The Right Side of the News

You're a broken record of the same false claims. You've only been able to say "fake news," never to show it. The testimony of the Trump administration witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee are available on video for anyone to view, even you. You don't even have to be able to see it. Just listen. You sit in a position of extreme bias, prejudice and ignorance. Over and over again you project your own faults and failures onto others. I would never laud assassination, abuse of power, obstruction of justice, lying, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, polluting the environment, denigrating anyone and everyone who disagrees, vengefulness, 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.)"Neither I nor any of the other contributors to thread are the subject of this thread. Please stop making reference to us. People should only post when they have facts or rational arguments to contribute. The truth is already out. Here's how you and the Republicans in Congress are looking for the truth: That's because we can cite quotes and videos and tweets and images. You should try it sometime. Is there any argument so stupid you won't make it? Do you really think that's the only image taken that day? Can you construct a rational explanation for why someone created a sign saying "God hates" with a big blotch of black below? Here are the images again. Please explain how they should actually be in the opposite order: And the National Archives has admitted they doctored the image. This is from the Fox News article National Archives apologizes for blurring anti-Trump signs in Women's March photo: 'We made a mistake' | Fox News:

quote:

---

The National Archives on Saturday apologized for blurring out signs in a photograph of the 2017 Women’s March in Washington, D.C., showcased at the museum -- saying it would review policies and replace the image.

​

We made a mistake, it said in a statement.

---

Your instincts for truth and fallacy are terrible. It isn't because news of the Iranian protests are hard to find (I'll try to find a Fox News version after I finish typing this) but because your faculties are failing and you can't find anything. Here's a link to a Fox News video for you: Protests in Iran continue for second straight day over accidental shoot down of Ukrainian airliner | On Air Videos | Fox News.But why did you feel the need to find news about the Iranian Protests against their government for downing an airliner? No one disputes this. It doesn't change the fact that Iranians also hate America, especially after the assassination of Soleimani.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. 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.The Trump assassination of Seleimani 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.--Percy

So through all your searching "through all the irrelevant leftist stuff" you somehow never came across the fact that Twitter is mostly blocked in Iran. Incredible. Why do you even try?There is a large expatriate Iranian community, a significant part of which opposes the current regime. It dates all the way back to the Shah and all the people who had to flee when the ayatollahs took over. Hate for America within Iran traces all the way back to the 1950's coup d'tat supported by the US and UK that installed the Shah.Are you seriously trying to argue that there is significant support for the US within Iran? Seriously? Look, practically everything Trump says is a lie. Since Fox Opinion (as opposed to Fox News) swallows almost everything Trump says, most of what Fox opinion makers say is lies, too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/...aims-his-first-three-years. If Trump is telling you that there is a significant faction within Iran that loves America, it's a lie.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Minor fix.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

It was the biggest number for a tweet written in Farsi. But it wasn't because Trump's was the only tweet of support for the Iranian protestors, because it wasn't. And it wasn't because Trump's Farsi was so exquisite. It was because Trump is president of the United States, so it reverberated around the expatriate Iranian community. Referring to everyone who disagrees with you as a hater is way past old.The people of Iran resent America for it's long history of interference. And they resent Trump because of his withdrawal from the nuclear accord, the imposition of harsh sanctions, and the assassination of Soleimani. Yeah, just like Republicans and administration officials fearing Trump's wrath are under the gun. Probably, but still meaningless. If John Smith had written the same Farsi tweet it would have gotten very little attention. It only got attention because Trump is president. This wouldn't make sense if you meant the Farsi tweet, which was a message of support for Iranians protesting against their government after the shooting down of an airliner, so you must have shifted gears to the assassination of Soleimani. It remains rash and reckless, horrible foreign policy and an improper use of our military. How did you become aware of these Iranian people who support the assassination of their top general? You don't have any facts, just bald assertions. He often deserves blame he never accepts. For assassinating the top general of a country with whom were not at war? No, of course I give him no credit for that. It was a serious mistake for which there can only be blame.--Percy

At the Davos conference Trump threatened more tariffs as part of his program of coercion of European allies using protectionist policies. Free trade, a longstanding (very longstanding) and integral part of the Republican platform, is nowhere in sight. From https://www.washingtonpost.com/...t-with-long-time-us-allies:

quote:

---

After 70 years of being largely hand in hand in promoting democracy and capitalism around the world, the United States and Europe are now at odds over trade, climate change, taxation, privacy, Iran and defense funding. And Trump continues to try to use tariffs to pressure European leaders to meet his demands.

---

Trump is not a dealmaker. His hallmark negotiating strategy is the absence of one. In its place he uses strong-arm tactics and intimidation.--Percy

This is the most recent in my series of posts about Trump lying about American casualties after the Iran ballistic missile attack on our bases in Iraq. The Defense Department just shipped another cohort of injured Americans to Germany. So much for the claims of no casualties. https://www.washingtonpost.com/...ssile-attack-pentagon-says:

quote:

---

The Pentagon said Friday that 11 service members required medical treatment outside Iraq. U.S. military officials declined to say Tuesday how many more are receiving care but said additional personnel had been sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.

​

The officials left open the possibility that the number could increase in coming days.

​

The health and safety of all service members is the greatest concern for all Department leadership and we greatly appreciate the care that these members have received and continue to receive at the hands of our medical professionals, Army Maj. Beth Riordan, a military spokeswoman, said in a statement. As medical treatment and evaluations in theater continue, additional service members have been identified as having potential injuries.

​

Riordan’s statement continued: These service members out of an abundance of caution have been transported to Landstuhl, Germany for further evaluations and necessary treatment on an outpatient basis. Given the nature of injuries already noted, it is possible additional injuries may be identified in the future.

​

The statement did not address the condition of the first 11 service members transported out of Iraq, and U.S. defense officials said Tuesday evening that they did not have more information about them to share.

---

Sorry for the long quote, but it was necessary to note the complete lack of transparency. The NFL has no problem using a tent for 10 minutes to conduct tests that immediately reveal concussion-like symptoms. The words the Defense Department used are a coverup of the seriousness of the Iranian attack. Apparently the missiles caused massive blasts causing concussive symptoms in many servicemen that the military did not detect for days and days.The "abundance of caution" phrase is a smokescreen. The only possible truth is that these servicemen were not evaluated for concussions or related injuries at the time and are only being sent to Germany for treatment because they began showing up at the infirmary complaining of symptoms, which could range from headaches to sleeplessness to eyesight problems, etc.Addressing youngsters out there considering a career in the military, this is how much the Trump administration actually cares about you. If you're attacked then only if it furthers Trump's agenda will the true story of what happened emerge, in which case you will get the medical help you need. But if it doesn't serve Trump's agenda then the account of what actually happened will be covered up and your injury didn't happen and won't be immediately treated. It will be denied that you are injured. Treatment could be delayed for days or weeks or forever. When you return stateside and make claims of PTSD they might be denied because your records will not show that you were ever injured.--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Delete content of double post.

Taking out Soleimani perhaps had the positive result of replacing him with a less adept implementer of Iranian terrorist policy, but that policy continues.One positive development is that Iran is giving external indications that they'll be more restrained in their terrorism efforts going forward, but if true it's temporary. Before the end of the year they'll be right back at it.That's especially true if their efforts at refining radioactive materials for nuclear bombs bear fruit. They likely have bombs all ready to go just waiting for nuclear material. They already have ballistic missiles, having demonstrated their range and accuracy just a few weeks ago.A nuclear Iran will be much more aggressive than the current Iran. Announcing a successful bomb will provide a great boost to Iranian prestige and give the government a great boost internally.So I can't agree that the world is a better place. I think it's a more dangerous place now. I think that's why he did it, too.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What makes you think that? Here's a page with a lot of cancer data: Cancer - Our World in Data. The UK, France and Germany are all within 5% of the US as measured by lost years of productive life due to cancer. Italy, Switzerland and Austria fare significantly better, and Sweden, Norway and Finland, countries with the strongest social programs in Europe, fare best. Embarrassingly, Mexico, Nicarague, Panama and Peru all fare significantly better than the US. It did neither you nor your country any good for you to suffer both health-wise and financially for something that was just the luck of the draw. It is far better to spread the costs across the country as a whole, making the entire country richer because you're able to return to a full and productive life more quickly.--Percy

You're off in la-la land again. Neither nationalism nor ultranationalism has anything to do with climate change, and there are no serious proposals for the government "to take over most all decisions in how energy will be produced and used."Was government in Pittsburgh in the 1940's alarmist when they instituted changes to clean the air after too many days like this? Was the government too authoritarian? This image was taken around noontime: I lived in Pittsburgh for a few years while in grad school. I would often leave one of the windows in my bedroom open a crack for some fresh air. In the morning the edge of the window sill would be covered in black soot.One of the main buildings of the University of Pittsburgh (I didn't attend there) is the Cathedral of Learning (from down the street we called it the Tower of Ignorance), a many storied building whose westward side (the windward side) was perpetually blackened by soot. Every ten years or so they would clean that side of the building. They no longer have to do that.Because the climate changes we're already seeing in the form of rising sea levels and and melting glaciers and sea ice and more frequent powerful weather events are real, those calling attention to them cannot be called alarmist, just as those calling attention to Pittsburgh's pollution problems could not be called alarmist. They're realists. Climate change is very real and very threatening and on the verge of reaching a tipping point where there is no going back.Your worries about government becoming too authoritarian are contrived. Your inability to accept climate change as real and human-caused forces you to invent reasons for doing nothing. Climate change has already affected millions of lives personally, and the numbers will only go up, and they already include you. Here's what the EPA says about how Kentucky's climate has already changed at What Climate Change Means for Kentucky:

quote:

---

Kentucky's climate is changing. Although the average temperature did not change much during the 20th century, most of the commonwealth has warmed in the last 20 years. Average annual rainfall is increasing, and a rising percentage of that rain is falling on the four wettest days of the year. In the coming decades, the changing climate is likely to reduce crop yields and threaten some aquatic ecosystems. Floods may be more frequent, and droughts may be longer, which would increase the difficulty of meeting the competing demands for water in the Ohio, Tennessee, and Cumberland rivers.

​

Our climate is changing because the earth is warming. People have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the air by 40 percent since the late 1700s. Other heattrapping greenhouse gases are also increasing. These gases have warmed the surface and lower atmosphere of our planet about one degree (F) during the last 50 years. Evaporation increases as the atmosphere warms, which increases humidity, average rainfall, and the frequency of heavy rainstorms in many places-but contributes to drought in others.

​

Natural cycles and sulfates in the air prevented much of Kentucky from warming during the last century. Sulfates are air pollutants that reflect sunlight back into space. Now sulfate emissions are declining, and the factors that once prevented Kentucky from warming are unlikely to persist.

---

And you can read here what climate change will do to Kentucky in the future: Climate change in Kentucky - Wikipedia I'm affected by everything Trump and the Republicans do because the country I live in is affected by everything they do. Let me count the ways:

• Dirtier air and water
• Less regulation of business increasing likelihood of abuse, e.g., 2008 financial meltdown
• Huge deficits increase the potential for a financial crash and/or hyperinflation
• Cutting off sources of immigration, thereby threatening our future both economically and as a nation of influence
• Reduced access to abortion
• Reduced access to healthcare
• Cutting back the social safety net
• Making corruption acceptable
• Making nepotism acceptable
• Making lack of honesty and integrity acceptable
• Chipping away at the separation of church and state

Of course I've heard of Antifa. I'm on record as denouncing them and their tactics, possibly in this very thread somewhere. There are crazies on both ends of the political spectrum. So what? Assuming David Limbaugh isn't talking about crazies on the left, liberals are not calling conservatives fascists. No, Republcans don't seek anything as sensible and rational as gun control. They seek to control women's actual bodies. What's next, adultery and sodomy laws? Well I see you've learned your Trump lesson well, just keep repeating the same lie over and over again. No one on the left is seeking a government takeover of energy production and use. "Complete government control" is an exaggeration, but socialized medicine is widespread around the world providing people with what should be a basic human right, access to healthcare. You of all people should know that. What would have become of you had you had no insurance instead of 50/50? Yes, that's clear from what I just said. They've been bamboozled. That would be the freedom to die in the unregulated coal mines of the rich who own them, and suffer from the effects of the polluted groundwater these unregulated coal mines cause? You're speaking for the poor in West Virginia now? I very much doubt the poor are monitoring their own water or air quality, especially air quality which requires specialized equipment. And let's say they do discover that their air or water is polluted. What are they going to do about it given that the EPA regulations preventing it are gone? Once again your answer has nothing to do with the question. How does trading carbon credits cause money to flow into Democratic coffers? I didn't say anything about Obama. I'll condemn any president who acts as a divisive force. The passage the title refers to is this one:

quote:

---

He [Obama] said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

---

It seems particularly tactless to say the Republicans have to sit in back like blacks during Jim Crow, but the factual portion of what he says is accurate. The Republican repeal of Glass-Steagal is what led to the 2008 financial meltdown that Obama had to deal with when he became president the following year. Obama successfully led the country out of that mess with the Republicans kicking and screaming all the way. Economic growth resumed in 2010 and continued right through the end of the Obama administration and on into Trump's. You've been misled on this one, plus you obviously didn't watch the video because clicking on it brings up the message:

quote:

---

Video unavailable
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

---

You can get the straight story here, and it includes working video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/...ed-to-bankrupt-coal-plants This is untrue. Democrats want the society they are a part of to pay for them, sharing the wealth so as to enrich everyone. The plight of the rural Republican poor seems more like a prison. There's no jealousy there.What you say is very strange. If Democrats were truly jealous of Republicans they'd just become Republicans. There are no laws keeping people from changing parties. Happens all the time. Just because poor areas of rural America have a much lower population density than cities doesn't mean they aren't slums. Again, where are you getting your information from that Democrats seek to avoid work and live off government handouts?--Percy

And what investigations would those be that the news media isn't telling us about? You've gone free association again. What has this got to do with the news media failing to report about FBI, CIA and DoJ investigations?Anyway, of course I heard about it. CNN reported it: CNN settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann stemming from viral video controversy | CNN Business As factual support? No, of course not. You're a good Trumpist, accusing others of what you do yourself. And there's more detail at The Biden family’s strange business history – POLITICO, a more trustworthy source. Seems like Hunter has a long history of trying to cash in on his father's name and political connections, and there's suspicion of fraud. I find that despicable, but is this the corruption you want investigated? It doesn't have anything to do with the Ukraine, and the statute of limitations has passed, so I don't see why you care. Apparently *your* political discussion is only about your opinions, but please don't project your lack of facts onto others. I'm relying on the testimony of Trump administration officials before the House Intelligence Committee. If you have factual information about Hunter Biden corruption related to the Ukraine then please bring it forward. But if your accusations and opinions are without factual basis then I think you should seek out facts before giving them further voice. I've never said anything like that. To paraphrase Trump, read the thread. Please stick to the facts, if you can find some.--Percy

Why do you believe Erica Kasraie? She's an Iranian expatriate who's spent most of her time the last few years working on behalf of the Libyan National Army. There's nothing wrong with that. The point is that she hasn't spent much time in Iran any time recently.About how well liked Soleimani was in Iran, this is from Qasem Soleimani - Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Soleimani was a popular national figure in Iran, considered a hero especially by supporters of Teheran's hard line politics. According to a poll conducted by the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, by October 2019 Soleimani was viewed favorably by 82% of Iranians with 59% of them very favorable toward him. He was often considered the second most powerful person in Iran, behind Ayatollah Khamenei.

---

This is an incomplete sentence, so I might not get your meaning quite right.There's very little access to Twitter in Iran, so the vast majority of the likes must have come from the Iranian expatriate community which largely opposes the government. Trump's tweet received a great deal of attention because he's president of the United States. Any American president posting such a message would receive a great many likes. Why are you attaching any significance to this? I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance when I was five. Good point. Please follow the Forum Guidelines and rule 5:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

If you make a solid argument then I'll probably watch the video, but you'll also need to provide evidence of Kasraie's credibility. Well, that's out of the blue. What would I be apologizing for - you don't specify. Are you just generally offended when people disagree with you or show you've once again trusted an unreliable source?--Percy

Ah, Karaie, your new hero. Young love!Yes, it would be a bad move for Iran, but we have our own disincentives. Our military is the most powerful in the world, but it isn't invincible. It couldn't win in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan. Look at Iran on a map sometime. It has nearly four times the area of Iraq and more than twice the population. In a war with Iran we *would* win, but we'd also rack up horrific losses. Remember Scud missiles from the Gulf War? Iran has much better.--Percy

You posted three replies to a single message. I'll reply to all of them here. Ah, is that because Kasraie told you so? That's so cute. Fake claim. Keep hearing from who? Are you playing her video over and over again? Yes you are. You're just a bundle of little opinions untethered to reality. Another fake claim. What conservative sources? 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. You heard from who? Precisely how was this investigative reporting conducted? You heard from who? How did they learn this information? Aw, that's sweet. I'm sure she does. Anyone else call her that? 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. Thank Trump for making the world a more dangerous place? Why would anyone do that? No one should do it because it would be wrong. Bin Laden was a terrorist. And everyone praised Trump for taking out al-Baghdadi, also a terrorist. 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. I provided a Fox News link because if I provided anything else you'd make another fake accusation of fake news. 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. 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). 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. Yes, we know, you're in love. Assuming you mean Iranian media then, yeah, most likely some portion of it serves as a propaganda arm of the government. Not directly. But under any other president the National Archives would not have doctored an image containing signs critical of him. Follow rule 5 and explain from where her credibility derives and maybe I will The current US president isn't supported by a majority of Americans. Fake claim. No, we're not. Perhaps you've heard of the Hague and the World Court. No we would not. I think your picture's next to righteous in the dictionary. Fake claim. Another fake claim. 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. 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. 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. 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. An obviously fake claim. 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. Repeating your baseless opinions yet again is so unnecessary. Fake claim. Much more like a summary execution. Another fake claim. Fake claim. Providing zero documents or witnesses is pretty obstructive. 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. 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. 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. 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: For a list see https://www.washingtonpost.com/...aims-his-first-three-years. 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. Too off-target to bother commenting. Obvious. Fake claim. Trump's racist and xenophobic. Fake claim. He cut back EPA regulations again just recently. Yeah, right. There's a ton of examples of Trump vengefulness just in his own administration. Anyone who displeases him is fired and denigrated ignominiously. 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.--Percy

Seriously nutso. You have to ask this? 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? When you think everyone else is upside down, guess what? Good grief. It's called impeachment. Congress also has oversight of the various executive departments that it created for the chief executive. True. 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. Aw, come on, tell us how you really feel. What interference would that be, pray tell. 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. Yeah, like honor the constitutional oath they take to perform impartial justice. McConnell and Graham are already on record stating they are not impartial. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or much earlier in your case.--Percy

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?--Percy