|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: ...although there's been a lot of discrepancy the Republican interrogators have been exposing,... And those discrepancies would be?
...and the "whistleblower" is contradicted by the phone call transcript itself, rightly understood by all the conservative commentators I hear every day. And those contradictions would be? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
I see you already got three replies and so have probably been corrected three times, but here's another anyway describing how Trump changed his tune as soon as he realized the jig was up.
The story told by the witnesses before the Congressional committee is that Trump through his personal lawyer Giuliani conducted a program of pressure on the Ukraine to publicly announce two things: a) that Ukraine would initiate a search for the secret DNC server that had been spirited away to the Ukraine; and b) that Ukraine would also initiate investigations into Burisma and the Bidens. Trump's pressuring of the Ukraine all took place out of the public eye. Here are extracts from the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky:
quote: But on September 9th the House Intelligence Committee was informed of the whistleblower complaint. Knowing this information would soon become public Trump immediately changed his tune, so when Trump spoke with Sondland later that day he conveyed a completely different message. Trump describes what he told Sondland on that September 9th day in this later tweet from November 20th:
And two days after the lid blew off Trump freed up the Ukraine military aid, so Zelensky no longer needed to make the announcement. But the freeing of the military aid may not be why Zelensky cancelled the announcement. Another chain of logic argues that we don't really know why Zelensky didn't make the announcement, because Zelensky still desperately needed the Oval Office meeting because it would symbolize U.S. support for the Ukraine even more than the military aid. This possibility is called to our attention by the testimony of Fiona Hill and David Holmes. Zelensky was scheduled to make the announcement on CNN around the same time the whistleblower complaint became known, and even after the aid was freed up there was still a great deal of concern among rank and file in the State Department that Zelensky would still go ahead with the announcement, even though he was cautioned strenuously through diplomatic channels not to get caught up in U.S. domestic politics. Fortunately Zelensky never made the announcement, but we can't really be sure why. About the server Trump keeps going on about: No such server ever existed or could exist - the DNC servers, just like the RNC servers and the server for this forum, were in the cloud. Websites are not commonly associated with specific webservers (computers configured for serving web content) anymore. For the most part it's just data images on disks that can run on any server in the cloud. Bottom line: there was never any specific "DNC server," and so there can be no DNC server that was spirited off to the Ukraine. Even a decade ago before cloud serving took over, no one would ever ship out an entire server. They'd just remove the disk drive and ship that. But these aren't the kinds of things that 90% of the people are going to understand. Understanding that Ukraine is hiding a secret computer is easy to understand, but wrong. Understanding how cloud serving works is complicated and has a vague and nebulous feel to most people, but that the DNC servers were cloud servers is correct. But even more important than all these details is that Trump has no evidence for any of the diversionary fictions he's making up, except to say things like, "People are saying..." and so forth, which is just more fiction. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Sorry, Mark, I misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought the "based on what they hope will happen, but largely on what has already happened, based on the sales and reviews of Trump's books" portion was your rationale for why you didn't think Simon and Schuster made those statements. You originally attributed the quote to Amazon, and given your habit of arguing persistently in error I thought you were still arguing that it was Amazon and not Simon and Schuster.
You're both pretty unhinged, and I'm going to disengage for now. Sorry you feel misunderstood, but I don't think RAZD and I are alone in having difficulty following you. If RAZD and others are like me then they have a great deal of difficulty seeing the connections you obviously think you see between your "facts," the real world, and your conclusions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
marc9000 writes: It wasn't clear to me whether you accepted the reality of the hollowing out of rural America and the dramatic impacts it is having. Yes, though I don't think give away programs and increased government involvement is going to solve much. Well, we sort of agree. Certainly give away programs should only be part of a social safety net, not long term answers, but government does need to be involved. I don't know what form government rural assistance would take, but rural America needs help. It's amazing that so many Representatives and Senators and governors in red states get elected by promising to do less and less for rural folk as their life's blood is sucked out into the cities.
I do understand that a big reason for increased hardships in rural America is environmental requirements and restrictions. I have no idea why you think this. What "environmental requirements and restrictions" do you think rural America is suffering under.
One example; there wasn't much need for hospitals in the region of the Keystone XL pipeline when Obama was president, because he didn't allow construction activity there. There was no "region of the Keystone XL pipeline." That pipeline would have run through many regions in a narrow, narrow and long, long strip of land. Looking this up, construction of a pipeline goes at the rate of about a mile a day. Pipeline construction crews are mobile units. By the time you built and staffed a rural hospital in one region, pipeline construction would long since have moved on. And how many people do you think pipeline construction takes, anyway? Building a pipeline isn't like discovering oil and gas in the local area. Yes, Obama vetoed the pipeline bill, but even if he had instead signed the bill it wouldn't have resulted in increased hospital construction in rural areas. A lack of local skilled healthcare is just one of burdens of living in modern rural America. Seems like something government should give some serious attention to. Nearly a century ago we had the Rural Electrification Bill that guaranteed electric service to all of rural America. Maybe now's the time for a Rural Healthification Bill. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: I can't answer all this stuff so I guess I shouldn't post at all. Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
I know Trump is being honest, not "changing his tune" to accommodate any of the Democrat bullshit, I'm just astonished at how you are all able to manipulate simple things to make him out to be some kind of criminal and I can't answer that stuff. The reason you have no answers is because there is no defense against the plain testimony we've just witnessed over the past two weeks.
Weird how first it was Russian collusion and the sense of certainty about that was amazing,... One Trump Tower meeting. Multiple Wikileaks contacts (Stone just convicted). Over 140 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian agents or representatives. One corrupt Attorney General of the United States.
...oh any day now Trump is going to go under,... Not sure what you mean by "go under." If you mean resign then no, no one thought that. If you mean many thought the Mueller report sufficient to begin impeachments proceedings, then yes, that is correct.
...then it was obstruction of justice,... Yes, Mueller enumerated eleven instances of obstruction of justice by the Trump administration.
...he's guilty guilty guilty,... And acts it, too.
...then along came this whistleblower who isn't even qualified to be a whistleblower but is just spy in the White House. You don't know who the whistleblower is, but pretty much everything in the whistleblower complaint was confirmed by the transcript provided by the White House, and by all the recent testimony before Congress.
Trump should have cleaned out ever last one of the previous administration's staff but he stupidly didn't. While we don't know the whistleblower's identity, it's strongly suspected that he's a member of the intelligence community detailed to or near the White House.
Democrat Presdients do but Republicans want to be fair and where does it get them. Incoming presidential administrations of both parties always retain huge numbers of civil servants. It's not possible to rebuild the bureaucracy every four or eight years. By and large it is only the upper reaches of the administration who are replaced, such as cabinet members and major department heads.
It gets them spies in the white house and a whole cadre of enemies trying to bring them down accusing them of all kinds of stuff they aren't guilty of. According to all the testimony we've heard, pretty much everything the whistleblower said is true. Trump has abused the of power of his office and obstructed justice.
And it doesn't seem to matter what it is, if one accusation falls apart well we'll just set up another one, and we'll just keep making him responsible for the stuff our guys actually did. No one is holding Trump or the Trump campaign or the Trump administration responsible for anything they didn't do. They did do everything described in the Mueller report and in the recent testimony before Congress. It isn't a question of whether those acts occurred, but whether they rise to the level of impeachment.
Hillary committed real obstruction of justice... If that were actually true then the Republican controlled Department of Justice under Trump appointee William Barr would charge her.
...and Russian collusion... This is still as false as it was all the other times people explained to you the difference between gathering information from Russians and conspiring with Russians.
...but we'll ignore all that... No, no, let's not ignore all that. Let's you explain why you turn a deaf ear each time this is explained.
...and accuse Trump of it instead. Again, Trump and his campaign and his administration did do everything documented in the Mueller report and everything people testified about to Congress over the past two weeks. It's just a matter of whether it's impeachable.
Biden committed the real quid pro quo for personal reasons and... You repeating the same many-times debunked points is getting tiresome.
Trump did no such thing but we'll stick it on him anyway. Bribery and extortion charges are sticking to Trump because people witnessed him doing such things and then testified to Congress about it. Have you been in a cave?
What Trump said on phone calls to the Ukraine and what he actually did are all within normal operations for American Presidents but the Democrats twist it into something criminal. It isn't necessary to twist anything to see that pressuring foreign leaders into lending domestic political assistance is potentially criminal or impeachable or both.
So amazing, turning the US government into a third world swamp for their own political corrupt reasons. Well, yes, that's what Trump is doing.
There are people who can deal with all these shifts and twists but I'm not up to it. This is kind of vague, but if you're referring to your inability to muster any facts in support of your opinions, then I agree.
You have to go out of your way to get the truth these days... All you have to do to get the truth is follow a decent news outlet, or watch the Congressional hearings on TV the past two weeks.
...since the inyourface media are all on the left,... The news media is anti-corruption, whether committed by the left or the right or anyone in between.
...and there is no motivation to do that so you just believe... I just believe? Please leave me out of this.
...whatever the latest lie is concocted by the leftist media and the House Democrats and whoever else doesn't mind destroying the American republic for political gain against a duly elected President. Neither the left nor the media nor the Democrats had anything to do with the Trump/Zelensky phone call or what was testified to. Trump and his administration did it all by themselves.
The gullibility on the left is astonishing but it's beyond my ability to deal with it. An aptitude for ignoring facts is not an effective method of persuasion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
JonF writes: The Biden investigation was closed a year before Joe Biden and many other governments called for the prosecutor's ouster because he wasn't doing any investigating. Did you mean to say, "The Burisma investigation was closed..." under prosecutor Shokin's watch? There was also an investigation into the oligarch founder of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, that stalled under Shokin. These were just a couple factors that led the U.S. and the EU to pressure the Ukraine to remove Shokin. The precipitating event seems to have been Shokin's refusal to provide necessary documentation about a Ukrainian money laundering case in the UK. For lack of evidence the UK was eventually forced to free up the sequestered funds. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
More Trump attack/insult tweets since 11/21. There were several tweets containing lies, but this subthread is only about attacks and insults, some of which also contain lies:
Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 48; Democrats: 1 Faith and Marc: If you're not even going to make a pretense of trying to find the Democrat/news-media attacks and insults that you claim Trump is responding to (rather than initiating unprovoked) then I think you have to concede the point. Trump issues many, many gratuitous insults and attacks on an almost continuous basis user Twitter, his rallies, and speeches. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Thugpreacha writes: My question, as a political moderate, is if there is truth behind some of his insinuations. I'm not sure why you're asking the question. Whenever Trump says anything self-serving it is almost always without exception self-evidently false. Some things he says contain a kernel of truth or are based upon something true, but the parts that represent his own contributions are invariably false. What is surprising, even shocking, is the extremely few number of Republicans who cannot see the lies, or who if they can see them see it in their own best interests to deny them while somehow still being able to live with themselves and sleep at night. But the political costs of backing a liar and criminal appear to be small to non-existent. Can you name a Nixon supporter in Congress who paid a price in terms of the judgment of history? And while Ford lost to Democrat Carter in the next election after Nixon's resignation, Republicans won the presidency in the election after that and held the presidency for the next 12 years. Had Bush Sr. not raised taxes heading into a recession while facing a third party candidacy in Ross Perot it would have been 16 years and perhaps even more after that (though if the candidate had been Dan Quayle it would never have happened).
And I wonder what percentage of the base reads anything beyond the tweets themselves and a favorite Right Wing News source? People rarely seek out facts that contradict their beliefs. And if this forum has taught us anything it's that facts don't convince people. People are not so much rational as rationalizers. So if facts are not how people are convinced then how do you convince people, especially those who are indisputably wrong, like flat-earthers, geocentrists and moon-landing deniers? I don't know.
Any wise constituent of either political persuasion would do well to watch the media that is the ideological opposite of their core beliefs if only to gain somewhat of a perspective. This contains a hint of treating the media as a source of what opinion to hold. They aren't. They're a source of facts, of information. For example, it is a fact that the White House transcript has Zelensky requesting more Javelins and Trump responding, "I would like you to do us a favor, though." Trump wants favors in return for the Javelins. To any Republicans who claim that's not what Trump meant, just tell them that when the Libyans asked for help against Islamic militant groups that Obama responded, "I would like you to do us a favor, though," and see if suddenly the meaning of those words becomes very clear.
Finally, I doubt whether Donald trump even compiles his own tweets these days. He likely has a propaganda minister doing it for him. Not that a Democrat wouldn't do the same thing. Politics can be stressful. First, the tweets contain too many simple spelling errors for that to be true, "Donald Ttump", "hamberders" and "lasting peach" for a few glaring examples. Second, how can you be unaware of the high degree of consternation within the Trump administration in their inability to stop him from tweeting? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
marc9000 writes: Faith and Marc: If you're not even going to make a pretense of trying to find the Democrat/news-media attacks and insults that you claim Trump is responding to (rather than initiating unprovoked) then I think you have to concede the point. Trump issues many, many gratuitous insults and attacks on an almost continuous basis user Twitter, his rallies, and speeches.
It would take a lot of effort to go back to 2015 and 2016,... Maybe you misunderstood, because that wasn't the challenge. There's no need for you "to go back to 2015 and 2016." You and Faith have repeatedly claimed that Trump's constant insults and attacks are responses to insults and attacks on him, so in Message 3273 I asked you to back that up by matching me one for one. You cite a *current* Democrat or mainstream news media attack or insult, and I'll cite a *current* Trump or Fox News attack or insult, and we'll see who runs out first. If you follow the chain of posts back you'll see that all the tweets and news reports I've cited were from the prior 24 hours or so. So far you and Faith are losing 48 to 1, and you only got the 1 because you made reference to an old Ilhan Omar tweet.
With the news media, it's another story. Though they're quite powerful, they're not as powerful as the president. But they're not nearly as hated either. You use the word "hated," and if we can equate that with approval ratings then you are wrong. Trump's approval rating is currently 41.7%, while the most recent figure I could find for the media is around 30% (PolitiFact | Is trust in the media lower than trust in Congress?).
Trump blasts Newsweek over story on his Thanksgiving plans ... Amazingly, Newsweek says they fired this reporter. Yes, Newsweek did fire Jessica Kwong, which makes no sense. The story had to be filed Wednesday, and Kwong could only report on what the White House was making public at that time. The president's trip to Afghanistan was being kept secret for security reasons. Trump did tweet, and he did golf, just like the story said. The story said nothing about the highly confidential Afghanistan trip because no one knew about it. Even if Kwong somehow became aware of the trip she should have written nothing about it out of concern for the president's safety and security. Her firing is a mystery to me. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
In Opinion | America’s Red State Death Trip - The New York Times Paul Krugman writes about his analysis of longevity, wealth and health in Republican states. They're generally lower than in Democratic states. Why is this so?
Krugman's column is brief and undetailed, but here are the few reasons he mentioned:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
According to subpoenaed phone records by House Democrats, the White House, Republican Devin Nunes (ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee), the budget office, Rudy Giuliani, Lev Parnas (indicted partner of Giuliani) and conservative journalist John Solomon coordinated a disinformation campaign of Trump-backed conspiracy theories about the Ukraine around April of this year.
Source: Democrats obtained phone records showing how Trump allies coordinated 'false narratives' - CNNPolitics Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Let's try this again. You and Faith have claimed that attacks and insults from Trump are not something he initiates but are only his response to attacks and insults from Democrats and the mainstream media. This is what Trump said today in London in answer to a question about House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff:
quote: Trump mentions Schiff's parody of Trump's phone conversation with Zelensky, but that was way back in September. What current attack or insult is Trump responding to here? Or is it your contention that once Trump concludes he's been attacked or insulted that he has infinite license for issuing future attacks and insults? Current attacks/insults score: Trump: 49; Democrats: 1 --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
JonF writes: Clinton's actual obstruction of justice.
No such thing happened, and irrelevant anyway. The articles of impeachment included charges of obstruction of justice: Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia
Biden's actual quid pro quo for personal gain, not in the nation's interest
Biden was explicitly acting as a government representative speaking official government policy, as were the many other government's representatives saying the same thing. The complaint was not that an investigation was going on, but that investigations were not going on. This has been explained to Faith many times. It seems nothing will persuade her that the US was working with the EU to influence the Ukraine to remove Prosecutor General Shokin because of his investigatory inactions, and that Biden was the US point man in this effort. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
JonF writes: Clinton's actual obstruction of justice.
No such thing happened, and irrelevant anyway. Should acquittal be interpreted as nothing happened? There was evidence of things Clinton did to obstruct justice. Here's the list:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
This is a link to the full text of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Update on Impeachment.
Faith writes: Limbaugh is also good on Pelosi's speech yesterday. Didn't we think this supposed withholding of aid by Trump was to force an investigation of Biden's son? So how come now she's saying it was really about benefiting Russia. Limbaugh is lying to you. Pelosi doesn't utter the word "Russia" even once. I refer you to Pelosi's text linked to above.
Mark Levin last night was good at exposing how Pelosi's understanding of American history is bogus too. No it did not start in 1776, that was actually the result of many years of offenses by Britain that were being protested in America. Marc Levin is lying to you, too. You're not clear precisely what Levin claimed Pelosi said, but she didn't say anything incorrect about American history. I refer you to Pelosi's text linked to above.
I think we all need a good solid education in the Constitution too from what I hear. You only think that because you're listening to people who are lying to you.
I don't feel I have a good understanding of it either. People like Limbaugh and Levin are counting on that quality in their listeners.
I think we all need a strong presentation, with lots of presenters and plenty of argument, to teach us what we really need to know so we can judge rightly when its being violated. Clearly there's someone present who would benefit from such a presentation.
The House Democrats are saying Trump is violating it. All the conservatives I listen to, many of them lawyers and Constitutional scholars, are saying it's the House Democrats who are violating it. Again, they're lying to you. You can prove it to yourself. This is everything the Constitution has to say about impeachment:
The above is a very few number of words considering the length of the Constitution. Please explain to us what parts the Democrats are violating. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024