Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dad

Russia, the U.S.A., and the White House Administration

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

What if I like what Trump did?

If you like it, then it would mean you liked Trump withholding military aid to a foreign ally unless Ukraine had announced an investigation into one of Trump's political rivals.

Congress approved this aid, but as soon as Trump held it hostage on the condition of getting dirt on Biden, Republicans started to cover for Trump. I would be interested in why you would like what Trump did, because all things considered, I thought you were generally against abuse of power. I would find it rather out of character if you made an exception here. And let me clear, you're asking what if you liked what Trump did. That is not disputing that he abused of power. Merely suggesting that, whatever you like to call what he did, you like that he did it.

Republicans didn't just put party over country. They put a single individual above all else. They desperately tried to defend Trump, but to no avail. They attacked the process, and they attempted to out the whistleblower. Eric Swalwell summed it up best, that when someone pulls a fire alarm, who really cares who it was that pulled the alarm? What matters is that we have a fire to put out. Trump going after Marie Yovanovitch certainly does not help his case.

"What if I like what Trump did" is not a defense against voting out the GOP, nor against impeachment. It just means that you like what is demonstrably an impeachable offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

If you like it, then it would mean you liked Trump withholding military aid to a foreign ally unless Ukraine had announced an investigation into one of Trump's political rivals.

Congress approved this aid, but as soon as Trump held it hostage on the condition of getting dirt on Biden, Republicans started to cover for Trump. I would be interested in why you would like what Trump did, because all things considered, I thought you were generally against abuse of power. I would find it rather out of character if you made an exception here. And let me clear, you're asking what if you liked what Trump did. That is not disputing that he abused of power. Merely suggesting that, whatever you like to call what he did, you like that he did it.

Republicans didn't just put party over country. They put a single individual above all else. They desperately tried to defend Trump, but to no avail. They attacked the process, and they attempted to out the whistleblower. Eric Swalwell summed it up best, that when someone pulls a fire alarm, who really cares who it was that pulled the alarm? What matters is that we have a fire to put out. Trump going after Marie Yovanovitch certainly does not help his case.

"What if I like what Trump did" is not a defense against voting out the GOP, nor against impeachment. It just means that you like what is demonstrably an impeachable offense.

Well the polling isn't great for you homie. I think the democrats are vile people and anything to put them in their place is good for me

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

Well the polling isn't great for you homie. I think the democrats are vile people and anything to put them in their place is good for me

By polling, do you mean Biden, or Democrats in general? I don't like Biden, so I'm glad he's doing poorly. Biden losing in polling is great for me. I want him eliminated, and I think it would be absolutely hilarious if Trump spent all this time and effort trying to target Biden, only for Biden to fail to become the nominee anyway. The thing is, I can simultaneously dislike Biden and still think that Trump should be impeached for committing illegal acts just out of spite for Biden. Those are not mutually exclusive positions.

"Anything to put them in their place" is a garbage excuse. Trump withheld aid that both parties approved of, all so he could solicit Ukraine to interfere in an election. I'm not going to say that Democrats are perfect, but I have a hard time looking at Trump and thinking that they are the vile people in this scenario. If all you have for why you like what Trump did is that he did it to Democrats, then I maintain my position that the GOP should be voted out. It just proves that the only people who approve of Trump's actions are just as vile and petty as him.

This wasn't just about the Democrats. Trump was also screwing over Ukraine here. Do you like that held aid to Ukraine hostage? And I don't mean that with some caveat that it's okay just because he did it to "stick it" to the Democrats. Regardless of Trump's motives or how this affects Democrats, how can you like that he withheld aid to Ukraine? I hate to break it to you, but that actually is more important than however much you hate Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-flopped-in-the-iowa-caucuses-2020-2

I expect Trump to be acquitted because the GOP is okay with Trump committing illegal acts. After all, apparently extortion is okay if the victims are Democrats… well, and Ukraine, but we're going to ignore them because "fuck the libs" is clearly more important than anything else, amirite? However, I do love that, despite Trump attempting to rig the election in his favor, Biden so far looks to have only come in fourth place in Iowa. While the results have yet to be fully revealed, it's still a bad showing for Biden. It seems that Democrats don't want Biden anyway, so Trump went to all this effort for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your great-grandfather is not an excuse you can hide behind for supporting war crimes. I asked about Ukraine because I hoped you would be able to empathize with their position. All things considered, I should have known better.

So you like what Trump did because you hate Democrats and you're okay with Russia invading Ukraine. Thanks for proving my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

Your great-grandfather is not an excuse you can hide behind for supporting war crimes. I asked about Ukraine because I hoped you would be able to empathize with their position. All things considered, I should have known better.

So you like what Trump did because you hate Democrats and you're okay with Russia invading Ukraine. Thanks for proving my point.

Your fam bled to defend Ukraine vs the Nazis?

It never had a right to leave the USSR

 

ANYWAY

 

Image result for trump aquitted paper

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family participated in both World Wars, but I don't see how that's relevant. I mean, aside from how you are utterly incapable of acting in good faith, so you need to assume I have some personal attachment. Honestly, is that the only way you'll accept why I'm sympathetic to Ukraine? This is hardly the first time you've asked that sort of question. I asked what you meant about polling earlier because I was under the impression that you believe my criticism of Trump somehow comes from a place of support for Biden, so I wanted to clear up any confusion. It's like when I complimented Zai once, and you would not shut up for months on end about how he was somehow my best friend, and you were absolutely convinced that I was somehow stacking the deck by installing my friends on the mod team.

I didn't need a personal attachment to support Zai. I don't need a personal attachment to think that Trump targeting Biden is wrong. I don't need to have had a relative who fought on Ukraine's side in World War 2 to think that Russia's aggression deserves to be condemned, and that Trump withholding aid was fundamentally wrong. I'm sure there's more examples that would be relevant to my point, but I'll just cut to the chase. You tend to assume that whatever position I take comes from some greater connection. I can't think of an occasion where you've honestly been right about that, not that it's ever stopped you before. I know that empathy and compassion are alien concepts to you, but I can sympathize with Ukraine's position without that having anything to do with my family. I would find it an insult to my grandparents if I flaunted their experiences just to condone war crimes like you've done. Quite simply, I look at Trump and Russia attacking Biden and Ukraine respectively, see how those conflicts overlap, and decide that, hey, maybe Trump and Russia are in the wrong here.

If you're pissed that Ukraine won their independence, suck it up. Just as my family history is separate from why I criticize Trump and Russia, your great-grandpa is irrelevant. He didn't bleed to keep Ukraine in any "rightful place". He bled for a cause, and that cause failed.

Trump's acquittal is hardly impressive when the GOP refused to hear witnesses. The House managers made a good case, but Republicans didn't want to admit it. Hell, as soon as Romney voted in favor of one of the articles, Republicans were quick to claim that he's joined the Democrats, and think he should somehow be expelled from the party. As disappointing as acquittal is, the impeachment process did manage to force Republicans to go on the record that they're okay with this. I hope that, more than anything, will harm their chances in the coming election. If you have to be in lockstep with Trump to even be considered a Republican, that is a party that cannot be trusted with power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to Devin Nunes on inspiring Virginia to strengthen their anti-SLAPP laws! It's amazing how far we've come since Nunes's first sued Twitter just because his feelings were hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/bill-weld-new-hampshire-primary/606478/

A decent look at Bill Weld's primary. While he's absolutely not going to win, his campaign is more about proving a point during the primaries. Namely, whether the GOP is completely beholden to Trump and has become his cult, and trying to reduce his chances of winning. Weld cites Steve Bannon, who suggested that as long as Trump loses at least 3% of the traditional Republican vote, he will not be reelected.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/politics/va-house-electoral-college-popular-vote/index.html

The Virginia House of Delegates has also passed a bill to give the state's electoral votes to the candidate who won the popular vote. Considering how Trump lost that in 2016, this is a pretty helpful turn of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Horu Ishayuki said:

Wait. We might get a second Trump term?

Doubtful. Bernie is generally the better hope against Trump, and he's doing well, despite the efforts within the Democratic party. Trump is certainly going to win the primary, and Weld is aware of that. It's the general that would be the real test, and since Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, there have been efforts to ensure that the electoral votes will reflect the popular vote better this time.

Weld's goal seems to be to ensure that Trump loses in the general election. It's not about winning the primary himself, so much as diminishing the margins by which Trump becomes the nominee. It also helps that Biden losing in the primaries seems to be due more to Democrats already just not liking Biden that much. Trump seemed to be targeting Biden on the presumption that Biden would become the nominee, and basically hoped that the tactics that worked against Hillary would have a similar impact on Biden. So if Bernie, or, frankly, anyone but Biden becomes the nominee, then Trump simply hasn't put nearly as much effort against them as he has against Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/trump-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-interview/index.html

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30927792/trump-admit-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment/

I realize that Republicans don't actually care that Trump was guilty, because they're either too scared to stand up to him, or they think that punching left is totally the more important thing to do, and that Ukraine deserves to be invaded, but once again, Trump admits to what he did.

I'm still wondering what the hell more is needed. But as we've seen, it's never about actually getting evidence of wrongdoing. It's just that the right - and so-called "centrists" who only ever punch left, and are happy with Nazis as long as their victims are Democrats - are okay with Trump did. They ask for evidence because it makes for a convenient guise of neutrality, all the while they just want the left to lose. Doesn't matter one fucking bit to them if Trump is wrong, they just want to score points against the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 10:59 AM, Phantom Roxas said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/trump-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-interview/index.html

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a30927792/trump-admit-rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment/

I realize that Republicans don't actually care that Trump was guilty, because they're either too scared to stand up to him, or they think that punching left is totally the more important thing to do, and that Ukraine deserves to be invaded, but once again, Trump admits to what he did.

I'm still wondering what the hell more is needed. But as we've seen, it's never about actually getting evidence of wrongdoing. It's just that the right - and so-called "centrists" who only ever punch left, and are happy with Nazis as long as their victims are Democrats - are okay with Trump did. They ask for evidence because it makes for a convenient guise of neutrality, all the while they just want the left to lose. Doesn't matter one fucking bit to them if Trump is wrong, they just want to score points against the left.

No, I want to see the left broken and dismantled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

virginia gun bill's dead. as well it should be.

 

The story in a nutshell

 

Also, yeah Horu. it's almost a guarantee at this point. Bar his opponents somehow cheating, trump is looking like a guaranteed outcome at this point. also, not sure what your stance may be, but to preempt the question, assuming you may have it; no Horu, Trump will not, and has not cheated in an election. it was alleged, it was slapped down, and has since been discovered to be the exact thing it was called in the beginning. aka wrong and pointless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 10:02 AM, Ryusei the Morning Star said:

No, I want to see the left broken and dismantled

So, that's a more extreme answer than what I was saying, but my point stands. Trump's actions are indisputably wrong, and absolutely nothing Republicans have said on Trump's behalf offers a compelling defense. It's just about spite for the left, and placing more importance on that than recognizing that Trump's actions are illegal, and that he should have been appropriately punished for it.

13 hours ago, vla1ne said:

virginia gun bill's dead. as well it should be.

 

The story in a nutshell

 

Also, yeah Horu. it's almost a guarantee at this point. Bar his opponents somehow cheating, trump is looking like a guaranteed outcome at this point. also, not sure what your stance may be, but to preempt the question, assuming you may have it; no Horu, Trump will not, and has not cheated in an election. it was alleged, it was slapped down, and has since been discovered to be the exact thing it was called in the beginning. aka wrong and pointless.

The Virginia bill I was talking about was regarding anti-SLAPP laws, and had nothing to do with guns. Did you confuse the two, or are you trying to introduce a new discussion about the gun bill? As it stands, the Virginia legislature passed the anti-SLAPP bill, but since Virginia's House and Senate passed different versions of it, they just need to reconcile those different versions before passing it on to the governor. My understanding is that, if passed, it would not retroactively apply to Nunes's current frivolous lawsuits, but it could still prevent similar lawsuits in the future.

Hard to see how Trump's reelection is guaranteed. The primary, sure. Bill Weld has no chance of winning, and he seems to be keenly aware of that. It's why I'm okay if his intention is less about defeating Trump, and more about giving people an appetite for alternatives to Trump. When some states aren't holding primaries at all, and others compel voters to vote only on the ballot for the party you're registered to, it certainly gives Trump an advantage.

The general election, though? It's wishful thinking to claim that his victory is a guaranteed outcome. The Democratic primary is an absolute clusterfuck that had far too many candidates, and it's finally whittling down. Whoever becomes the nominee will likely do so in spite of biases ranging from the media to the DNC again, as fun as it is for other liberals to claim that it's a conspiracy. Biden is looking to lose, because, guess what, Trump did try to cheat. He did solicit foreign interference, and the defense that we saw from the likes of Susan Collins or Marco Rubio wasn't that Trump didn't do it, or that it was pointless. It was that they thought it was inappropriate to punish him, because they claimed it was invalidating the will of the voters.

If you were following impeachment, at not point did the GOP offer credible defenses against Trump. Kevin McCarthy made a pathetic attempt at gaslighting on 60 Minutes by claiming that Scott Pelley added a word when he read the transcript. Trump tried to turn "read the transcript" into a rallying cry, even though the transcript (Which was actually a memo, but I understand if that may be splitting hairs) did show that he did exactly what people accused him of doing. Barr has consistently been criticized because he acts more like Trump's personal defense attorney than a proper leader for the DOJ.

To claim that allegations against Trump were slapped down or discovered as "wrong and pointless", at best, shows a lack of understanding of the surrounding context. Trump installs people into positions of power for absolutely no clear reason beyond an expectation of complete loyalty to him personally. Again, the Republicans in Congress couldn't demonstrate that Trump didn't do anything wrong, they just argued that he shouldn't be punished for it. And given how Nunes was implicated during the House's hearings, we have at least one instance where a Republican was defending Trump because he was also guilty, so whether his defenses of Trump showed that Trump was not guilty is dubious at best. When the guy who said Trump is not guilty can only say so because he was specifically hired to do that, it just makes Barr more suspicious. When there is actually bipartisan support for calling on Barr's resignation, that means it isn't just Democrats who have reason to doubt Barr.

The allegations weren't found to be wrong or pointless. They were just met with an outcome Trump designed to end in his favor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said:

Hard to see how Trump's reelection is guaranteed. The primary, sure. Bill Weld has no chance of winning, and he seems to be keenly aware of that. It's why I'm okay if his intention is less about defeating Trump, and more about giving people an appetite for alternatives to Trump. When some states aren't holding primaries at all, and others compel voters to vote only on the ballot for the party you're registered to, it certainly gives Trump an advantage.

------middle of statement------

The allegations weren't found to be wrong or pointless. They were just met with an outcome Trump designed to end in his favor.

It is almost a guarantee. not quite a guarantee. I always leave room for miracles.


To start, you're making the same tired accusation. No, trump did not solicit help from a foreign power to attack Biden, he asked them to look into a possible case of corruption regarding their country and the United States. As the president, not only is that well within his rights, it's part of his actual duties. Hunter admitted he got the job on the basis of his name, we have seen several relatives of prominent politicians on the payroll of the company. If your opinion is that trump is corrupt for investigating it, then that's on you. as far as him knocking Biden out the race with the investigation, Biden was gonna lose regardless. No trump needed. He was bleeding from his eyes, forgetting what state he was in, sniffing people, and telling his own voters to vote for someone else when he got upset with them. Trump had nothing to do with any of that, unless you're trying to tell me trump is a dark wizard manipulating Bidens? 

Were you even following the same impeachment? The democrats literally blocked republicans from over 50 hours of the 70+ hour process, while also blocking them from calling witnesses to the stand while in the house. While also cutting into their house minority privileges. If you want somebody to blame, blame the democrats who thought it was a good idea to railroad impeachment along partisan lines in the senate, and then have the balls to complain when the republicans said they weren't letting them bring anybody new in when they finally got their clown-show passed to the house along partisan lines. They got hit with their own rules and lost at their own game. End of story. the GOP made several strong arguments, including the fact that there were no alleged crimes, the fact that the whistleblower Eric Ciaramella, is a confirmed never trumper, and that all the "witnesses" admitted that they were only third rate second hand witnesses who weren't even there at the time of the discussion. If they had better, they should have brought better when they had the chance to do so. Every other impeachment attempt had literal crimes attached, and bar nixon (who knew he was screwed from the start), even those weren't enough to work. The secondhand shit they were dragging to the floor was dead on arrival, and only the most TDS affected people would have seen it as anything else.

Your own lack of understanding shows here. You remember the allegations like him pissing on strippers? You remember the "mountains of evidence" claim by schiff? Yeah, shiff never showed his hand because he never had one, and each and every cause of the impeachment article was confirmed to have been circle sourced from the debunked steel dossier. The FBI was already watching trump before the election even ended. during the general election Obama had him tapped already. We found that out well after the election. If he or his family had done anything that could have been considered russia collusion in any court in the land, he wold have been nailed to the fucking cross. In other words, every thing that was presented was either traceable back to the guy who wrote it, the document itself, or was absolute trite. not a single argument stood up, and no, him saying "russia show us the files" does not count. russia claimed they had them, hillary denied they existed, trump said what everyone was thinking, and the rest was comedy gold. After all this time, people still think it held any more value that wet toilet paper. It was, is, and will remain a garbage argument. the FBI was watching him during the election, they spent 4 years, and hundreds of millions of dollars to try and find anything they could call collusion. Nothing at all worth mentioning as evidence showed up. That is the definition of a failed investigation. Face it, trump wasn't some mastermind. Your desired outcome was simply wrong, spiteful, partisan, and pointless.

 


Back to the substance of the topic though, in the general election, the most likely opponents currently are bernie and bloomberg from what i've seen so far, so to start with the weakest one:


Bernie has not only had a heart attack, he has had his mic taken from him twice now, at his own rally. On top of that, he has been robbed several times by his own party, and has said not a little bo peep about it. That is absolute weakness. If he's that much of a wimp there, he is not cut out to stand up to any foreign leader. They would take his mic and sit him down faster than his own supporters ever could. On top of that, we have multiple veritas videos demonstrating at least some of his supporters (as in, the ones working directly under him, the ones right on his staff) are perfectly fine with making communist gulags for republicans and people who sympathize with them, and that idea being more than an isolated incident is evidenced by the sheer level of violence seen during his rallys. more than any other democrat in fact. Almost more than even protests involving any rightwing group and antifa. His supporters don't even need outside political factions to be there to act out, they attack old white folks on the street, they attack those who wear clothes they don't like, they fight each other if they perform so much as a microagression, they might damn well be the entirety of antifa in casual clothes. The list goes on though, his plans are pretty much just free shit, state paid for, and he expects that to work when we have Venezuela showing us the inevitable outcome (and yeah, he praised Venezuela as a beacon of what he was looking towards, right before those same policies lead to the current state of Venezuela). If you think trump wouldn't use all that fodder to absolutely rip bernie a new one, you must be out of your mind. In fact, i hope bernie does get the nomination, i would happily laugh as we saw a near historic stomping again. He had a shot in 2016, even i was a supporter back then. He blew it, and now he's blowing the dnc like the rest of them.

As for the worse of the two, bloomberg is an absolutely corrupt person, who has actively used his money to influence an election before, and is the author and enactor of the SQF policy (stop question frisk, more often called stop and frisk). I doubt you support him, but if you do, that's a dissapointment in waiting on your end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unironically citing proven disinformation outfit Project Veritas isn't really helping your case. And Democrats followed rules that Republicans implemented for the Benghazi hearings, so I can't be mad at Democrats when they were following protocol that Republicans established. And let's not forget that they did allow relevant witnesses from Republicans during the House impeachment trial. However, when those witnesses gave testimony that was damaging to Trump's case, Nunes disowned them and falsely claimed that they were somehow witnesses for the Democrats. As I recall, some of the Republicans that were "blocked" were simply not on the committee, so they would have had no reason to be on there anyway. Like, I get that the Republicans said that they were being blocked, but there is a difference between obstructing someone who legally has a right to be there, and just choosing to not be in a room, but somehow saying it's someone else's fault for not inviting you.

I did point out that Biden was going to lose regardless. Multiple times. I was saying it was funny that Trump was going to such great lengths to try and sabotage Biden, when Biden is going to lose because Democratic voters already don't like him, regardless of Trump's efforts. And no, withholding congressionally approved foreign aid on the condition of getting that investigation is not within his rights. It was in fact what he was impeached for, though I noticed that you deliberately ignored that.

Wasn't Trump's paranoia that Obama had him tapped previously debunked? I'm just saying, it's hard to take it seriously when you try to somehow tie the articles of impeachment to the Steele dossier one moment, then in the next breath expect anyone to take Project Veritas or the "Obama wiretapped Trump" conspiracy seriously. Devin Nunes was widely mocked because he was obsessed with bringing up the Steele dossier when it wasn't at all relevant. "I'm not quite sure where you're getting "each and every cause of the impeachment article was confirmed to have been circle sourced from the debunked steel dossier." I recognize that the dossier was debunked, but that was in a completely separate investigation that had no bearing on impeachment, and the articles of impeachment were in response to the call with Zelensky. I didn't think you would need this clarification, but the call didn't have anything to do with the Steele dossier. As you yourself said on numerous occasions throughout this thread, the dossier is irrelevant. That was what made Nunes's performance in the House hearings pathetic. He kept trying to deflect onto it, but the witnesses were confused by he kept bringing it up.

Bernie spent 2016 condemning the DNC, to the point that the rules had been changed specifically to address his criticisms. The Iowa caucuses were a disaster, and Bernie was hardly quiet about that. I get that you love to be dishonest, even when it's such a really obvious lie. Again, just look at how your attempt to somehow frame the Steele dossier as the origin of the articles of impeachment as desperately as the Congressman suing Twitter because a satirical cow hurt his feelings. I understand if you're not paying attention to the primary, because it requires particularly willful ignorance to think that Bernie is somehow on the DNC's side now.

For what it's worth, no, I don't support Bloomberg at all. Mostly because, for the reasons you gave, I see him as just as bad as Trump. As far as I'm concerned, Steyer and Gabbard should drop out next because of their dismal performances in the caucuses thus far, as well as how they've failed to make it to the debate stage, and then I hope Bloomberg is next. I can take or leave Warren and Klobuchar, although I'm certainly open-minded to criticisms levied at them, particularly Klobuchar's history as a prosecutor. Biden is completely out of touch with reality and only seems capable of pointing to the 80s, if not decades earlier than that, as if they are somehow supposed to be a golden standard meant to aspire towards, and Buttigieg is just a younger, more incompetent Bloomberg.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/483642-poll-trump-edges-out-all-top-2020-democratic-candidates-except-sanders

The margin is too close for comfort, but so far it does seem like Bernie is the best candidate against Trump. The problem is that, just as too many people saw no significant difference between Clinton and Trump, it now seems like people are more eager to equate Bernie with Trump.

Regarding what you said about Bernie's supporters, the primary criticism I've seen there is direct comparisons to Trump and his own supporters. But I realize that you need to regurgitate whatever "enlightened centrist" talking points Tim Pool feeds you because it's harder to think for yourself, so I don't expect the comparison to mean much.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-offered-assange-pardon-if-he-covered-up-russian-hack-court-hears

Oh look, Julian Assange's lawyer said that Trump offered a pardon to Assange if he agreed to cover up Russia's involvement in hacking the DNC. What a completely unsurprising development completely in line with everything else we've seen.

EDIT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7Wv59W0uPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AnrGWF2ri4

I would recommend watching these videos. It seems to me that your arguments have gradually dwindled towards simply repeating whatever Tim Pool says. I think that's why you tried to go with the "impeachment was sourced by the Steele dossier" conspiracy. It might help if you were more willing to accept challenges to the source of your talking points.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.newsweek.com/2018/02/02/james-okeefe-project-veritas-american-pravda-fake-news-781964.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/project-veritas-how-fake-news-prize-went-to-rightwing-group-beloved-by-trump

https://www.niemanlab.org/2017/11/video-was-key-for-the-washington-posts-debunking-of-project-veritas-but-what-will-proof-look-like-in-an-era-of-easily-doctored-visuals/

Hopefully this will remind you guys that Project Veritas routinely spreads disinformation. Attempting to cite them - especially after they've been debunked over the past few years - is incredibly moronic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81JP4Y_qcFc

This video specifically addresses the "gulag" nonsense. vla1ne, you might need to look for more people to borrow your ideas from than just Tim Pool and James O'Keefe. When the only two people you depend on for thinking have been consistently proven wrong, or are known to be acting in bad faith, it makes me wonder if you genuinely believe what they are saying, or if you're hoping to be as successful as they have been in getting clout. Granted, I've seen people express uncertainty over whether even Tim Pool buys his own bullshit, but I don't necessarily think it matters what he believes. What matters more is that people somehow take him seriously, and just repeat what he says without taking a moment to actually think this through.

There is apparently no record that the supposed staffer actually works for Sanders. As John Iadarola points out, it looks more like Project Veritas films random people, and rides on a falsehood that they're somehow involved in a given campaign, and then hopes that people default to guilt by association. The fact that you impulsively buy whatever they sell displays a lack of critical thinking on your part.

Let me back up a bit, because I would like to address some potential hypocrisy I'm risking here. Whenever I've posted articles, Winter makes some really shallow attempt to dismiss them by pointing out that the writer or the outlet are left leaning. Rarely, if ever, does he actually address the merits of the article itself; merely hoping that bringing up any partisan association somehow discredits the article.

Unlike Winter, I'm not just pointing out that Tim Pool is a centrist (Or, well, someone who pretends to be centrist), and expecting that I've somehow challenged his points my making an association. With Pool and O'Keefe, I'm stating how their arguments are inherently dishonest. Just as you claimed that Obama wiretapped Obama - which Michael Horowitz had debunked back in December - and claimed that the articles of impeachment were somehow sourced around the Steele dossier, I can do more than just say that those claims are blatantly wrong. I can point to actual alternatives. I directed you to how no evidence was found of any wiretapping, despite the conspiracy theory. I can remind you what was the actual source of the articles of impeachment.

I suppose my mistake here is that I've been trying to frame your talking points as coming from both Tim Pool and Project Veritas. While I believe that's true, I think it would be more accurate to suggest that it seems Project Veritas posts a video first, then Tim Pool uses his platform to amplify that, and since you blindly follow like an "NPC" or whatever, you then have to filter his words - or rather, O'Keefe's - from there. When you're the third guy down on the totem poll at best, don't expect anyone to believe you seriously know what you're talking about.

EDIT:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/21/devin-nunes-lawsuit-trump-dossier-116675

Oh look, Nunes's lawsuit against Fusion GPS was tossed. It's almost as if his desperate vendetta against the Steele dossier is totally without merit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have not been there for this one, but veritas is beating every alleged charge against them in court. In other words, they're at least as legit as any source you want to use, if not moreso. Enough with that attempting to dismiss veritas, they were proven honest, whether you and your circle sources like it or not. You keep trying to claim that the people who point out the holes in your worldview are somehow grifters or fake news spreaders. No, veritas is a legit source, They have slapped down over 200 accusations already in court, and have yet to lose a case. Have they been accused of things? yes, and i gave you ground because i didn't have the time to look into it. I have since looked into it, veritas has absolutely destroyed every single accusation against them in a court of law. Veritas is a lgit source. Get over it. I bet your sources never show you that bit of info though, so you continue to spread that bull. Same with pool, but we'll get there.


Rules for thee and not for me is not an argument roxas. and beyond even that, no, the republicans did not stonewall democrats the way democrats just did the republicans. They may have cut time, but not once did they keep anybody out of impeachment hearings (in fact, they never moved to impeach obama) ion top of that, they did nothing to the level of what the democrats have done here. in fact, even when they had enough power to do so, they never moved to disrespect the rights of congress the way democrats currently have. When they lost the house, they fought using the rules of the house fairly. Democrats started the fight this time, and they got beat at the game they started. You being fine with them trying to play dirty had best mean you're fine with the outcome as well. I doubt that you are though, the cheating, disrespect, and general dishonesty seems to be 100% ok with you so long as they win at it right roxas?so long as it's from the side you're fine with, you don't mind when your members literally shoot the opposition, or when they try to run down 14 year olds with a car, or when they bash old ladies, or when they bash cancer patients who they thought were skinhead, or when they attack people with mace for disagreeing, or when they hold up entire blocks worth or regular people so they can attack anybody who dares object to their worldview, or when they bike lock people, or when they slap 14 year old kids because they vocally support the wrong candidate, or when they drag people across the ground for having a sign that dares contradict their worldview. or when they send death threats to the houses of people who have committed no crimes. Right roxas? you gonna disavow those, and the list o other crimes committed by your side against innocents? or is the victim having a different political opinion still enough justification for you?

Trump wasn't going after just biden in particular, unlike democrats over russia, trump wanted an impartial investigation into an event, and was not trying to drive a narrative. An offhand statement asking someone to look into it, vs, 4 years of investigation, broadcast by politicians and media outlets almost nonstop outright hoping that they got something they could pin him on, that they refuse to drop even today, which they abused the use of a document that they knew was false, to gain the right to continue renewing the right to investigate several times. There is a clear difference. Side note, do not try to claim it was "just a memo". If nobody has the base discussion, both parties declare it was offhand request, all people called to testify were secondhand accounts that heard it from a friend or the friend of a friend, ukraine didn't know there was even aid being withheld, and there were several good reasons, such as prior corruption, that justified aid being withheld (the literal US policy is to withhold aid until corruption has been shown to not be an issue, and even ignoring that policy at other times, is not sufficient justification for claiming adhering to it is wrong here). Even ukraines leader declares that there were no threats from the trump administration, nor did they even realize that there was aide being withheld at the time of the discussion, as it remained within the timeframe of the aid being dispersed. would you like to point out anywhere in the transcript where trump said they were going to withhold monetary aid? Hell he discussed it over a year before this whole debacle even popped up, and Biden outright bragged on camera for all to see that he was going to withhold aid unless they did the very thing he demanded of them. Clear difference.

FBI didn't wiretap trump? That was funny. You may ignore these things, but let's see what comey, the one who was directing the FBI at the time of the spying on trumps cabinet, testified in court, and went on broadcast claiming that trump was blowing smoke, had to say in 2017:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4b_aBL1Y0


 Hm... I guess i was wrong about that... But why was he so hesitant to outright state anything relating to the process that he as overseeing? He was the top dog, and the one who should have been overseeing anything relating to the case regarding trump, so why was he unable to outright deny anything from trump about wiretapping? Oh? a 2019 video about his statements in that video and about the report? Let's look at what else came up:

 

 

 

 

 

...Oof FBI not only tapped trumps team, comey, the person who claimed there should have been a long paper trail to detail anything like that, somehow couldn't find ANYTHING regarding it, when british intelligence found it almost as soon as trump said it happened? On top of that? Both Comey and leader of the FBI right now, Barr, explained how Steel dossier was integral in starting the entire investigation, and we all know how bullshit the steel dossier was especially as you continue to tell us how unimportant it was. You kept denying it back when we all said it was a fact, but now we have flat out confirmed from comeys own mouth that the steel dossier, the fake story that should have been trashed from the start, was somehow the fake story that got the ball rolling, and even after knowing that, the FBI team that was in charge of the investigation and was handpickd by James himself, kept using the steel dossier to fake their way through renewing the right to investigate. Spying on an american citizen, especially without proper papers, is a violation of US law as stated by the first link, and we now know that under absolutely false pretenses, somebody ordered it done, and somebody did it, and if we take james at his word in the first video, and using that knowledge to watch the second, then it was done with no documentation whatsoever. I assume you're with me when i say somebody should be getting jailtime on this one right?
 

yet somehow he was quiet when he got reamed over by the DNC and kissed Clinton ring finger? Just like you were wrong about the steel dossier, and the FBI investigation, you are wrong about benrie having anything that could be called courage. Robbed of the 2016 election, robbed of his mike, almost got robbed by the buttigieg squad in the Iowa caucus, and barely contains the violence of his own followers even at his own rally, and gets called on it by pete and bloomberg of all people. He may have started with balls in 2016, but he clearly got clipped by the end of it, and let's not pretend there is any other candidate whose own fans have so little respect for their candidate that they would jack the mic from them. Bernie has a better chance against trump among democrats. among the general public, bernie would get zero republican votes, and very few independent votes in comparison to less radical seeming democratic candidates. End of story

Any news source claiming that is full of it. It was a congressman who tried to dangle that on them, not trump, and a california congressman at that. I get that you generally aren't in the same news circles, but there is massive support towards pardoning Assange regardless. There is ample evidence pointing out that no matter what happened, trump supporters would be 100% favorable towards pardoning assange. You don't have to believe me, but i'll give you just enough proof that will be verified shortly to remember me once the fake news is shot down again: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/dana-rohrabacher-trump-pardon-deal-julian-assange.html trump barely even talked to the lawyer, over the past four years, and what the lawyer discussed with the media was clearly bull too, as we have articles from back in 2016 and 2017 where even then, assange had already said that russia was not where the DNC emails were coming in from. Why offer word of a pardon over something that assange already denied? If the senator who dangled it believed it was a legit condition to make then he should already realize that it was 4 years too late. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/11/03/assange-says-wikileaks-didnt-get-emails-russia/93245454/e 
.

your videos "debunking tim" are absolutely full of it. Tim, in every few videos, explicitly tells people to go to other sources to balance out their views, admitting he has bias, and admitting that there are views that run counter to his own. on top of that, though his titles are undeniably sensationalist, tim pool is correct in most of his arguments. He even points out that his sources are certified by fact checking sites like newsguard, as in, he has his articles sourced from places that he had already had vetted through a third party to limit his own biases. and this again, on top of him using the exact article.


Roxas, you and your debunking source are completely ignorant of the world outside of your bubbles. and at this point ,i will not stop using tim, do you know why? Because the sources tim uses are clearly more factual than the biased video against them. tim even points out where his own sources are incorrect at times and cautions people to read links that may have been circle sourced, such as the ones that backs up the steel dossier back in 2017. You may argue this all you like, but fact is,  your worldview will get blasted down, and you will be incapable of understanding why when it happens, because you continuously refuse to grasp the fact that the rest of the world does not think the way you do. Yeah, tim is clearly sensationalist, but just like antifa, you seem to beleive anyone on your side who isn't as deep into the paranoia as you are, is somehow not on your side. Fact is, tim has made more accurate predictions using his own sources than the person trying to refute him. As far as accuracy, call tim what you like, but his views are backed by the simple fact that his predictions made based upon those views, are often closely in line with the real world outcome (so long as you ignore the sensationalist titles).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been following court cases Project Veritas was involved in. Quickly looking into that, and I see that they did have some libel suits against them tossed. I do not, however, see how that suddenly makes them a legitimate news source. Since "veritas has absolutely destroyed every single accusation against them in a court of law" is such a ridiculous absolute statement, all it takes is a single example where they didn't "destroy" such accusations.

https://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/03/12019/james-o’keefe-pays-100k-settlement-after-deceiving-public-about-acorn-alec’s-help

Take, for example, where James O'Keefe specifically had to settle for filming someone without their consent, then editing the video to portray them untruthfully and spreading it on Breitbart. I frankly do not have the time to look into every single possible lawsuit and which ones O'Keefe won or lost, but nothing I have seen suggests that they are a legitimate source. They are, at best, useful for your own confirmation bias.

Nothing Obama did every rose to the level of impeachable offense that Trump committed. Not that it stopped them from trying, and let's not forget Bill Clinton's impeachment. I don't know about you, but I think withholding aid on the condition of an investigation into a political rival is a lot worse than lying about a blowjob. And, again, you're ignoring that Republicans were "kept out" of certain hearings because those hearings were conducted by specific committees, which did have Republicans on them, and the Republicans complaining either chose not to attend, or were not members of those committees, so they would have had no business being involved. But I realize that you love to disqualify evidence when it's inconvenient for your argument.

You are… really reaching when you try to say that I'm okay with cheating, disrespect, and dishonesty depending on the outcome. If the bashing cancer patients is referring to Samantha Bee, then yeah, I have no problem disavowing her. I thought that her "coverage" about the guy was absolutely despicable, and IIRC, her "apology" was woefully hollow and lacking.

Don't start with me about anyone running over 14 year olds with cars or holding up a block when you and Winter literally defended a Nazi for running his car into protesters, excusing his actions by imagining him in a state of panic, insisting that we somehow could not know his motivations, all the while it was okay for you to do the same. And let's not forgot that Winter's only concern was that the Nazi didn't kill even more people, just because the victims hold political leanings different from Winter's. I had previously shut down your "hold up entire blocks worth or regular people so they can attack anybody who dares object to their worldview" talking point. I realize that you're only throwing those examples at the wall and attempting to make a pitiful bid at trying to call me a hypocrite, but your deflection really does not work. I'm not exactly under any moral obligation to take you seriously with whatever you hope to accomplish there.

Trump specifically mentioned Biden by name in his call with Zelensky. When Trump does that, it contributes to the concerns about his conspiracies with foreign powers. It's not the "clear difference" you want it to be. Trump's actions give more fuel to the fire for everyone calling out how he enables foreign interference.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-cooper/ukraine-officials-knew-about-hold-on-aid-earlier-than-reported-idUSKBN1XU2VX

With all due respect to Zelensky, you do realize that Zelensky's statement about "no pressure" has been met with scrutiny? Ukraine did know that aid was withheld, so good job once again parroting a talking point that was already debunked. Thanks for making this easy.

Even with the secondhand accounts, they were still consistent, and the firsthand accounts were obstructed by the administration, or in John Bolton's case, withheld for the sake of a publicity stunt. But knowing you, I'm sure you'll have an excuse for why it was actually proper policy, if not an inherent obligation on the administration's part to block those firsthand accounts.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/16/gchq-denies-wiretap-claim-trump-obama

British intelligence dismissed the claim that they had somehow helped find any evidence of wiretapping. Jesus Christ, the article even has to point out that it's over two years old. How is it that you are still repeating these talking points literal years after they've already been shut down? British intelligence denied it, Comey and Horowitz found nothing, and all you have left as a source is Barr. I trust you understand why I do not consider him a legitimate source by this point now, right? That's not even a case of him being able to prove it happened. It's just that Trump said it happened, so Barr's job is to insist it totally happened.

I was saying that Nunes kept trying to tie the hearings to the dossier, when there was no merit to whatever he wanted to do. As you always love to do, you seem to be conflating two entirely separate circumstances. I was only denying the dossier's involvement in the articles of impeachment. Let's both be clear on what you're trying to do here. You either expect me to agree with you, or if I do not, that further demonstrates that I am somehow a hypocrite. Those could both be valid options if your entire premise was in any way valid. You are still trying to repeat the claim that Obama wiretapped Trump, and it's still been debunked. Let's just make it clear what actually happened: Trump made a false claim against Obama, then when people were hired to actually investigate that claim, they turned up nothing.

Bernie endorsed Clinton because, at that point in time, it was more important to get the voters united against Trump. That was a pragmatic solution.

The California congressman is still a Republican, and one whom Kevin McCarthy put in the same corner as Trump by saying they're the two people he thinks Russia pays. And while I am aware that there is massive support for pardoning Assange, Trump's motivations for doing so are more about his own personal interests.

When you repeat arguments that were already proven wrong years ago, I can't take you seriously when you claim that I'm the one stuck in a bubble. The videos I linked also gave Tim credit where it was due. I get that the world doesn't think the way I do, so it's kind of funny how desperate you're getting here. Tim also tried to claim that the "gulag" video would end Bernie's campaign, and as far as I can tell, Tim's paranoia was largely dismissed, and in fact, Bernie's continued to rise in the polls. You need to assume that I'm making some bizarre generalization, as if I believe anyone "not on my side" (However you're imagining I define that) because they don't believe the way I do. In your case, I think it's just that you let Pool and O'Keefe do the thinking for you, and as you just showed with regards to the wiretapping, you admitted you were wrong as a joke before doubling down on why you were totally right, then… I don't know how many times I can say this, but parroting arguments that were debunked years ago.

I criticize Tim Pool because he is symptomatic of people who claim to be neutral or sit on the center, except their behavior shows that they are anything but that. As Jose points out here, Tim Pool reads a single article, and attempts to substitute it as if were somehow a condemnation against the entire "left". Centrists like Tim Pool espouse a dishonest position, but I accept that they don't think the way I do. I realize that they are also just a small part of the world. I think it's at least fair to say that if there's something I don't understand, it's whatever point you're hoping to make here. I'm not sure if you noticed it, but you were trying to criticize my own inability to see outside my bubble while you insisted on reinforcing your own. It is actually hilarious how much pride you take in sticking in your own bubble because you refused to accept any challenges to the people you rely on to think for you. From O'Keefe to Trump to Pool, you spent your entire post reaffirming your belief in them. When you challenged me on mine, I legitimately do not think you expected me to criticize Samantha Bee. I assume you expected me to give her a free pass for some reason. As for Charlottesville, it would be dishonest of me to turn my back on the positions I expressed back in the thread when you were absolutely determined to defend a Nazi. You know, the thread where I shot down your arguments at every possible turn because I had evidence that backed up my position, and you did not.

In 2016, I absolutely refused to support Clinton. I did not see the value in aligning with her, because when people claimed that she was the best bet to defeat Trump, I thought it was more important to defeat her in the primary and have Bernie, if not anyone else. Then she won the popular vote, but the electoral college screwed her. While I'm happy that she lost, I hate that her defeat became synonymous with Trump's victory. My own stubbornness from back then was my worldview that I needed to grow from. I'll admit I'm looking forward to the schadenfreude but getting to turn "Vote blue no matter who" on everyone who was hoping it just meant that we should be willing to accept if Bernie doesn't become the nominee, but I realize why the overall sentiment is important.

I added the news about Nunes to my post that Friday because that was really good day. It actually freaked me out how good it was. Nunes lost one of the lawsuits that conservatives desperately hoped for. You had once bragged that Vic Mignogna filing a lawsuit at all somehow proved you right, but then he lost the case, and while it is being appealed, the appellate brief was disastrous, and he's guaranteed to lose his appeal as well. It was also satisfying when several of his sycophants got their accounts locked. Then, despite MSNBC losing their minds by hoping to compare Bernie and his supporters Nazis, Bernie kicked ass in Nevada.

I've had my worries, but I feel pretty good about the election. Despite how badly people want to claim Bernie is a Russian asset, all I can really believe is that Trump thinks Bernie is the candidate he has the best chance against. You seem to believe the same. That said, as much as people would hate to admit that their darling Hillary could have done anything wrong, or should bear any responsibility for Trump coming into power, I honestly believe that leak that Hillary wanted Trump as the "pied piper candidate" because she thought Trump would also be an easy opponent to beat. So I'm open to expecting that strategy to work both ways.

EDIT:

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/09/inspector-generals-report-russia-key-takeaways-079030

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/474113-watchdog-steele-dossier-had-no-impact-on-opening-of-2016-probe

My apologies, we were wrong about the dossier's role in investigating Carter Page. It appears that "the dossier prepared by former British spy Christopher Steele did not prompt the original DOJ investigation into members of the Trump campaign." I can trust what the actual investigation into this matter found. So once again, you are trying to hinge your entire argument on a desperate conspiracy theory that was already debunked. I almost feel bad that your worldview keeps getting blasted down.

Edited by Phantom Roxas
Added citation regarding the Steele dossier.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/484759-ethics-complaint-filed-against-nunes-asks-how-hes-paying-for-lawsuits

An ethics complaint has been filed against Devin Nunes, asking Congress how he's been paying for his frivolous lawsuits.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/02/trump-is-fighting-with-advisors-over-pardoning-roger-stone

Roger Stone was sentenced to three years in prison after being convicted of all charges brought against him by Mueller. As a reminder, one of the charges included Stone obstructing the Russia investigation. Not that it's stopped potential concerns about Trump abusing his power to commute Stone's sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...