|
Post by howard lee on Jan 25, 2020 16:38:00 GMT -5
Especially when so many members of this forum always seem to know better.
Last I heard, there were only about 4 of us.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 25, 2020 17:32:22 GMT -5
'I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant' It's depressing to realize that the last place in today's world to look for facts is with fact checkers. Especially when so many members of this forum always seem to know better.
You're a good editor. Read that fact check and I'll bet you can find at least two things wrong with it, simply based on the claim to be a fact-checking site.
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Jan 25, 2020 18:39:29 GMT -5
Especially when so many members of this forum always seem to know better.
You're a good editor. Read that fact check and I'll bet you can find at least two things wrong with it, simply based on the claim to be a fact-checking site.
John, I think that's a loaded challenge, and is heavily contingent on what one believes about this mess in the first place. I just read over it twice, and can't really identify anything that is "wrong." Care to help this good but not-too-swift editor?
And thank you for the compliment.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 25, 2020 21:44:59 GMT -5
Especially when so many members of this forum always seem to know better.
You're a good editor. Read that fact check and I'll bet you can find at least two things wrong with it, simply based on the claim to be a fact-checking site. You mean like both of the two points the fact check claims? Like Trump turned down the opportunity to testify? After Pelosi and crew completely circumvented the required process step of having the entire House vote to authorize the Committee investigations? You mean that complete unfair abortion of process? I guess the fact checkers didn't bother to check thier basic facts that were presented mere minutes before on national TV. Or that that House managers failed to mention in thier testimony that the transcript basically obliterated thier point. But instead left it to the President's team to mention it? But, after all, it was there all along so clearly they weren't hiding anything. Just obscuring to make a point. Which if you're a "fact checker" doesn't really rise to the level of a pertinant fact. You mean those two things? Seems to be self ridicule of fact checking as a hobby. And you didn't bother to listen to what the defense testified to today? And by the way, that's all you could come up with? Your mother would likely tell you you should be ashamed. But shame appears to have no meaning to these folks.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jan 25, 2020 22:03:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jan 25, 2020 22:17:45 GMT -5
Can't wait for the fact check folks to pronounce this completely false again. You can't make stuff like that up.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 26, 2020 10:36:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jan 26, 2020 14:12:41 GMT -5
I might describe the fat paragraph below as damning, but succinct would never occur to me. For good reason. The first sentence runs 43 words, the second 76. As I read it, I started gasping for air and turning blue... and I can play Bordogni etudes on my trombone nearly as they were written! It could be an "across the pond" issue. Maybe "reasonably" means "anything but" in Britlish.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jan 26, 2020 15:01:32 GMT -5
Point taken epaul but I think that, given the amount that she feels the need to summarize each day, she avoids the superfluous fairly well. Edit - Ms Richardson starts her latest piece with a (sort of) explanatory paragraph. "Some days, it’s hard to write these letters because there are so many stories out there it’s difficult to wrestle them into a clear narrative. Last night was like that—you’ll note I posted at 4:00 am. And some days are easy because it all falls into place. Today is one of those days"
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 27, 2020 13:24:22 GMT -5
Well the Bolton thing sure has given the talking heads a lot to yammer about. Timing would seem that Bolton wants badly to go on the record. It'll surely put some pressure on the Rs for the witness vote. Still ain't gonna get Trump removed.
But I find it interesting that so many hand picked Trump appointees seem to all throw him under the bus.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jan 27, 2020 13:33:56 GMT -5
Well the Bolton thing sure has given the talking heads a lot to yammer about. Timing would seem that Bolton wants badly to go on the record. It'll surely put some pressure on the Rs for the witness vote. Still ain't gonna get Trump removed. But I find it interesting that so many hand picked Trump appointees seem to all throw him under the bus. As creatures of the swamp they get riled when the water level drops.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jan 27, 2020 20:34:54 GMT -5
"Well the Bolton thing sure has given the talking heads a lot to yammer about." As if they needed more fuel. Why listen? I believe in keeping up to speed on my civic duties but that doesn't include listening to them guys and gals.
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jan 27, 2020 21:01:43 GMT -5
I believe in keeping up to speed on my civic duties but that doesn't include listening to them guys and gals. I like the cut of your jib, sir.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 28, 2020 9:09:42 GMT -5
Well the Bolton thing sure has given the talking heads a lot to yammer about. Timing would seem that Bolton wants badly to go on the record. It'll surely put some pressure on the Rs for the witness vote. Still ain't gonna get Trump removed. But I find it interesting that so many hand picked Trump appointees seem to all throw him under the bus. What a peculiar point of view. It would seem more obvious to wonder why a group of politicians -- Democrats -- who have not only never before in the history of time believed a single word uttered from his Neo-Conservative mustached mouth, all of a sudden can't wait to hear the testimony of a person whom they have spent a 30 year history characterizing as a liar utterly devoid of a truthful impulse. Democrats have NEVER been lukewarm about Bolton. They have HATED him for 30 years It's easy to understand why Republicans wouldn't believe him. Half of them see him as the Neo-Conservative that he is -- at loggerheads with the first president in modern history who is hell-bent on getting us OUT of policing the world-- ... and the other half realize that his testimony is still not material toward a constitutional conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 28, 2020 9:25:59 GMT -5
I'm talking about Sondland, Tillerson, and a host of others, as well as Bolton. Sondland was a big contributor to the Trump campaign. And he would not lie to protect Trump. I'm not talking about political persuasion. I'm talking about truth and loyalty. Trump at least values loyalty. But he cant even get that from a lot of the people he chooses. I don't really care what Bolton has to say. But it's great theater to watch the Trump's administration trip and fall all over themselves.
Of course it is just theater of the absurd. Nothing is going to change. The Senate was never going to remove Trump. It's an impossibility. It feeds into the narrative that Trump does whatever he wants and expects his appointees to be "Yes-men." Will that affect November? Who knows. But that die is already cast. Beating that drum is like kicking a dead horse.
Of course Democrats (party leadership) play the only game they know: be obstructionist. Just like McConnell was during the Obama administration. Political animals do what political animals do.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 28, 2020 9:30:16 GMT -5
All you're saying in that is that you simply don't believe the Republican's presentation. That's fine. That's the nature of our divide. But all those folk's testimony has been addressed. Inadequately for your taste, but I find the White House council's explanation far more credible than those whose testimony you find credible.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 28, 2020 9:32:26 GMT -5
Of course it is just theater of the absurd. Nothing is going to change. The Senate was never going to remove Trump. It's an impossibility. I don't think it was ever an impossibility. I just accept the Occam's Razor that the evidence for anything impeachable was not good enough to persuade anyone. "A tell in poker is a change in a player's behavior or demeanor that is claimed by some to give clues to that player's assessment of their hand. A player gains an advantage if they observe and understand the meaning of another player's tell, particularly if the tell is unconscious and reliable." (from Wikipedia) Once a tell is finally noticed -- just like a finally-solved optical illusion -- from that point on you can no longer NOT see it. Driven by the national press's narratives about the impeachment hearings, everyone has been wondering if 4 Republican Senators might abandon a Republican President and vote with the Democrats to remove him. That's a "tell". If the press wasn't so biased that they had their collective mind made up about impeachment, they would have just as often been wondering how many Democrats would be abandoning their party to vote with the Republicans not to remove the President. Instead, they're not even listening (they never have listened) to the case for Trump's innocence. They are too busy feverishly sketching out their journalist's rebuttal to the Constitutional scholar's presentation of the facts of the case.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 28, 2020 9:51:36 GMT -5
The "4" are needed to vote to hear additional witnesses. It takes 2/3 to remove a president. So more than 1/3 of Republicans would have to agree on that. Plus, like you say, the Ds would have to hold suit. Never was a chance of all that.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jan 28, 2020 9:55:45 GMT -5
The "4" are needed to vote to hear additional witnesses. It takes 2/3 to remove a president. So more than 1/3 of Republicans would have to agree on that. Plus, like you say, the Ds would have to hold suit. Never was a chance of all that. Still, the thinking, thoughtful man's question left hanging is why isn't anyone anticipating Democrats breaking rank. It's surely not the strength of the case against Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jan 28, 2020 9:56:17 GMT -5
Instead, they're not even listening (they never have listened) to the case for Trump's innocence. Innocence-of-a-crime-worthy-of-being-removed-from-office, I'll give you that. But he is VERY guilty of trying to use US Foreign Policy for his own personal advantage. Is he the only one who has ever done it? Doubtful. Is he an out and out liar? Absolutely !
|
|