monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

It isn't an idle threat...

Retaliate how? Legal retaliation is legal. Remember Obama prosecuted whistle blowers.

@coldjoint,

Quote:

Remember Obama prosecuted whistle blowers.

He unilaterally made military decisions, circumventing the standard procedure of consulting congress.

His policy on border-jumpers, and separating their children from them, was harsher than Trump's measures.

Fortunately, he had a clearly psychotic SoS to blame for some of his "poor decisions".

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

So, by defending retaliation is exactly why the whistle blower isn't going to be outed.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

So, by defending retaliation is exactly why the whistle blower isn't going to be outed.

Trump has the right to confront his accuser. It is his background that is being hidden.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Preventing the accused from confronting his accusers at trial is exactly why history will judge this to be nothing more than a partisan witch hunt and vindicate the likely Republican decision to dismiss all charges without hearing witnesses.

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Rev posts facts.

Wrong again. Revelette's claim that attempts to outlaw pistol grips are about gun safety was completely untrue.

Revelette's claim that attempts to outlaw pistol grips are about trying to prevent deaths was completely untrue.

Revelette's claim that attempts to outlaw pistol grips do not violate people's civil liberties was completely untrue.

RABEL222 wrote:

You post cartoons.

I posted many facts.

It is a fact that "trying to outlaw pistol grips on semi-auto rifles" has nothing to do with gun safety.

It is a fact that people who oppose civil liberties or support fascism always invoke "common sense".

It is a fact that "imposing gun restrictions that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest" violates people's civil liberties.

It is a fact that "trying to outlaw pistol grips on semi-auto rifles" has nothing to do with trying to prevent any deaths.

It is a fact that people who oppose civil liberties or support fascism always use terms like "sensible".

RABEL222 wrote:

I think that says it all about who is being honest.

You cannot provide any examples of anything untrue in my posts.

I do not suspect Revelette of dishonesty either I might add. Revelette is completely wrong on every single point. But I do not suspect any malicious intent in Revelette's posts.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

He posts the same bloody cartoon over and over again.

Progressives deny reality over and over again.

izzythepush wrote:

It's not just his vocabulary that's limited.

You cannot provide any examples of limitations in my vocabulary.

0 Replies

@hightor,

hightor wrote:

And he posts the same empty rhetoric over and over and over and over and over and over...

Progressives really hate facts.

Facts are really inconvenient for progressives.

But no. Facts are not empty rhetoric.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

hightor wrote:
And with that particular character, everyone knows what he's going to say anyway.

I forgot people here can read minds.

To be fair, progressives do know deep down that I will respond to their fact-free gibberish with whatever the truth is.

That's why progressives make these preposterous attacks against the truth by complaining that the truth is the same thing as it was the last time that I posted it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

One of the [rime offenders mistaking opinion for fact and repeating it over and over and over and over and over. and being self-righteous about it.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

You cannot provide any examples of me ever mistaking opinion for fact.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

None of your "facts" are facts. They're extremely simplistic and mistaken opinions.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. Your dislike of facts does not change the reality that they are facts.

Opinions cannot be mistaken, by the way. They are opinions.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

He's been getting into a right tizz hasn't he? I ignored him literally years ago. I don't read what he says because he disgusts me. He's desperate for me to acknowledge him, he's been whining on about it for years. If he's just getting a bit frothy right now so what?

I clearly hit a nerve when I mentioned the biscuit game, it must have brought back a lot of unhappy memories although I suspect he plays to lose.

Is this supposed to be about me? It's in response to a series of posts that talk about me.

None of that is even remotely true if it is supposed to be about me.

This is the first time I've ever seen the words "biscuit game" and I have no idea what they even mean. Neither am I at all curious to learn what they mean.

If this was supposed to be about one of the other conservative posters, I've not seen anyone act like they are desperate for acknowledgement from you.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

As I've observed before, none of these guys will put other posters on ignore. That's not a matter or principle. It's because they are trolls who's mode of operation is not to present clear and reasoned argumentation. Their goal is disrupting conversations they don't like.

Your lack of honor and integrity knows no bounds.

Before the moderators shifted policy and started cracking down on name-calling I routinely put the name-callers on ignore.

And when you found yourself out of your depths because you were not able to bluff your way through a conversation with me by saying "I think what that guy over there thinks", you started quoting that vicious name-calling just to make sure I saw it.

These are your own tactics that you are describing, not the tactics of any conservative poster.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
Rand Paul Denied Whistleblower Question Again - Here's What He Asked
Quote:
Here was Paul's exact question:

"Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings."

Lots of people, likely me included, would never have heard the question if it had not been censored.

And most likely this act censorship will strengthen Republican resolve to not call any of the Democrats' witnesses.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

An opinion, as always.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

No. That was speculation.

Here is an opinion:
If the Senate dismisses the charges without hearing witnesses, that will be a good thing.

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know