I have an update, on the closed-door impeachment hearings! 
Letâs âsoapâ ti up a bit!
1 Like
Todayâs 2 witnesses testified that the transcript was, as against all the innuendo here and in other places, reliable and complete.
So, another slimy accusation is uncovered by the facts. Trump is innocent.
"In direct response to a question as to whether the transcript was complete and accurate, neither suggested that it was not, except for minor details they found in their notes of the call.
This testimony blows up a month-long lie pushed by Democrats and their media allies that the transcript was partial, or redacted, suggesting that the White House was potentially hiding important details. For weeks the baseless claim that the transcript was so doctored that we donât really know what happened on the call has been floated all over mainstream media coverage."
I know. Folks around the world - via this forumâŠwould like a BBC update on day 3.
And hereâs an interesting article, from todayâs Patheos Evangelical newsletter.
Based on what I have just seen and heard on my TV, I believe the Democratsâ âinquiryâ is toast, as is Schiff.
One of my best friends who is older than me by quite a bit, is definitely on the right. He uses news sources that I myself think may be, iffy⊠But he is good hearted. He is my best friend even though there are many things I canât get on board with.
Why I bring this up, is because your news source will determine your stance, for the most part. If you believe your news source is correct, can you come to any other conclusion than your source?
I am wary of all news sources. I filter politics through an attitude lens. I can see the Democrats are foaming at the mouth, looking to hang Trump. I hardly even need to know the reason why, because I can already see the hate. Trump is no Jesus, not even close, but I canât help but see parallels here. The Pharisees hated Jesus. As MacDonald said, they hate the man so much that âthey denied the good in order to condemn the man they knew to be goodâ. Certainly Trump isnât good like Jesus and maybe not good at all. But to suggest he is evil is, to me, quite uncharitable. No one is wholly evil and while there are traits I despise about Trump, I can say the same about myself. I canât condemn a person for having different opinions than me, and I canât let the news sources dictate what makes him a good or bad person. This dichotomy has to stop⊠Obama had good, Bush had good⊠Trump has good. They are imperfect people put in a position that they just cannot win. Maybe the problem is us, not our leadership? After all, we do elect them.
2 Likes
I go to 6 sources on every story I question. Over time you learn who is trustworthy and who is just shininâ you on.
I donât see the validity of that meme. I find that argument absurd. If you find you are sympathetic to that, I suggest we take it further and go find the original Canaanites and grant them their land back. Those genocidal Jews! AMIRIGHT? 
No, really⊠At what point is conquered land considered ill-gotten? Who can claim original ownership?
I think we find that people groups have bred into each other, created a new nation, conquered, culturally absorbed, were themselves conquered, intermingled with other nations⊠What we have now, the people groups that exist now, the vast majority of them are not anything but a mixture of what came before. The âNative Americansâ were not some ancient, untouched people group who had original claim to the land, and some evidence suggest they themselves took the land from, gasp the Norwegian Vikings! but this is politically incorrect, so we canât say that, even though some event points to them not being the aggressors⊠And really, did they possess an empty land, or did they conquer it? Who is to say the first people group that took America without conquering, were not themselves a group of people who conquered others part of the world and went to expand their territory? Does them taking a land that was not occupied make them any better of people? Does it wipe out the potential sins of their bloodletting in other regions of the world?
I wish war never existed⊠But⊠this⊠this rewriting of history really bothers me. It seems if you are viewed as a victim in some way, it doesnât matter what monstrous crimes you commit, you are still an innocent culture. Never-mind the native american brutality that existed. The fact that they lost their land makes them the victims and innocent.
This world is not black and white⊠I just wish people would start to acknowledge that.
1 Like
I want to expand on this further, so as to provide clarity on why I feel that meme is inflammatory and inaccurate.
Primarily, the idea of Thanksgiving was one of providence and friendship. The meme suggests or infers that we are celebrating Thanksgiving as a genocidal invasion. This is nothing but inflammatory BS. It isnât clever rhetoric, but it might be funny if as a âjokeâ and indeed, if taken as a joke - sure, I am amused. But, the reality is, that this is used, once again, to push the narrative that whites are just evil people.
As we dig up more and more information, science is providing us with information different from what we want it to be. History wants to to tell us that the Native American people were all friendly, were not violent or cruel, did not torture anyone and welcomes everyone with open arms. That is what is being pushed mainstream. There is no doubt some truth to this - I am sure some tribes were friendly and I am sure some were savage. Painting them with a broad brush stroke is, once again, misleading. It doesnât help anyone come to real conclusion on ethics. All it does is reinforce what we want to be true.
We wanted to say the Clovis people, who appear to be the ancestors of many of the âNative Americanâsâ today were the first to American. But, as it turns out, that was refuted⊠There was another people group we have identified to have been there first. And guess what? I bet we will find they are not the first after we dig deeper.
What I find interesting, is that when the Native Americans have been found to be the aggressor in any particular incident, we always find a valid reason why they were. Whether it be they âmisunderstoodâ, or felt âoffendedâ, etc⊠Isnât it interesting that an excuse can be made up when you want one to be made up? âOh the natives only attacked because they misunderstoodâ Oh ok, but that doesnât work the other way? Who is to say the settlers of American didnât attack due to a misunderstanding of theirs? Once an attack breaks out, it often escalates. It doesnât matter the reason for the start, it will escalate regardless. Assigning guilt is not very helpful in this event.
This reminds of the NFL football game last week. The Steelers Vs. The Browns. A late hit on the QB which might have been accidentally, or might not, resulted in the QB trying to pull off the helmet off the the late tacklers and then when trying to get up, kick him in the nads. Then this escalated to the tackler ripping off the helmet of the QB and walking away from it all, only to be assaulted by his fellow team mate which caused him to turn around and retaliate further, causing him to swing his helmet as a weapon to hit the QB. He then went to the ground by the help of his team mate and was kicked and stepped on a bunch.
I donât like either team, but the punishment handed down was very, very one-sided. The QB actually started it, in all reality, as the late hit was unknown to be intention or accidental, but trying to rip the helmet off was, in fact, intentional and thus the start of the fight. But, the QB escaped punishment and the tackler had a severe punishment. In my opinion, this just demonstrates societiesâ insistence that instigators are innocent⊠I donât agree with that one bit.
All that to say, thanksgiving has never been about celebrating the butchering of Natives. To suggest that is offensive and really⊠I donât know. It is really inflammatory.
And⊠The best post ever, in my opinion on this (did not write this, but agree with it 100%)
Not all people who lose power struggles are worthy of return. First, we would have to trace who took what from whom among the American Indians. We might also have to trace back to when we believe the American Indians became American. I think it is believed they came from East Asia across Alaskaâat least some part of the population. Then we would need to figure out who may have screwed who in Asia and get that settled out.
Unless we have a timetable of how far to go back. Maybe limit it to 200 years. But then Europe would really have a mess to untangle. So many empires, so many unwound. Then Russia and East Europe. Germany and the Jews. China and the intellectuals. The Africans who participated in the slave trade would share costs with their English and American trading partners among current black Americans.
Why are we even theorizing on such topics? Mankind can be brutal. I assume this is not new information. We exist today with current laws. It is hard enough to do that right, let alone try to correct a billion wrongs.
This is an infinite regress. Please stop.
??? I donât know anyone who thinks the transcriptâs substance was not reliable, much less anyone âhereâ(?) who thinks any accusations depend on a different transcript. âSoâ your own syllogism that this makes Trump âinnocentâ employs no reasoning I can see. Whether or not he is guilty or innocent depends on evaluating facts and the sequence of events established by numerous witnesses.
E.g. On the charge of conditioning huge money upon a favor that could provide personal political benefit this would include evidence of the pressing of Ukrainians after the transcriptâs call that vital military aid would only get released when their president made a public announcement about investigating Biden.
On the datum Iâve often outlined, Iâve repeatedly asserted that there appears to be no serious observers who question the events. Of course, among those who know exactly what the president was pursuing, Ambassador Sondlandâs updated account tomorrow will be germane for those scrutinizing whether all the testimony is indeed in agreement.
Gabe, it seems you found the meme I declared âoffensiveâ to indeed be personally offensive. But my postâs whole point was only a GOP need to recognize a common Hispanic view. The only relevance of tacking on the provocative meme was that Hispanics often see themselves like previous immigrants cited as not a threat to we previous inhabitants (as European immigrants exceptionally were to the lives of Americaâs previous inhabitants).
You appear to read it as analyzing whether itâs o.k. to conquer other lands and peoples, or commit genocide against another nation whose character is tainted, etc. I honestly doubt a silly meme like this can begin to address such a large topic, much less in a black and white way.
Frankly, your remarks about the Canaanite genocide and about native Americans being âsavagesâ suggest we may come at this large subject differently. For I have actually often argued on this forum that I do find the Biblical approach to slaughtering the Canaanites to be troubling and genocidal.
But it honestly never occurred to me that this meme intended to do any justice to profound questions such as that, or could. Again, my whole point was on not being closed minded toward newer immigrants, especially Hispanics who often share many of the conservative values found in the GOP.
Excellent post, Gabe. Gets right to the heart of the matter.
Is this a case of âopen mouth, insert foot?â
And I guess the seals, donât listen to Trump.
I understand Bob. When I saw the meme here, I thought it was just in jest. But then I saw you post on FB with a bit more conviction. In the end, my post wasnât really against you, but the creator of the meme.
1 Like
I appreciate a place on our political thread for us news junkies to debate our perceptions. Iâm so gonzo, I watched all of the Watergate and Clinton impeachment hearings (even all of O.J.'s trial)! Now watching my third (of 4 in history) impeachment, Iâm curious if anyone else watched it, cross-examination and all?
And having posted that witnesses seem to present little dispute on the basic facts, does anyone see any evidence offered that this consensus on what happened is false? Political feelings can be strong, but again, thank you for those willing to compare notes on perceptions of these interesting days.
Trump said, we can trust his own million$ donor Ambassador Sondland that heâd said there was âno quid pro quo.â But today Sondland agreed with previous witnesses that âTrumpâs quid pro quoâ became clear to Ukraine: vital $400 million military aid required a political investigation of Biden & Trumpâs election (and that Zelensky was scrambling to satisfy Trump).
More vital, that everyone in U.S. policy there knew and can verify this, including Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, Pence and Giuliani (and that releasing Sondlandâs own texts would also show it)! Of course Trump is blocking all such further confirmation!
Nunes began saying, Dems would smear Sondland. But after his bold testimony, it was GOPâs Jordan & Turner who defamed him! A wealthy Sondland doesnât need this Trump post, but I think still deserves credit for his patriotic courage today.
Has anyone else watching the hearings seen any evidence introduced by eyewitnesses that contradicts Sondlandâs claim?
"Americans should pause to remember how far this has sunk: the idea is that the presidentâs request to know the facts about the Bidensâ financial involvement in Ukraine, after congressionally voted aid funds to Ukraine had been resumed, with no demonstrated connection between them, as the Ukrainian president affirms the absence of pressure, is held to be offering a bribe to elicit information American voters would wish to have but which has not been produced, within the presidentâs authority over the conduct of foreign policy, and that this should be judged by two-thirds of U.S. senators to be a âhigh crimeâ on the scale of bribery or treason, and President Trump should be removed from office because of it.
Any American adult who believes any substantial part of that should seek psychiatric help at once, regardless of his healthcare plan." - Conrad Black
For myself, I find the hearings utterly fascinaâŠzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Tucker found it interesting, though:
"Tucker: Wait, what? He was offered defense minister three times? Keep in mind that Alexander Vindman was born in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and clearly has strongly held views about Ukrainian Politics, views that may or may not align with U.S. Policy on the subject. Now we learn that the Ukrainian government repeatedly asked vindman to take formal control of the entire Ukrainian military, which, for the record, it is a very strange thing to ask of an active-duty American military officer. And yet somehow, that constellation of facts did not raise a single red flag for our self-appointed watchdogs in the news media. Alexander Vindman is hurting Trump, therefore he is an American hero. Thatâs what they know, and they donât want to know any more than that. They are adamantly uninterested, for example, in the identity of the so-called whistle-blower."
Why do you keep assuming that the identity of the whistle blower is the key to Trump not pursuing a quid pro quo. The whistle-blowerâs word is all worthless hear say and canât confirm anything. How would knowing him make the cross-examined testimony of all the first hand eyewitnesses false? Itâs the word under threat of perjury of all those in the thick of Ukraine and our policy which carries weight.
(P.S. Vindman is NOT a hero for testifying. That is only obeying his constitutional duty. I know we could say what we admire is not soldiers with Purple Hearts, but ones that donât get hit. But the reason most of his GOP interrogators praised him was actually for his long devotion to America on Iraqâs battlefield.)
But what did the BBC say?
At the end, Sondland admitted that he only âpresumedâ certain things with no evidence, and that the only time he spoke with the Pres there was no mention of the olâ quid pro quo.
Another strikeout for the Dems.
Randy why doesnât the BBC get all excited as day after day Trump is vindicated as innocent? Do you still think they are all unbiased? lol