turtlespeed 226 #26 February 11, 2020 2 hours ago, JoeWeber said: Precision in speech is critical. I'll bet you're the kind of guy who really does get blown. I do. It's quite pleasant. Breezes are good. The best. They are really really great! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #27 February 11, 2020 I think it's safe to say that anyone working on an assignment closely related to the White House and President would be assigned elsewhere after testifying against the President. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #28 February 11, 2020 1 hour ago, DJL said: I think it's safe to say that anyone working on an assignment closely related to the White House and President would be assigned elsewhere after testifying against the President. That's why I don't understand the outrage. Would the Clinton foundation still have a place to employ MS. Lewinsky? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #29 February 11, 2020 5 hours ago, turtlespeed said: Would the Clinton foundation still have a place to employ MS. Lewinsky? Probably. Unlike the Trump Foundation it wasn't ordered to be shut down. The Clinton's and their off spring were also not banned from running foundations. Unlike the Trump clan. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #30 February 11, 2020 1 hour ago, SkyDekker said: Probably. Unlike the Trump Foundation it wasn't ordered to be shut down. The Clinton's and their off spring were also not banned from running foundations. Unlike the Trump clan. Completely off the subject - And for a different thread. You HONESTLY believe that the Clinton's would "Probably." still employ Lewinsky after Bill's impeachment? uh huh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #31 February 11, 2020 57 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Completely off the subject But a joke about Monica Lewinsky is on subject? Interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #32 February 11, 2020 59 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Completely off the subject - And for a different thread. You HONESTLY believe that the Clinton's would "Probably." still employ Lewinsky after Bill's impeachment? uh huh. No. But I do think they still have a place to hire her, since they weren't forced to shut down for fraud. Your question was if they still have a place to employ a person. Unlike the Trump Foundation, which had to be shut down and the principals banned. Further, comparing what a government should do to what a private enterprise might do is not overly valid. Lastly, complaints by you about this being off topic is laughable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #33 February 11, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, turtlespeed said: That's why I don't understand the outrage. Fake News @CNN & MSDNC keep talking about “Lt. Col.” Vindman as though I should think only how wonderful he was. Actually, I don’t know him, never spoke to him, or met him (I don’t believe!) but, he was very insubordinate, reported contents of my “perfect” calls incorrectly, & was given a horrendous report by his superior, the man he reported to, who publicly stated that Vindman had problems with judgement, adhering to the chain of command and leaking information. In other words, “OUT”. This. This is why the outrage. Being lied about on the national stage by the President of the USA for the purposes of retribution. Which part of that do you not understand? Tell me so I can explain it more clearly to you - I'm happy to make the effort. Quote Would the Clinton foundation still have a place to employ MS. Lewinsky? What a strange question. No-one ever said the Trump organisation would be obligated to hire Vindman on a private basis. It doesn't sound like you really understand what's going on. Edited February 11, 2020 by jakee 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #34 February 12, 2020 1 hour ago, jakee said: Fake News @CNN & MSDNC keep talking about “Lt. Col.” Vindman as though I should think only how wonderful he was. Actually, I don’t know him, never spoke to him, or met him (I don’t believe!) but, he was very insubordinate, reported contents of my “perfect” calls incorrectly, & was given a horrendous report by his superior, the man he reported to, who publicly stated that Vindman had problems with judgement, adhering to the chain of command and leaking information. In other words, “OUT”. This. This is why the outrage. Being lied about on the national stage by the President of the USA for the purposes of retribution. Which part of that do you not understand? Tell me so I can explain it more clearly to you - I'm happy to make the effort. What a strange question. No-one ever said the Trump organisation would be obligated to hire Vindman on a private basis. It doesn't sound like you really understand what's going on. What is it that you think I don't understand? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #35 February 12, 2020 1 hour ago, turtlespeed said: What is it that you think I don't understand? I don't believe you understand how to defend Trump and be honest at the same time. But that's OK - no one else can. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #36 February 12, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, turtlespeed said: What is it that you think I don't understand? Apparently the difference between the Executive branch of government and a private charity. I know, sounds crazy to me too, but that's what you said. When it comes to what you don't understand about how Trump is treating Vindman and why it's wrong - well like I said, you're going to have to tell me that. It's so simple and straightforward I don't see how you couldn't understand it. Edited February 12, 2020 by jakee Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #37 February 12, 2020 6 hours ago, jakee said: Apparently the difference between the Executive branch of government and a private charity. I know, sounds crazy to me too, but that's what you said. When it comes to what you don't understand about how Trump is treating Vindman and why it's wrong - well like I said, you're going to have to tell me that. It's so simple and straightforward I don't see how you couldn't understand it. Vindman wasn't an elected official. His posting was temporary. The US Military can give you orders to go anywhere they want you to. If it was decided that the national security would be better served with Vindman elsewhere - that's the way it goes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #38 February 12, 2020 30 minutes ago, turtlespeed said: Vindman wasn't an elected official. His posting was temporary. The US Military can give you orders to go anywhere they want you to. If it was decided that the national security would be better served with Vindman elsewhere - that's the way it goes. How do you feel about AG Barr's becoming Trump's hit man and turning the DoJ into a political hit squad? Not even Sessions stooped that low. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #39 February 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, kallend said: How do you feel about AG Barr's becoming Trump's hit man and turning the DoJ into a political hit squad? Not even Sessions stooped that low. It's definitely not the best way, or the most desirable way. Cringeworthy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #40 February 13, 2020 10 hours ago, turtlespeed said: If it was decided that the national security would be better served with Vindman elsewhere - that's the way it goes. Except you know that wasn't the reason. The White House even put out a official statement talking about retribution. You're also completely ignoring the thing Trump did to Vindman that I said I thought was outrageous. Why? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 893 #41 February 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, jakee said: Except you know that wasn't the reason. The White House even put out a official statement talking about retribution. You're also completely ignoring the thing Trump did to Vindman that I said I thought was outrageous. Why? Trump is now pushing for military retribution. Towards a very honorable decorated serviceman. For cooperating with a legal congressional subpoena and telling the truth. Twilight zone shit right there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #42 February 13, 2020 19 minutes ago, jakee said: Except you know that wasn't the reason. The White House even put out a official statement talking about retribution. You're also completely ignoring the thing Trump did to Vindman that I said I thought was outrageous. Why? You mean that Trump is saying he was insubordinate, and the rest? I have no idea if it was true or not. I know you accept that they are lies, but prove to me that they were. Show me the report they speak of that says other than what Trump says. That should be easy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #43 February 13, 2020 9 hours ago, turtlespeed said: You mean that Trump is saying he was insubordinate, and the rest? I have no idea if it was true or not. I know you accept that they are lies, but prove to me that they were. Show me the report they speak of that says other than what Trump says. That should be easy. It is easy, because Jim Jordan already tried the same thing at the House impeachment hearing and Vindman proved him to be be a liar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAsIebi-3gQ&t=1m48s Stephen Castor tried the same thing with Fiona Hill, claiming that she had provided a poor performance report for Vindman. She was 'surprised' by the claim and stated that his job performance was 'excellent'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bJFleottco Ironically given your earlier claim, she said that the only reason Vindman would be unsuited to the role in future is because the Administration was making Ukraine policy a partisan political issue, not one that was being decided on national security merits. As to leaking - if Vindman leaked documents, why is the Army not investigating him? Even while Trump is putting public pressure on them to go after him, nothing. No official disciplinary measures. Why not? If it was known that he was leaking information from the NSC while a serving military officer he would be facing court martial and be on the way to prison. No ifs, no buts, they don't exactly have a sense of humour about these things. I'll fire back a question you put to Kallend - what will it take for you to change your opinion of Trump? Why do you constantly defend him on these issues when there is absolutely no evidence or reason to think that he is being anything other than what I said, a vindictive prick acting with complete disdain for an honourable serving military officer? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #44 February 13, 2020 4 hours ago, jakee said: I'll fire back a question you put to Kallend - what will it take for you to change your opinion of Trump? Why do you constantly defend him on these issues when there is absolutely no evidence or reason to think that he is being anything other than what I said, a vindictive prick acting with complete disdain for an honourable serving military officer? You perceive my stance of asking questions as defending. You have made up your mind. You will never see anything that he does as a benefit an any way. I don't think that anyone is as pure evil as you would have us believe Trump is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #45 February 13, 2020 5 hours ago, turtlespeed said: I don't think that anyone is as pure evil as you would have us believe Trump is. No one here is claiming Trump is "pure evil." That's a strawman you have created. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #46 February 13, 2020 5 hours ago, turtlespeed said: You perceive my stance of asking questions as defending. You're not just asking questions. You said that you don't understand why anyone would be outraged at his actions. That's taking a side. Further, you're only about asking questions when it's to do with Trump and the Republicans. You were quite happy to assume that Joe Biden engaged in corruption just because his son had a well paid job, you even called people naive for questioning that and asking for evidence. Well, you have far more evidence right here that Trump is engaging in unwarranted character assassination and denigration of an outstanding officer, yet you refuse to wake up and smell the coffee. That's taking a side. That's defending Trump in a way you refuse to do for the other side. Quote You have made up your mind. You will never see anything that he does as a benefit an any way. How could you possibly think that Trump's behaviour towards Vindman right now could be of benefit to anyone in any way? That's one of the strangest things you've ever said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #47 February 13, 2020 Impeachments have consequences Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,594 #48 February 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, airdvr said: Impeachments have consequences You think an honourable military officer who did his duty without bias being publically hounded by his CinC to the point where his family contacts the Army because they are afraid for their safety is funny. How telling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #49 February 13, 2020 20 minutes ago, airdvr said: Impeachments have consequences Truthfully answering questions under subpoena and under oath should not invoke ANY negative consequences. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #50 February 13, 2020 30 minutes ago, airdvr said: Impeachments have consequences Yep. As does doing your Constitutional duty. That will teach our military to follow their oath! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
