Republicans issue 123-page defense of Trump ahead of Democrats’ impeachment report

ludin said:

YOu mean facts that you refuse to acknowledge which have been posted to you time and time again.
you see that is the problem with leftist. all they have is denial fallacies.
even when given all of the information and what is exactly said they still hand wave and deny.

The only partisan talking points are from leftist. Their own witnesses blew their up their accusations.
no one had any evidence of quid pro quo, bribery or extortion.

it was pretty obvious when they testified to it.
so why do you ignore facts?

Click to expand...

You already posted this at me in a different thread. Several different threads actually.

If Bin Laden were still alive, Republicans would happily take help from him to win elections, and the scumbag right would defend it. That's how deplorable the American Taliban is

SLC said:

Republicans saw the same evidence that the Dems did. The Republicans have reached their opinion of that evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

The Republicans' minds were made up before the impeachment ever started.

One could not watch the hearings and miss the fact that the Republicans there were performing for conservative media consumers. Every time the camera was on them they were working off of scripts. They had props that made no sense. Until you saw how the shot was framed and the segment edited.

Then it made perfect sense.

From a propaganda point of view

ecofarm said:

Are you referring to Trump supporters?

Click to expand...

Did you lose the train of the discussion? It's CLEARLY liberal supporters he is castigating.

sjmay said:

You mean this one?

"The Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is not the organic outgrowth of serious
misconduct; it is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system. The Democrats are
trying to impeach a duly elected President based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected
bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes. They are
trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats were discomforted by an
elected President’s telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. They are
trying to impeach President Trump because some unelected bureaucrats chafed at an elected
President’s “outside the beltway” approach to diplomacy"

You read that as mocking? Seriously??

Click to expand...

You can use the word "discredit" instead of "mock" if you want to.

haymarket said:

This is pure TWILIGHT ZONE alternate reality that only the GOP dwell in and seem quite happy there. They have betrayed America, the American people and our Constitution.

Click to expand...

I've been saying this for a while.

Conservative media consumers live in a different reality than the rest of the planet.

Like people in North Korea do.

Except nobody is holding a gun to their heads.

smallvoice said:

Did you lose the train of the discussion? It's CLEARLY liberal supporters he is castigating.

Click to expand...

Ah, so OpportunityCost is projecting yet again. Understandable, it's what Trump does constantly, so of course his base copies dear leader.

What if...? said:

Even when it's the opposite of what they were told the day before.

It's kind of amazing.

I came here to talk about the persuasion sciences.

But I never really thought it was possible to hold people in thrall like the purveyors of conservative media are able to.

Click to expand...

I'm fascinated by the whole thing. I call it anti-intellectualism, but anti-intellectualism is really just a weapon of persuasion. The country that supposedly embodies the Enlightenment ideals has more than a third of its population unable and/or unwilling to think independently and critically.

Nalu said:

Republicans issue 123-page defense of Trump ahead of Democrats' impeachment report | US news | The Guardian

"The 123-page Republican report was prepared for Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Michael McCaul, the ranking members on the House intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees, respectively."

Trying to coordinate partisan talking points is expected. Coordinating them with dishonesty is unfortunate. The strangest thing to me, though, is how Republicans have decided to preempt news with fabricated descriptions of events. They're publishing a dissent before the opinion gets issued, so to speak. It worked well enough with Barr/Mueller, so it looks like they're going to keep running the same play.

Click to expand...

So you figure it's all well and good that the Democrats can put on their dog and pony show for the express purpose of swaying public opinion withregard to impeachment but that Republicans should have no recourse to counter that narrative?

Out of curiosity, in your mind is there any scenario where contradicting opinions of a given event or series of events should be given equal hearing? Should opinions be questioned with regard to all evidence or only with regard to select evidence which supports the opinion?

Nalu said:

You can use the word "discredit" instead of "mock" if you want to.

Click to expand...

Ok, so what part of the paragraph is not true?

But ok, you said it was a THEME....generally that means a pattern, what's the next one?

sjmay said:

They postulate their positions, then support it with witness testimony and or previous statements from Trump....

Feel free to pick a topic in the report and check it out.

Click to expand...

You haven't read it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nalu said:

You already posted this at me in a different thread. Several different threads actually.

Click to expand...

yet you are still repeating the same misinformation or at this point lies that you were before.
so obviously you didn't read anything.

so before you say that you are not lying i will go ahead and post the definitions for you.

Being misinformed is simply not knowing information.
lying is either knowing or been giving the information yet continued to say the wrong thing over and over again.

Oborosen said:

So you're just going to claim your own nonsense and attempt to make just another regressive circle jerk thread?

I don't see you offering any actual responses to what is being proposed, apart from the same tired derision that we've been getting from your side all this whole time.

Click to expand...

When you can't talk to the propaganda addled it's fun to talk about them instead.

Where they can hear you.

If they hear enough people laughing at them when the emporer's nuts brush their cheek as he reaches for another serving girls breast, maybe they'll decide it would be better to just admit he's naked.

If not, at least it's entertaining watching them tie themselves in knots trying to continue to swallow every new narrative as it arrives.

I kinda feel sorry for them. They didn't ask to be conditioned as they have been.

But its not just dangerous to the body politic. It's also become abysmally stupid

And stupid should he painful.

3leftsdoo said:

Democrat Party = Criminally insane danger to Country & Constitution

Republican Party = All that stands between the Democrat Party & the destruction of our society

Devin Nunes = True patriot

Click to expand...

What does Just Dang! mean? What percentage of your thousand + posts per month make no mention of Democrats destroying the country?

RAMOSS said:

This is what is known as 'Deny'. The typical Republican talking point is 'Deny, deflect, and discredit. One key word that shows this to be the case is the rhetoric of the term 'ledtist'. This strongly indicates partisan hackery , rather than responding to the actual evidence.

Click to expand...

actually leftist denial is a fallacy. leftist denial is when presented with facts based on actual testimony of what people say leftist refuse to accept it and continue on with their
previous wrong narrative at the same time denying the fact of what was said.

The problem with your post is that there is no evidence as testified by pretty much everyone when they were asked.
there was a lot of speculation and a lot of assuming but 0 evidence to support any of it.

as was testified by sondland. it is hard to respond to evidence when there isn't any.
The republican response is factual and actually based on witness testimony and their lack of evidence.

the leftist coup has been blown up. the only reason they will continue pushing is that they are in fact the hacks we knew they all were.

Unitedwestand13 said:

Wait the newseum is closing?! Why!?

Click to expand...

Read the article

Lutherf said:

So you figure it's all well and good that the Democrats can put on their dog and pony show for the express purpose of swaying public opinion withregard to impeachment but that Republicans should have no recourse to counter that narrative?

Out of curiosity, in your mind is there any scenario where contradicting opinions of a given event or series of events should be given equal hearing? Should opinions be questioned with regard to all evidence or only with regard to select evidence which supports the opinion?

Click to expand...

No. Please read my post 77.

"Republicans haven't even seen the committee's report yet. They're not trying to correct the record or dispute a conclusion. They're trying to undermine the congressional process and control the narrative. They're allowed to do that obviously. I just think it's sad that they continue to try to delegitimitize the process every day while they bitch about the process every day."

marke said:

Democrats condemn defense of Trump. They would rather just string him up by mob rule and be done with him, no trial needed.

Click to expand...

I would actually be happy if trump stopped obstructing and released all the exculpatory evidence and testimony.

There are planty of witnesses and records that would vindicate trump if he were innocent.

I would like to see that evidence so that I can decide for myself.

Instead of being told that all I have is hearsay by the person who has all of the "said" on lock.

We would have heard nothing if all the witnesses we have seen obeyed trump.

Kinda like trump would have committed obstruction of justice had his underlings carried out his instructions.

sjmay said:

Ok, so what part of the paragraph is not true?

But ok, you said it was a THEME....generally that means a pattern, what's the next one?

Click to expand...

Did you read the post you're responding to? I made an observation about Trump supporters wanting everything to be "normal" except for Trump.

ludin said:

yet you are still repeating the same misinformation or at this point lies that you were before.
so obviously you didn't read anything.

so before you say that you are not lying i will go ahead and post the definitions for you.

Being misinformed is simply not knowing information.
lying is either knowing or been giving the information yet continued to say the wrong thing over and over again.

Click to expand...

Good bye, ludin.

Nalu said:

You haven't read it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Click to expand...

LMAO says the guy who literally stopped at the 3rd paragraph,

But let's see, let's go to page 33 and 34....ill cut and paste for you since you stopped reading, now go through, see the #1. that's them postulating their position, they then provide EXAMPLES of previous statements from Trump, to back up that postulation, and then they use WITNESS TESTIMONY to further backup their postulation.


"1. President Trump has been skeptical about U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign
assistance.
Evidence suggests that President Trump is generally skeptical of U.S. taxpayer-funded
foreign assistance. President Trump’s skepticism of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign assistance is
long-standing. On June 16, 2015, when President Trump announced his candidacy for president,
he said:
It is time to stop sending jobs overseas through bad foreign trade
deals. We will renegotiate our trade deals with the toughest
negotiators our country has… the ones who have actually read “The
Art of the Deal” and know how to make great deals for our country.
It is time to close loopholes for Wall Street and create far more
opportunities for small businesses.
It is necessary that we invest in our infrastructure, stop sending
foreign aid to countries that hate us and use that money to rebuild
our tunnels, roads, bridges and schools—and nobody can do that
better than me.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump continued to express his
skepticism of U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid. In March 2016, he told the Washington Post, “I
do think it’s a different world today and I don’t think we should be nation building anymore. I
think it’s proven not to work. And we have a different country than we did then. You know we
have 19 trillion dollars in debt. . . . And I just think we have to rebuild our country.”222 That
same month, then-candidate Trump told the New York Times, “We’re going to be friendly with
everybody, but we’re not going to be taken advantage of by anybody. . . . I think we’ll be very
worldview [sic], but we’re not going to be ripped off anymore by all of these countries.”223
As president, President Trump has sought to reduce U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign
assistance. In his fiscal year 2018 budget proposal, the President proposed “to reduce or end
direct funding for international programs and organizations whose missions do not substantially
advance U.S. foreign policy interests. The Budget also renews attention on the appropriate U.S.
share of international spending . . . for many other global issues where the United States
currently pays more than its fair share.”224 The President’s 2020 budget proposal—submitted in
March 2019—likewise “supports America’s reliable allies, but reflects a new approach toward
countries that have taken unfair advantage of the United States’ generosity.”225 The President’s

34
Budget specifically sought “greater accountability by international partners along with donor
burden sharing that is more balanced.”226
Testimony from the Democrats’ witnesses reinforces the President’s skepticism of
foreign assistance. Ambassador Taylor, U.S. chargé a.i. in Kyiv, testified that on August 22,
2019, he had a phone conversation with NSC Senior Director for Europe Tim Morrison in which
Morrison said that the “President doesn’t want to provide any assistance at all.”227 Morrison
testified that President Trump generally does not like giving foreign aid to other countries and
believes U.S. “ought not” to be the only country providing security assistance.228 LTC Vindman,
the NSC director handling Ukraine policy, similarly testified that President Trump is skeptical of
foreign aid.229
In fact, evidence suggests that President Trump sought to review U.S. taxpayer-funded
foreign assistance across the board. Ambassador David Hale, the Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs, testified that the Trump Administration was undertaking a “review” of foreign
assistance globally.230 He testified:
Q. You mentioned that there was a foreign assistance review
undergoing –
A. Yes.
Q. – at that time. What can you tell us about that?
A. Well, it had been going on for quite a while, and the concept, you
know, the administration did not want to take a, sort of, business-asusual approach to foreign assistance, a feeling that once a country
has received a certain assistance package, it’s a – it’s something that
continues forever. It’s very difficult to end those programs and to
make sure that we have a very rigorous measure of why we are
providing the assistance.
We didn’t go to zero base, but almost a zero-based concept that each
assistance program and each country that receives the program had
to be evaluated that they were actually worthy beneficiaries of our
assistance; that the program made sense; that we have embarked on,
you know, calling everything that we do around the world
countering violent extremism, but, rather, that’s actually focused on
tangible and proven means to deal with extremist problems; that we
avoid nation-building strategies; and that we not provide assistance
to countries that are lost to us in terms of policy, to our adversaries.

."

There's the continuation

Nalu said:

Misinformation campaigns are common all over the world, but I don't think it's ever been quite this focused nor quite this openly coordinated for and by the White House.

Click to expand...

My point Eggs Ackley.



For six years I worked for a West Hollywood based Russian language 3x weekly cable show that served the Russian diaspora community in L.A.
In between news and local programming, we recycled tons of old Soviet movies and TV shows, and of course, some helpings of Vremya clips as counterpoint to our own news coverage, specifically to educate new arrivals about their past and how it interacted with their "present".

We've crossed the Rubicon and we are now consuming (being force fed) Kremlin style alt-facts fed to us by Trump.
The difference is, Soviets considered Pravda and Vremya to be trash.
Trumpsters, on the other hand, regard Trumpmedia to be the Word of God, especially because, of course, Trump was "chosen by God".

What if...? said:

I would actually be happy if trump stopped obstructing and released all the exculpatory evidence and testimony.

There are planty of witnesses and records that would vindicate trump if he were innocent.

I would like to see that evidence so that I can decide for myself.

Instead of being told that all I have is hearsay by the person who has all of the "said" on lock.

We would have heard nothing if all the witnesses we have seen obeyed trump.

Kinda like trump would have committed obstruction of justice had his underlings carried out his instructions.

Click to expand...

Yet, you are being told he's guilty based on hearsay, and you have made your mind up about that, interesting how that works.

Nalu said:

I'm reading the Republican report now and something struck me. There's a theme that normal bureaucrats are uncomfortable with Trump's style and that the Zelensky call made them uncomfortable. The report mocks their discomfort promoting Trump's abnormal style. So I just wondered: Since most Trump supporters usually can't stomach anything that's not normal (sex, food, fashion, etc.), why do they celebrate what's not normal about Trump? Just commenting on the counterintuitiveness there.

Click to expand...

This is the post I was responding to....see where you said...THEME....that generally means, more than one occurence.....you pointed out the 3rd paragraph of a 123 page report......and now I am asking you, what else lends credence to that THEME?