Schiff's Politics of Fear

Albion said:

The Russians collaborated with the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Campaign,

Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence for that or are you just repeating lies from right wing media?

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...

Good grief... has the Republican base become nothing more than a mouthpiece for Putin's disinformation?

Albion said:

I heard some of Schiff's remarks the other day, and the claims are so imaginary, over the top, so far beyond anything credible or reasonable, that it's hard to imagine anyone but a dyed-in-the-wool partisan believing such absurdities.

And IF, on the outside chance that the House members actually believed some of it to be true...how is it that the articles of impeachment that they voted on did not feature any of it??

Click to expand...

I find Adam Schiff to be quite clear, precise, and completely credible. God knows I'm only being honest in saying so. I am also aware of why Character assassination is in the playbook of the insidious.

So since I do not wish to be with the wicked by projecting that I want to believe that you are wicked and casting unfounded insinuations against others such as myself, I'm going to say that I would rather believe that you're probably just misunderstanding Adam Schiff and then blaming those who accept what he says through your own misperception. Of course it's not possible to know exactly what you're alluding to when you present only derogatory assertions without any example as to what you are referring to.

childeye 2 said:

I find Adam Schiff to be quite clear, precise, and completely credible. .

Click to expand...

I am going to guess that this was your opinion even before he opened his mouth to speak. It would be almost impossible otherwise.

So since I do not wish to be with the wicked by projecting that I want to believe that you are wicked and casting unfounded insinuations against others such as myself....Of course it's not possible to know exactly what you're alluding to when you present only derogatory assertions without any example as to what you are referring to.

Click to expand...

And what are YOU referring to?

FireDragon76 said:

Good grief... has the Republican base become nothing more than a mouthpiece for Putin's disinformation?

Click to expand...

"Become" implies a change in the status quo.

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 is contrary to known facts.

And why not?--it had nothing to fear from a Hillary Clinton administration and her famous "restart" button, whereas President Trump has done plenty to try to stifle Putin's adventurism.

Click to expand...

Putin hated Clinton whereas Donald was an easily manipulated newbie.

Trump ordered Russia to close three of its diplomatic facilities in the US: its consulate in San Francisco and annexes in Washington, DC, and New York City.

Click to expand...

In retaliation for Russia throwing our diplomats out of Russia.

Publicly condemned Russian espionage in the UK.

Click to expand...

It wasn't simple espionage, but the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal.

Imposed sanctions.

Click to expand...

He signed a veto-proof bill given to him by Congress and, even then, tried to water it down.

Worked to stop the new natural gas transmission line from Russia to Germany.

Click to expand...

Again, that seems to be the work of Congress rather than a presidential initiative.

Expelled Russian diplomats in the USA.

Click to expand...

That is also related to the nerve gas attack on Sergei Skripal mentioned before.

On the other hand,

• Donald has showered Putin with praise,
• said that he thought Russia could keep Crimea,
• shared classified information with senior Russian officials,
• just recently lifted sanctions related to Russian oligarch Deripaska,
• congratulated Putin on his election victory despite NSA advice to forego,
• recently actually defended the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan in a Cabinet meeting,
• refused to condemn Russia's attack on Ukrainian military vessels,
• petitioned G7 leaders to admit Russia back in,
• parroted Russian talking points re Syria,
• said he is considering attending a military parade invitation by Putin

DaisyDay said:

That is contrary to known facts.

Click to expand...

Lots of half-truths and downright errors on that post. Too many to bother correcting and too many that are just repeats of talking points employed by the RESIST! folks. If the president shows the usual diplomatic courtesies to another head of state, he's criticized as though he was kow-towing or "in cahoots" with that person, but if he adopts a firm tone, the same critics criticize him for being aggressive and "undiplomatic."

Albion said:

Who's claim was that one?

Click to expand...

GoldenBoy89 said:

Most of Trump’s supporters back then.

Click to expand...

And Donald John himself:

Reuters said:

DORAL, Fla. (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Democrat Hillary Clinton’s plan for Syria would “lead to World War Three,” because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

Lots of half-truths and downright errors on that post. Too many to bother correcting and too many that are just repeats of talking points employed by the RESIST! folks.

Click to expand...

Oh look - hand waving. How convincing!

At least I provided actual cites in contrast to your vague assertions.

DaisyDay said:

And Donald John himself:

Click to expand...

The biggliest Trump supporter!

Albion said:

I am going to guess that this was your opinion even before he opened his mouth to speak.

Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that wickedness projects wanting to believe bad about others as opposed to wanting to believe good about others, please explain why you would guess I would opine on what Mr. Schiff says before he says anything without implying prejudice on my part?

It would be almost impossible otherwise.

Click to expand...

Please explain how I could possibly opine on what I had never heard?

And what are YOU referring to?

Click to expand...

You said this:
I heard some of Schiff's remarks the other day, and the claims are so imaginary, over the top, so far beyond anything credible or reasonable, that it's hard to imagine anyone but a dyed-in-the-wool partisan believing such absurdities.

childeye 2 said:

Please explain how I could possibly opine on what I had never heard?

Click to expand...

But you did opine, using the terms "wickedness" and "derogatory" in response to my post.

What I wrote was:

I heard some of Schiff's remarks the other day, and the claims are so imaginary, over the top, so far beyond anything credible or reasonable....

Click to expand...

I was critical, yes, but refrained from using excessive language.

Albion said:

Lots of half-truths and downright errors on that post. Too many to bother correcting and too many that are just repeats of talking points employed by the RESIST! folks. If the president shows the usual diplomatic courtesies to another head of state, he's criticized as though he was kow-towing or "in cahoots" with that person, but if he adopts a firm tone, the same critics criticize him for being aggressive and "undiplomatic."

Click to expand...

There's a difference between being diplomatic and openly advocating for the agenda of an enemy.

Bobber said:

Then you didn't read the article in my OP or listen to what Schiff said on the Senate floor.

Headline: Schiff warns of Russian attack on the US mainland.

His exact words were "As one witness put it during our impeachment inquiry, the United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don't have to fight Russia here," Schiff said, drawing rebukes from commentators across the across the political spectrum.

So that's not the politics of fear and terror? Or something like the Daisy commercial from 1964 that you can see in my post #2??

Click to expand...

....explaining the rational for aiding Ukraine against Russian aggression is not fear mongering. I don't agree with the witness that Russia wants to fight us here, however.

And Daisy commercial? Now who is exaggerating what the witness inferred?

btw, who was the witness....and where can I find Schiff's remarks in context?

Albion said:

But you did opine, using the terms "wickedness" and "derogatory" in response to my post.

I was critical, yes, but refrained from using excessive language.​

Click to expand...

Derogatory refers to your criticism as diminishing, regardless of the language. Respectfully, I did not opine. I said that I did not want to think you are engaging in wickedness, and I meant that and I even gave you reason why I meant that.

This is what I said:
So since I do not wish to be with the wicked by projecting that I want to believe that you are wicked and casting unfounded insinuations against others such as myself, I'm going to say that I would rather believe that you're probably just misunderstanding Adam Schiff and then blaming those who accept what he says through your own misperception. Of course it's not possible to know exactly what you're alluding to when you present only derogatory assertions without any example as to what you are referring to.

Please consider the intentions of the above statements as meant to convey that your negative criticism could be construed as personal attacks on the competence, aptitude, or intentions of Schiff, as well as those who find him credible. You simply need to provide some examples of the things he has said which prompted your criticism, and it would also be all the more ingenuous if you would explain why you find them to be imaginary, over the top, and/or unreasonable. Otherwise, your remarks remain assertions that only disparage without any evidence of viability.

childeye 2 said:

You simply need to provide some examples of the things he has said which prompted your criticism, and it would also be all the more ingenuous if you would explain why you find them to be imaginary, over the top, and/or unreasonable.

Click to expand...

All right. Consider the following, particularly Schiff's words in the final paragraph which were widely criticized.

"Drawing selectively from the president’s past statements, Schiff claimed that Trump believed Russia’s claims that Ukraine had interfered with the 2016 presidential election, ignoring U.S. intelligence agencies’ assessments.

"In fact, Trump has acknowledged for years that Russia “meddled” in the last presidential election, explicitly saying that he accepted the conclusion of U.S. intelligence agencies, though he says he did not think Russia’s intervention affected the outcome, and he also has long believed that “others” also attempted to influence the outcome.

"Schiff portrayed Trump as a puppet being controlled by Russia: “It’s not just a propaganda coup, it’s not just the undermining of our agencies. It’s also that the buy-in to that propaganda meant that Ukraine wasn’t going to get money to fight the Russians. I mean, that’s one hell of a Russian intelligence coup. … Has there ever been such a coup? I would submit to you that in the entire length of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had no such success.”

Adam Schiff Closing Argument: Russia Carried out 'Coup' Against U.S. By Manipulating Trump

Schiff's Politics of Fear

Given that this President has already stated in public that he was prepared to take the word of Vladimir Putin over that of American's 17 intelligence agencies, there is every reason to fear as to what lengths Donald Trump will go to escape criminal prosecution once he leaves office!

American's can no longer have full confidence that the 2020 Elections will be free and fair - should "The Donald" defy the polls and be re-elected, how will he be able to convince a skeptical electorate that he is their legitimate President, as more incriminating evidence continues to surface!

jgarden said:

American's can no longer have full confidence that the 2020 Elections will be free and fair - should "The Donald" defy the polls and be re-elected, how will he be able to convince a skeptical electorate that he is their legitimate President, as more incriminating evidence continues to surface!

Click to expand...

I'm wondering what would be new about that. A large percentage of the citizenry already prefers to think that Donald Trump did not win the 2016 election and delights in saying so. The other group accepts the verdict of the electorate just as it has accepted every other presidential election, whether or not the candidate they preferred came out the winner. That's democracy.

The issue here, however, had turned to something that IS new--a prominent member of Congress actually saying, under oath, that the people ought not be trusted with making the decision (since, of course, they might again choose the candidate that that the speaker and his party doesn't prefer).

Albion said:

The issue here, however, had turned to something that IS new--a prominent member of Congress actually saying, under oath, that the people ought not be trusted with making the decision (since, of course, they might again choose the candidate that that the speaker and his party doesn't prefer).

Click to expand...

That’s not what he said.