted Trump to a far far greater degree than Obama (who they actually facilitated)?

Or is just the pot calling the kettle black with your assertion of confirmation bias?

Honestly, I used to think people argued in good faith, but I'm doubting it more an more everyday.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #608 on: February 18, 2020, 06:09:42 PM »
Are they leaking more? Yes. But you're assuming it is a partisan motivation rather than wanting to reveal something they truly believe is wrong.

Quote
Two examples include the leaking of transcripts of Trump's phone calls with foreign leaders to the Washington Post, and the disclosures about irregularities in the way the White House processed senior presidential adviser Jared Kushner's security clearance to NBC News.

Those are two big examples. But did they get leaked because Trump is a psycho blowhard that insults foreign leaders, or because they just don't like him? I doubt anything Obama did was wild enough for someone to blow the whistle. Now you might hope that they would instead raise the issues internally. But given Trump's tendency to crush anyone who dares question him? Can you take it to Congress? We see how well that worked out.

I highly doubt that Obama overruled a clearance judgement, and he certainly didn't do it for one of his in-laws. I'd like to think that if he did, that would have been leaked as well. I'd like to think that someone would expose a call that he made where he was petty and unreasonable and undiplomatic. I can't prove it, maybe Obama did these things all the time and the deep state was just fine with it.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #609 on: February 18, 2020, 07:15:55 PM »
Well Barr felt it was interfering, making his job harder, and last time I checked he's not part of the evil left.

I don't think that word means what you think it means in the context it was given.

Trump's tweets and other comments cause massive optics problems which greatly interfere in several departments ability to effectively conduct their roles and duties. Not necessarily because of what Trump did, but from how others respond to what he said.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #610 on: February 18, 2020, 07:36:38 PM »
Hmmm... Federal Judges Association joins "leftwing media", as do more than 2000 former DOJ officials and federal prosecutors.  The "leftwing media" is certainly becoming quite a big tent.

I could see this two cut two different ways, but think calls for resignation are premature. Without even touching those two directions it could cut, I'm dubious about the 2,000 signatures claim. A lot of those petitions, once they start drilling into the names, tend to end up including completely invalid names, or even "signatures" that the name belongs disavows having ever signed.

Option 1) The DoJ was politicized and "weaponized" under Obama, and a number of those "bipartisan signatures" refuse to belive that to be true, and are operating on the presumption that it absolutely did not happen, which leaves only Barr being "Trump's lap dog." But if you go with the DoJ having been weaponized under Obama, then what may seem to be Barr "doing Trump's bidding" is in fact him trying to clean up DoJ instead. Throw in Never Trump Replublicans, and Democrats(given the heavy pro-Democrat skew for many Government Agencies) in general, and seeing something get 2,000 signatures to support embarrassing Trump is downright trivial to achieve given the size of it's of living former employee pool, never mind the people currently working there.

Option 2) Barr is in fact doing Trump's bidding. I've covered this previously elsewhere, I don't think Barr is serving as AG this time for the purpose of ladder climbing. He's not there because he needs the paycheck. He's there because he feels there is a job that needs to be done, and based on his past record, he's acting based on personal principles(which he had been well regarded for in the past--by both parties) rather than based on what Trump wants. (While Trump's "wants" may align with where some of Barr's principles lead, that isn't to be confused with Barr changing positions to suit Trump's whims)

I'm awaiting his testimony before Congress in the coming month to explain what was going on. I've previously said that the optics on this whole affair are bad and presents a good case for Congress to investigate and exercise their power of oversight. But jumping straight to demanding a resignation before he has a chance to present his case is very highly premature.

The other thing happening in the background is that a number of other investigations regarding DoJ Activiies in 2016 are still ongoing, and Barr is privy to that information, and most of the latest events involving Trump associates also revolves those same 2016 investigations. It is entirely reasonable to believe that finds from those investigations, rather than Trump's hot air, are what is guiding Barr's decisions.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #611 on: February 18, 2020, 07:37:59 PM »
Are they leaking more? Yes. But you're assuming it is a partisan motivation rather than wanting to reveal something they truly believe is wrong.

Recursion is a very real thing, and this statement has it going on in spades.

A Partisan is going to be more inclined towards being either alarmed or conclude something to "be wrong" if the activity they're witnessing directly contradicts their partisan beliefs, harms their partisan cause, or benefits their partisan rival. Exculpatory factors do not matter to a partisan.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 07:43:49 PM by TheDeamon »

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #612 on: February 18, 2020, 09:30:55 PM »
Or Option 3) The DoJ was politicized and "weaponized" under Bush, and yet even those Republican operatives have found Barr's actions to be beyond the pale.

I love how everything comes down to being unproven and unprovable conspiracy theories designed to hurt Trump, whose every decision, action and associate (even the convicted felons) are unimpeachable according to his accolytes.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #613 on: February 19, 2020, 05:13:45 PM »
Trump alleged to have attempted to bribe Assange to clear Russia of Wikileaks involvement in 2016 election

It's still early days, but Assange's barrister made the claim in front of a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court, so he must be fairly confident in his ability to support the claim.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #614 on: February 19, 2020, 06:04:46 PM »
Trump alleged to have attempted to bribe Assange to clear Russia of Wikileaks involvement in 2016 election

It's still early days, but Assange's barrister made the claim in front of a judge in Westminster Magistrates' Court, so he must be fairly confident in his ability to support the claim.

I have heard about this, but it should also be noted that the news is editorializing the headline. For instance some sources are reporting that Trump was bribing Assange to "lie" about the fact that it was Ukraine, and not Russia, involved in 2016 interference. This implies that Trump is corrupt and is trying to coerce people possibly on pain of death to serve his evil agenda. But what I have heard is that in fact Assange really does believe this and has been saying it all along, which would mean that Trump will give him a pardon in exchange for making the same message he's been saying in context of Trump being correct about 2016. In this second scenario it makes Trump look merciful in a sense, that by looking past what another admin would see as treasonous actions the truth can come out instead.

Do you see how a partisan slant can make Trump's offer to him appear alternatively nefarious or beneficient?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #615 on: February 19, 2020, 07:05:29 PM »
It's an interesting theory, but strangely, Trump is not defending the alleged action as being righteous - he is denying having taken that action as if somehow he believes it to be a bad thing...
Quote
"The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he's an ex-congressman. He's never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.
"It is is a complete fabrication and a total lie."
Of course, Trump has previously praised Rohrabacher, an outspoken fan of Putin's, as being a "great congressman"... but that Trump lies with even the slightest of provocation is hardly a surprise to anybody anymore.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #616 on: February 19, 2020, 07:37:41 PM »
Quote
Do you see how a partisan slant can make Trump's offer to him appear alternatively nefarious or beneficient?

If he's been saying it all along, then he wouldn't have to be asked to say it. If he's never previously said it publicly, then at the very least you once again have a terrible optics problem with the suggestion of quid pro quo.

None of this is terribly new news, although it may have a little more weight.

Quote
Giuliani said he believed Assange may be able to "show who invented [the] false story that [Trump] colluded with Russians."

Giuliani, a former U.S. attorney and New York City mayor, said he was "not sure yet" if Assange helping exonerate Trump would lighten his possible criminal penalties.

That one isn't liberal media spin, it came out of the Washington Examiner.

Given the amount of times that Trump gnashed his teeth over how many people were giving false testimony in order to get plea bargains, I'm not sure why he would trust this. Oh, right, it would help him.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #617 on: February 19, 2020, 07:43:21 PM »
It's an interesting theory, but strangely, Trump is not defending the alleged action as being righteous - he is denying having taken that action as if somehow he believes it to be a bad thing...
Quote
"The President barely knows Dana Rohrabacher other than he's an ex-congressman. He's never spoken to him on this subject or almost any subject.
"It is is a complete fabrication and a total lie."
Of course, Trump has previously praised Rohrabacher, an outspoken fan of Putin's, as being a "great congressman"... but that Trump lies with even the slightest of provocation is hardly a surprise to anybody anymore.


Given the pace and breadth of media lies, this is an incredibly ironic thing to say. But it is a great story ... and they tell it so well. Run Forest Run.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #618 on: February 19, 2020, 07:51:26 PM »
Well Barr felt it was interfering, making his job harder, and last time I checked he's not part of the evil left.

With all things Trumpian, we must be patient and see how the machinations evolve. A professor who teaches the Philosophy of Persuasion (like my Professor at Michigan, James V. McConnell) could spend a whole term studying the ins and outs of Trump's Bully Pulpit. He's mentioned it before, but the media seems to have missed it. He saw how Bush 43 honored the office of the President, and tried to model himself after Reagan - rather than his own father. George W. Bush noted that Reagan ignored the media, and let history exonerate his actions. He was wrong. Reagan was a great communicator and didn't just ignore the media - he went around it, never letting a pejorative be sustained without addressing it. Bush 43 never addressed his attackers, he foolishly believed the media would do it for him, and history would make things right.

Trump knows the media will never give him a fair shake, so does like Reagan did, and goes round them. His use of social platforms dominates the news when he wants to do so. The media believes the public has a short attention span, and if they ignore correcting their own embarrassments, they won't be judged for their perfidy. What he hasn't done is smash the rule of law. What he does is challenge his attackers in ways they find hard to ignore. Decorum is no longer a principle that will muzzle him, like former Presidents were.

At the current moment, after his own exoneration, he used his Executive powers to pardon or commute unfair sentences and, makes the media address the Swamp, once again.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #619 on: February 19, 2020, 09:04:19 PM »
Are you suggesting Trump had not previously heaped praise on Rohrabacher, Crunch?

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #620 on: February 20, 2020, 07:32:37 AM »
I'm suggesting that constantly whining about what you call “lies” while also constantly championing organizations that have demonstrably and consistently lied to us is ironic. I don’t think you (and quite a few others) have a good grasp on what’s true anymore, just what’s ideologically correct and talking points - almost exclusively driven by orange man bad mythology.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #621 on: February 20, 2020, 10:03:52 AM »
Crunch, you are the only poster so focused on orange man syndrome - to the point of seeing everything you read being processed through that filter.  Also, why focus on the throw-away "lies" observation, while ignoring the substance of the posts?

By the way, what is this organization that you feel is being "championed" here?  Twitter?  BBC? The Westminster Magistrates' Court?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #622 on: February 20, 2020, 10:12:06 AM »
Lol, DonaldD, yes the Republican President praised a Republican member of the House running in a close election.  In other news, Senators often refer to each other as honorable and leaders of both parties say nice things about party members to the press.

But this "story" is funny, and way late.  It was already reported in 2017.  See for example https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918.   Where its clear that Rohrabacher was the one that came up with the "deal" and was pitching it to the White House (not the other way around).  As to what he was asking for?

Quote
The possible “deal”—a term used by Mr. Rohrabacher during the Wednesday phone call—would involve a pardon of Mr. Assange or “something like that,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. In exchange, Mr. Assange would probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia in the long-running controversy about who was the source of hacked and stolen material aimed at embarrassing the Democratic Party during the 2016 election.

“He would get nothing, obviously, if what he gave us was not proof,” Mr. Rohrabacher said.

So pretty literally, he was asking for proof not lies.  The report was on a leak of a call where Rohrabacher was talking with Kelly (not Trump), and ended up getting referred to the CIA.

Quote
“I would be happy to go with somebody you trust whether it is somebody at the FBI; somebody on your staff,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. The California congressman said he would be pleased to talk to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, but that the agency “has its limitations” and wanted “to cover their butt by having gone along with this big lie.”

All this back in September 2017.  Not seeing how its suddenly breaking news two and a half years later.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #623 on: February 20, 2020, 02:56:26 PM »
With the short attention span press and short memories as well, it's hardly shocking that they'd start dredging up forgotten stories from years past in an effort to try to smear in the present, as so (comparatively) few people are going to remember the proper context for what was going on.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #624 on: May 10, 2020, 09:42:32 AM »
Quote
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Quote
But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

So basically, Vindman lied. A lot.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #625 on: May 10, 2020, 09:50:11 AM »
Quote
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Quote
But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

So basically, Vindman lied. A lot.

Talk about making *censored* up.  TWS got you in it's short-fingered grip :)!

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #626 on: May 10, 2020, 10:05:52 AM »
Of course it's impossible to say what might be different regarding the coronavirus response if the Democrats hadn't gone ahead with the distraction of their shampeachment but it is certain that it was a major distraction at a critical time when the country could least afford it. And of course it didn't just distract Trump either. Maybe some of the Democrats would have had their eye on the ball and raised the alarm about the virus pandemic looming just over our collective shoulders but unfortunately they too were otherwise occupied on matters that were far less pressing. The point is that whole farce was a lot of time, money, energy, and attention spent on something that was a complete waste of all of it when there were far more important matters needing those resources.

Pelosi waving her little impeachment articles now looks a lot like Nero fiddling.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #627 on: May 10, 2020, 10:27:48 AM »
Of course it's impossible to say what might be different regarding the coronavirus response if the Democrats hadn't gone ahead with the distraction of their shampeachment but it is certain that it was a major distraction at a critical time when the country could least afford it. And of course it didn't just distract Trump either. Maybe some of the Democrats would have had their eye on the ball and raised the alarm about the virus pandemic looming just over our collective shoulders but unfortunately they too were otherwise occupied on matters that were far less pressing. The point is that whole farce was a lot of time, money, energy, and attention spent on something that was a complete waste of all of it when there were far more important matters needing those resources.

Pelosi waving her little impeachment articles now looks a lot like Nero fiddling.

Calling impeaching Trump a "distraction" says more about you than Nancy Pelosi, but it's clear that Trump will use the impeachment as a distraction to take people's attention away from his record in November.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #628 on: May 12, 2020, 07:51:24 AM »
Quote
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary.

Quote
But Vindman clarified during his testimony that the president did not bring up the topic rooting out corruption during the phone call, but he included it in his summary of the call anyway.

So basically, Vindman lied. A lot.

Talk about making *censored* up.  TWS got you in it's short-fingered grip :)!

Quoting Vindman abiut his admission that he made up things is dishonest. Right. 

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #629 on: May 12, 2020, 07:55:21 AM »
Not so fast!  Provide the quote. [playing Jeopardy music.....dum-dum...]

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #630 on: May 12, 2020, 10:14:15 AM »
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #631 on: May 12, 2020, 10:39:39 AM »
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.

As expected, but I was hoping Crunch would stick to his guns.  He brings to mind a saying, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  I have no evidence Crunch is being paid, but his posting history suggests he's acting as a sort of tester for possible lines of attack that Trump will use in November.  This one isn't true, but I'm confident he'll try out plenty of others.  TWS works that way.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #632 on: May 12, 2020, 12:05:57 PM »
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.

As expected, but I was hoping Crunch would stick to his guns.  He brings to mind a saying, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  I have no evidence Crunch is being paid, but his posting history suggests he's acting as a sort of tester for possible lines of attack that Trump will use in November.  This one isn't true, but I'm confident he'll try out plenty of others.  TWS works that way.

Another debate fallacy. (Politics of Personal Destruction. Instead of responding to facts and objective evidence, the advocate is reviled as being unfit to be believed. For example, Although Linda Tripp personally witnessed documents being illegally removed from Vince Foster's office (later to be discovered in Hillary's personal office), Her statements will not be considered because she was also a witness to the Billy Dale railroad in the Tavelgate scandal, which must mean it is an extreme right wing conspiracy and she must be a bad person. Paula Jones can not be believed because she had Republican attorneys. George W. Bush can not be believed as an advocate trying to fix the California energy crisis, because he was an oil man and must be greedy. Lack of logic = attack.)

The Democrat party has been guilty of Projection for so long, that it is easy to assume the rubber bodysuit position. What they say reflects mostly on themselves. Anyone who attacks the messenger because they cannot refute their points is probably just projecting. So, prove yourself not being paid by some Democrat handler to provide noise in the system.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #633 on: May 12, 2020, 12:10:57 PM »
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.

As expected, but I was hoping Crunch would stick to his guns.  He brings to mind a saying, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  I have no evidence Crunch is being paid, but his posting history suggests he's acting as a sort of tester for possible lines of attack that Trump will use in November.  This one isn't true, but I'm confident he'll try out plenty of others.  TWS works that way.

Another debate fallacy. (Politics of Personal Destruction. Instead of responding to facts and objective evidence, the advocate is reviled as being unfit to be believed. For example, Although Linda Tripp personally witnessed documents being illegally removed from Vince Foster's office (later to be discovered in Hillary's personal office), Her statements will not be considered because she was also a witness to the Billy Dale railroad in the Tavelgate scandal, which must mean it is an extreme right wing conspiracy and she must be a bad person. Paula Jones can not be believed because she had Republican attorneys. George W. Bush can not be believed as an advocate trying to fix the California energy crisis, because he was an oil man and must be greedy. Lack of logic = attack.)

The Democrat party has been guilty of Projection for so long, that it is easy to assume the rubber bodysuit position. What they say reflects mostly on themselves. Anyone who attacks the messenger because they cannot refute their points is probably just projecting. So, prove yourself not being paid by some Democrat handler to provide noise in the system.

Interesting that you're not defending what Crunch posted.  A great example of TWS and the "Politics of Personal Destruction. Instead of responding to facts and objective evidence, the advocate is reviled as being unfit to be believed.". Instead you go off into waddabout la-la land to revive decades old conspiracy theories that never had a shred of credibility.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #634 on: May 12, 2020, 12:13:32 PM »
I think wmLambert just recently discovered the word "projection"... he should probably look up "non sequitur"...

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #635 on: May 12, 2020, 01:48:35 PM »
I think wmLambert just recently discovered the word "projection"... he should probably look up "non sequitur"...

On the contrary. Both of you just continue with the same debate fallacy and try to spin it onto me. Look up the definition of "Projection:. You'll probably find it in the dictionary with a group photo of the Democrat party. I, and others, have been reacting to the democrat penchant for using it. for decades. Don't act like it is a novel or new idea to you. Look at Bill Clinton, and how he tried to stave off impeachment for having sex with an intern, by claiming "All the past presidents did it!" Claiming that Crunch was a paid undercover activist was the issue, and you turned it around to do it to me, too. Weak. Fenring, where are you?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #636 on: May 12, 2020, 04:58:04 PM »
Fenring, where are you?

Here? Last thing I posted on this thread was about Assange...

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #637 on: May 12, 2020, 05:00:13 PM »
Quote
Look at Bill Clinton, and how he tried to stave off impeachment for having sex with an intern, by claiming "All the past presidents did it!"

I assume this is a very sloppy projection on your part, unless you actually have a quote where he said that.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #638 on: May 12, 2020, 06:00:03 PM »
These are rabbit projections.  Most people grow out of such amusements.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #639 on: May 12, 2020, 07:47:12 PM »
...I assume this is a very sloppy projection on your part, unless you actually have a quote where he said that.

I refuse to believe you are too young to have ever witnessed Clinton's accusation of all the past Presidents and Founders, in order to minimize his own perfidy. If you have no personal knowledge of this, you also never looked at any history. Where do you think all the sniping at the Founders being slave-owners came from? Clinton even took aim at FDR and JFK and other celebrity Dems.

...One day there was reverence for our Founders, and then Clinton got caught with the cigar and blue dress. Then all the Founders and Presidents were disparaged. LBJ was caught saying "I'll have those ni****s voting Democratic for 200 years." Then Nixon got elected and his administration was said to be racist. (That was heard and reported by a porter on Air Force one, but he was Black, so of course he could not be believed.) The projection is there whether you want to admit it or not.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #640 on: May 12, 2020, 08:31:31 PM »
The problem, wmLambert, is that you are stuck so far into your own echo chamber that you are not a reliable witness.  Your memory is simply not convincing to anybody less partisan than yourself.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #641 on: May 12, 2020, 08:50:16 PM »
Number one, those presidents didn't do their dirty deeds with interns that worked for them. I would have seen nothing wrong at all if Clinton had consensual sex with someone who didn't work for the government.

I'm not sure how slavery is entering the picture. It certainly wasn't used as an excuse by Clinton for his behaviour. I absolutely was there at the time that news broke, and paid pretty close attention to everything he said about the subject. I'm certainly not going digging through everything he ever said to see if he ever said a disparaging word about random presidents - and it STILL wouldn't support your paraphrasing that he said "All the past presidents did it!". It would only support that he said "Some past presidents did it".

Words matter. You should be old enough to use them better. You should also understand how quotation marks work. They represent a direct quote when on the hind end of claiming somebody said them.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #642 on: May 13, 2020, 08:19:03 AM »
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.

As expected, but I was hoping Crunch would stick to his guns.  He brings to mind a saying, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  I have no evidence Crunch is being paid, but his posting history suggests he's acting as a sort of tester for possible lines of attack that Trump will use in November.  This one isn't true, but I'm confident he'll try out plenty of others.  TWS works that way.

Vindman admittedly made up parts of the call. Arguing that, sure, he made up parts but not the parts I like is not the brilliant argument you think it is.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #643 on: May 13, 2020, 08:31:08 AM »
Vindman admittedly made up parts of the call.
Which call are you talking about?  On what date, specifically?

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #644 on: May 13, 2020, 09:18:52 AM »
Quote
So Breitbart’s story contains a hint of truth; Vindman included something in a call summary that was not explicitly discussed between Trump and Zelensky.

But the outlet did not explicitly say which call the summary pertained to, making it look like Vindman "made up" parts of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky in July instead of the April call. Most readers would see the misleading headline and assume the Breitbart story is about the former since it’s the subject of the impeachment inquiry.

Breitbart confused you.

As expected, but I was hoping Crunch would stick to his guns.  He brings to mind a saying, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  I have no evidence Crunch is being paid, but his posting history suggests he's acting as a sort of tester for possible lines of attack that Trump will use in November.  This one isn't true, but I'm confident he'll try out plenty of others.  TWS works that way.

Vindman admittedly made up parts of the call. Arguing that, sure, he made up parts but not the parts I like is not the brilliant argument you think it is.
Then it should be pretty straightforward for you to produce links to the evidence that proves that Vindman did what you say. 

Why aren't you providing that evidence to us?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #645 on: May 13, 2020, 09:55:26 AM »
Vindman admittedly made up parts of the call.
Which call are you talking about?  On what date, specifically?

I believe he means the one where we have a transcript of it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #646 on: May 13, 2020, 10:51:26 AM »
He made up parts of A call not THE call that sparked all the commotion.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #647 on: May 13, 2020, 11:05:40 AM »
I believe he means the one where we have a transcript of it.
There are several such calls, where Vindman's notes were made available.

The point above is that Crunch was conflating different calls.  If one is going to interject, as one does so regularly, one should not ignore the context.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #648 on: May 13, 2020, 11:40:05 AM »
He made up parts of A call not THE call that sparked all the commotion.

Such as?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« Reply #649 on: May 13, 2020, 12:08:11 PM »
He made up parts of A call not THE call that sparked all the commotion.

Such as?

Quote
The essence of this claim is accurate — but not for the July call at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

The conservative news website Breitbart wrote Nov. 19 that Vindman "admitted he made up elements of President Donald Trump’s call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an official summary." Vindman, a Ukraine policy specialist at the National Security Council, testified in a public impeachment hearing earlier that day about what he heard during Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky. Vindman has been targeted by disinformation on social media since testifying.

As evidence, Breitbart quoted from an exchange between Vindman and Daniel Goldman, counsel for the Democrat-led House Intelligence Committee, about another call that took place April 21, during which Trump congratulated Zelensky on his election. Goldman questioned Vindman about the White House summary that Vindman wrote about the call.

Politifact.

Quote
Goldman: "Col. Vindman, you indicated that you did include in your talking points the idea of Ukraine rooting out corruption but that President Trump did not mention corruption. I want to go to the White House readout from the April 21 call. At the … I’m not going to read the whole thing, but do you see the highlighted portion where it says ‘root out corruption?’

Vindman: "Yes."

Goldman: "In the end, this readout was false. Is that right?"

Vindman: "Maybe that’s a bit of a … It’s not entirely accurate, but I’m not sure if I would describe it as false. It was consistent with U.S. policy, and these items are used as messaging tools also, so a statement that goes out, in addition to reading out the meeting itself, is also a messaging platform to indicate what is important with regards to U.S. policy."

Congressional testimony.