The Right Side of the News

The conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy was very easy to follow. Yes, it's true that Mulvaney wasn't very clear. In fact, he was contradictory. He said that the money Congress allocated for Ukraine military aid both was and wasn't held up on condition of investigating the Bidens. See the transcript of Mulvaney's press conference. Read the transcript. Mulvaney said the money wasn't held up on condition the Ukraine investigate the Bidens, but that it was held up on condition they cooperate with DoJ investigations, which include investigating the Bidens. What are people to conclude when you assert both a thing and its opposite? The testimony by various witnesses before the House committees, especially by former Ukrainian Ambassador Bill Taylor, made it very clear that there was a quid pro quo. This is incorrect. Trump believes the conspiracy theory that it was the Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 election, not Russia, and that the Bidens were involved. Trump wants to investigate Biden corruption in the Ukraine of any type, election-related or otherwise, because anything uncovered will help him in the 2020 election. A Trumper who doesn't believe the Ukraine is hiding a server from the 2016 U.S. presidential election? I didn't know such people existed.--Percy

Yes, oh Faith of many repetitions. We would all like the truth to come out. One thing that would greatly help the truth come out is White House cooperation--Percy

You might want to read the Politico report of February 2017 which I posted in Message 3099The following post video of the interview of Senator Ron Johnson by Mark Levin is chock full of information about all this but unfortunately they took it down because Levin's stuff comes from his own private website. It's worth subscribing to by the way if you have any interest in hearing the other side.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I read Message 3099, but there's really nothing there in what you posted. The article itself is 37,000 words long. If you think there's evidence of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election in that article you'll have to narrow it down and quote specific portions.What you quoted does raise certain questions. For example, if a Ukrainian becomes aware that Paul Manafort is working with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election on Donald Trump's behalf, and if that Ukrainian alerts officials in Hillary Clinton's campaign, is that also campaign interference? If you intended to post a video, you forgot to include it. I don't really see things in terms of sides. I see things in terms of sound judgment, honesty, integrity, dignity, respect, and a high regard for the facts. Though politics tends to weed out those in possession of these qualities, there are still some people on both sides of the aisle who have them. Someone lacking these qualities might call someone who is only doing their job and telling the truth as they see it a "low life" or "human scum" and so forth. Or they might carry out a campaign of misdirection convincing the country the process is unfair instead of focusing on the facts.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve 2nd to last sentence of last paragraph - it still says the same thing.

EvC Forum has always tried to encourage civil debate, with varying degrees of success and many notable failures. Some seem determined that debate not be civil since a losing proposition can be hidden and eventually forgotten by transforming the discussion into a war of insult and denigration.The Washington Post opinion piece Charles Krauthammer championed civil debate. His example is needed now more than ever, written by his son, contains some of the best advice I've ever seen for civil debate. A few excerpts:

quote:

---

...whoever holds power, all sides must respect the fundamental legitimacy of their political rivals; that their differences be seen not as treasonous or out of bounds, but rather as healthy disagreement within our divided and adversarial system of government, which as a whole and only as a whole retains ultimate authority. Members of the other party may be your opponents, but within the walls of our democratic constitutional order, they are not your enemy. Where freedom and pluralism reign, you must convince, not overpower.
...
...winning the debate means mounting the superior argument: using sounder reasoning and marshaling more compelling evidence. And it means not attempting shortcuts to victory by trying to delegitimize the other side before the debate even begins.
...
When we contend that those with differing views are not just wrong but are bad people criminals even we abandon genuine debate. If we hold that their conclusions stem not from faulty logic or evidence but from fundamental ill will and nefarious intentions, then no progress can be made. No one ever changed their mind because their opponents called them evil.

​

A second, twin strategy that my father criticized was apocalyptic alarmism...The other side’s program is leading to the destruction of all we hold dear, and certain disaster can be avoided only by following our own side’s particular political path. With the stakes so high sometimes even the literal end of the world everything else becomes secondary. Procedural obstacles even constitutional ones become intolerable. The only justifiable option becomes overpowering the opposition by any means necessary.

​

In today’s politics, neither side of the political divide has a monopoly on such hyperbole. We hear partisans on both sides claiming that their adversaries are full of evil intent and hatred; that if their own party doesn’t win, America will be lost forever.

​

Such strategies are good only for rallying those who already agree with you; for whipping them into a panic; for making them less willing to even consider the other side’s position and more willing to do whatever it takes to keep others out of power or even more drastically to silence them.
...
...my father came to the national debate with humility and in good faith. He saw his political sparring partners as mistaken and perhaps ill-informed, but still as fundamentally decent and well-intentioned souls who wanted the best for their country, too. He sought to dismantle their arguments and ideas, not to assault their character.

---

I quoted more than I originally intended, but I urge everyone to read the full piece. You'll be a better person for it.--Percy

There can be no civility when one side or a person refuses to acknowledge facts.
There can be no civility when people involved bring up the same argument time and time again even if it has been shown to be factually incorrect innumerable times.
There can be no civility when people involved continue to post lies and disinformation.
There can be no civility when people involved in the debate continue to attack the morals, intelligence and love of country, of those that disagree.

You really need to quit drinking. What is it about Faith that makes you unable to stop the personal attacks on her? We all know she is the way she is. Why does this disturb you so much? I looked for clues in your Creation/Evolution Home Page and found that you had some bad experiences with dishonest creationists. Apparently you think Faith is also dishonest. Try and stick with the argument itself and don't make it so personal with her. She is not going to change anytime soon.

Faith is dishonest.

We will know them by their fruits. If atheists ever feel the need to discredit religion, then Faith's posts are some of the best material.Faith is perhaps our best asset because she shows the world the level of ignorance, blindness, and immorality that it takes to support Trump and some of the most vile policies conservatives are pushing.

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO WHOMEVER IT MAY CONCERN THAT SOME POSTERS HERE ARE LEAVING THE DEBATE AND ITS RULES BEHIND TO SMEAR A PERSON INSTEAD, A MEMBER OF HE FORUM. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THIS TO BE MORALLY AND LEGALLY OUT OF BOUNDS.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If you truly don't want to be called one, then stop being one!You could start by stopping your incessant parroting of bullshit Trumpian liies and instead actually examine what is happening.

IT IS REALLY SAD THAT THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE BECOME SO INSANE YOU CAN ACTUALLY JUSTIFY ATTACKING A PERSON WHO DISAGREES 2WITH YOU. THAT IS OUT OF BOUNDS IN ANY CIVIL SOCIETY, BUT YOU PROVE OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THIS IS NO LONG A CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE LEFT HAS MADE IT SO.I BLEIVE WHAT I WRITE HERE. I KNOW I AM IN A NEST OF TRUMP HATERS AND IT IS YOU ALL WHO ARE SHOWING THE EVIL CHARACTER OF TRUMP HATERS BY ATTACKING ME.DWISE, TAQ, THEODORICEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We don't hate Trump; we do deplore what he and his deplorable minions are doing to America and the rest of the world.

May I point out that it is very hard to tell the difference between someone who tells obvious falsehoods and a determined liar.

The irony is strong with this one.--Percy