Public Open Impeachment Hearings To Start Wednesday

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya ... no. Not at all. How is that even a question?

 

[Gun Nut]

Ya ... no. Not at all. How is that even a question?

The question is the best they got.. .and to many a thoughtless individuals, is plenty enough.

People who are exposed to the liability of libel / slander, tend to just "ask a lot of questions"... like if they stopped beating their wife.

Here is a hint. If a "news" article asks a question in the headline, then the answer that question is "no".

 

[Jarhyn]

Ya ... no. Not at all. How is that even a question?

The question is the best they got.. .and to many a thoughtless individuals, is plenty enough.

People who are exposed to the liability of libel / slander, tend to just "ask a lot of questions"... like if they stopped beating their wife.

Here is a hint. If a "news" article asks a question in the headline, then the answer that question is "no".

It's also a well known Non Sequitur, the Tu Quoque, or "you too" fallacy. It does not follow that Biden or his son being pieces of shit justifies extorting a foreign government over military aid to investigate a political rival.

Just like it does not follow that Clinton flying the Lolita Express makes it any less true that Trump raped a girl who he dressed up as his own daughter

 

[SimpleDon]

Today is November 16. On November 19, the next round of public hearings starts. More damning first hand testimony is coming. The whistle blower is beside the point now. Follow up on thwhistle blower's is demonstrating that the whistle blower's claims are corroborated by those who were said to have first hand knowledge of the damning events. And that is what matters. HL seems to be unable to grasp that point. As do a lot of loud mouthed, partisan Republican "pundits". More horrors, and scandals to come.

And then on Tuesday night Fox News will be saying, "Another day of nothing. What a shocker."

They even showed a poll that showed 57% of Americans are not going to change their opinion about Trump, regardless of what evidence comes out. The American people are just sick of this nonsense. You guys are turning more people to the right. Hope you enjoy reaping what you sow.

I for one am fed up with Trump's circus. I am in the 57% who will not change my mind no matter what the outcome of the impeachment is either. Trump is what he has always been, an entitled, spoiled rich kid and criminal who doesn't feel that he must obey the law or social convention and traditions if it stands in the way of the only thing that he cares about, making money. Did you think the people in the 57% polling numbers were only Trump supporters?

Yes, people in the US are becoming more conservative. This is an invitation to disaster for our country. It should be obvious by now that conservatives are incapable of governing the country. We have a dynamic ever-changing economy. The very essence of being a conservative is the resistance to change. This disconnect between the nature of the economy and the nature of the conservatives in government is at the heart of the inability of the conservatives to govern. Unfortunately, it gets worse from there. The world, in general, is changing ever more rapidly. This creates even more problems for conservatives who find themselves in power in government.

To be a conservative requires one to believe in lies.

Conservatives avoid conflicts in logic by hiding behind the lies that only they believe. An obvious one is that global warming is a hoax by 11,000 climate scientists to secure more funding for their research. Conservatives have to believe this lie because global warming is a problem so big that it can only be solved by government action over the entire world.

Another lie that they have to believe is that the economy doesn't need the government and would actually work better if there was no government interference in the economy. This in spite of not being able to give a single example of an economy existing outside of a government. The economy in these complex times requires a government to set laws and regulations that define good behavior and enforce it exactly the same way that the government defines good behavior in society in general and enforces it.

 

[SimpleDon]

They even showed a poll that showed 57% of Americans are not going to change their opinion about Trump, regardless of what evidence comes out.

OMG! Master Chief Wasserman? Is that you?

1988. Someone at Guided Missile School was drawing Swatikas in the head, in magic marker.
We all got mustered in the auditorium for a shotgunning session of Equal Opportunity Training. A chief told us about thirty times that color didn't matter.
After that, as we filed out, i told my fellow instructor, 'Nothing I heard in the last hour is goingbto change my opinion of black people.'
Shipmate knew my wife is black, laughed.
Master Chief behind me heard what i said, assumed the wordt, and went to tell my chain of command that i was the Swastika graffitist. And tgat i had admitted it.

Lucky for me, one oerson in the chain had actually met my wife and could say, 'i dontthink what you heard means what you think it means.'

Keith, Milo Yinnnapoulous is married to a black man and the left calls him racist.

I for one don't believe that the vast majority of conservatives are racist. I know too many of them to believe that they would think that the paper-thin concept of race is a viable determinator explaining anything about the differences between people.

My complaint about conservatives and the Republican party is that they make room for the racists in the party by accommodating the racists' aberrate views. It is this tact acceptance of racism by movement conservatism and the Republican party that has kept racism alive and well in the US for many years beyond what it would have been its natural due to be tossed out date.

This to me is a more serious indictment of conservatives and the Republican party than if they were all racists. They are tolerating racism to gain the votes of the racists that they need to be able to pass the tax cuts for the already rich that brings in the contributions that are the very lifeblood of movement conservatism and the Republican party.

 

[Half-Life]

Today is November 16. On November 19, the next round of public hearings starts. More damning first hand testimony is coming. The whistle blower is beside the point now. Follow up on thwhistle blower's is demonstrating that the whistle blower's claims are corroborated by those who were said to have first hand knowledge of the damning events. And that is what matters. HL seems to be unable to grasp that point. As do a lot of loud mouthed, partisan Republican "pundits". More horrors, and scandals to come.

And then on Tuesday night Fox News will be saying, "Another day of nothing. What a shocker."

They even showed a poll that showed 57% of Americans are not going to change their opinion about Trump, regardless of what evidence comes out. The American people are just sick of this nonsense. You guys are turning more people to the right. Hope you enjoy reaping what you sow.

I for one am fed up with Trump's circus. I am in the 57% who will not change my mind no matter what the outcome of the impeachment is either. Trump is what he has always been, an entitled, spoiled rich kid and criminal who doesn't feel that he must obey the law or social convention and traditions if it stands in the way of the only thing that he cares about, making money. Did you think the people in the 57% polling numbers were only Trump supporters?

Yes, people in the US are becoming more conservative. This is an invitation to disaster for our country. It should be obvious by now that conservatives are incapable of governing the country. We have a dynamic ever-changing economy. The very essence of being a conservative is the resistance to change. This disconnect between the nature of the economy and the nature of the conservatives in government is at the heart of the inability of the conservatives to govern. Unfortunately, it gets worse from there. The world, in general, is changing ever more rapidly. This creates even more problems for conservatives who find themselves in power in government.

To be a conservative requires one to believe in lies.

Conservatives avoid conflicts in logic by hiding behind the lies that only they believe. An obvious one is that global warming is a hoax by 11,000 climate scientists to secure more funding for their research. Conservatives have to believe this lie because global warming is a problem so big that it can only be solved by government action over the entire world.

Another lie that they have to believe is that the economy doesn't need the government and would actually work better if there was no government interference in the economy. This in spite of not being able to give a single example of an economy existing outside of a government. The economy in these complex times requires a government to set laws and regulations that define good behavior and enforce it exactly the same way that the government defines good behavior in society in general and enforces it.

Well, back in the 60's sugar companies paid scientists to blame fat for health problems.

So, we can't trust scientists.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

I don't know how yo guys can be so naive to think, "Scientists wold never take money! They aren't greedy!"

 

[Patooka]

Yeah! Fuck science! What has science ever done for us?

Except the aqueduct of course.

 

[Half-Life]

Yeah! Fuck science! What has science ever done for us?

Except the aqueduct of course.

You're confusing building things with research funding.

 

[Patooka]

Yeah! Fuck science! What has science ever done for us?

Except the aqueduct of course.

You're confusing building things with research funding.

You're confusing your opinion with reality. Last time I checked engineering is an applied science. But seeing as you hate progress and science so much, I'll just leave you with your bowel of leaches to consume.

 

[Half-Life]

Yeah! Fuck science! What has science ever done for us?

Except the aqueduct of course.

You're confusing building things with research funding.

You're confusing your opinion with reality. Last time I checked engineering is an applied science. But seeing as you hate progress and science so much, I'll just leave you with your bowel of leaches to consume.

Moving the goalposts noted.

We were taking about scientists taking bribes to fudge research. You then said "Engineering!"

 

[Patooka]

Nope, I'm just pointing out the idiocy of a statement like "We can't trust scientists". Of course some scientists take bribes to fudge research. The Fossil Fuels and Tobacco industries do it all the time. If there is corruption in climate science, it's on the side of those who assert that climate change is a myth. But because that doesn't fit into your worldview, you dismiss it. That's your prerogative, but the facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[ZiprHead]

Last week, the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee shoehorned into the permanent record of the impeachment inquiry a conspiracy theory about the “real” attackers against the 2016 election. This defiant linkage to agitprop of dubious origin was yet another chapter in the GOP’s hopeless descent into complete make-believe.

Before we dig into the madness, there’s a history here that needs to be underscored, since the Republican appetite for crapola didn’t quite begin with Donald Trump.

For example: in addition to disconnecting itself from science and evidence-based reality long ago — in the name of manufacturing an ignominious alliance with right-wing evangelicals in the early 1980s — the modern GOP has repeatedly accepted as real the continuing series of selectively edited prank videos by James O’Keefe and his copycats.

The new-ish Trump Republican theory about Ukraine and the Democratic National Committee goes like this: The Democrats teamed up with the cyber-security firm CrowdStrike to hack the DNC server in 2016 in order to frame Russia, while also somehow sabotaging Trump’s campaign. A key component to this theory is the false claim that CrowdStrike’s founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is Ukrainian.


According to witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, Trump and his lackeys attempted to extort from Ukraine an investigation into both the Bidens and the CrowdStrike allegations in exchange for U.S. military aid necessary to help fight off the Russian invaders in the eastern Donbass region.

Not surprisingly, the CrowdStrike theory is 100 percent, unpasteurized nincompoopery. (Reportedly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn't know what Trump was talking about; his aides had to look up this nonsense on the internet.)

Salon-Trump's still pushing the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory: But why, and where did it come from?

 

[blastula]

Vindmann had a bit of a West Wing moment today.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOWgXt_IL_4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[SimpleDon]

I for one am fed up with Trump's circus. I am in the 57% who will not change my mind no matter what the outcome of the impeachment is either. Trump is what he has always been, an entitled, spoiled rich kid and criminal who doesn't feel that he must obey the law or social convention and traditions if it stands in the way of the only thing that he cares about, making money. Did you think the people in the 57% polling numbers were only Trump supporters?

Yes, people in the US are becoming more conservative. This is an invitation to disaster for our country. It should be obvious by now that conservatives are incapable of governing the country. We have a dynamic ever-changing economy. The very essence of being a conservative is the resistance to change. This disconnect between the nature of the economy and the nature of the conservatives in government is at the heart of the inability of the conservatives to govern. Unfortunately, it gets worse from there. The world, in general, is changing ever more rapidly. This creates even more problems for conservatives who find themselves in power in government.

To be a conservative requires one to believe in lies.

Conservatives avoid conflicts in logic by hiding behind the lies that only they believe. An obvious one is that global warming is a hoax by 11,000 climate scientists to secure more funding for their research. Conservatives have to believe this lie because global warming is a problem so big that it can only be solved by government action over the entire world.

Another lie that they have to believe is that the economy doesn't need the government and would actually work better if there was no government interference in the economy. This in spite of not being able to give a single example of an economy existing outside of a government. The economy in these complex times requires a government to set laws and regulations that define good behavior and enforce it exactly the same way that the government defines good behavior in society in general and enforces it.

Well, back in the 60's sugar companies paid scientists to blame fat for health problems.

So, we can't trust scientists.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

I don't know how yo guys can be so naive to think, "Scientists wold never take money! They aren't greedy!"

Yes, and some few scientists and a lot of hangers-on took the oil companies money to say that that the overwhelming consensus of nearly every climate scientist on earth that the current unprecedented heating of the atmosphere is due to mankind's burning of fossil fuels is not true. But most of the oil companies except for the Koch brothers companies now accept that it is true. And some few scientists took industry money to assert that there was no problem with the lead in paint and gasoline or that there was no way that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer, but I would be willing to bet that today you don't gobble sugar or smoke cigarettes or feed leaded paint chips to your children or grandchildren, whichever you have. In science truth is always going to win out in the end because there are no secrets in science, you have to explain your methodology and others have to be able to duplicate your work and come to the same conclusions that you do.

The study that you quoted was a survey study, a study of other peoples' original research, a study of studies if you will. It wasn't original research. These types of studies are heavily discounted because of the possibility of the kind of manipulation that occurred in this study as the article described. The manipulations were discovered in the "sugar is good" study and the academic record was corrected. However, the public record, the impact that the industry was interested in, was never fully corrected. Nor could it ever be, the impact of a correction is never as thorough as the original impact of the false conclusion of the study.

I am surprised that you had no problems with this post other than the lie that nearly all of the climate scientists on the planet would conspire together, in order to increase their grants. Why would these smart people come to the conclusion that reaching a nearly unanimous conclusion that the world is heating up due to mankind's burning of carbon fuels would produce more grants than saying this requires much more study to find out why the earth is heating up? By reaching this conclusion it seems that they would cut themselves out of a whole lot of grant money that they would get for stringing their research out by not coming to a conclusion, wouldn't they? How could they conspire with 11,000 people without a single scientist breaking ranks and exposing the supposed conspiracy?

It is telling that you have no problem with the whole "conservatives can't run a government because their philosophy is largely based on the lies" thing. I am just not sure what it tells us though.

 

[Jarhyn]

[words]

Also "religious leaders wold never take money! They aren't greedy!"

Or how about "Religious leaders wold never molest children! They aren't horny pedophiles!"

Of course anyone is capable of being corrupt. That's why peer review exists.

It strikes me that there isn't reasonable peer review in churches though. Or any kind of oversight, really. When religious leaders do a bad, they just get shuffled around instead of being relegated to quackery.

 

[Half-Life]

Still ZERO EVIDENCE of quid pro quo. Sickening witch hunt.

 

[Patooka]

Still ZERO EVIDENCE of quid pro quo. Sickening witch hunt.

You really have only a passing acquaintance with reality, don't you? The ambassador to the EU, ambassador to the Ukraine, Secretary of State, members of the NSC, former National Security Advisor and the fucking transcript is ironclad proof that there was a quid pro quo. You're "argument" is the infantile equivilant of a toddler sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "Lalala, I'm not listening"

 

[Half-Life]

Still ZERO EVIDENCE of quid pro quo. Sickening witch hunt.

You really have only a passing acquaintance with reality, don't you? The ambassador to the EU, ambassador to the Ukraine, Secretary of State, members of the NSC, former National Security Advisor and the fucking transcript is ironclad proof that there was a quid pro quo. You're "argument" is the infantile equivilant of a toddler sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "Lalala, I'm not listening"

Ukraine President said it was nothing. Transcript never shows him mentioning a quid pro quo.

 

[SimpleDon]

Last week, the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee shoehorned into the permanent record of the impeachment inquiry a conspiracy theory about the “real” attackers against the 2016 election. This defiant linkage to agitprop of dubious origin was yet another chapter in the GOP’s hopeless descent into complete make-believe.

Before we dig into the madness, there’s a history here that needs to be underscored, since the Republican appetite for crapola didn’t quite begin with Donald Trump.

For example: in addition to disconnecting itself from science and evidence-based reality long ago — in the name of manufacturing an ignominious alliance with right-wing evangelicals in the early 1980s — the modern GOP has repeatedly accepted as real the continuing series of selectively edited prank videos by James O’Keefe and his copycats.

The new-ish Trump Republican theory about Ukraine and the Democratic National Committee goes like this: The Democrats teamed up with the cyber-security firm CrowdStrike to hack the DNC server in 2016 in order to frame Russia, while also somehow sabotaging Trump’s campaign. A key component to this theory is the false claim that CrowdStrike’s founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is Ukrainian.


According to witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, Trump and his lackeys attempted to extort from Ukraine an investigation into both the Bidens and the CrowdStrike allegations in exchange for U.S. military aid necessary to help fight off the Russian invaders in the eastern Donbass region.

Not surprisingly, the CrowdStrike theory is 100 percent, unpasteurized nincompoopery. (Reportedly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky didn't know what Trump was talking about; his aides had to look up this nonsense on the internet.)

Salon-Trump's still pushing the CrowdStrike conspiracy theory: But why, and where did it come from?

Try this video: [video]https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000006210828/russia-disinformation-fake-news.html?playlistId=100000006207751&region=video-grid&version=video-grid-thumbnail&contentCollection=Opinion&contentPlacement=0&module=recent-videos&action=click&pgType=Multimedia&eventName=video-grid-click[/video]

 

[Patooka]

Still ZERO EVIDENCE of quid pro quo. Sickening witch hunt.

You really have only a passing acquaintance with reality, don't you? The ambassador to the EU, ambassador to the Ukraine, Secretary of State, members of the NSC, former National Security Advisor and the fucking transcript is ironclad proof that there was a quid pro quo. You're "argument" is the infantile equivilant of a toddler sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "Lalala, I'm not listening"

Ukraine President said it was nothing. Transcript never shows him mentioning a quid pro quo.

Oh, for fucks sake - "I would like you to do me a favour, though" has always, always been construed as a quid pro quo, your sophistry notwithstanding. And what Zelensky said is contradicted by a plethora of Trump officials who claimed the exact opposite in sworn testimonies before Congress. Even your golden boy Shapiro admits there was a quid pro quo.