Donald Trump impeachment investigation over Ukranian phone call...

[D34DL1N3R]

This is a common strategy of accusing your opponents of what you yourself are doing

I agree. Trump is king of this very thing.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

This is the Russia Collusion Conspiracy Theory 2.0, after that was shown to be a complete nothing-burger, Trump's opponents are latching onto another fake news lie.

This is a common strategy of accusing your opponents of what you yourself are doing, i.e. Hillary colluding with Russia (selling them a large amount of America's uranium), and Joe Biden using political pressure to stop the crooked company his son worked with from being investigated.

Interesting take, but just to humor me, could a republican do the same to a democrat? Do you know of an example of that happening?

 

[SG854]

I don't think that all democrats are innocent either. I'm going to come more center on this, politicians have a job, to get re-elected.

I love the starwars reference, I'm a sucker for it. I was following along reading up on this thread and it's refreshing. I agree, every person in his legal team will try to restrain him from committing to testifying. I just don't know if he will persist and continue anyways.

He will likely look at it as a challenge and I'm sure democrats will attempt to bait/lure him to defend himself in a public hearing. He's impulsive, I'm not sure if he will just stick with a script as it's just not his style. But we've never observed him in a courtroom before, or at least I haven't. I've seen Trump discuss areas of his expertise in congress in the past - he was focused, lucid, and charming. If he can tap into that and stay on message then he would greatly assist his defense. If he goes in with anger and defiance he's likely to slip.

It was something they did even with the Mueller case. Didn't let Trump talk so he wont fall into that trap. I think its lawyer advice to just shut up and let them do the talking so you wont screw up your chances even if you're innocent, especially when your political opponents want to end you. Look at the ICE case and the Dems were throwing all kinds of accusations calling people that work at the facilities racist straight up front, instead of asking questions in a professional calm and collected way.

 

[Foxi4]

It was something they did even with the Mueller case. Didn't let Trump talk so he wont fall into that trap. I think its lawyer advice to just shut up and let them do the talking so you wont screw up your chances even if you're innocent, especially when your political opponents want to end you. Look at the ICE case and the Dems were throwing all kinds of accusations calling people that work at the facilities racist straight up front, instead of asking questions in a professional calm and collected way.

The whole ICE debacle is a part of a concentrated effort to relax immigration law through a set of 957 complicated and convoluted hoops. This is a fairly recent development as Democrats were rather fond of border security in the past, including physical barriers. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 comes to mind, it passed through Congress with the blessing and approval of many Democrats. They only started opposing the idea when Trump proposed a more effective, albeit more expensive barrier - a wall. They've been meddling with the wall ever since, and now that the originally proposed concrete slabs were replaced with steel bars, they're complaining that it's too easy to climb or saw through - yeah, we know, that's not what was originally proposed, of course it doesn't perform as expected. The more advice Trump gets the more changes need to be implemented. It's a typical case of a horse built by committee - it's no good. With the process of building the wall temporarily halted they can happily proceed to the next step, namely tarnishing the reputation of ICE by demonising its officers. It's not going to stop anytime soon either as their electorate fancies the ridiculous idea of an open borders state, which of course is an extreme they'll never actually sink to, but they must keep up appearances to rally the base. Naturally the resulting attacks against ICE officers by crazed sycophants are completely out of their control and not at all the fault of the heated rhetoric they're generating.

 

[Lacius]

Who cares? If a human being doesn't sit in a seat and testify as the originator of the complaint, I'm just going to assume the whole 'whistleblower' scheme was a sham and there never was any such person in the first place. So will a lot of people. I've had that suspicion since this all started since the whistleblower's knowledge of the phone call was second-hand, meaning nobody who actually took part in the call would know the list of possible persons it could be. How convenient. Even contrived from the start, perhaps.

And the Senate can subpoena the whistleblower anyway, if it ever gets that far. Either no such person will ever appear, or if someone does watch him plead the 5th to every question.

Trump's actions speak for themselves.

 

[Haloman800]

I agree. Trump is king of this very thing.

Post an example instead of asserting it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Interesting take, but just to humor me, could a republican do the same to a democrat? Do you know of an example of that happening?

Sure, anyone could do this to anyone else, but this specifically is a tactic from Saul Alinsky (Hillary Clinton's mentor), satanist and author of "rules for radicals", one of which is "accuse your opponents of what you yourself are doing".

So you are going to find leftists doing this more often.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

Post an example instead of asserting it.

There are examples that are extremely easy to find. Near instantly. All over the place. Did you even try? I'm not holding your hand, someone else can if they choose to. But I really wish most Trump supporters would learn how to fact check on their own. It's a great skill to have.

 

[Haloman800]

There are examples that are extremely easy to find. Near instantly. All over the place. Did you even try? I'm not holding your hand, someone else can if they choose to. But I really wish most Trump supporters would learn how to fact check on their own. It's a great skill to have.

"do you actually expect me to post my own sources? no, you find them yourself!" -you.
got it

 

[D34DL1N3R]

"do you actually expect me to post my own sources? no, you find them yourself!" -you.
got it

"Do you actually expect me to investigate claims and look up information all on my own? No, you do it for me!" -you.
got it

Have a great weekend!

 

[Haloman800]

"Do you actually expect me to investigate claims and look up information all on my own? No, you do it for me!" -you.
got it

Have a great weekend!

You too! I look forward to your future assertions without evidence :^)

 

[Ev1l0rd]

"Do you actually expect me to investigate claims and look up information all on my own? No, you do it for me!" -you.
got it

Have a great weekend!

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but this is the politics forum. Being able to back up claims with proof is kinda needed .

Burden of proof does lie on you.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Post an example instead of asserting it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


Sure, anyone could do this to anyone else, but this specifically is a tactic from Saul Alinsky (Hillary Clinton's mentor), satanist and author of "rules for radicals", one of which is "accuse your opponents of what you yourself are doing".

So you are going to find leftists doing this more often.

Wow, Billapong is that you? I'm glad you found a way to rejoin our conversation. Your post history is suspicious for someone who never associated in this political thread and then jumped in to this one the day after the aforementioned user's suspension. /s

I figured if we were going to lob conspiracy theories around instead of addressing factual evidence or at least something pertaining to our topic of discussion with sources then we can't take you seriously.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but this is the politics forum. Being able to back up claims with proof is kinda needed .

Burden of proof does lie on you.

This is the internet. Not a courtroom. I don't need to prove anything to anyone, simply because they all but demand I do so. And I'm not going to. Tough cookies.

 

[Haloman800]

Wow, Billapong is that you? I'm glad you found a way to rejoin our conversation. Your post history is suspicious for someone who never associated in political threads and then jumped in to this one the day after the aforementioned user's suspension. /s

I figured if we were going to lob conspiracy theories around instead of addressing factual evidence or at least something pertaining to our topic of discussion with sources then we can't take you seriously.

Let's see, you've been a member here for a couple months, I've been a member here for 10 years, but sure, I'm the one with the fake account.

Here's Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html Saul dedicated the book to Lucifer.
Here's Hillary's thesis where she calls Saul Alinsky her mentor https://archive.ph/qp2O7

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge you're wrong.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

This is the internet. Not a courtroom. I don't need to prove anything to anyone, simply because they all but demand I do so. And I'm not going to. Tough cookies.

I mean, this is the politics board. Your statements don't hold much worth if you can't back them up with evidence.

If it were any other thread on any other board, you'd be right, but if I'm going by the assumption you take the claim seriously, you should post evidence to that claim since that's the entire bloody point of this board (to have a discussion.)

Of course, you're not required to do so, but at that point your opinion becomes meaningless white noise to those that don't agree with you.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Let's see, you've been a member here for a couple months, I've been a member here for 10 years, but sure, I'm the one with the fake account.

Here's Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html Saul dedicated the book to Lucifer.
Here's Hillary's thesis where she calls Saul Alinsky her mentor https://archive.ph/qp2O7

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge you're wrong.

What does this have to do with this topic of discussion though? I was trying to steer you back on track in discussing the aspect of impeachment. Hillary's Clinton alleged mentor doesn't really pertain to this discussion. Again I was referring to impeachment inquiry, and you dodged my initial question just to be clear. Let's get back on topic Billapong. If you want to follow up on our discussion in earnest I won't deny you the pleasure and invite you in.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Here's Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals: http://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html Saul dedicated the book to Lucifer.
Here's Hillary's thesis where she calls Saul Alinsky her mentor https://archive.ph/qp2O7

Did you even read the second article or did you reurgitate it from somewhere else?

The Post concludes that Clinton did _not_ necessarily look up to Alinsky as a "mentor". She had contact with him, but her eventual thesis picked apart his work, disagreeing with his assessment of the situation.

Secondly "dedicating his work to Lucifer" is one of those tactics that is pretty much firing cheap shots at religious nutters who will complain to no end about it. It means about as much as me swearing myself in using the Satanist Bible when asked to testify (which is legal in the US, you can be sworn in there using anything you deem relevant). It's a tactic designed to get certain people angry about what you're saying, which sometimes may be the point.

 

[D34DL1N3R]

I mean, this is the politics board. Your statements don't hold much worth if you can't back them up with evidence.

If it were any other thread on any other board, you'd be right, but if I'm going by the assumption you take the claim seriously, you should post evidence to that claim since that's the entire bloody point of this board (to have a discussion.)

Of course, you're not required to do so, but at that point your opinion becomes meaningless white noise to those that don't agree with you.

I don't care what those that don't agree with me think. They are capable of looking for themselves to see if I'm full of crap or not. Which is what people should be doing anyway. Why take my word for it, or not? See for yourselves. Because anytime someone posts sources here, it's always "non credible" from the opposing side. What difference would it even make?

 

[Haloman800]

Did you even read the second article or did you reurgitate it from somewhere else?

The Post concludes that Clinton did _not_ necessarily look up to Alinsky as a "mentor". She had contact with him, but her eventual thesis picked apart his work, disagreeing with his assessment of the situation.

Secondly "dedicating his work to Lucifer" is one of those tactics that is pretty much firing cheap shots at religious nutters who will complain to no end about it. It means about as much as me swearing myself in using the Satanist Bible when asked to testify (which is legal in the US, you can be sworn in there using anything you deem relevant). It's a tactic designed to get certain people angry about what you're saying, which sometimes may be the point.

Hillary wrote her senior thesis, and largely agreed with him, but she doesn't "look up to him"? Is this really what you're claiming?

Secondly, "lol he was just trolling bro" isn't an argument. Saul Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer & admired him. He further said he'd rather be in hell & would continue organizing people there.

If you have to make up elaborate excuses to defend people that share your beliefs, maybe you have the wrong beliefs.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I don't care what those that don't agree with me think. They are capable of looking for themselves to see if I'm full of crap or not. Which is what people should be doing anyway. Why take my word for it, or not? See for yourselves. Because anytime someone posts sources here, it's always "non credible" from the opposing side. What difference would it even make?

If you are making an argument/claim and want to be taken seriously by both sides then sources will only serve to assist. If you found information that is worth bringing here then why not. If the information is credible and corroborated then it will just make someone look foolish by attacking it.