Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Schiff Targets Political Rival, Journalist

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    What about it? How is that "calling Schiff out?"
    I'm not the least surprised you can't understand the article.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      I'm not the least surprised you can't understand the article.
      Would that be this bit ...
      the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns

      Or this bit ...
      In both cases, the original accusation was vague.

      Because from where I'm sitting, the mouth-breather on that article is, well, you.


      Sam goes to the trouble of detailing how accusations are simply not true, with a heavy aside of "this is your brain on partisan hackery" ... and the unanimous response is ranging from "no, you," to more partisan hackery, as if a heavy enough counter-accusation, repeatedly frequently enough, will somehow make the facts go away, or provide an excuse for the hackery.

      Nope.

      And nope.

      I'm jaw-agape at the slack-jaw here.

      So here we are, spinning wheels like we're in a YEC debate with magellan, trying to get some agreement on basic facts, when we should be asking penetrating questions, like, well, why did Trump actually stop the military aid to Ukraine to begin with ... and why is Zelensky still waiting for that White House visit.

      Do y'all even news?

      The entire administration and both sides of congress want unambiguous support for Ukraine against Russia. With the minor exception of Trump himself.

      Best case would be if he was merely planning to use the security assistance as leverage to coerce Zelensky into corrupting his own justice system. There's no ambiguity in Trump's endorsement of Shokin in that call, or that he was pushing the Russian deflection conspiracy.

      In case y'all missed it, here it is again, in a nutshell.

      Input: Biden demanded Shokin be removed because he was shaking down oligarchs instead of investigating them.
      Output: Biden demanded Shokin be removed to prevent him from investigating an oligarch.

      The oligarchs are aligned with Russia. All of them.

      All of these roads lead back to Putin.

      That was the best case, which suffers from the fact no public, (or private, so far as we known, even inside the irregular channel) announcement was ever made about conditions for releasing the military aid. There is, as far as I can tell, no counter to the argument Trump intended to cancel the military aid to Ukraine on the sly in support of his private policy of shifting our alignment from Ukraine to Russia.

      There's a reason prominent Ukrainians were weighing in against this guy. This last is consistent with all of Trump's public positions from the time he was a candidate, signaling green on Russia's military conquest of Crimea.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        Even the NYTimes calls Schiff out on this....

        Schiff Got Early Account of Accusations as Whistle-Blower’s Concerns Grew

        WASHINGTON — The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint, according to a spokesman and current and former American officials.

        The early account by the future whistle-blower shows how determined he was to make known his allegations that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s government to interfere on his behalf in the 2020 election. It also explains how Mr. Schiff knew to press for the complaint when the Trump administration initially blocked lawmakers from seeing it.

        The C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide with his concerns about Mr. Trump only after he had had a colleague first convey them to the C.I.A.’s top lawyer. Concerned about how that initial avenue for airing his allegations through the C.I.A. was unfolding, the officer then approached the House aide. In both cases, the original accusation was vague.
        Keep in mind you're talking to folks who still maintain that the Mueller Reports shows that Trump colluded with Putin smiley dolt.gif

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Juvenal View Post



          The entire administration and both sides of congress want unambiguous support for Ukraine against Russia. With the minor exception of Trump himself.
          When exactly did the Democrats start giving a rat's... whisker about helping the Ukraine against Russia? They certainly didn't give a hoot all through the Obama Administration when they utterly refused to equip them with military aide and instead sent blankets and stuff. I guess they could use them to wrap their dead or something.

          No. The Democrats now only "care" because they see them as a tool to exploit and use in their never-ending TDS-fueled jihad against Trump.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I'm not the least surprised you can't understand the article.
            I'm not the least bit surprised you can't answer the question and once again turn to the ad hominum attack tactic.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by JimL View Post
              I'm not the least bit surprised you can't answer the question and once again turn to the ad hominum attack tactic.
              Charles!!!! You've hijacked Jim's account?!?!?!
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #97


                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                ...once again turn to the ad hominum attack tactic.


                You can't make this stuff up!
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  When exactly did the Democrats start giving a rat's... whisker about helping the Ukraine against Russia? They certainly didn't give a hoot all through the Obama Administration when they utterly refused to equip them with military aide and instead sent blankets and stuff. I guess they could use them to wrap their dead or something.

                  No. The Democrats now only "care" because they see them as a tool to exploit and use in their never-ending TDS-fueled jihad against Trump.
                  Congress passed bipartisan security aid for Ukraine during Obama's term, allocating over $100 million in military and medical equipment. The Obama administration signed the package into law and provided that aid to Ukraine. Many Democrats (like Biden) advocated for the extension of "lethal aid", including Javelin missiles, but lost the argument (rightly, I think) about the whether lethal aid was the best way to contain Russian aggression in 2015 & 2016.

                  Whether a hypothetical third Obama administration would have shifted gears and provided lethal aid after 2016 is, of course, unknowable. We do know that Trump lent support to Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2016 and that his NSA, Michael Flynn, was assuring Russian officials that unrelated Obama-era sanctions would be lifted while he, Micheal Cohen, Felix Sater, and others were secretly working on a "Ukraine peace plan" that would lift Russian sanctions related to Crimea and cede the peninsula to Russia. So Trump is pursuing a military aide plan that many Republicans and Democrats alike advocated (just look at the appropriations votes for military aid) while simultaneously being far more Putin-friendly than Democrats, including Obama, ever were.

                  And if Trump's supposed to get credit for supplying lethal military aid to Ukraine, one would think people would be upset that he mysteriously halted disbursement of that aid for months while he and his political appointees tried to pressure Ukraine into public announcements that they were investigating a non-existent DNC/Crowdstrike server in Ukraine and Trump's leading political opponent.

                  --Sam
                  Last edited by Sam; 12-08-2019, 05:01 PM.
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    Congress passed bipartisan security aid for Ukraine during Obama's term, allocating over $100 million in military and medical equipment. The Obama administration signed the package into law and provided that aid to Ukraine. Many Democrats (like Biden) advocated for the extension of "lethal aid", including Javelin missiles, but lost the argument (rightly, I think) about the whether lethal aid was the best way to contain Russian aggression in 2015 & 2016.

                    Whether a hypothetical third Obama administration would have shifted gears and provided lethal aid after 2016 is, of course, unknowable. We do know that Trump lent support to Putin's annexation of Crimea in 2016 and that his NSA, Michael Flynn, was assuring Russian officials that unrelated Obama-era sanctions would be lifted while he, Micheal Cohen, Felix Sater, and others were secretly working on a "Ukraine peace plan" that would lift Russian sanctions related to Crimea and cede the peninsula to Russia. So Trump is pursuing a military aide plan that many Republicans and Democrats alike advocated (just look at the appropriations votes for military aid) while simultaneously being far more Putin-friendly than Democrats, including Obama, ever were.

                    And if Trump's supposed to get credit for supplying lethal military aid to Ukraine, one would think people would be upset that he mysteriously halted disbursement of that aid for months while he and his political appointees tried to pressure Ukraine into public announcements that they were investigating a non-existent DNC/Crowdstrike server in Ukraine and Trump's leading political opponent.

                    --Sam
                    The military aid was all in a defensive nature with no offensive weapons -- which was what they were begging for.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      The military aid was all in a defensive nature with no offensive weapons -- which was what they were begging for.

                      Which is materially distinct from "blankets and stuff" (drones, military radar, armored vehicles) and still counters your rhetorical accusation that Democratic politicians in Congress and the White House didn't care about Ukraine until it became an anti-Trump foil.

                      A person can argue that military aid to Ukraine should have included lethal aid from the beginning; that's a complicated policy discussion where noble men can differ. But when you start talking nonsense, pulling stuff out of your whiskers to make accusations that are contrary to fact and sense, you're no longer taking part in a noble discussion ... or even any discussion, really. You're just grumbling. And there's a real danger, to use CS Lewis' imagery, of getting to a place where you're not even a grumbler anymore, becoming merely a grumble. And a grumble can't be reasoned with or moved or brought to Joy.

                      --Sam
                      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Which is materially distinct from "blankets and stuff" (drones, military radar, armored vehicles) and still counters your rhetorical accusation that Democratic politicians in Congress and the White House didn't care about Ukraine until it became an anti-Trump foil.
                        No it didn't.

                        It wasn't until they thought that they had a club to beat Trump with that we suddenly saw all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left about them not getting the weapons they needed -- not just equipment that would warn them that they were about to be killed. During the previous Administration there was no such concern.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          No it didn't.

                          It wasn't until they thought that they had a club to beat Trump with that we suddenly saw all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left about them not getting the weapons they needed -- not just equipment that would warn them that they were about to be killed. During the previous Administration there was no such concern.
                          The Obama administration didn't even care about Russian election meddling, said it was no big deal until they thought they could use the narrative to beat up on Trump.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            No it didn't.

                            It wasn't until they thought that they had a club to beat Trump with that we suddenly saw all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left about them not getting the weapons they needed -- not just equipment that would warn them that they were about to be killed. During the previous Administration there was no such concern.
                            The original accusation was:
                            "When exactly did the Democrats start giving a rat's... whisker about helping the Ukraine against Russia? They certainly didn't give a hoot all through the Obama Administration when they utterly refused to equip them with military aide and instead sent blankets and stuff."


                            Now that isn't true and is easily shown to be false. But we didn't see a retraction. Instead, you shifted to:
                            "
                            The military aid was all in a defensive nature with no offensive weapons -- which was what they were begging for."


                            Which is a very different claim! And given the chance to consider that 1) there's actually a meritorious discussion about whether arming Ukraine with lethal weapons is the best strategy to contain and counter Russian aggression in Ukraine, 2) time marches forward and a persuasive strategy in 2015 may no longer be persuasive in 2018, and 3) most people do not actually care enough about foreign military engagement and strategy to pay close attention to events even after they're front-page news items, you still chose to default to picking up your torch and pitchfork to make demonstrably false partisan claims.

                            The sentiment didn't change throughout, even as the factual basis you used to justify the sentiment eroded to nothing. That's a bad sign.

                            --Sam
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              When exactly did the Democrats start giving a rat's... whisker about helping the Ukraine against Russia? They certainly didn't give a hoot all through the Obama Administration when they utterly refused to equip them with military aide and instead sent blankets and stuff. I guess they could use them to wrap their dead or something.

                              No. The Democrats now only "care" because they see them as a tool to exploit and use in their never-ending TDS-fueled jihad against Trump.
                              First, it's "aid."

                              And even more first ...
                              ... the unanimous response is ranging from "no, you," to more partisan hackery, as if a heavy enough counter-accusation, repeatedly frequently enough, will somehow make the facts go away, or provide an excuse for the hackery.

                              It's still nope. And more still nope.

                              Even if your lies were true, they wouldn't amount to a defense of Trump's Russian butt-licking. And only the Russians call Ukraine "the Ukraine" anymore. They do it because it demeans Ukraine as an independent country. That's not a good look on someone accusing someone else of failing to support Ukraine against the Russians.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                No it didn't.

                                It wasn't until they thought that they had a club to beat Trump with that we suddenly saw all the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left about them not getting the weapons they needed -- not just equipment that would warn them that they were about to be killed. During the previous Administration there was no such concern.
                                In point of fact, the wailing and gnashing was coming from everyone but Trump, but apparently, because the Democrats were also opposed, the perpetual partisan hack bot doing your posting nowadays obligates you to push the other way, even if it's also against the entirety of the Republican party and the Trump administration, too.

                                Bolton, and the NSC, were opposed. State, and Pompeo, were opposed. Defense was opposed. The joint staff was opposed.

                                It's just you and Trump on this, rougebot.

                                And Mick Mulvaney, maybe.

                                Also in point of fact, the lethal aid under Trump's administration, opposed by Trump himself, is strategic, not tactical. Unlike the training and professionalization of their military, begun on a bipartisan basis under Obama, the Javelins aren't actually being used to lethal effect. Their presence on the battlefield deters the deployment of Russian tanks, meaning Russian tanks don't enter the battlefield.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 10:13 AM
                                1 response
                                10 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Reepicheep, Today, 08:27 AM
                                4 responses
                                18 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 01:59 PM
                                11 responses
                                159 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post firstfloor  
                                Started by Reepicheep, 01-17-2021, 08:50 AM
                                24 responses
                                180 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by rogue06, 01-16-2021, 04:20 PM
                                66 responses
                                578 views
                                5 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X