Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
snitwitch

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread***

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, jamny said:

I agree but rules is rules. Easier to let them speak and then suspend than to allow them to claim improper procedures, no?

Look I think we're not real knowledgeable on this, it's kind of arcane, but from the sound of it, no, the idea is get it moving in a streamlined and orderly fashion. If they let Stefanik interrupt then it creates a precedent and accusations of cherry picking later when they try it again. I think Schiff had to get it moving, and Stefanik got her time later anyway. I'm also stumped why the GOP thought Stefanik should be point person on this, does she lend some specific expertise in all this, as a lawyer or in foreign policy or intelligence? The whole thing seemed (like  I said before) like a hockey goon sent out to rough up the opposition but whose taking damage wouldn't hurt the team at all. I don't think Schiff should waive the rules to allow that, seems like it would have been a major coaching mistake.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jamny said:

bump

Here, I found one.

https://www.unian.info/politics/10520715-ukraine-prosecutor-general-lutsenko-admits-u-s-ambassador-didn-t-give-him-a-do-not-prosecute-list.html

No idea what unian is or if it is reliable. But apparently in a later interview his  story was that she was talking to him about a specific case (about not prosecuting someone who was viewed by us as an anti-corruption activist) and then he took a piece of paper and said "here, give me a do not prosecute list" and she said no. It sounds like it was a heated meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jamny said:

I agree but rules is rules. Easier to let them speak and then suspend than to allow them to claim improper procedures, no?

If rules is rules and they were breaking the rules trying to improperly interject, so you are flipping and saying shiff should allow them the break those rules?

Seems you should be more upset with those purposefully attempting to avert the parliamentary procedure established by the Republicans and accepted by the congress.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

And then he just didn't recognize Jordan as he knew what was coming...and I don't think he is under and obligation to give him the floor there, correct?

No I don't think so, I think they didn't have the right to make a point of order there. Nunes arguably did but he did not. Maybe the cow suer doesn't know how to make a point of order. Reminds me of how every time Nunes had to so something serious in the Russia hearings he would ask Gowdy to do it.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

Here, I found one.

https://www.unian.info/politics/10520715-ukraine-prosecutor-general-lutsenko-admits-u-s-ambassador-didn-t-give-him-a-do-not-prosecute-list.html

No idea what unian is or if it is reliable. But apparently in a later interview his  story was that she was talking to him about a specific case (about not prosecuting someone who was viewed by us as an anti-corruption activist) and then he took a piece of paper and said "here, give me a do not prosecute list" and she said no. It sounds like it was a heated meeting.

less pronouns, please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheMagus said:

Here, I found one.

https://www.unian.info/politics/10520715-ukraine-prosecutor-general-lutsenko-admits-u-s-ambassador-didn-t-give-him-a-do-not-prosecute-list.html

No idea what unian is or if it is reliable. But apparently in a later interview his  story was that she was talking to him about a specific case (about not prosecuting someone who was viewed by us as an anti-corruption activist) and then he took a piece of paper and said "here, give me a do not prosecute list" and she said no. It sounds like it was a heated meeting.

That was one of the links in my post. In it, he says "and now you give new lists on Tankova Street" which sounds to me like she gave a list. Either way, I don't see a clear comment retracting what he said.

 

 

eta: and it also sounds like she was pressuring him not to prosecute in that Kasko case.

Edited by jamny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America 1932-1972 by William Manchester Pg 709: 

Before Jenkins (the senior Democrat on the Committee could speak) there was an interruption: 

McCarthy: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order? 

According to HM Roberts “Rules of Order”, a chairman may be interrupted on a point of order, provided that the question is one of propriety under the rules. McCarthy had something else in mind. His resonant voice rose: 

McCarthy: I maintain that this hearing is a disgrace...

An impartial chairman would have gaveled McCarthy into silence the moment it became clear that, far from raising a procedural matter, he was making a speech. Mundt let him make it. 

That was 65 years ago during the Army-McCarthy hearings. Some strategies haven’t changed. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jamny said:

I would think so. Then once it's clear that it isn't an actual point of order, shut it down.

 

Only looking for clarity since I'm sure we will see a lot more of this going forward.

 

Same here...Im not sure if he is obligated to recognize Jordan there at all.  Even if he screams point of order, he needs to be recognized first, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

From The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America 1932-1972 by William Manchester Pg 709: 

Before Jenkins (the senior Democrat on the Committee could speak) there was an interruption: 

McCarthy: A point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I raise a point of order? 

According to HM Roberts “Rules of Order”, a chairman may be interrupted on a point of order, provided that the question is one of propriety under the rules. McCarthy had something else in mind. His resonant voice rose: 

McCarthy: I maintain that this hearing is a disgrace...

An impartial chairman would have gaveled McCarthy into silence the moment it became clear that, far from raising a procedural matter, he was making a speech. Mundt let him make it. 

That was 65 years ago during the Army-McCarthy hearings. Some strategies haven’t changed. 

I'll toast a beer today to you for that one, Tim, nice.:banned:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jamny said:

That was one of the links in my post. In it, he says "and now you give new lists on Tankova Street" which sounds to me like she gave a list. Either way, I don't see a clear comment retracting what he said.

 

 

eta: and it also sounds like she was pressuring him not to prosecute in that Kasko case.

The above is the best I've seen on this topic.  I don't see any substantial evidence of the claim or evidence to refute the claim which kind of makes me question the claim.  You know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheMagus said:

Here is the witness list that the House republicans asked for:

1. Devon Archer - Former Burisma board member

2. Hunter Biden - we know who that is

3. Alexandra Chalupa! - former DNC staffer they keep talking about

4. David Hale - State Dept

5. Tim Morrison - State Dept (I believe he will be testifying publicly and already gave a deposition)

6. Alexander Vindman - State Dept (will be testifying)

7. Nellie Ohr - former contractor for Fusion GPS :wall:

8. Kurt Volker - State Dept (I believe he is also testifying and gave a deposition)

9. The Whistleblower

10. The Whistleblower's Sources

 

Regarding Archer, Biden, and Chalupa: these three all go to whether the demanded investigations are justified.  They won't be allowed because if the investigations were justified or not is irrelevant to the President's actions.

However, I do think this is a discussion worth having.  Can't the Senate take up these questions?  In particular, I'd love to see Chalupa testify.  She can speak to Ukranian efforts to sully Trump in 2016, in particular Manafort.  Republicans will argue the Ukranian Gov't worked with the DNC to leak the Black Ledger to make Trump campaign look bad (it did).  Democrats will argue that the country should know if the Trump campaign hired criminals (they did).  I don't think her testimony will look good for Trump.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamny said:

That was one of the links in my post. In it, he says "and now you give new lists on Tankova Street" which sounds to me like she gave a list. Either way, I don't see a clear comment retracting what he said.

 

 

eta: and it also sounds like she was pressuring him not to prosecute in that Kasko case.

I owe you an apology Mr. Jamny.

I readily admit that the disingenuous nature of most Trump defenses had me approaching your questions with suspicion, but your pressing on these issues has led to some very fruitful discussions that never would have happened otherwise and I apologize for initially mischaracterizing you. It was a good reminder to me that the vitriolic nature of politics today isn't just the other side's problem when I've allowed it to infect my own thinking. I will do better.

I think this is emblematic of the new spirit of the board which has led to a tamping down of emotional, partisan posts which made substantive discussions almost impossible (and to which I certainly contributed my fair share). Nothing's perfect, but it is absolutely refreshing to be able to post and learn from one another which I think is why most of us are here.

So thank you and now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Here's an interview Lutsenko gave the New York Times in October: Meet the Ukrainian Ex-Prosecutor Behind the Impeachment Furor

Keep in mind that everything the guy says (including here) has ulterior motives behind it, which the article makes clear. The whole thing should be read but I'll quote the parts that are particularly salient to the mythical "Do Not Prosecute" list.

Quote

In the impeachment debate, Ukraine has often seemed an innocent bystander, a poor and deeply troubled country on Europe’s eastern fringe sideswiped by the raucous political battles of the world’s most powerful nation.

But the scandal now roiling Washington underscores how Ukraine’s own domestic struggles, feuds and dysfunctions have shaped the controversy — and shows how the pursuit of political advantage by actors in each country fed the other in ways that neither side foresaw.

Mr. Lutsenko’s path to Mr. Giuliani began in this political morass, with a meeting so combative that it helped ignite the scandal in the first place.

Shortly after taking up her post in 2016, the American ambassador to Ukraine, Marie L. Yovanovitch, went to meet the new prosecutor general, Mr. Lutsenko, in his office — and complained that his deputies were stained by corruption, according to two Ukrainian officials familiar with the encounter.

The ambassador then pressed Mr. Lutsenko further, the officials said, asking him to stop investigating anti-corruption activists who were supported by the American Embassy and had criticized his work.

Mr. Lutsenko said he snapped at Ms. Yovanovitch that “no one is going to dictate to me” who should be investigated, prompting the ambassador to storm out of the meeting.

“This moment was, how shall we say, not very positive,” recalled Larisa Sargan, Mr. Lutsenko’s assistant at the time. “There were always difficult relations with the U.S. ambassador.”

In the months to come — as the ambassador stepped up her criticism of Ukraine’s faltering efforts to root out corruption — Mr. Lutsenko’s personal animus toward Ms. Yovanovitch grew. He concluded, he and his former colleagues say, that he needed to go around her and find a direct path to a more receptive audience: Mr. Trump’s inner circle.

Quote

A survivor in Ukraine’s often treacherous politics, Mr. Lutsenko had spent time in jail as a political prisoner, won a seat in Ukraine’s Parliament and served as interior minister, holding senior positions under three presidents.

He also showed himself an adept operator in the United States.

After his meetings with Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Lutsenko provided grist for a series of articles in The Hill, a Washington news portal. His remarks were pitch-perfect in their appeal to Mr. Trump and his supporters.

Mr. Trump tweeted the headline of one of the articles: “As Russia Collusion Fades, Ukrainian Plot to Help Clinton Emerges.”

In another article, Mr. Lutsenko aired his feud with Ms. Yovanovitch, the American ambassador, asserting that she had given him a list of untouchables not to prosecute. The claim set off a storm of accusations that the ambassador belonged to a cabal working to hurt Mr. Trump and protect the Bidens.

The State Department dismissed Mr. Lutsenko’s claim as “an outright fabrication,” and he later acknowledged that the “don’t prosecute list” never existed. In the interview, he blamed the misstep on a bad translation and insisted that Ms. Yovanovitch had, in fact, pressed him not to prosecute anti-corruption activists.

Quote

But in private messages to a Ukrainian anti-corruption campaigner, Mr. Lutsenko gloated about one important part of the complaint: his role in ending Ms. Yovanovitch’s career in Kiev.

In the exchange — with Daria Kaleniuk, the head of Ukraine’s Anticorruption Action Center — Mr. Lutsenko used mafia slang to rejoice at how the American ambassador’s removal had undercut activists campaigning against corruption in Ukraine. Mr. Lutsenko told Ms. Kaleniuk that he had “eliminated your roof.”

“Roof,” a term derived from Russian mafia slang, is used throughout the former Soviet Union to designate a protector or guardian. The “roof” in this instance, Ms. Kaleniuk said, was Ambassador Yovanovitch.

This highlights an important point that's being lost: Trump's preference for this prosecutor over his own ambassador is but one of many instances where his administration was actively fighting anti-corruption efforts. The attempt to portray this fiasco as the President's personal crusade against corruption is absolutely absurd and actually the opposite of the truth.

This is also another example of how, when you dig a little, every defense of Trump thus far is revealed to be an attempt to distract, confuse, or misinform. Every. Single. One. That interview with Scalise that Cos posted earlier is a perfect example. Not one thing he said carried any real merit. Chris Wallace notwithstanding, the complicity of Fox News in this regard is alarming and dangerous, and their coordination with John Solomon, Rudy Giuliani and the Republican establishment deserves much more scrutiny than it's received. But that should be the subject of another post and hopefully I'll have some time to flesh it out a bit later today.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could have ALL had chalupas if Hillary had won and we had gotten the taco trucks on every corner. A little late now for the Republicans to be complaining about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cosjobs said:

Looks like POTUS did.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

·

26m.

@SteveScalise

blew the nasty & obnoxious Chris Wallace (will never be his father, Mike!) away on Chris’s lowest rated (unless I’m on) morning show. This kind of dumb and unfair interview would never have happened in the @FoxNewspast. Great job Steve!

  • Laughing 2
  • Thinking 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Looks like POTUS did.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

·

26m.

@SteveScalise

blew the nasty & obnoxious Chris Wallace (will never be his father, Mike!) away on Chris’s lowest rated (unless I’m on) morning show. This kind of dumb and unfair interview would never have happened in the @FoxNewspast. Great job Steve!

He thinks Scalise did well?

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, bananafish said:

I owe you an apology Mr. Jamny.

I readily admit that the disingenuous nature of most Trump defenses had me approaching your questions with suspicion, but your pressing on these issues has led to some very fruitful discussions that never would have happened otherwise and I apologize for initially mischaracterizing you. It was a good reminder to me that the vitriolic nature of politics today isn't just the other side's problem when I've allowed it to infect my own thinking. I will do better.

I think this is emblematic of the new spirit of the board which has led to a tamping down of emotional, partisan posts which made substantive discussions almost impossible (and to which I certainly contributed my fair share). Nothing's perfect, but it is absolutely refreshing to be able to post and learn from one another which I think is why most of us are here.

So thank you and now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Here's an interview Lutsenko gave the New York Times in October: Meet the Ukrainian Ex-Prosecutor Behind the Impeachment Furor

Keep in mind that everything the guy says (including here) has ulterior motives behind it, which the article makes clear. The whole thing should be read but I'll quote the parts that are particularly salient to the mythical "Do Not Prosecute" list.

This highlights an important point that's being lost: Trump's preference for this prosecutor over his own ambassador is but one of many instances where his administration was actively fighting anti-corruption efforts. The attempt to portray this fiasco as the President's personal crusade against corruption is absolutely absurd and actually the opposite of the truth.

This is also another example of how, when you dig a little, every defense of Trump thus far is revealed to be an attempt to distract, confuse, or misinform. Every. Single. One. That interview with Scalise that Cos posted earlier is a perfect example. Not one thing he said carried any real merit. Chris Wallace notwithstanding, the complicity of Fox News in this regard is alarming and dangerous, and their coordination with John Solomon, Rudy Giuliani and the Republican establishment deserves much more scrutiny than it's received. But that should be the subject of another post and hopefully I'll have some time to flesh it out a bit later today.

Thanks. Although no Mr. is needed...lol  I've learned, in the spirit of the new board policy, to ignore people that question my motives and respond to those that actually answer my questions in a substantive manner.

 

As for the bolded: The State Department dismissed Mr. Lutsenko’s claim as “an outright fabrication,” and he later acknowledged that the “don’t prosecute list” never existed. In the interview, he blamed the misstep on a bad translation and insisted that Ms. Yovanovitch had, in fact, pressed him not to prosecute anti-corruption activists.

 

From what I have been able to find, the bad translation was in saying that an actual physical list existed on paper. I believe Lutsenko actually said that the list was dictated to him by Yovanovich and the translator misinterpreted that.

 

Eta: I dont think an apology was needed. I didnt really find that you were unfair in any of our interactions.

Edited by jamny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

·

1h

Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released ststement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

·

1h

Republicans & others must remember, the Ukrainian President and Foreign Minister both said that there was no pressure placed on them whatsoever. Also, they didn’t even know the money wasn’t paid, and got the money with no conditions. But why isn’t Germany, France (Europe) paying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mile High said:

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

·

1h

Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released ststement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don’t know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!

Jennifer Williams was a National Security aide to Mike Pence and listening on the call :lol:

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The General said:

Jennifer Williams was a National Security aide to Mike Pence and listening on the call :lol:

 

Pence already threw her under the bus: his press secretary says “she works for the State Department.” 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Pence already threw her under the bus: his press secretary says “she works for the State Department.” 

To make it completely clear they should have added "(Deep)" between "the" and "State"

Edited by msommer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, moleculo said:

Regarding Archer, Biden, and Chalupa: these three all go to whether the demanded investigations are justified.  They won't be allowed because if the investigations were justified or not is irrelevant to the President's actions.

However, I do think this is a discussion worth having.  Can't the Senate take up these questions?  In particular, I'd love to see Chalupa testify.  She can speak to Ukranian efforts to sully Trump in 2016, in particular Manafort.  Republicans will argue the Ukranian Gov't worked with the DNC to leak the Black Ledger to make Trump campaign look bad (it did).  Democrats will argue that the country should know if the Trump campaign hired criminals (they did).  I don't think her testimony will look good for Trump.

It appears that Chalupa is a friend of one of my Facebook friends.  She was tagged by my friend the other day, I think, and the two of them had a conversation about the hearings on FB.  Something like "It's about time they mentioned me. . ."  What a weird world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sweet J said:

It appears that Chalupa is a friend of one of my Facebook friends.  She was tagged by my friend the other day, I think, and the two of them had a conversation about the hearings on FB.  Something like "It's about time they mentioned me. . ."  What a weird world.

If my opinion means anything (it doesn't), Chalupa was 100% in the right.  She is likely to be dragged into the national spotlight, it sounds like she is prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, moleculo said:

If my opinion means anything (it doesn't), Chalupa was 100% in the right.  She is likely to be dragged into the national spotlight, it sounds like she is prepared.

She tweeted this out the other day:

For the record: I have never worked for a foreign government. I have never been to Ukraine. I was not an opposition researcher. In 2008, I knew Manafort worked for Putin’s interests in Ukraine. I reported my concerns about him to the NSC in 2014 & sounded the alarm bells in 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mile High said:

Looks like POTUS did.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

·

26m.

@SteveScalise

blew the nasty & obnoxious Chris Wallace (will never be his father, Mike!) away on Chris’s lowest rated (unless I’m on) morning show. This kind of dumb and unfair interview would never have happened in the @FoxNewspast. Great job Steve!

These are the words of the President of the United States of America. Amazing. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

These are the words of the President of the United States of America. Amazing. 

That title used to mean something impressive. Not now. Maybe the next person can clean up some of the tarnish it has all over it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kal El said:

That title used to mean something impressive. Not now. Maybe the next person can clean up some of the tarnish it has all over it now.

Apology Tour 2.0 = talking point for the next four years on FOX News.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mile High said:

Looks like POTUS did.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

·

26m.

@SteveScalise

blew the nasty & obnoxious Chris Wallace (will never be his father, Mike!) away on Chris’s lowest rated (unless I’m on) morning show. This kind of dumb and unfair interview would never have happened in the @FoxNewspast. Great job Steve!

I've come to the realization that in matters of opinion, I can see Trump's take on something, go to the other side of the issue, and be correct more often than not. So if Trump says Scalia's did great, that means he got his clock cleaned on TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mario Kart said:

Apology Tour 2.0 = talking point for the next four years on FOX News.

Make it eight. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be addressed, and I don't even like the Democrat candidates all that much. That's how badly Trump is screwing up everything he touches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Make it eight. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be addressed, and I don't even like the Democrat candidates all that much. That's how badly Trump is screwing up everything he touches.

Runs the country like a business. One of his businesses. Morally and financially bankrupt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kal El said:

Make it eight. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be addressed, and I don't even like the Democrat candidates all that much. That's how badly Trump is screwing up everything he touches.

Despite Trump being a jerk, the US does not owe apologizes to everyone.  This need to bow down to the rest of the world and be ashamed of what America is, is a chronic weakness of the Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Despite Trump being a jerk, the US does not owe apologizes to everyone.  This need to bow down to the rest of the world and be ashamed of what America is, is a chronic weakness of the Democrats.

That's probably not what's going to actually happen, but keep in mind that just because we have freedoms others don't, that doesn't mean we get to rub their faces in it. We should embody that spirit in a positive manner, not be arrogant and act superior because of where we live. We're all humans on this little mud ball together, and there's no guarantee that we'll stay free forever.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Despite Trump being a jerk, the US does not owe apologizes to everyone.  This need to bow down to the rest of the world and be ashamed of what America is, is a chronic weakness of the Democrats.

If America acts shamefully, then it makes sense to be ashamed. I believe that the ability to admit your mistakes is a sign of strength not weakness. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If America acts shamefully, then it makes sense to be ashamed. I believe that the ability to admit your mistakes is a sign of strength not weakness. 

:goodposting: Its actually a key element of American exceptionalism. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, timschochet said:

:goodposting: Its actually a key element of American exceptionalism. 

It's not in any way exceptional

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, msommer said:

It's not in any way exceptional

So far as I am aware, there are only 4 nations on Earth that are willing to self examine their history of bad behavior without it being forced on them: the USA, Great Britain, Israel, and with certain limitations, post Apartheid South Africa. 

  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I acknowledge that may be a lot more of this that I am unaware of, particularly in western and Democratic countries (though some of them, such as France, have really struggled in this regard.) Nonetheless its a pretty rare trait in world history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Despite Trump being a jerk, the US does not owe apologizes to everyone.  This need to bow down to the rest of the world and be ashamed of what America is, is a chronic weakness of the Democrats.

Owe?  No, but we should anyway.  And the arrogance and attitude of we are better so everyone else get over it is a weakness of Trump Republicans.
Nobody is saying bow down...but let the world know we are better than the Trump years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So far as I am aware, there are only 4 nations on Earth that are willing to self examine their history of bad behavior without it being forced on them: the USA, Great Britain, Israel, and with certain limitations, post Apartheid South Africa. 

Add Germany, Japan and Italy. WW2 wasn’t that long ago.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So far as I am aware, there are only 4 nations on Earth that are willing to self examine their history of bad behavior without it being forced on them: the USA, Great Britain, Israel, and with certain limitations, post Apartheid South Africa. 

Is is true of PART of the US....not all of it.  I suspect the same is true of the other countries as well.  These generalizations will get you in trouble every time Tim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Despite Trump being a jerk, the US does not owe apologizes to everyone.  This need to bow down to the rest of the world and be ashamed of what America is, is a chronic weakness of the Democrats.

Couple things here:

1.  It's a sign of strength to be able to say "opps, my bad....I'll try and do better"
2.  This notion of "owing" apologies is nonsensical hyperbole.  

There is plenty I am ashamed of in terms of the way this country acts.  I was ashamed when we went to Iraq.  I was ashamed when we knowingly bombed our own citizens.  I am ashamed we turn our backs on our allies.  I am ashamed that we keep sticking our noses into matters we don't have the power to solve making them worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Workhorse said:

Add Germany, Japan and Italy. WW2 wasn’t that long ago.

No. All three of these nations strongly resisted having to do this. It was forced on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Couple things here:

1.  It's a sign of strength to be able to say "opps, my bad....I'll try and do better"
2.  This notion of "owing" apologies is nonsensical hyperbole.  

There is plenty I am ashamed of in terms of the way this country acts.  I was ashamed when we went to Iraq.  I was ashamed when we knowingly bombed our own citizens.  I am ashamed we turn our backs on our allies.  I am ashamed that we keep sticking our noses into matters we don't have the power to solve making them worse.

I am not exactly sure what event you are talking about when you say 'we knowingly bombed our own citizens', but I am sure there was something.  Diplomacy and war are complex matters.  Trying to bring Democracy to Iraq instead of the brutal dictator was a noble cause but failed miserably.  The good which came out is that we clearly discovered most of the Middle East is not ready for Democracy and they seem quite content to keep their theocracies.  The US has had its failures and hindsight is always easy to point fingers.  Our intentions are usually good.  The US has made the world a better place and I am not ashamed of what we have tried.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An early look at the effect of the impeachment probe on Trump's popularity from Nate Silver's 538. The inquiry was announced on Sep 24. His disapproval/approval ratings were 53.2%/42.8% on Sep 26, a local max. The latest numbers from Nov 15 are 54.3%/41.2%. It's early, but it doesn't seem that this is helping Trump. When Trump's attacks on Vindman and others this week, and the effect of his attacks on MY are factored in, I expect the numbers to go further south for Trump. 

Edited by SoBeDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, TheMagus said:

Here is the witness list that the House republicans asked for:

1. Devon Archer - Former Burisma board member

2. Hunter Biden - we know who that is

3. Alexandra Chalupa! - former DNC staffer they keep talking about

4. David Hale - State Dept

5. Tim Morrison - State Dept (I believe he will be testifying publicly and already gave a deposition)

6. Alexander Vindman - State Dept (will be testifying)

7. Nellie Ohr - former contractor for Fusion GPS :wall:

8. Kurt Volker - State Dept (I believe he is also testifying and gave a deposition)

9. The Whistleblower

10. The Whistleblower's Sources

Fwiw the bolded are the known persons from within the administration that the GOP has asked for and all four are testifying.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.