Reply With QuoteStretch (11-22-2019)
Verified User
The people who fell for the Russia collusion hoax, the Kavanaugh rape gang hoax, the Covington Catholics hoax, the Trayvon Martin hoax, the Roy Moore pedophile hoax, and the "hands up don't shoot" hoax...are accusing others of being "willing to accept the word of propagandists?"Originally Posted by Althea
And basing that accusation on conservatives citing Buzzfeed, Politico, and CBS News?
What a ridiculous moron.
Attachment 12796
Like Obama sending Putin's enemies blankets and Trump sent them tank-killing Javelin missiles?
Hillary "Bleachbit and Hammers" Clinton is an ACTUAL, PROVEN criminal with literally more than a hundred separate felonies under her belt just from the national security-compromising email scandal alone. If she had committed the non-offenses that Trump committed, they probably WOULD have been for corrupt reasons.
One Constitution-shredding Democrat hoax after another falls apart on national TV and the country sees it. Pelosi resisted impeachment because she knows it's political suicide. But now you want to pretend that this latest Hindenburg moment for Democrats is all part of the master plan? As the only real criminals in this equation, Democrats would be dangerous if they weren't so hilariously inept.
Last edited by artichoke; 11-22-2019 at 01:31 PM.
Stretch (11-22-2019)
Verified User
Obviously, as the only people in Washington who follow actual evidence (see the Russia collusion hoax Democrats fell for, the Kavanaugh rape gang hoax Democrats fell for, the Covington Catholics hoax Democrats fell for, the Trayvon Martin hoax Democrats fell for, the Roy Moore pedophile hoax Democrats fell for, and the "hands up don't shoot" hoax Democrats fell for), the two are inextricably linked. Republicans follow facts, Democrats follow feelings and propaganda.
Sorry if the evidence overwhelmingly shows that your side is low IQ and unsophisticated.
A meaningless ad hominem fallacy.
This is that "whataboutism" fallacy Democrats continuously falsely accuse others of while being the only ones actually using. Thanks for demonstrating.
You should know better than anyone. You've been falsely accusing Trump of it for years non-stop. It is a serious federal crime to illegally purchase political protection from legitimate prosecution by paying off a family member of the politician in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy. It is also a crime to conspire to do so and to facilitate and participate in such a crime. Duh.
Partisan activists who've already proven willing to fabricate hoaxes against Trump also scribbling one name in one notebook and basing an entire new and separate witch hunt on that incredibly flimsy garbage? Are YOU seriously so naive as to NOT question that?
This is completely irrelevant. If she had evidence, Mueller would have included her in such an exhaustive witch hunt. And pointing out her left-wing Brookings affiliation makes her look even more biased, not less.
Um...obviously, the fact that she just told multiple outrageously false Democrat lies under oath. That's not a non-partisan professional. It's a Democrat activist PRETENDING to be a non-partisan professional.
Last edited by artichoke; 11-22-2019 at 01:48 PM.
Verified User
As usual, you are lying. Obama sent 120 million in UAVs, counter mortar radar. equipment, Night vision equipment, and medical supplies. That is not blankets and you know better.Obviously, as the only people in Washington who follow actual evidence (see the Russia collusion hoax Democrats fell for, the Kavanaugh rape gang hoax Democrats fell for, the Covington Catholics hoax Democrats fell for, the Trayvon Martin hoax Democrats fell for, the Roy Moore pedophile hoax Democrats fell for, and the "hands up don't shoot" hoax Democrats fell for), the two are inextricably linked. Republicans follow facts, Democrats follow feelings and propaganda.
Sorry if the evidence overwhelmingly shows that your side is low IQ and unsophisticated.
A meaningless ad hominem fallacy.
This is that "whataboutism" fallacy Democrats continuously falsely accuse others of while being the only ones actually using. Thanks for demonstrating.
You should know better than anyone. You've been falsely accusing Trump of it for years non-stop. It is a serious federal crime to illegally purchase political protection from legitimate prosecution by paying off a family member of the politician in charge of U.S.-Ukraine policy. It is also a crime to conspire to do so and to facilitate and participate in such a crime. Duh.
Partisan activists who've already proven willing to fabricate hoaxes against Trump also scribbling one name in one notebook and basing an entire new and separate witch hunt on that incredibly flimsy garbage? Are YOU seriously so naive as to NOT question that?
This is completely irrelevant. If she had evidence, Mueller would have included her in such an exhaustive witch hunt. And pointing out her left-wing Brookings affiliation makes her look even more biased, not less.
Um...obviously, the fact that she just told multiple outrageously false Democrat lies under oath. That's not a non-partisan professional. It's a Democrat activist PRETENDING to be a non-partisan professional.
Verified User
Say the people who literally coined the use of that scandal-mongering word and repeated it incessantly for three years straight to victimize and lie about an innocent person.
Incoherent Kindergarten blather.
Attachment 12797
From left-wing Politifact:
Anything else you'd like to lie about, or are you good for now? And WHO was "being dishonest again?"Adam Schiff
As the top Democrat and current chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has been a point man for the Democrats throughout the investigation. In December 2017, he appeared on CNN’s State of the Union.
"The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not," Schiff said. "Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (that) will be Mueller’s question to answer."
By that point (see our timeline), the public record included the Trump Tower meeting between campaign officials, including Trump, Jr., and a Russian lawyer, who offered damaging information on Hillary Clinton. Campaign adviser George Papadopoulos had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, as had national security adviser Michael Flynn.
The intelligence community broadly agreed that Russia had interfered with the 2016 election.
About a year later, Schiff said, "there’s clear evidence on the issue of collusion," in a CNN interview on January 10, 2019. "But whether it amounts to conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, I think, we still have to wait for Bob Mueller’s work."
Schiff tweeted similar comments after Barr’s letter was released March 24.
"Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to establish conspiracy, notwithstanding Russian offers to help Trump’s campaign, their acceptance, and a litany of concealed interactions with Russia," Schiff wrote. "I trust Mueller’s prosecutorial judgement, but the country must see the evidence."
Richard Blumenthal
"The evidence is pretty clear that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians," Sen. Richard Blumenthal told MSNBC host Chris Hayes Nov. 17, 2018.
Hayes asked if it really was that clear.
"The evidence is there, whether they have enough of it to bring criminal charges is another issue in town," Blumenthal said.
A few days before Mueller delivered his report, the Connecticut Democratic senator delivered an ominous prediction.
"There are indictments in this president's future," Blumenthal said March 21 on MSNBC. "They're coming. Whether they're after his presidency or during it."
Blumenthal was talking about "the credible case of obstruction of justice that is right now against President Trump, about other crimes that clearly there's evidence he's committed." That covers a lot of legal ground, so it’s not entirely clear what crimes he expected Trump to face indictment for.
On obstruction of justice, according to Barr, Mueller said the evidence failed to exonerate Trump. Barr’s decision not to pursue that charge left Blumenthal’s forecast high and dry.
Other issues related to banking and tax filings and campaign contributions remain open, so Blumenthal has yet to be proved wrong on that front.
Jerry Nadler
CNN interviewed Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., House Judiciary Committee chairman, on Nov. 30, 2018. Nadler said he definitely saw collusion.
"The fact that Manafort and Trump Jr. met with Russian agents who told them they wanted to give them dirt on Hillary as part of the Russian government’s attempt to help them, and that they said fine," Nadler said. "I mean, it’s clear that the campaign colluded, and there’s a lot of evidence of that. The question is, was the president involved?"
Nadler told ABC News March 3 that impeachment "is a long way down the road. We don’t have the facts, yet."
"There can be crimes that are impeachable offenses and impeachable offenses that are not crimes," Nadler added. "We have to focus much more broadly on abuses of power."
Ron Wyden
"When you look at Donald Trump Jr., and what is on the record, there was clearly an intent to collude," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Dec. 14, 2017.
Wyden’s focus was more on Russian money and the Trump Organization — a follow-the-money approach.
"Their portfolio consisted of a lot of Russian money," Wyden said. "Then the president didn’t disclose his taxes... There’s a lot to do here."
Wyden called the Barr memo "little more than a public relations strategy."
"The Barr letter doesn’t square with what is publicly known about Mueller’s investigation," Wyden wrote. "The indictments and other documents Mueller released revealed all kinds of links between the Trump campaign and family and the Russians. You would think from the Barr summary that they had nothing to do with each other."
Tom Perez
"Over the course of the last year we have seen, I think, a mountain of evidence of collusion between the campaign and the Russians to basically affect our democracy," Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said after the DNC filed a civil suit against the Trump campaign, the Russian government and Wikileaks in April 2018.
Ted Lieu
Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., said it all in a one-word tweet.
"Collusion!" he wrote Dec. 27, 2018.
"If you look at the indictment that was handed down on Roger Stone, it very clearly says that a senior Trump campaign official was directed by someone even higher to go seek dirt on Hillary Clinton from Wikileaks, which is a front for the Russians," Lieu told CNN Feb. 12, 2019. "That looks like collusion to me. In addition, you have Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chair, handing over internal polling data to a Russian operative, so I think the investigations need to continue before any judgements are made."
Eric Swalwell
"There's circumstantial evidence that (Trump) colluded," Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., said March 19. "He knew they were doing this. His family was meeting with them. Offers being made. It was being passed to him. He would publicly go out and encourage them to do it."
Maxine Waters
One of the strongest voices for impeachment has been that of Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.
At a town hall meeting of the Black Congressional Caucus Foundation in Washington, Waters urged activists to press for impeachment.
"Here you have a president who I can tell you, I guarantee you, is in collusion with the Russians to undermine our democracy," Waters said Sept. 21, 2017. "Here you have a president who has obstructed justice and here you have a president that lies every day."
The March 16, 2017, tweet pinned to the top of her profile shows "Trump’s Kremlin Klan," with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Trump prominently featured, surrounded by the faces of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, former Russian Ambassador to America, Sergey Kislyak, and many others.
Attachment 12798
Except for all the lies they were caught telling, sure.
Verified User
So because Schiff promised to rush the photos over to the FBI to start YET ANOTHER witch hunt against Trump, THAT means he didn't demonstrate a clear and enthusiastic willingness to collude with foreigners to influence the election?
This is how partisan Democrat "fact-checkers" "debunk" things...with nonsensical Democrat excuse-making instead of actual facts.
Verified User
Say the conspiracy theorists who have been humiliated by the facts at every turn.
Attachment 12799
Verified User
Exactly.
Attachment 12800
Stretch (11-22-2019)
Verified User
Total BS. Ukraine begged Obama to send lethal support and he instead sent them trivial garbage, including the nonsense you listed. That is why there is now a talking point about Obama sending blankets. It's a fitting characterization. Trump sent them tank-killers and the real weapons. Taylor testified to that fact during the show trial this week, and said he was extremely grateful. This is what conservatives mean when they keep saying the Democrats' star witnesses are hurting their case more than helping it...but Democrats literally just aren't smart enough to comprehend it.
Stretch (11-22-2019)
High Level of Addiction
OPINIONS
How aiding the Ukrainian military could push Putin into a regional war
By Fiona Hill and
Clifford Gaddy
February 5, 2015
Fiona Hill is the director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution. Clifford Gaddy is a senior fellow in the center. They are co-authors of the book “Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin.”
The United States is on a dangerous trajectory in its relations with Russia, a nuclear superpower that believes itself to be under direct threat. Several former U.S. officials and top think-tank experts released a report calling on the West to provide military support to Ukraine. (Two of them, our colleagues at the Brookings Institution, expanded on the report a week ago on this page [“Ukraine needs the West’s help now”].) The logic of sending weapons to Ukraine seems straightforward and is the same as the logic for economic sanctions: to change Vladi*mir Putin’s “calculus.” Increasing the Ukrainian army’s fighting capacity, the thinking goes, would allow it to kill more rebels and Russian soldiers, generating a backlash in Russia and ultimately forcing the Russian president to the negotiating table.
We strongly disagree. The evidence points in a different direction. If we follow the recommendations of this report, the Ukrainians won’t be the only ones caught in an escalating military conflict with Russia.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...7d6_story.html
************
Defying Obama, Many in Congress Press to Arm Ukraine
By Jennifer Steinhauer and David M. Herszenhorn
June 11, 2015
WASHINGTON — With the peace process stalled and violence escalating in Ukraine, a bipartisan coalition in Congress is defying President Obama and European allies by pressing the administration to provide weapons to the embattled nation.
The Senate has included provisions in its military policy bill to arm Ukraine with antiarmor systems, mortars, grenade launchers and ammunition to aid in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. It would also prevent the administration from spending more than one half of $300 million in aid for Ukraine unless 20 percent is earmarked for offensive weapons. The House has passed a similar measure.
So far, the Obama administration has refused to provide lethal aid, fearing that it would only escalate the bloodshed and give President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia a pretext for further incursions.
The push by lawmakers to arm Ukraine’s beleaguered armed forces threatens to open a rift between the United States and key allies, especially Germany and France, at a time when the Obama administration has been working to demonstrate unified support for extending European economic sanctions against Russia that are scheduled to expire at the end of July.
Legislation to authorize lethal military aid for Ukraine has gone to the White House before, but Mr. Obama has not acted on it. And while this bill authorizes the weapons it cannot compel the administration to send them. The measure is largely meant to put renewed pressure on the White House.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who has championed the effort to send arms to Ukraine for more than a year, dismissed the fears that it would worsen the conflict and unravel the international coalition.
Citing the attacks on Ukraine as “one of the most shameful and dishonorable acts I have seen in my life,” Mr. McCain said in an interview that the response so far to Russia’s aggression had been insufficient. “They are not asking for a single boot on the ground,” he said on the Senate floor Thursday, adding, “I am a bit taken aback by the vociferous opposition” to weapons help.
Earlier this week, the Ukrainian prime minister, Anseniy P. Yatsenyuk, met with lawmakers in Washington to make the case for military and financial aid, and was met with sympathy.
“There has been a strong bipartisan well of support for quite some time for providing lethal support,” said Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat of California. “We have offered Russia all kinds of exit ramps and they were clearly not interested in taking them.”
But in the latest sign of the reluctance by the White House, Samantha Power, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, gave a speech on Thursday in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in which she excoriated Russia but did not mention sending offensive weapons as a possibility.
Instead, she focused on combating the Russian misinformation campaign, praising the Ukrainians for undertaking a government overhaul and warning only vaguely of a tougher stance by the United States.
In Kiev on Thursday, a Ukrainian military spokesman reported that three soldiers had been killed in attacks by Russian-backed separatists, and at least 13 were wounded in the latest fighting in Donetsk and Luhansk. Officials from the self-declared, pro-Russian separatist republics said that two of their soldiers had been killed and at least two more wounded in attacks by the Ukrainian military.
While the United States has been providing nonlethal assistance, and American military instructors have begun training Ukrainian troops in western Ukraine, President Petro O. Poroshenko has also made clear he would welcome more help in the form of weapons, as he seeks to build up his country’s military to face down the threat from Russia.
“We have an effective form of cooperation, but not with lethal weapons, with the United States, Canada, U.K.,” Mr. Poroshenko said in an interview in his office last week. “We are very satisfied with the current level of cooperation but we would be happy if the level of this cooperation would be increased.”
The bipartisan pressure developing on Capitol Hill, however, comes at an awkward time. Mr. Putin in recent days has repeatedly blamed the Ukrainian government for continuing cease-fire violations, while calling on the United States and its European allies to pressure Kiev to fully put the peace accord in place.
That has set the stage for a pitched debate between lawmakers and the White House that could well undermine Mr. Obama’s repeated assertion that the United States sees no military solution to the conflict in Ukraine.
“I have never seen a more aggressive and emotional debate than I have on this question,” said Matthew Rojansky, the director of the Kennan Institute in Washington and expert on Russia and Ukraine. Mr. Rojansky said the debate is “reminiscent of that when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.”
Reflecting the view of many experts, Mr. Rojansky added, “There are valid arguments on both sides but you don’t get to walk this back. Once we have done this we become a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on earth that can destroy the United States. That’s why this is a big deal.”
In his confirmation hearing in March, Ashton B. Carter, the secretary of defense, told senators that he would consider increased military assistance to Ukraine, including the sale of lethal arms, reflecting the views of some other senior administration officials.
If Congress moves forward with restrictions on the money allocated for Ukraine, a standoff with the White House could also conceivably block much-needed nonlethal aid.
Lawmakers who oppose sending weapons to Ukraine note that Washington could never send enough hardware for Ukraine to defeat Russian-backed forces militarily. And it is not clear that the Ukrainian military is sufficiently trained to make proper use of American weapons without substantial assistance by American military personnel, or that the weapons would not end up in enemy hands.
“If you’re playing chess with Russia you have to think two moves ahead,” said Senator Angus King, independent of Maine, who is among those lawmakers skeptical of providing arms. “I am afraid this could provoke a major East-West confrontation.”
Julia Osmolovskaya, the managing partner of the Institute of Negotiation Skills, a mediation group in Kiev, said Ukrainians were divided over the potential benefits of receiving weapons from the United States and the inherent risk of stoking further violence, and also perplexed by Washington’s mixed messages.
Jennifer Steinhauer reported from Washington, and David M. Herszenhorn from Kiev, Ukraine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/w...m-ukraine.html
Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
pain in abortion.
Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
which has begun. To abort life is to end it.
Verified User
You really ARE a loon. Thanks for proving this once AGAIN.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks