Schiff's Politics of Fear

Bobber said:

As stated it appears Adam Schiff is seeking to induce terror into the hearts and minds of Americans as to the threat of Russians attacking the U.S. mainland all because Trump is President or could be re-elected?





To what measure of fear mongering will some, many or a few of these Democratic politicians go to make a case? Does their arguments come across as anyway credible in the slightest? An actual attack on the mainland?

Wasn't there another Democratic politician who did the same in 64 in a commercial aired one time by their campaign but then they pulled it down? Some say it remains one of the most controversial political advertisement ever made. The Daisy Commercial. One wonders why Schiff didn't try to play it in the Senate. Isn't it basically what he was saying to the American people?

Click to expand...

I guess he had nothing else
to throw into the wind
and into minds that don't know better.
M-Bob

Bobber said:

Well Valentine you and I both know that just unnecessary hyperbole. Trump supporters don't believe he can't do anything wrong? Really?

Click to expand...

I certainly don't think it's unnecessary, and when Donald said he could shoot people on Fifth Avenue without losing support, I would have thought that was hyperbole.

These days, well... NYC is a pretty liberal town...

Bobber said:

Not maybe just a groundless accusation?

Click to expand...

There has been tons of evidence supporting the accusation, and absolutely no evidence presented which contradicts it. Additionally, direct evidence, both testimony and documents, have been withheld unilaterally by Trump.

Bobber said:

My question is juvenile? Why. If the issue is the end result of an election is questioned aren't you still questioning it's integrity? Hillary wanted to claim that for 240 years America has had fair and just elections....and you really would have us believe that's all changed and has collapsed merely because one Donald J Trump has come to office? I'm not saying the Russians have been sweet little innocents but what about the 1950's. The 1960's??? If ever there was a time America was worried about Russia weren't those the days? And yet electoral integrity was secure according to her through all those days. Doesn't seem rather convenience the claims the Democratic politicians now would like to make?

Click to expand...

Trump was caught trying to solicit foreign interference in our election. That's a violation of our election laws.

We'd like to continue to have fair and just elections, despite Trump's efforts.

Bobber said:

Nope. Sorry but that's merely your accusation. Your saying that doesn't mean it's so.

Click to expand...

His perfect phonecall says so. Trump asks for a favor. The import of the favor is something that benefits Trump personally, not We The People.

Bobber said:

Nope. Sorry but that's merely your accusation. Your saying that doesn't mean it's so.

Click to expand...

It’s based on the phone call where Trump flat out asks for a favor. You insisting there’s nothing wrong with that doesn’t make it so.

Bobber said:

You don't know there's anything incriminating about testimony not coming forth due to Executive Privilege. You're entitled to your opinion on that but you have no facts to make your claim.

Click to expand...

We have plenty of evidence of people acting while claiming they've been given direction from Trump. The House testimony was replete with it. The people who can confirm or deny that they did, in fact, receive that direction from Trump are being prevented from testifying.

If people were claiming to act under Trump's direction, but were actually acting by themselves, that should be investigated - by Trump. The fact that Trump doesn't go after them for acting on his behalf without his direction shows that Trump's complicit.

The denial from Trump's supporters about the evidence is astounding. You're dismissing it with absolutely no supporting justification of dismissing it. The "second hand" information claim is nonsense. No one has refuted the testimony in any way, shape, or form.

Albion said:

The Russians collaborated with the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Campaign, not the Republican National Committee or the Trump organization.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty strong assertion to make without any evidence.

GoldenBoy89 said:

The claim back in 2016 was that Hillary would try to provoke a war with Russia. That having Trump be friendly with Putin was better for us than Hillary being antagonistic.

Click to expand...

If you expect pro-Donald talking points to be consistent, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

TLK Valentine said:

Hey, remember when "Schiff" claimed that the stock market would crash if Donald was impeached?

And when "Schiff's" supporters warned of a civil war if Donald were to actually be removed?

Click to expand...

Was that when he was talking about how revolutionary war soldiers took over British airports?

Bobber said:

Not maybe just a groundless accusation?

Click to expand...

No, there was consistent testimony that Donald was attempting to trade foreign aid with having that country's leader interfere in our elections.

Bobber said:

OK fair enough. So what do you have. Let's just say you have the nation pretty well split down the middle on this issue.

Click to expand...

Nearly 3/4ths want additional testimony - and a bit over half have heard enough to want him removed for the stuff we already know. I guess technically the latter could be called "split down the middle", but seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

Calling out a President for abuse of power and obstruction based on words and acts he does in plain sight is not the "politics of fear." Rep Schiff and the Impeachment members are carrying out their Constitutional mandate to check the power of the Executive branch.