jakee

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.

Ok cool. Here's the Democrats not doing it. There you go. That's them not doing it. You see? Nothing happening.

Thanks you. And how does that affect your overall point. Reconsidering at all yet?

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. 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.

And they haven’t abandoned them. They haven’t done anything different. So claiming they’re just as bad as the Republicans at this point is stupid. Switching metaphors for a moment, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Liar. I applauded the ideas you listed which I think are the right thing to do. PR should be a state and I’ve posted that before. It’s the right thing to do. In fact, there is no defence for it not being a state that isn’t rooted in Republican dirty tricks. Same with California, it should have fairer representation - in the EC and especially the senate. It’s the right thing to do. And guess what, the schmoe suggested them because he thinks they are the right thing to do as well. Maybe if you could be bothered to read more than just a title you would know that.

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?

Sorry, you calling out nitpicking - what is wrong with you? Your entire point is nitpicking. Again, you agree that in practice, for a long time, the way the Democrat party has actually acted is more principled and virtuous than the Republican party - but you give them no credit whatsoever for any of that because a few people who aren't part of the party structure say it might be time for them to be less principled. How does that strike you as being anything other than bullshit nitpicking? OK, so you don't even have the principles these guys are reluctantly thinking of compromising, and you're criticising them for it? Again, bullshit nitpicking or what? Statehood for PR is the opposite of dirty, that's simply what anyone who values democracy thinks should happen. Cali, again why not? If you're going to have the EC what's wrong with making it more closely represent the actual will of the people? Passing a new voting rights act, good if it stops the Rs trying to mess with people getting to the polls. The SC, cool, could stop select lucky Admins from either side having a such disproportionate effect on Judical decisions for decades to come. If this is how the Dems would act when they're trying to be dirty I think you're just proving the point of how much nicer than the Reps they are Yes. Exactly the point. The Reps are better at playing dirty because they are looking for ways to play dirty. At the institutional level the Dems aren't, regardless of a few suggestions from some schmoe from outside the party structure. So again, if you're not nitpicking why are you even trying to have an argument with me about this?

Oh come on. Yoink isn't the Democrat party. I'd be quite surprised if he was a registered Democrat. So the situation is you agree that the Democrat party has, with their actions in practice in the real world, been the more principled and virtous party. But you completely discount that and say the whole party is just as bad as the Republicans because one random guy on this web forum who probably (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't even a Democrat made a post that you disagree with. Does that sound about right to you?

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?

To be fair though, Trump has stacked up so much credit in the ‘blatant arsehole’ column for his entire life that it would take something not far off curing cancer to actually warrant anyone changing their opinion of him. I mean, be honest, at this point Trump’s character is so set that it would have to be a genuinely massive road to Damascus conversion for him to change.

Right, as opposed to your ‘ego linear thinking’. Whenever you use that phrase it’s purely constructive I’m sure. It is the exact, precise opposite. Critical thinking is evaluating any given statement or situation on its merits, whether the conclusion ends up being what you wanted or not. It literally is thinking, not wishing. It’s not news to anyone here that you do that a lot. But what you don’t seem to realise is that it’s not a good thing. At least if you place any value at all on truth and reality.

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.

OK, so just to make sure I've gt this straight - you do think that the Democrats are more principled and virtuous than the Republicans, you're just worried that they might move away from that? I may have missed it but I genuinely haven't seen any of those comments in the context of redmap style election rigging or anything else of that nature. People saying it's ok for Pelosi to break decorum and play hardball in the House just isn't the same thing.

We're talking about atttudes towards electioneering. The philosophy of fairness vs winning is the whole discussion.

I think you're confused. It's the right, like you, that rails against the elite. Which makes it all the more odd that they queue up to kiss Trump's feet.

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.

But that simply doesn’t make sense. Things like Redmap, voter ID laws, even changing the rules to make incoming dem governors lame ducks - how many times do you need to say “the Dems would have done it if...” before you have to start thinking about why they haven’t been doing it? While there will always be individual cases of corruption on both sides there is clearly a difference at institutional level. Liberal philosophy is about providing fairer and more equal society at all levels, right wing philosophy is about allowing individuals to win and the importance of winning. I genuinely see one worldview as being more compatible with seeking to rig the system than the other.

Ok sure. But put the DNC's internal shenanigans against how the Republicans have systematically worked to rig the results of actual elections. Giving Clinton some debate questions and letting Bloomberg on stage vs project redmap? It's not in the same ballpark, it's not even the same sport.

Did I say fired? Just had a look and nope, can't see it. But is reassigned the same as being punished? Yep, in this case it is, as evidence by the man himself, Trump. His tweets explicitly show the reassignment was in response to Vindman's testimony, while also calling him out as a leaker, as insubordinate, and as having 'horrendous' performance reports as well as problems with judgement. All of which, as far as I am aware, are lies. All in all I am quite comfortable repeating that his treatment of the Vindmans should be remembered anytime Trump claims to be pro military or pro veteran. Vindictive dickhead.

Not at all - but it's clear that if she was presenting a Presidential image you'd criticise her for getting ideas above her station. It's clear you're incapable of judging anything she does at face value.

To be fair, Sondland's just a mercenary asshole who should never have had a govenrment job anyway. This treatment of the Vindmans though should be remembered anytime Trump claims to be pro military or pro veteran. Vindictive dickhead.

Pelosi is not President nor is she (or will ever be) running for President. If you want the Presidential image back, why criticise her? She has nothing to do with it.

Turtle just wants to kick out at Dem politicians. Except, apart from AOC, Hillary and Pelosi I can't actually think of any other politicians he's been particularly outspoken about. I wonder what the connection could be?

You hired Baghdad Bob?

The headline is wrong. The number one reason listed is that (as everyone kinda knew anyway) Trump was never actually as rich as he said he was. The difference is that people are actually now fact checking him instead of taking his word. His reported net worth has tumbled, his actual net worth not so much. The second reason for the decline was the general real estate climate. So think how much poorer he’d be if he wasn’t gouging the office for profit. ”While the Clintons and Obamas made millions. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/net-worths-of-presidents/” Not while President. The fact that they made millions afterwards from book deals is entirely separate from profiteering in office. It just means that people like them and are interested in what they have to say.