You posted three replies to a single message. I'll reply to all of them here.
Faith writes:
The fact is that the Iranian population in general does not hate America...
Ah, is that because Kasraie told you so? That's so cute.
...and they do happen to be the same Iranians who are protesting the downing of the Ukrainian airplane.
Fake claim.
What I found is the videos by the American Iranian woman Erica Kasraie which I posted for you and hope you get to soon, because what she is saying is what I keep hearing.
Keep hearing from who? Are you playing her video over and over again?
I'm not making any of this up.
Yes you are. You're just a bundle of little opinions untethered to reality.
I'm a single voice at EvC but there are millions who are saying the same thing out there that hardly ever gets reported here or only reported to be debunked. Millions and millions, Percy.
Another fake claim.
From my conservative sources...
What conservative sources?
...I heard what a good thing it was that Trump took out the terrorist,...
We assassinated the top general of a country with whom we're not at war. In return Iran injured dozens of Americans who will have to deal with the aftermath of concussive injuries that might last the rest of their lives.
...I heard that the crowds mourning him were a propaganda setup by the Iranian government,...
You heard from who? Precisely how was this investigative reporting conducted?
...eventually I started hearing how there were protestors out there thanking Trump,...
You heard from who? How did they learn this information?
...and this is what Ms. Kasraie says too,...
Aw, that's sweet.
...and she calls herself a watcher of the Middle East.
I'm sure she does. Anyone else call her that?
I also heard how the Left was trying to claim that Trump acted against his constitutional powers but that what he did was exactly what other Presidents have done and that it was completely within his constitutional powers.
Well, that's arguable. Only Congress has the right to declare war, and assassinating foreign generals is definitely an act of war. But it's definitely against international law which tends to frown on murder outside of military actions between belligerents.
The gist is that we should be thanking him and praising him for what he did...
Thank Trump for making the world a more dangerous place? Why would anyone do that?
...but the Left won't do that because of who he is.
No one should do it because it would be wrong.
Everybody praised Obama for taking out Bin Laden in pretty much the same way,...
Bin Laden was a terrorist. And everyone praised Trump for taking out al-Baghdadi, also a terrorist.
...but no, if it's Trump he's turned into a criminal.
False claim again. It's criminal for anyone to assassinate a general of a sovereign nation with whom one isn't at war. Soleimani was carrying out the policy of his country, Iran. If we have a problem with that policy then we must deal with the nation of Iran, not assassinate their leaders.
And just for the record I hardly ever hear Fox News. I don't have a TV and whatever I hear is usually sound bites from it on the conservative talk shows.
I provided a Fox News link because if I provided anything else you'd make another fake accusation of fake news.
Hope you get to the lady's videos soon, she's saying what I've been saying and doing a much better job of it.
Your record of telling truth from fiction is poor. Provide some evidence of Kaseie's credibility and maybe I'll watch.
I've said this before about videos, but it's worth repeating. Videos that are just of someone talking are an incredibly slow way to absorb information. I can read the same thing about five to ten times faster. Watching talking head videos is a waste of time unless the information is important or compelling. For example, I do have a TV, and I am very interested in the impeachment hearings, but I'm not watching them on C-Span because that's an incredible waste of time. I read news summaries later, and then if I need to dig down into what was said I read transcripts.
AbE: BY THE WAY you say I'm always talking about fake news but never able to demonstrate it. Weird to me of course because it's so pervasive you are swimming in it and repeating it yourself all the time,...
Fake claim. Here's a link to the New York Times front page. Find one article there is fake news (of course skip the opinion section because it is not reportage).
...but anyway Ms. Kasraie says the outpouring of mourning for Solameini was orchestrated by the Islamic state,...
By "Islamic state" I assume you mean the Iranian government. Anyway, that's cute, but ask yourself what Kasraie would have had to do to reliably come by such information. This isn't a novel, this is real life. Do you think she has secret internal government contacts? You do? Awww.
...so the line that it was real mourning for a beloved general must qualify as fake news. But only if you believe her of course.
Yes, we know, you're in love.
She also calls the media a propaganda organ or something like that./abe
Assuming you mean Iranian media then, yeah, most likely some portion of it serves as a propaganda arm of the government.
Oh and I really don't care about your photos, they have nothing to do with this discussion. Trump had nothing to do with it anyway.
Not directly. But under any other president the National Archives would not have doctored an image containing signs critical of him.
Also consider that if it's okay for our government to declare a general of a country with whom we are not at war a terrorist and assassinate him, then it's okay for other governments to do the same to us.
Listen to the videos I posted.
Follow rule 5 and explain from where her credibility derives and maybe I will
But you shouldn't have to. Just on the face of it this is ridiculous. This guy is known for his murdering of Americans and others based on the Islamic jihadi point of view of the current Iranian government, which is NOT supported by a majority of Iranians.
The current US president isn't supported by a majority of Americans.
But even if it was we are certainly within our rights to kill a murderer of Americans.
Fake claim. No, we're not. Perhaps you've heard of the Hague and the World Court.
And if they retaliate and kill more then we'd be right to do more damage to them.
No we would not.
As Trump himself rhetorically asked, "You think our country's so innocent?" Countries who would like to declare the United States an outlaw terrorist nation would be able to muster plenty of evidence.
So what? They'll always spin even our righteous acts that way and most of them ARE righteous.
I think your picture's next to righteous in the dictionary.
The Trump assassination of Soleimani does appear, at least from the publicly available intelligence, to have convinced Iran to try to be more temperate in choosing its terrorist targets. They understand now, as we already know here at home, that Trump is rash and impulsive.
What you "know" is just the usual propaganda.
Fake claim.
He did not act rashly at all,...
Another fake claim.
...and he usually doesn't even when the Left accuses him of it.
It doesn't matter whether anyone accuses him, rash is one of his MO's. Lying with a straight face is another. Ignorance is another. Vengefulness is another.
Taking out Solemaini was a well intelligenced well planned operation against a terrorist.
Except for the part about Soleimani being a terrorist this is all true, but Trump played no role in it. He just gave the order.
And there was something really disgusting about all the alarmist fears on the Left of how this was going to bring on war.
Since you ignore all non-right-wing media, can I assume it was your conservative commentators telling you the left was claiming this would cause war with Iran? I actually read mainstream media commentary, and it can be summarized as saying that this likely made the region more volatile.
Please stop making reference to us. People should only post when they have facts or rational arguments to contribute.
All you've quoted from me concerns my lament that so many hate Trump without a cause.
Stop accusing people of hating Trump. Hate implies irrational emotionality. Objections to Trump stem from the many negative qualities he combines. I've enumerated them many times.
At least in those quotes I don't refer to EvC and I'm referring really to the whole Leftist mentality I know is out there, NOT to EvC.
An obviously fake claim.
And of course you accuse me of all the perfidies the Left always accuses the right...
Fake claim. I accused you of becoming personal when people disagree with you, of emotional hysterics, and of failing to ground your opinions in fact.
...of so let me give you the other point of view just for the record:
Repeating your baseless opinions yet again is so unnecessary.
I would never laud assassination,
It was justice, not assassination.
Fake claim. Much more like a summary execution.
abuse of power,
Trump has never abused his power, that's all a bogus accusation by the Left. But the House certain abused ITS power.
Another fake claim.
obstruction of justice,
Trump has never committed this either.
Fake claim. Providing zero documents or witnesses is pretty obstructive.
In fact he isn't even accused of it. They got smart and realized he hadn't, so they changed their articles of impeachment to "obstruction of Congress" which is a weird idea that they made up and makes no basis for impeaching him.
It's basically obstruction of justice. You can read Article 2 of the articles of impeachment, all the items are defying subpoenas and instructing witnesses not to appear. It wouldn't change the details of what Trump's accused of had they instead put "Contempt of Congress" or "Obstruction of Justice" at the top.
But the "Obstruction of Congress" label that they chose makes a lot of sense and is more accurate. Impeachment is a responsibility explicitly conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, and Trump obstructed their performance of this duty. Trump's obstruction was of a constitutional rather than legal nature.
Hillary DID however commit obstruction of justice when she destroyed all the evidence of her classified emails,...
Yet another fake claim. You're outdoing yourself. There were a few classified emails on Hillary's server, so obviously you're wrong that she deleted them all. And perhaps you can explain how you know that any deleted emails were classified.
...and her husband WAS impeached for actual obstruction of justice, one of eleven felonies he was accused of.
Bill Clinton lied to a Grand Jury, so of course that's obstruction of justice. But unlike Trump his offenses never involved abuse of the power of his office, and this is probably what enabled him to escape removal from office.
lying,
This is said so often I don't even know what it means and even if Trump gets things wrong it's not necessarily lying.
You're dissembling. Trump's lying is obvious. If an example would help, here's Trump lying with a perfectly straight face to the press on Air Force One, saying that he didn't know about the payment to Stormy Daniels:
And in this recent exchange here you started out calling him a liar for what he tweeted to the Iranian people about supporting them...
You're misremembering. You're referring to my Message 4308, and I called him a liar for saying the Iranian people love America, not for saying he supported them.
...and I believe I've answered that accusation more than sufficiently; no lie at all, just political propaganda against him.
Too off-target to bother commenting.
misogyny,
Ridiculous.
Obvious.
racism, xenophobia,
Marxist political correctness, bunch of lies intended to intimidate and denigrate their opponents.
Fake claim. Trump's racist and xenophobic.
polluting the environment,
Political spin that is open to discussion but won't be discussed because according to the Left they are simply right and any opposition is just wrong because it isn't what they think.
Fake claim. He cut back EPA regulations again just recently.
denigrating anyone and everyone who disagrees,
He answers some of the ridiculous accusations against him by people who hate him and say things about him that are completely false, but it's his defending himself you attack.
Yeah, right.
vengefulness,
No idea what this refers to but as usual I think of the vengefulness on the Left against him for simply having won the election against Hillary. It's been nothing but a vendetta trying to take him out ever since.
There's a ton of examples of Trump vengefulness just in his own administration. Anyone who displeases him is fired and denigrated ignominiously.
etc. I'm on record as objecting to Reagan's foolishness (e.g., trees pollute more than cars and ketchup is a vegetable) as much as Clinton's mendacity ("It all depends upon what the meaning of the word is is.)"
Total non sequitur.
Totally out to lunch. Read my post. I'm replying to where you accused me of hating Trump for doing things I would have lauded in any other president. I'm making the point that I object to negative qualities no matter who displays them, and these are examples of qualities I objected to in other presidents.
I mean like TYPICAL AMERICAN justice, the kind we've always practiced in such situations that nobody ever objected to until Trump did it.
Seriously nutso.
Did anyone call taking out Bin Laden "assassination" of a rightful foreign official?
You have to ask this?
It was the Democrats in jthe House that refused to allow the President due process.
Do you just forget all the times the impeachment process in the House has been explained to you, or do you still just not understand it?
You guys can twist and turn anything upside down.
When you think everyone else is upside down, guess what?
What "oversight" of the President?
Good grief. It's called impeachment. Congress also has oversight of the various executive departments that it created for the chief executive.
They do not have the right to interfere in his Constitutionally given powers,...
True.
...that's what separate of powers means and it is THEY who are violating it, not Trump.
Are you really this confused? The power of impeachment of the president is expressly provided to the House in the Constitution:
quote:The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Glad we could clear that up for you.
Not only did these House fascists...
Aw, come on, tell us how you really feel.
...interfere in Trump's lawful actions,...
What interference would that be, pray tell.
...and absurdly try to criminale them,...
I think you mean "criminalize." Trump is accused of no violations of any law in the articles of impeachment, so there was no attempt to criminalize anything. He's accused of constitutional violations.
...but now they are trying to tell the Senate what to do.
Yeah, like honor the constitutional oath they take to perform impartial justice. McConnell and Graham are already on record stating they are not impartial.
Somebody needs to give then a good smackdown.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or much earlier in your case.
When you think everyone else is upside down, guess what?
In group partner dance classes, many if not most students show up without a partner. The normal class structure is for students to pair up (randomly or otherwise) with partnerless students distributing themselves as evenly as possible between couples in order to facilitate rotation. Then periodically the teacher will have the students rotate (normally, the followers will rotate for two main reasons: 1) guys are terrible at rotating and get confused easily, and 2) this encourages guys to come back to the next class because they think that women come to them (not an official reason , but it does seem to work. )).
Some rank beginner couples (usually married, some even fundies (I know this from actual friends)) are too embarrassed or uncomfortable with rotating to other partners and so place themselves at a disadvantage in learning, because instead of rotating to experienced students who can help them learn how it should be done (a lot of dancing basics have to be learned by feel and by experiencing them) they are arbitrarily getting themselves stuck with a newbie who has no idea what he/she is doing. Despite the standard joke about Baptists ("Why do Baptists disapprove of having sex while standing? Because they're afraid it might lead to dancing."), there's nothing inherently sexual about partner dancing, but still too many non-dancers continue to have such misconceptions.
Part of the group class rotation experience is that you will get some good partners and some bad partners, some experienced partners and some rank beginners. IOW, your own experience will be mixed, but by rotating through everybody it should balance itself out. There are also ways in which an experienced student can compensate for an inexperienced partner, such that I as an experienced leader can make my lead stronger for an inexperienced follower, even to the point of almost manhandling her -- I don't know how the experienced followers deal with inexperienced leaders except possibly to try to avoid physical injury (eg, in my early college years in karate class wall stretches, I was paired with a beginner who apparently dislocated my hip though it apparently popped back into the socket immediately -- after a year or three of recovery, I migrated to Aikido and that hip is still not quite right after more than 40 years, especially during sex (missionary style), though sitting during long stretches of driving comes close).
Now for the payload/punch line.
Our Lindy Hop instructor was a younger guy. In one class, he told us that as we rotate in class, we get some partners who are good and some partners who are not good and some partners who are a problem. If all your partners are a problem, then you are the problem.
That should be a lesson for Faith. We all know that she will not learn it.
One of her opinions is that a MAJORITY of Iranians are happy about the death of Soleimani. So that's one of her opinions you doubt.
Yep, you're right there. I doubt it because I understand what it would take to produce a valid evaluation of what the majority of Iranians in Iran believe. You could ask much more than a majority of such Iranians individually; I bet she hasn't done that. You could poll a random sample of such Iranians with a carefully designed questionnaire and do the statistical analysis; I bet she hasn't done that.
Do you think she's done either of those, or do you have a suggestion for how she could produce a valid evaluation?
I bet she has talked with people in her immediate circle and indirectly gotten some information from people in their immediate circle and mistaken that for a significant sample and unjustifiably extrapolated. I bet none of the poor in Iran are included in that sample, and probably other significant groups are excluded.
The "process" in the House had nothing to do with any precedent whatsoever. They violated every principle of fair trials (not to mention shredding the Constitutional standards for impeachment). The Clinton impeachment was a model of fairness and this was nothing like that.
You've been corrected on what an impeachment is so many times that it would be naive to believe one more correction would make a difference, but consider this. If what took place in the House was the trial, then what's taking place in the Senate now?
I'm sorry you believe all that. Please listen to Erica Kasraie's videos in Message 4323 and following. You may be so hardened in your acceptance of the Ldeftist point of view you'll just go on attacking me and calling Trump a liar even after you hear her. I hope not but by now I know how the wind blows at EvC.
Fake claim. Yes, Trump's a liar. Until you actually engage in discussion instead of repeating your baseless accusations and opinions there's no point in saying anything but liar, liar, liar. Then there's this that you won't respond to: https://www.washingtonpost.com/...aims-his-first-three-years. And this example of how easily Trump lies:
The Republicans used to know who Trump was, before as president he proved he could force anyone who opposed him out of office or out of his administration. Some choice 2016 Republican comments:
The GOP needs to elect Trump, then impeach him. Jonathan Ashbach, a conservative writer for the Federalist, a right-wing online magazine, in October of 2016.
I won’t vote for Trump. I can’t imagine I’d remain a Republican if he becomes president. Vin Weber, former Republican Representative from Minnesota.
If we nominate Donald Trump we will get destroyed. And we will deserve it...He isn’t a Republican. He isn’t a conservative. Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator from South Carolina.
[Trump has] a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world. Mitt Romney, Republican Senator from Utah.
I’m out. I can no longer in good conscience endorse this person for president. Jason Chaffetz, Republican Representative from Utah, said after release of the Access Hollywood tape.
This is fatal...How can you get him out of the race? Paul Ryan, former speaker of House of Representatives and a Republican from Wisconsin.
AbE: She said a "majority" of the Iranian people are happy with what Trump did, BUT if you are right and the majority are against us, it makes no difference to the rightness of his taking out Solameini. It was the right thing to do, saying We will not tolerate the senseless ideologically driven murder of Americans, and if you continue you'll find out just how strong and precisely directed our military responses can be.
Empty claim. You're just repeating your opinion and ignoring the explanations of why the Soleimani assassination was both reckless and wrong.
Simple fairness and Constitutional rights and freedoms apply in ANY American proceding.
False claim. For example, those who are the targets of a grand jury investigation and their lawyers have no right to appear. You've been told this before. Are you that forgetful, or are just denying facts again?
They were honored in the Clinton impeachment, but completely suppressed in this one.
Yet another false claim, and you've been told why before. You didn't address that information all the previous times it was presented, you likely will continue to ignore it, so there's no point repeating it.
It's all a political witch hunt, based on totalitarian fascist ways of operating, utterly contrary to our American standards.
Fake claim, pure baseless opinion completely unsupported by fact or rational argument.
That said, Trump could have had his lawyers participate. He chose not to.
Very late in the "proceedings" and only under the permission or denial determined by the partisan leaders. Totally Star Chamber, totally kangaroo court.
Totally baseless name calling.
Wake up.
Yes, you should try it, especially digesting some facts.
We've been witnessing a Congressional farce of unprecedented proportions, unconstitutional and in violation of every American principle of fairness.
Repeating wrong statements doesn't make them any less wrong.
The "articles of impeachment" are a complete joke.
You've been informed many times that Article I is abuse of power as testified to by members of the Trump administration about his actions to coerce the Ukraine into investigating a potential political rival. And Article II is obstruction of Congress, the failure to provide a single document or witness. They are no joke.
Clinton was impeached on actual criminal charges, of which there were eleven determined by the investigation. Neither of these ridiculous charges against Trump violates any known legal standard, it's all a gigantic hoax.
Mostly false claim. Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice related to marital infidelities. The only part of your claim that is correct is that these *are* criminal offenses. But the Constitution is a higher standard than laws, and Trump has been impeached for constitutional violations related to affairs of state.
, but it does seem to work. )).
™ Version 4.2
(1)