US Politics Thread

[calitennis127]

After listening to the Maddow-Parnas interview one would have to be a stone cold moron not to believe that Trump's actions are impeachable. Fortunately we don't have any idiots like that on this forum... ahem! B-)

And look at this.....Federturd, the world's biggest saphead, was duped yet again by Schiff. Since Federburg's stupid post above (last Thursday January 16th), these two stories have broken about Schiff:

Parnas now denies speaking with Trump despite reports he claimed he had

Parnas now denies speaking with Trump despite reports he claimed he had - Washington Examiner

Indicted businessman Lev Parnas said he did not speak directly with President Trump about a pressure campaign against Ukraine that sought to benefit Trump politically, despite earlier reports to the contrary. Last November, CNN reported that Parnas told close associates he had spoken to Trump...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show

Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show

Unredacted material shows he may have referred to the wrong "Mr. Z."

www.politico.com

Are you feeling even dumber than usual today Federburg? As Broken would say, "your post aged well." B-)

 

[calitennis127]

Mate if you don't understand what Trump's legal team put forth as a rebuttal then I can't do anything to help you. I would suggest you grow a brain, but you're a moron. That's never going to change..

Both sides mostly just said what they have been saying for months. What's comical is that your dumbass can't even consider how ridiculous and weak the Democrats arguments are, such as their contention that Trump had to send military aid to Ukraine right away because Congress approved it. That is a comically stupid argument but one that is only taken seriously because so many people are in a hateful rage against Trump. The presidential administration controls foreign policy. Period.

The even better argument from the Democrats is that "more information is needed" for a fair trial. This is after they denied all Republican witnesses in the House, did a multitude of closed-door meetings, and sped through the House proceedings in order to impeach Trump by Christmas. They did not find any crime during the House investigation so now they want the Senate to dig it up, and if the Senate refuses to do the investigation that the House chose not to, then they are going to call it a cover-up. And they know their dumb voters will believe it.

The funny thing about Schiff is that he knows he can say anything because stupid people like you will believe it, no matter how many times he lies and cheats or is proven wrong. Can't you find a better god to worship than Adam Schiff, or are you that obtuse that you have to revere him?

 

[calitennis127]

Pointing out someone's hypocrisy is not "whataboutism."

Agreed! Again, you sound like a Republican/right-winger because they have been saying that repeatedly to Democrats since 2016. You are like a Lebanese Tucker Carlson at this point. Keep it going!!

If America's whole rationale for killing someone and engaging in full scale wars that kill thousands of innocents is accusing people (rightly or otherwise) of crimes the USA itself has committed more than anyone else, then the natural reaction is to point out to that fact, is it not?

It absolutely is. No objection from me (although I should say Trump has not committed the war crimes of Bush or Obama in the Middle East). But what you are saying is identical to Republicans' contention that the Democrats are being hypocritical when they condemn Trump for "colluding" with Russia or when they prate about the need to prevent foreign interference in American elections.

It was Hillary who paid for opposition research that drew from the work of a foreign agent (British intelligence agent Christopher Steele) in contact with Russian sources to spread disinformation about her political rival (Donald Trump). And it was the DNC in concert with various Ukrainian operatives that "meddled" in the 2016 campaign by leaking info about Manafort to get him fired from the Trump team.

The only difference between your Soleimani v. American president comparison and the Republicans' Trump v. Hillary "collusion"/meddling comparison is that in your case both Soleimani and American presidents (Bush, Obama, etc.) have been mass killers, but in comparing Trump v. Hillary, Trump is completely innocent of the charges while Hillary is entirely guilty of them.

I would remind you of this story from Politico in January 2017 which the Democrats (led by Schiff) are trying to sweep under the rug because they know idiots like Federburg will believe anything they say. The Ukrainians absolutely DID interfere in the 2016 election to help Hillary win. No one has refuted this info:

"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton."

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

 

[Moxie]

From your own article:

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case.”

There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

dems were playing clips of the donald today admitting stuff via his stream-of-thought word salads, and/or boasting..

a classic was the donald at davos "we have all the evidence..the dems have none of the evodence". yikes.

and no coffee allowed in session ?. we feel their pain. no wonder some folk were caught nodding off. :sleep:

 

[britbox]

There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election. And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.

Quite a contrast to US interference in Ukraine.

 

[calitennis127]

From your own article:

Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Yes, according to U.S. intelligence officials, a group of scheming liars who have been wrong dozens of times over the decades and whose claims about Russian interference in 2016 have never been proven or validated, including by the waste-of-time Mueller report.

They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect.

We now know after the Horowitz report that this "possibility" was shear bunk. You are living in January 2017, not January 2020, if you think that theory has any credibility whatsoever. You need to get with the program. The Horowitz report found 17 errors and omissions for the 4 FISA applications that were the basis of believing there was a "possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect."

And that little shit named Kline-Smith deliberately altered an email about Carter Page. The entire Trump-Russian collusion narrative was a farce created by the "intelligence officials" and media.

And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case.”

And I don't think we've ever had a more dishonest dolt leading the DNI than James Clapper. So there's that.

There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election.

Yet the Ukrainian government had a more significant impact on the 2016 election than the Russian government did.

And President Petro Poroshenko’s administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.

And President Putin's administration maintains the same about Russia's stance in the 2016 race, yet I doubt you put any credence in that.

 

[calitennis127]

In what sense would you say it was a farce?

It was based on dishonest and unproven claims by FBI officials to the FISA court, a process that the Horowitz investigation found to entail 17 errors and omissions over the course of 4 applications. It also amounted to nothing more than sour grapes over losing the 2016 election and trying to find a way to explain it away.

And why, all along?

Because all of its underlying claims were proven false and the Mueller report itself stated that after over 20 months of investigation no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government was found.

It was meant to investigate Russian interference in US elections, and it found cause.

No it didn't. What "cause" are you aware of? There was none.

What shocks me is that partisanship keeps Republicans from moving to protect the legitimacy of our elections, going forward.

See? Lol. This is your way of saying "Trump didn't really win in 2016. The election was illegitimate because in my world Donald Trump could never succeed Barack Obama as president of the United States. It's simply not possible unless something 'illegitimate' occurs."

The only problem is that there is zero evidence for your belief that the 2016 election was illegitimate in any way.

The idea that the Russians "hacked" the 2016 election and that's why Trump won is simply a left-wing superstition. It is fact-free nonsense with zero evidence to support it.

 

[Federberg]

Quite an impressive presentation from Schiff yesterday..

 

[tented]

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump's Senate impeachment trial -- What does it take to remove a president?

 

[britbox]

In what sense would you say it was a farce? And why, all along? It was meant to investigate Russian interference in US elections, and it found cause. It found reason for alarm, in that sense. That alone justifies the investigation. What shocks me is that partisanship keeps Republicans from moving to protect the legitimacy of our elections, going forward.

The reason it was a farce was that it was totally politically motivated. It wasn't meant to prove Russian interference, it was meant to link Trump to Russian interference. You only have to analyze the transcripts of the FBI agents involved in the "investigation" to realize it was a farce from the beginning.

 

[Federberg]

The reason it was a farce was that it was totally politically motivated. It wasn't meant to prove Russian interference, it was meant to link Trump to Russian interference. You only have to analyze the transcripts of the FBI agents involved in the "investigation" to realize it was a farce from the beginning.

and which politicians initiated this? Or was it the Deep State? I must remember to put that tin foil hat on so I can access the same microwaves..

 

[britbox]

and which politicians initiated this? Or was it the Deep State? I must remember to put that tin foil hat on so I can access the same microwaves..

Seems to be your standard recourse... "tin hat" blah blah... yet you seem to be the one throwing in all these Russian conspiracy theories on any political thread where the result doesn't match your personal opinion. Trump, Brexit... blah blah blah.

Did you read the transcripts of FBI agents supposedly investigating Russian interference? If you didn't have a problem with due process after that with regards to Trump then maybe you weren't reading closely enough. I'm not a lover of Trump, but I pointed out the ridiculous bullshit and hysteria from mainstream media sources from the get-go after he was elected. Look it up if you want - it's on this forum.

 

[Federberg]

Seems to be your standard recourse... "tin hat" blah blah... yet you seem to be the one throwing in all these Russian conspiracy theories on any political thread where the result doesn't match your personal opinion. Trump, Brexit... blah blah blah.

Did you read the transcripts of FBI agents supposedly investigating Russian interference? If you didn't have a problem with due process after that with regards to Trump then maybe you weren't reading closely enough. I'm not a lover of Trump, but I pointed out the ridiculous bullshit and hysteria from mainstream media sources from the get-go after he was elected. Look it up if you want - it's on this forum.

oh good grief... who cares about the FBI? This is the same specious process-based nonsense that his supporters jump to when they whine about the investigation being unfair. We're all supposed to forget about the fact that he asked Russia to get HRC's emails and that very day they started. We're supposed to forget the fact that his son had a meeting with a lawyer with close ties to the GRU. We're supposed to ignore the fact that one of his campaign staffers boasted... ( you know the story). We're supposed to ignore the fact that he sacked the FBI director when he refused to publicly state that he wasn't being investigated (and there wasn't at the time! ). In fact we're supposed to suspend any rational scepticism of a well known dissembler. Why? Why would we do that? Look I'm sorry but I guess I'm not drinking in all the Murdoch inspired crapola that credulous folks in the US and Australia have to put up with. Thank goodness...

 

[britbox]

oh good grief... who cares about the FBI? This is the same specious process-based nonsense that his supporters jump to when they whine about the investigation being unfair. We're all supposed to forget about the fact that he asked Russia to get HRC's emails and that very day they started. We're supposed to forget the fact that his son had a meeting with a lawyer with close ties to the GRU. We're supposed to ignore the fact that one of his campaign staffers boasted... ( you know the story). We're supposed to ignore the fact that he sacked the FBI director when he refused to publicly state that he wasn't being investigated (and there wasn't at the time! ). In fact we're supposed to suspend any rational scepticism of a well known dissembler. Why? Why would we do that? Look I'm sorry but I guess I'm not drinking in all the Murdoch inspired crapola that credulous folks in the US and Australia have to put up with. Thank goodness...

But slurping readily from the CNN Kool-Aid is fine, no doubt? I recall you mentioning that you had them on a 24/7 feed.

Who cares about the FBI? Really? Who were investigating? I ask you again, did you read the transcripts? Do you think there was due process?

But, you've perked my interest momentarily.Trump personally ASKED Russia to get HRC's emails? Who in Russia did he ask? I'm genuinely interested.

 

[Federberg]

But slurping readily from the CNN Kool-Aid is fine, no doubt? I recall you mentioning that you had them on a 24/7 feed.

Who cares about the FBI? Really? Who were investigating? I ask you again, did you read the transcripts? Do you think there was due process?

But, you've perked my interest momentarily.Trump personally ASKED Russia to get HRC's emails? Who in Russia did he ask? I'm genuinely interested.

Lol! Now you're being facetious. "Russia... if you're listening..." remember that?
Yes indeed.. who cares about the FBI? The entire premise of what you're saying is that the FBI was political. That's hogwash and I think you know it. Sure... individuals at the FBI might have involved themselves in political commentary while at work (and yes I did read the transcripts... yawn!). Newflash that happens all the time, everywhere. That's weak assed excuse making to enable you to leap to the far more serious issue (and the only one that matters) that it affected the institutions operations. There is no evidence of that, as recent investigations have shown. But I'm sure you'll join that nutbag Cali who'll reject any piece of evidence that doesn't align with your view. And don't waste your time claiming that I do the same with Trump no matter what he does. I've stated situations where I've agreed with things he's done, rare though they might be. But whose fault is that? The orange windbag of course

Perhaps you should have a think about the fact that your main support in this debate is Cali. That would give me pause

 

[britbox]

Lol! Now you're being facetious. "Russia... if you're listening..." remember that?
Yes indeed.. who cares about the FBI? The entire premise of what you're saying is that the FBI was political. That's hogwash and I think you know it. Sure... individuals at the FBI might have involved themselves in political commentary while at work (and yes I did read the transcripts... yawn!). Newflash that happens all the time, everywhere. That's weak assed excuse making to enable you to leap to the far more serious issue (and the only one that matters) that it affected the institutions operations. There is no evidence of that, as recent investigations have shown. But I'm sure you'll join that nutbag Cali who'll reject any piece of evidence that doesn't align with your view. And don't waste your time claiming that I do the same with Trump no matter what he does. I've stated situations where I've agreed with things he's done, rare though they might be. But whose fault is that? The orange windbag of course

Perhaps you should have a think about the fact that your main support in this debate is Cali. That would give me pause

I don't give two fucks who supports me in this debate brother... I only speak for myself and don't care for tribalism. I doubt Cali supports much I say on political matters generally and couldn't care either way. But he's an interesting read because he has an opinion and takes the time to make a case for it... whether you agree with it or not. As do you actually... but I'm not going to blow sunshine up your arse, at least not in this thread

Anyway... just give me a name.... A NAME! Who did Trump personally ask in Russia to investigate HRC's emails?

 

[Federberg]

I don't give two fucks who supports me in this debate brother... I only speak for myself and don't care for tribalism. I doubt Cali supports much I say on political matters generally and couldn't care either way. But he's an interesting read because he has an opinion and takes the time to make a case for it... whether you agree with it or not. As do you actually... but I'm not going to blow sunshine up your arse, at least not in this thread

Anyway... just give me a name.... A NAME! Who did Trump personally ask in Russia to investigate HRC's emails?

Lol! Is this what your dialectic has devolved to? I already gave you the name... "Russia". If you really need my help remembering, here you go...



I'm not going to debate the utility of Cali's argument with you. That's like debating whether an artist rubbing shit on the wall is actually an artist

 

[britbox]

Lol.... do you follow Titania McGrath on Twitter by any chance? and take her literally?

 

[Federberg]

Lol.... do you follow Titania McGrath on Twitter by any chance? and take her literally?

lol! I just had a look at twitter. I see you're doing your usual of accusing me of being woke. That's identity politics in it's own way. You do realise that don't you?

I'm not sure I'm any more woke than you. I believe we both disapprove of racism. I think we're both contemptuous of tiny dicked men who choose misogyny over dialectic with women. We both share similar views about transgenderism. I'm almost certainly more financially conservative than you, but that's no great shakes, I'm a former trader at a hedge fund and run a financial services business so that's only natural. So where does the wokeness come from on my part? Believing in the science of global warming rather than the tin foil hattery of the Murdoch/Koch brigade? Or believing that Brexit would put the UK at an economic disadvantage? Well sign me up mate. Coz if the best you can do is throw that silly label at me, then that is just weak sauce