Jump to content

Phantom Roxas

The Chariot
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Phantom Roxas last won the day on February 26

Phantom Roxas had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,328 Ultimateness

1 Follower

About Phantom Roxas

  • Rank
    Legendary Member
  • Birthday 07/29/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

45,773 profile views
  1. I put off responding to this post for too long, so I'm going to address it now. Due to the sheer length of it, and the various non-sequitirs, I’ll try to get some closure on each point as best I can. If I skipped anything, it’s because the posts in between have largely covered the same points, or because some topics were spread out across the post, and I'm trying to reconcile those. ABC was in the wrong for acting on that Veritas video. But 200 cases? Yeah, I’m going to need some citation on that one. Despite your attempts to deflect by pointing fingers at everybody else instead of accepting even the slightest criticism, I am under no obligation to only follow whatever outlet you decide I’m allowed to use. I can criticize your choice to use Veritas, and I can say that Veritas has been discredited, but I am not saying you are not allowed to use Veritas. I am saying that, given their history, I take their videos with a grain of salt unless other sources can corroborate them. It’s almost like only using one or two sources is a stupid idea! They couldn’t find a single crime to pin on Trump for the articles? Strange, then, that they found two: Abuse of power, and obstruction of justice. Democrats losing one member to the Republican party is certainly harmful, I suppose, in the barest minimum sense of the term. And with how the Republicans in the Senate showed how utterly scared they are of raising their hand against Trump, I’d say it harmed them just as much, since Susan Collins is at risk of losing her suit, and she's incapable of realizing why. If this did harm Democrats in the long term, it was because it further demonstrated how badly we need to replace Pelosi, though that’s more on her for holding the party back when they should have impeached Trump much sooner than they did. All the success from the House Democrats in the impeachment inquiry was in spite of Pelosi, not because of her. Winter approved of James Fields murdering Heather Heyer. In fact, to quote Winter, “the only thing I regret is he only ran over 1 of the rats, and that none of the rats put him down. World would be better that way.” You can’t “bet” that Winter somehow disapproved of the life lost after you already saw firsthand that he approved, as well as advocated for more lives to be lost. But don’t worry, my argument isn’t that it was “clearly an accident.” My argument is that Fields plead guilty and was convicted because he was irrefutably proven to have acted with malicious intent. You can try to excuse him all you want, but we had a trial about this, and every single defense you made for him in 2018 was defeated, especially the nonsense about him somehow being “provoked”. So yes, I’m going to play that game, because the law and his own plea completely backed up my argument, and defeated yours. Pretending that your argument somehow still has any chance of holding up is completely delusional. He received his second life sentence the day after that firebomb attack. I’ve got no qualms about disavowing the firebomber, but I see that it’s difficult for you to concede that you were proven wrong about Fields. As I recall, I did say a lot about the investigation against Trump. Thankfully, nobody withheld aid to a foreign country on the condition that Trump should be investigated. Remember that you defended Trump because “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”. Biden followed policy as well, so it would not be sufficient justification for claiming he was “actively bragging about partaking in corruption”. Since Trump and Biden both withheld money to Ukraine unless they got what they wanted, I wonder if you’re willing to either condemn them both, and therefore agree that an investigation against Trump was just as necessary as an investigation against Biden, or if you think that they were both in the right for trying to remove corruption. However, that's only comparing the impeachment inquiry to its catalyst. Trying to equate the Mueller probe with Biden joining in on the push to fire Shokin is a false equivalence, but I suspect you know that. After all, your strategy continues to be desperate bids for deflection. I linked this article before, but it bears repeating that we actually know that neither Manafort nor Trump Tower wiretapped. Horowitz specifically debunked both, which I believe is where the confusion between us is coming from. You seem to think that he somehow proved every single accusation, while my mistake was believing that he had disproven all of them. As it turned out, he proved some, and debunked others, so it’s a mix that both supports and debunks different claims that we believed. All you have is Carter Page. Barr disagreeing with the Horowitz report doesn't mean that it happened. As has been established, he was only hired to play defense for Trump, and prove his conspiracy theories right. If Horowitz couldn't find evidence, and Barr simply disagrees, insisting it still totally happened, then that isn't enough for me, especially when Horowitz then pushed back against Barr. From what it looks like, Horowitz's job was to uncover evidence of something, and Barr is unhappy that he didn't uncover enough of what Trump believed to be true. You’re right that the articles of impeachment didn’t exist during the Russia investigation. That’s what made this statement so incredibly moronic. I'm willing to concede that the Steele dossier was at the heart of the investigation against Carter Page. However, that has to be some kind of typo that you somehow missed. The Steele dossier still had nothing to do with the articles of impeachment, despite how much Nunes and his ilk kept trying to deflect the impeachment inquiries back on that. Can't help but notice like that the strategy of making incoherent deflections onto the left feels strangely familiar… In any case, Horowitz still found that the investigation was justified. And no, the difference in dates does not make it more or less legitimate. You need to actually show that it was debunked. If you need to consolidate scenarios, and suggest that evidence of one somehow proves or disproves a second scenario. The renewals' errors don't somehow retroactively invalidate why the investigation was first opened. Pointing out that Rohrabacher is Republican seems more relevant than you trying to emphasize that he's from California, as if that somehow made a difference. It seems like the offer was made before Assange formally denied it. A movement to pardon Assange is separate from someone having the authority to do so, but it doesn't guarantee that Trump would feel any obligation to actually grant that pardon. The bribe here would actually give Trump the incentive. That said, I can agree that Rohrabacher is an idiot who loves conspiracy theories, and I can believe that it was him acting on his own, and none of this actually came back to Trump himself. However, I love how you took the opportunity to once again deflect towards Bernie, so you're still proving my point about how obsessed you are with trying to deflect even the smallest criticism against Trump onto whoever you can. But I already addressed the bulk of that argument in my previous posts, so I'll move on to the next point. I shared Jose’s videos because I believe he made some strong arguments. Meanwhile, you are consistently parroting Tim’s talking points, so it’s ironic that you’re claiming I’m the one “infected”. Jose went out of his way to take Tim up on his offer to look through the channel. He observed trends, then cited examples. Pretending that he somehow failed to do what you’re suggesting is worthless, because Jose’s videos were specifically about him going through Tim’s channel in the first place. In trying to condemn Jose because you believe he “seems to have ignored that people who are not him have views that he does not have”, you displayed the difficulty you have in accepting that other people have views that you don’t have. Maybe something happened in the past month, but Tim’s video about the popular vote is unavailable. If it’s still visible on your end, then I’m not sure what’s going on. Either way, your subsequent argument does nothing to disprove that Clinton won the popular vote. Just to make sure you understand, I am responding to what you wrote, and making no judgment on Tim’s video. Judging by this article, and your own comments, I assume that you’re referring to how a 2012 NPR study was misrepresented. If so, then your argument failed, and my earlier point remains valid. For someone who likes to keep bragging about supposedly debunking my arguments, you keep repeating arguments that were debunked over two or three years ago. All of Vic’s claims were dismissed, and he has to pay each of the defendants for their legal expenses. Even at a reduced amount, Vic decisively lost the case, which is an outcome that is very much in the defendants’ favor. Chupp didn’t admit to any of what you claimed, however; he simply told Beard that he already had something that Beard was trying to submit. The defendants all received their extensions, with Toye and Rial explaining that they previously missed that deadline because they intend to file their cross-appeal and response brief simultaneously. By no means does that harm their case. However, I’m surprised that you don’t know that an appeal is not a retrial. I’m happy to get hyped about how the appeal will turn out, but if you think I shouldn’t be, then I would advise against claiming that I ignored how litigation works if you were just going to immediately pivot to displaying your own ignorance of the process. Just like with James Fields, the court backed up my side, and your guy lost. Sorry, but just because neither of those cases went the way you wanted them to doesn't mean no one is allowed to celebrate the results.
  2. They need to make up their damn mind about Malicious. RIP Orcust, but it's for the best. Happy with the erratas for both Makyura and REDRUM.
  3. The bread lines comments were about Nicaragua. If you want to insist he was somehow praising the USSR there, that is a desperate reach. You couldn't even get the country right. "Zero ties to Russia outside of real estate development" Oh, so he does have ties to Russia, then. Real estate development isn't some minor detail, especially when he's been trying to push for business there for the past thirty years. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/18511864/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism-cnn-town-hall “Is it your assumption that I believed in authoritarian communism that was in the Soviet Union? I haven’t, and I opposed it.” Explain to me how he tried to squirm out of answering that question. That seems a pretty damn definitive answer. While you're busy trying to blame Sanders for praising dictators, I assume you're willing to hold Trump to the same standard? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868 I'll be honest, I hate the format here because, while I understand that is useful for laying out the connections between the Trump campaign and his officials, the structure of it just reminds me of the Always Sunny meme. At best, I would only recommend that as an example, rather than some final word on the statements. There is also this article, though it is a significantly long read. The thing is, you believe the evidence against Trump has as much merit as the evidence against Sanders. Once again, I remind you that the evidence against Trump is much stronger than the evidence against Sanders. My "excuse" for favoring one over the other still comes down to the strength of the evidence. As it stands, you still have not actually deconstructed the evidence against Trump, nor have you bolstered the evidence against Sanders to put it on the level of Sanders. You are hoping to make a false equivalence believe the two, but since you have failed to actually prove why the respective allegations are equal in merit, I have no reason to change my position. The DNC doesn't even need to try with Tulsi Gabbard. She barely got two delegates, and if she were on the debate stage, she might get a handful more, but certainly not much that she would be "more than likely take every delegate". I have no idea how you think she was in any way responsible for destroying Warren. Sanders, Biden, and Bloomberg did significantly more. While I think the DNC did screw with earlier candidates, we are at a point in the race where Sanders and Biden are viable options. The rising thresholds are not somehow designed to get her off the stage. She is just incapable of becoming the nominee, and she's trying to paint herself as the victim. When Sanders has 745 delegates, and Gabbard only has two, I'm more likely to believe that she's not a viable candidate, not that the DNC is screwing her over. You were claiming that the DNC was throwing these allegations at Bernie. When I pointed out that they aren't, you suddenly changed your position to how they don't need to. You wanted to call bull on my argument, except in doing so, you ended up proving my point. You even said "the only reason they aren't going harder on tulsi is because she is politically a nonentity", so I'm surprised you're suddenly shifted to pretending that they've totally gone harder on her. She qualified before, and when the DNC raised the threshold, they raised them by such a small degree that, if you weren't meeting that criteria, it's because you're not a viable candidate. This race also had a ridiculous amount of candidates from the outset, so it needed to be culled. Gabbard has just been far too stubborn to drop out, and if you think she "more than likely take every delegate from the time she stepped on stage", you don't seem to realize that she's not on the stage because she's already shown that she can't do that. I quoted you again because, as I've pointed out, you seemed to forget your own arguments, and I wanted to be sure that you remember what you were saying. Trump changed his party five times, ending up as a Republican in 2012. I don't believe that he ran as a Republican due to any failings on the Democrats' part. Not saying that they didn't have those failings, just saying that they didn't make a difference to his candidacy. Or maybe what he - and by extension, you - saw as failings are different from what I see as failings. Once again, you've proven that, despite your false claims of being a ""centrist"", you're much more of a right-wing nutjob. How the hell can you possibly believe that the right simply "let you fall on your own merits", rather than seeing them as actively malicious in screwing people over? The GOP is now obsessively devoted to Trump, and McConnell has gleefully boasted about being the "grim reaper". It isn't about Democrats shoving partisan bills through the House. I'm not going to pretend that they don't, but when McConnell blocks bills regardless of whether they are bipartisan or simply favored by Democrats, the person you should blame is him.
  4. And I already addressed that. Trump welcomed Russia's help, and when Sanders was briefed on it, he flat-out condemned Russia for it. I'm not sure if you realize, but one guy embracing help is different from another guy rejecting it. Maybe try harder with the false equivalence. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/new-york-times-finds-scandal-in-bernie-sanders-cooperation-with-ronald-reagans-soviet-peace-plan.html Honestly, this is kind of hilarious in how it rips apart the New York Times for attempting to make this scandal. https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2018/07/19/why-did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-the-magnitsky-act/ This article is a familiar one. It's from 2018, but it address the Magnitsky Act. That's a low-hanging fruit that I'm surprised neither of you went for. It's fine that you didn't, because the article highlights why it's such a weak talking point. When the allegations against Trump are substantive, and the allegations against Sanders are just being used by you and vla1ne as a tu quoque argument, or people who want to feel vindicated for being petty about "Bernie Bros" since 2016, I'm really not going to take the latter seriously. I think the DNC is terrible, and I believe they have learned absolutely nothing from 2016. Clinton bought her way into the nomination, and now they're blatantly trying to install Biden, not because Biden would actually be a competent president, but because he's the closest thing to a frontrunner who isn't Bernie. And yet, despite my gripes with them, I don't think the DNC has actually tried to hold Russia against Bernie? Maybe not to any significant degree, but certainly not as much as they hold it against Trump. It's almost like, even within liberal circles, there's a divide between whether people take #BernieIsARussianAsset seriously or not. Personally, I think that it devalues more legitimate arguments of Russian influence. It's a "boy who cried wolf" to me. The more you keep trying to paint him or anyone else as a Russian asset, people will be less inclined to believe you in times when it's actually true about someone.
  5. The accusations against Trump make more sense than the accusations against Sanders. There's really no deeper reason than that, but you can keep yourself occupied with your strawman argument. As I already said before, a honeymoon is a laughably pathetic thing to try to pin Bernie for. As far as I understand, Venezuela is the only example people seem to think of to fearmonger about socialism, while at the same time, conveniently disregarding that Venezuela's collapse isn't as simple as "socialism bad". No one is saying that Sanders is untouchable, nor does there need to be some greater threshold in his case. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-sanders-compilation-video/partly-false-claim-video-shows-bernie-sanders-making-remarks-he-wouldnt-wish-the-public-to-see-idUSKBN20Q281 Spare me your clutched pearls about the breadlines. Bernie was juxtaposing the breadlines against the alternative, where people are literally starving to death. You can quote Sanders all you like, but given that you conveniently ignore the context, I don't think you'll accomplish anything. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to think it's a bad thing that Sanders would prefer if people had access to food over starving to death. You fail to "give them the same credence as the the Trump quotes" when you blatantly hold Sanders in contempt, while jumping through hoops to excuse Trump, demanding evidence of his guilt, then in the very next breath making up reasons for why the evidence provided magically doesn't count. Just as you claim that I'm holding Trump and Sanders to different standards, you are doing the same thing, but you favor Trump. The people involved in the Trump campaign still getting hit for their crimes isn't exactly the exoneration you keep pretending it is. Sure, dozens of people associated with the Trump campaign were convicted as a direct result of the Mueller probe... but at least they weren't all about collusion! Like, really? That is the distinction we have to make? That all the convictions are acceptable because you can just say they were just from something else.
  6. Horowitz only corroborated the application against Carter Page. He also debunked the claims that there was any surveillance of Paul Manafort or Trump Tower.
  7. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-03-13/trump-administration-blocks-states-use-medicaid-respond-coronavirus-crisis Trump blocks states from using Medicaid to respond to Coronavirus. https://theweek.com/speedreads/902009/trump-reportedly-rejected-aggressive-coronavirus-testing-hopes-help-reelection Additionally, Trump purposefully withheld additional testing for Coronavirus, hoping that a low number of confirmed cases would boost his chances for reelection, because winning is more important than other people's healthcare.
  8. Um, exactly why should I give "all" of the Russia accusations the same weight? As far as I can tell, the DNC has not once thrown them against Tulsi or Bernie. At worst, it's been journalists who don't like either of them grabbing onto it. The biggest person that comes to mind was Hillary Clinton saying that Gabbard has been groomed as a candidate, and since then, any reports regarding those accusations have largely focused on Gabbard suing Clinton over it. Coverage regarding Gabbard at all has since boiled down to complete bafflement that she's still in the race at all, given how she has only recent obtained her first two delegates. I'm not sure if you realize this, but it is actually possible to believe the accusations to be true with regards to Trump, and to simultaneously believe that people have been abusing the knowledge of Russia's influence in the Trump campaign by trying to spread false narratives about Sanders. Just because it is true in some cases doesn't make it true in all cases, and likewise, just because I don't believe the people who have tried to use it against Sanders doesn't mean I'm suddenly supposed to pretend it doesn't apply to Trump. It's almost like the allegations have different merits to them! So the matter at hand is how much evidence there is to them, and I believe one more than another based on the merits. You're in no position to demand that I should give "all" accusations the same weight, especially since you don't really give any explanation for why I must do that. If the allegations against Trump have more merits to them than the allegations against Sanders and Gabbard, than I'm going to give more weight to the allegations that have more merit. Sanders also acknowledged that Russia wanted to influence his campaign… and then he rejected Russia's help. That is a far cry from Trump openly inviting Russian interference. Your false equivalency falls apart simply by the different behaviors Sanders and Trump displayed. I assume you believe that inconsistency in how much weight I, among many others, give the different allegations is simply due to the people that the allegations are being made towards. If you're unwilling to accept that it's due to some allegations being stronger than the others, that's on you refusing to recognize the merits, and no fault on anyone being a hypocrite. Personally, I think that when journalists and other people on social media want to accuse people like Sanders of being a Russian asset, it hurts the legitimacy of the argument. I'm frankly more inclined to believe it applies to Trump when his business dealings and campaign officials have keep having ties to Russia, but when it comes to Sanders, all I can think of is people saying that he and his wife spent their anniversary in Russia, which is ridiculously desperate to me. That said, where I do believe the Mueller report finding that Russia supposedly helped Sanders's campaign was apparently the belief that Sanders would be an "easier" opponent for Trump to defeat. I find that to be an appropriate parallel to what I mentioned before about the Clinton campaign and/or the DNC apparently wanting to boost the Trump campaign to make him the "pied piper candidate". I'm still not entirely sure if I should take that leak to be legitimate, but if it is, we saw that trying to promote someone as the "easy" opponent backfired horribly. In any case, we have spent the majority of this thread discussing how the people associated in Trump's campaign have been implicated for various connections, and the conclusion of the Mueller report, at best, could not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. The GOP made it clear that they refuse to acknowledge that Trump did anything wrong. For example, Nunes tried to make several pathetic deflections baselessly accusing the Democrats of conspiring with Russia, then later accused them of conspiring with Ukraine. Neither accusation worked, of course. All Nunes is capable of doing is merely thinking that if he simply makes the deflection, that's all he has to do. The idea of backing himself up when the evidence actually supports the Democrats, and not himself, doesn't seem to occur to him. It's why Michael Ellis - the guy who credited Nunes for inventing the false wiretapping narrative - was promoted to the National Security Council. Actually finding out the truth is irrelevant to the GOP. When Democrats bring evidence, they just deflect. They can't actually defend Trump, and, again, all we saw in the Senate during the impeachment inquiry was Senators who either walked out, tried to spin the focus on outing the whistleblower instead of Trump's actions, and a few going as far as to admit that what Trump did was in fact wrong, but not wanting to punish him for it. Realistically speaking, I don't expect this to do much to Trump by now. Most people have made up their minds about how this affects Trump. Right now, the figure at the forefront of this particular matter is Barr. If nothing else, what happens next will most likely effect him. Rao may have been outnumbered 2-1 in her dissent, but that is the extent of her involvement here. However the DOJ responds, I don't particularly expect it to end well for Barr.
  9. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/liberal-conservative-trump-judge-mueller-redaction-case.html The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the lower court ruling that the DOJ must turn over the unredacted Mueller report, "demolishing Rao’s dissent". The DOJ has one week to appeal this decision. Looks like both Barr and Rao are failing in their efforts to shield Trump, which is really the only thing they were appointed to do. What was that about my worldview getting "blasted down"?
  10. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/486219-judge-orders-doj-to-hand-over-unredacted-mueller-report https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/barr-mueller-report-redactions-foia.html A federal judge has accused Barr of misrepresenting the findings in the Mueller report to mislead the public, and has ordered the DOJ to hand over a full copy of the unredacted report. It's a strong rebuke of Barr's grossly dishonest behavior. To curtail the inevitable talking point, no, Judge Reggie Walton was not appointed by Clinton or Obama. He was appointed by George W. Bush. He is also a Republican, so we can avoid pretending that this is somehow a "filthy lib" who's "out to get" Barr that's behind this ruling.
  11. https://www.axios.com/federal-court-ken-cuccinelli-illegal-uscis-director-8479c5d1-0130-4477-bf98-a1e23be19ae0.html Ken Cuccinelli's appointment as acting Principal Deputy Director has been found to be illegal. As such, any policies he put in place are now void.
  12. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/27/politics/judge-block-diverting-funds-border-wall/index.html A federal judge has once again blocked Trump from diverting funds for the border wall. This only affects one particular case, but it is nevertheless a positive result. "Rothstein barred the administration from dipping into the nearly $90 million allocated for the project, but didn't halt the use of military construction funds for the wall altogether." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-wall/house-democrats-to-introduce-bill-clawing-back-border-wall-funds-idUSKCN20L35L https://www.wthr.com/article/sen-warren-bill-would-move-border-wall-funds-fight-coronavirus-1 Both Senator Warren and the House Democrats are each working on introducing legislation to their respective chambers that will reduce border wall funding. Warren's bill in particular will emphasize redirecting the funds to help deal with the coronavirus.
  13. 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.
  14. https://www.ktvu.com/news/court-ruling-in-favor-of-trump-in-sanctuary-cities-fight-wont-impact-ca That ruling won't affect California; it wasn't one of the seven states involved. The Second Circuit seems to be the odd one out here.
  15. 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.
  • Create New...