Now that football season is over, lets get this board rolling again!
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Also as a reminder and to put it in to perspective, when Ds were saying this back then, there was actually justification for impeachment, considering Starr came back with 11 criminal referrals against Clinton.
Anyone need reminding how many Mueller made against Trump?
Anyone need reminding how many Mueller made against Trump?
Can't lie. I'm watching strictly out of fandom at this point. Zero excitement, zero expectations. I mailed it in after the UF debacle. Had a feeling that losing that game in typical UKvUF heartbreak fashion was going to revive demons and open up wounds that we thought the program finally overcame last year. Looks like I might be right.
My record is still perfect. My wife has gone to bed mad at me after every uk basketball or football loss for the last 20+ years.
Just How Far Will The Press Go To Defend The Impeachment Narrative?
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/09/...-go-to-defend-the-impeachment-narrative/amp/?
The Washington Post ran a story on Friday with the declarative headline: “Four debunked talking points used to discredit the whistleblower complaint.” The story then goes on to confirm all four.
And reporters wonder why just 13% trust them “a lot” these days?
“To defend President Trump against the whistleblower allegations, Republicans in Congress are having to dodge or misstate some key facts,” writes Amber Phillips.
She then lists the the four talking points:
On “debunked” talking point No. 1: Phillips begins her debunking by writing: “This is technically true.” Then she goes on to write that “the idea of a quid pro quo may be a red herring.” In other words, she admits there’s no quid pro quo demonstrated in either document, which is what got the recent impeachment frenzy started. Then just dismisses it as irrelevant.
How about “debunked” talking point No. 2? Phillips writes that “Page 5 of a report about the whistleblower by Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, mentions that the whistleblower has ‘arguable political bias … in favor of a rival candidate.’” So Phillips just confirmed the first part of this “debunked” claim. Which at the very least means that the trustworthiness of the whistleblower should be scrutinized very carefully. The fact that she dismisses this concern is what’s shocking, not that Republicans are raising it as an issue.
Ok, well maybe Phillips does a better job debunking talking point No. 3. Nope. She starts that debunking by writing, “This is also true.” Someone ought to present Phillips with a dictionary, wherein she would learn that the definition of debunking is to “expose the falseness or hollowness” of something.
There’s still one more talking point to debunk. How about No. 4, that it was a “secondhand conspiracy built on biased media reports”? Surely she is able to debunk that one.
Nope. Instead, Phillips writes that “The whistleblower does use public events, as reported by journalists, to bolster his or her claims and help paint a picture of a president abusing his power for personal gain.”
Wait, isn’t that exactly what No. 4 says (except for the part about “biased” which should go without saying)?
So, the entire exercise by the Washington Post is not about “debunking” anything. It’s about trying to defend the original impeachment narrative, even as the facts themselves fail to do so.
This is your “unbiased” press at work. Expect to see a lot of this now that Democrats and their media handmaidens can almost taste an impeachment victory.
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/09/...-go-to-defend-the-impeachment-narrative/amp/?
The Washington Post ran a story on Friday with the declarative headline: “Four debunked talking points used to discredit the whistleblower complaint.” The story then goes on to confirm all four.
And reporters wonder why just 13% trust them “a lot” these days?
“To defend President Trump against the whistleblower allegations, Republicans in Congress are having to dodge or misstate some key facts,” writes Amber Phillips.
She then lists the the four talking points:
- There is no quid pro quo — in the call or the whistleblower complaint
- The whistleblower has political motivations, and so the complaint can’t be trusted
- The whistleblower had only secondhand knowledge
- This is a ‘secondhand conspiracy theory built on biased media reports’
On “debunked” talking point No. 1: Phillips begins her debunking by writing: “This is technically true.” Then she goes on to write that “the idea of a quid pro quo may be a red herring.” In other words, she admits there’s no quid pro quo demonstrated in either document, which is what got the recent impeachment frenzy started. Then just dismisses it as irrelevant.
How about “debunked” talking point No. 2? Phillips writes that “Page 5 of a report about the whistleblower by Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, mentions that the whistleblower has ‘arguable political bias … in favor of a rival candidate.’” So Phillips just confirmed the first part of this “debunked” claim. Which at the very least means that the trustworthiness of the whistleblower should be scrutinized very carefully. The fact that she dismisses this concern is what’s shocking, not that Republicans are raising it as an issue.
Ok, well maybe Phillips does a better job debunking talking point No. 3. Nope. She starts that debunking by writing, “This is also true.” Someone ought to present Phillips with a dictionary, wherein she would learn that the definition of debunking is to “expose the falseness or hollowness” of something.
There’s still one more talking point to debunk. How about No. 4, that it was a “secondhand conspiracy built on biased media reports”? Surely she is able to debunk that one.
Nope. Instead, Phillips writes that “The whistleblower does use public events, as reported by journalists, to bolster his or her claims and help paint a picture of a president abusing his power for personal gain.”
Wait, isn’t that exactly what No. 4 says (except for the part about “biased” which should go without saying)?
So, the entire exercise by the Washington Post is not about “debunking” anything. It’s about trying to defend the original impeachment narrative, even as the facts themselves fail to do so.
This is your “unbiased” press at work. Expect to see a lot of this now that Democrats and their media handmaidens can almost taste an impeachment victory.
O started being criticized for his policies and his decisions. If it was his every move, that was his fault, not right-wingers...
I'll wait for you to show me where I said you said you wanted him impeached or are you pulling an Adam Schiff and assuming you know what I am thinking. Deflection is the liberal way and you lock step with your leaders. Never having anything to go on because they give you nothing but lies and you run with it.
I've known some short people that would just kick your ass all over the place. Dynamite comes in...well, you're a freaking liberal. You believe what your overlords have told you about being tough. Good luck with that.
I wonder if you remember threatening to break this old mans hips. I too will mark this thread.
No, it irritates you that you are a loser and can't/won't make it on your own which is why you support socialist/communist type leaders.
News flash! That type of governance will yield a lot less wealth for you and the masses plus, you will have to actually work to survive.
Almost got a like.
No you don't understand it, you think Trump wins because the people that vote for him are racist rednecks.
America is always 50/50 roughly and there are legitimate reasons to think a whole slew of things, arguments for more or less government which is ultimately what all liberal vs conservative arguments come down to.
What is not a legitimate rational reason is Orange Man bad because he is white supremacist corporatist American Patriarch exploiting and oppressing marginalized communities to perpetuate the system of oppression America was founded on.
We are on the same damn team in reality, the news just makes money off your anger. The notion, well they just think so and so such and such to defend their team is shallow thinking and allows you to actually believe some form/degree of the unAmerican delusion I just outlined above.
Make up lies about Trump all you want and I will debate you. But when you make up lies about me, expect the unexpected.
And as usual, he is not even close to how big I am. But you are spot on. It is not the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog.
2019 has shown the left is for the extremes that they have scoffed at being accused of (guns, borders, vast expansion of govt powers, etc)
Ha, I remember how just 10 years or so ago talking about a NWO was a "conspiracy"
Global communism is what the world elites want. Thats why Trump is a threat because the US needs to be destroyed for the NWO.
Back when I was competing in martial arts tournaments I had to fight heavy weight which in Oklahoma at the time was 185 lbs and up. Being 190-195 lbs and 5'9", I had to fight people much larger than me. I lost a few but, won more than I lost. Speed being what help me win the bouts I won. I have also seen many smaller fighters win over the bigger ones. Size does matter in some but, as you said, size of the fight in the dog AKA, Heart.
I tell you some of these posters on here are such snow flakes, damn glad no one had to depend on them to watch their back when bullets starting snapping.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Wishful thinking on your part but, I see what you did there.
Mark Levin put a total beat down on Ed Henry. Sad to see what Fox has become.
Hillary on CBS Sunday Morning:Trump is an illegitimate President. She can’t help herself in seeing she is part of the problem that continues to rip this Country apart. Saying no one is above the law is rich coming from her.
Shes gonna run again. Just watch.
Lmao its almost hard to fathom how f*****g stupid Bernies tweets are.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillar...WZ0dkl2R09CZ0RzV3liZUphbHlJcC00ZDJqTDNoTldrTg..
Hillary interview on CBS Sunday Morning.
Hillary interview on CBS Sunday Morning.
Similar threads
