Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[Arcadia]

I do but the moderators delete the stories. What a PC group this is becoming. Or, if you don't agree with a story because it goes against your political thought, it is removed. Crazy stuff!

I actually think you owe the moderators an apology. Considering that I've seen WesL "like" quite a few of your posts, the fact that you jumped to this ridiculous 'they're out to get me' theory is beyond absurd. Matt, what is happening to you?

 

[Matt]

I have no idea. See - that wasn't so hard. I didn't try to find some wacko excuse or link some opinion article or tweet. If it's important, I'm sure the reason (or an excuse) will come out.

I actually think you owe the moderators an apology. Considering that I've seen WesL "like" quite a few of your posts, the fact that you jumped to this ridiculous 'they're out to get me' theory is beyond absurd. Matt, what is happening to you?

OK, I apologize. They have been fair.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

Did Schiff sit on WB Complaint ? Why ?

https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/adam-...blowers-complaint-before-it-was-filed-report/

Did Schiff have prior contact with WB after saying he did not ?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-timeline/index.html

Did WB have a political bias ?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/whistleblower-registered-democrat/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-wh...nship-with-current-2020-democratic-candidate/

Did Schiff recruit two NSC staherrs that had a previous work relationship with WB ?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-who-worked-with-whistleblower-at-white-house

So, I shouldn’t believe any of those articles, right? Aren’t they coming from “fake news” sites that you’ve said can’t be believed?

 

[Matt]

So, I shouldn’t believe any of those articles, right? Aren’t they coming from “fake news” sites that you’ve said can’t be believed?

It's your choice.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

It's your choice.

Did you believe them? If so, why? What made them trustworthy on these articles as opposed to all of the others?

 

[Matt]

Did you believe them? If so, why? What made them trustworthy on these articles as opposed to all of the others?

Why don't you fact check them yourself. There are other outlets reporting the same thing.

 

[KoD]

The article says Schiff had a couple days heads up, not six weeks. I'd assume that's well after the WB complaint got to the ICIG and it was determined to be credible and urgent. I'd not be surprised or think that's suspicious in the least if true. It was probably making rounds amongst Congress before the public got in on the news.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

Why don't you fact check them yourself. There are other outlets reporting the same thing.

Because I didn’t ask why I should believe it, I asked why you bleivedit. It’s okay, we all know the answer, I just wanted to see if you’d actually admit it.

 

[Matt]

The article says Schiff had a couple days heads up, not six weeks. I'd assume that's well after the WB complaint got to the ICIG and it was determined to be credible and urgent. I'd not be surprised or think that's suspicious in the least if true. It was probably making rounds amongst Congress before the public got in on the news.

Complaint filed August 12, 2019.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html


Complaint released Sept. 26, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html

If it was deemed credible and so very urgent, why the delay ? Why did The ICIG keep from Republican members of the committee ?

 

[KoD]

It's a strawman debate, but you're asking the same questions the Democrats did during the first hearing. Why did it take so long for a credible and urgent report to get to Congress? Whose to say McConnell didn't know about this too? I don't see a reason for him to tell anyone publicly if he did. You're very focused on Schiff and the ICIG, and suspicion is reasonable, but you're stating pure speculation about devious behaviors when the heart of the story is about the transcript memorandum, which was read and interpreted by many to support the WB complaint. I don't see how it's even marginally exonerating. I read it and completely understand the push for further investigation.

 

[gangstonc]

Complaint filed August 12, 2019.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html


Complaint released Sept. 26, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html

If it was deemed credible and so very urgent, why the delay ? Why did The ICIG keep from Republican members of the committee ?

It’s actually normal for a WB to go to congress for guidance in this situation, in this case it was an AIDE to Schiff. The WB was told how to properly continue. Nothingburger.

I find it very telling that the leading strategy to defend trump on this scenario isn’t to actually defend what he did (because it’s an obvious abuse of power and obatruction) but to attack the process and WB.

If the facts don’t support you, try to get off on a technicality.

 

[Matt]

Because I didn’t ask why I should believe it, I asked why you bleivedit. It’s okay, we all know the answer, I just wanted to see if you’d actually admit it.

Everything in the reports was confirmed by the ICIG in his testimony or by Schiff himself.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

Everything in the reports was confirmed by the ICIG in his testimony or by Schiff himself.

That’s not my point, and you know it. But hey, your own words were “I post actual news stories”, so at least you recognize that your usual “references” are trash.

 

[Evan]

No it is not. Answer me this. If this was such an important matter of national security, why did Schiff sit on it for six weeks ?




And I'll ask you the same. If this was a issue of such importance regarding national security and a president asking a foreign government to help his campaign, why would Schiff sit on it for six weeks ?



As bad as Snoop Dogs video ? Or Kathy Griffin's severed and bloody Trump head ?




I don't take orders fro you. All I said is fact. Look elsewhere.



Did you see the Broadway play where Trump is executed ?

You know that's false. It was a production of Julius Casear. Did you not have to read/watch Julius Caesar in HS or college? I thought everybody had.

Do you know what the moral of Shakespeare's play is?

Quoting from Wikipedia:

Set in Rome in 44 BC, the play depicts the moral dilemma of Brutus as he joins a conspiracy led by Cassius to murder Julius Caesar to prevent him from becoming dictator of Rome. Following Caesar's death, Rome is thrust into a period of civil war, and the republic the conspirators sought to preserve is lost forever.

In the production of Julius Casear, the actor was dressed to look similar to Trump. But, again, the moral of the story isn't to glorify violence or urge someone to be violent against Trump. It's exactly the exact opposite.

Here's an interesting take from professionals who perform a Shakespeare festival:

“It’s an odd reading to say that it incites violence, because the meat of the tragedy of the play is the tragic repercussions of the assassination,” said Bill Rauch, the artistic director of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival, which is presenting a “Julius Caesar” throughout this year. “The play could not be clearer about the disastrous effects of violence.”

This is not very different from the recent movie that Hollywood was forced to shelve which disingenuous social media trolls and Clickservatives tried to claim was glorifying the hunting and killing of Trump supporters. The movie actually had the opposite message, the Trump supporters were the good guys, and the entire message of the movie was that people should be judged for who they are not what political beliefs they hold.

You choose to believe these false narratives and untrue claims because they comport with a narrative you very much want to be true.

Personally, I think the production of Julius Caesar should've known that people would intentionally ignore the longstanding moral of their play and instead focus on disingenuously twisting what the play was actually saying. They should've known that most Americans lack the education to understand Shakespeare, and that a significant number of Trump supporters have of goal of whining as much as possible about things they can twist because they know their audience will never question anything they tell them.

There's a stark difference between the Julius Caesar production and the Trump snuff film that murdered President Obama, John McCain, and many other real individuals. What was the underlying message? It certainly wasn't that violence wasn't the answer like it is in Julius Caesar.

Kathy Griffin was completely wrong and her conduct was appalling. It was stupid, senseless, and macabre. Just like the Trump snuff film. So I assume you're in agreement that all of the people involved in creating and showing the snuff film should be black-listed and personally condemned like Kathy Griffin was? You're going to be consistent here, right?

 

[Evan]

Complaint filed August 12, 2019.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html


Complaint released Sept. 26, 2019

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html

If it was deemed credible and so very urgent, why the delay ? Why did The ICIG keep from Republican members of the committee ?

He didn't. We've already gone over this, but neither the Democratic members nor the Republican members were given a copy of the Whistleblower complaint until the DNI allowed the ICIG to do so.

The DNI blocked the ICIG from doing so at the behest of the White House and DoJ. That happened even though the law says the complaint is supposed to be transmitted within 7 days. This has been well-documented and reported on. The ICIG notified both parties that there was a credible complaint on September 12th yet said he couldn't release it because the DNI was blocking it.

What your claiming doesn't follow any of the document timestamps or well-reported timelines out there. The ICIG wanted to transmit the report to Congress within the 7 day window as the law states, but the White House and DOJ pressured the DNI to block it. Did you somehow forget about all of that?

Decent timeline in this WaPo article

 

[gangstonc]

Bolton will have to testify to this. It could be his sweet revenge. Or, if he denies, he better hope nobody has notes.

 

[Evan]

Did Schiff sit on WB Complaint ? Why ?

https://nypost.com/2019/10/02/adam-...blowers-complaint-before-it-was-filed-report/

Did Schiff have prior contact with WB after saying he did not ?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower-timeline/index.html

Did WB have a political bias ?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/whistleblower-registered-democrat/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-wh...nship-with-current-2020-democratic-candidate/

Did Schiff recruit two NSC staherrs that had a previous work relationship with WB ?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-who-worked-with-whistleblower-at-white-house

Several of the questions you asked are actually answered in the articles you posted.

I know you don't like it, but at the end of the day you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that this situation isn't going away. Either Trump did something improper and impeachable or he didn't.

No one but hardcore partisans believe Trump's spin that his phonecall was "perfect" or his attacks on the whistleblower. We now have testimony from a couple of significant witnesses that backup the whistleblower's claims, as do the documents showing text messages between various members of the State Department.

The American people want to know whether or not Trump conditioned sending previously appropriated funds for Ukraine's military on Ukraine opening up an investigation into a political opponent. The DoD believed the White House was illegally withholding the funds. Bill Taylor clearly had issues with it as well. Trump's own ICIG and numerous members of his own NSC were also quite bothered by the situation.

Events have already been set in motion and things are too far gone for Trump to stonewall this. Either he answers the questions and requests being made as part of the impeachment inquiry, or he's also going to face an obstruction article. You're more than welcome to continue to scream about the whistleblower and Schiff, but none of this is in their hands anymore. It's for the American people to decide, and polling shows that a majority of Americans want Congress to get to the bottom of this, and if Trump acted corruptly they want him impeached. Nothing you can say will change those facts. Adam Schiff and the whistleblower don't decide Trump's fate. We do.

 

[KoD]

Several of the questions you asked are actually answered in the articles you posted.

I know you don't like it, but at the end of the day you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that this situation isn't going away. Either Trump did something improper and impeachable or he didn't.

No one but hardcore partisans believe Trump's spin that his phonecall was "perfect" or his attacks on the whistleblower. We now have testimony from a couple of significant witnesses that backup the whistleblower's claims, as do the documents showing text messages between various members of the State Department.

The American people want to know whether or not Trump conditioned sending previously appropriated funds for Ukraine's military on Ukraine opening up an investigation into a political opponent. The DoD believed the White House was illegally withholding the funds. Bill Taylor clearly had issues with it as well. Trump's own ICIG and numerous members of his own NSC were also quite bothered by the situation.

Events have already been set in motion and things are too far gone for Trump to stonewall this. Either he answers the questions and requests being made as part of the impeachment inquiry, or he's also going to face an obstruction article. You're more than welcome to continue to scream about the whistleblower and Schiff, but none of this is in their hands anymore. It's for the American people to decide, and polling shows that a majority of Americans want Congress to get to the bottom of this, and if Trump acted corruptly they want him impeached. Nothing you can say will change those facts. Adam Schiff and the whistleblower don't decide Trump's fate. We do.

I couldn't of said it better myself.
If Trump has any success in obstructing this highly credible concern then IMO there will be little reliability left in the US model for democracy. Honestly throwing the partisanship aside, the system of checks and balances has to function without interference from another branch of government.



If the shoe was on the other foot Matt, you would want to know the full story and the truth.
Just as how you are convinced there's a Schiff Democratic MSNBC CNN conspiracy trying to take down Trump, others believe with the same passion and conviction that Trump tried to use his businessman tactics and his power to abuse our democracy for self advantage.
I hope one day you'll drop the ridiculous far right nonsense and come closer to the middle. Yeah MSNBC has a left agenda, as does CNN and BBC to a more minor extent. Fox, NYPost, Breitbart etc have a right agenda. You know that going in and use it to identify malicious headlines and stories. You're lacking heavily in that ability with obvious partisanship to one side.


Everyone should be able to look to their political right, and political left, and see abunch of extremist idiots equally on both sides.
If you are looking to the left or right and you don't see as many idiots or bias on your side as the other, then you need to re-evaluate where you are on the political spectrum.

 

[WesL]

Bolton will have to testify to this. It could be his sweet revenge. Or, if he denies, he better hope nobody has notes.

I will fully admit I'm not Bolton's biggest fan but this news restored some faith that there were people in the government that were trying to do the right thing.

 

[Kory]

Zero credibility. What else are they being misleading about?