Ukraine scandal explained.

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, I think faster than I can type -- so you'll see occasional typos from me; particularly if I am in a hurry and don't do a good job of proofreading.

RElaX.... I often let my own goofs go by , and don't worry about any of them....

Just seeing "to" in place of "too" so often (remember when the "t" was silent?!)
even on television, in newspapers and magazines,
from editors and publishers and educated folk.....

I don't think the trend away from good spelting and proper grammer will slow down at all..... (and auto0-correcting / software/ techno-low-gy has made it worse frequently) ...

Just a footnote , sort of, or maybe nostalgia ? (but not to dwell no it) ....

 

[cow451]

I used to listen to NPR but it started leaning toward communism. The last segment I listened to was praising the communist manifesto. I haven't heard of propublica. Why do you feel these things broaden your perspective against the MSN?

Nothing wrong with a sincere inquiry and one was warranted given the whistle-blower. The Ukraine inquiry isn't over though, there is a lot more that needs investigating besides anything Trump.

Then tell the DOJ to have at it.

 

[cow451]

He says he's left of center (i'm not sure where he says this, but that is your claim). His actions show him to be something else entirely.

I watched a few of his videos.

His video content is significantly right of center. And then some.

I tell you this as a die-hard conservative.

If Tom Pool is left of center, Donald Trump is a Catholic Priest.

 

[cow451]

His content is heavily about the left right now because he feels that the left has suddenly moved so far from center that it is leaving him and other traditional democrats behind. What he believes is not conservationism. He was a Bernie sanders supporter, and formerly a Tulsi Gabbard supporter.

LOL.

 

[Sanoy]

LOL.

When have evidence that he is lying about his self identification rather than mockery let me know.

 

[cow451]

When have evidence that he is lying about his self identification rather than mockery let me know.

I can read. He’s either lying of living in another dimension.

 

[Sanoy]

I can read. He’s either lying of living in another dimension.

Yes, well neither of that was what I asked for with the exception of the appreciated loss of mockery.

 

[DaisyDay]

In my country you are innocent until proven guilty.

Nonsense, that shows a flawed understanding of the terms. You are innocent if you are innocent and guilty if you are guilty - however, in a court of law, on trial, you are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

There is only one fact at play here. Tim Pool has stated he is left of center, a position that is clear from his content, and he should be believed unless there is a reason to believe otherwise.

You're right that there is only one fact here - that he has stated he is left of center. It is far from clear from his content and I have been given reason to believe otherwise.

Whether you claim he is an alt right plant or alt right poseur is a distinction without a difference because neither are warranted by evidence.

Of course, there is a difference, but if you don't understand what the difference between a plant and a poseur is, I'm not going to try to educate you (horse, water).

You keep forgetting that I actually watch his content. If you want to say it is other than it appears give evidence for that claim. Tim Pool is not a pundit, he doesn't claim at all to be an expert. In fact he claims the exact opposite, which you would know if you knew anything about him.

He frequently gives his opinion in public - it's what he does, i.e. pundit.

 

[DaisyDay]

What's the logic here. He criticizes the left so he must be right? He is a former Bernie sanders and Tulsi Gabbard supporter.

Okay. Link to his videos where he is actually supporting their positions, not simply saying that he used to support them. Show where he actually supports their position (as something other than "not Hillary" or "not Biden").

 

[Sanoy]

Nonsense, that shows a flawed understanding of the terms. You are innocent if you are innocent and guilty if you are guilty - however, in a court of law, on trial, you are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

You're right that there is only one fact here - that he has stated he is left of center. It is far from clear from his content and I have been given reason to believe otherwise.

Of course, there is a difference, but if you don't understand what the difference between a plant and a poseur is, I'm not going to try to educate you (horse, water).

He frequently gives his opinion in public - it's what he does, i.e. pundit.

The decision to hold to innocence until proven guilty in the court of law is not arbitrary, but based on a universal concept. When I say my country believes it, I mean they believe in the universal concept, not just the law that arises from it. You stated that you performed a non biased search for Tim Pool, and demanded I take your word for it and now demand I don't take Pools word. It is certainly far from clear that you did, because I check this section far more often than I post on it and have seen a lot of your content beforehand. But I will choose to take your word all the same.

You are quite correct that there is a semantic difference between a plant and a poseur, but that revelation does nothing to conceal the fact that you have no evidence for what you claim. You are mistaken on your use of the word pundit. Here is the definition - an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public.

 

[Sanoy]

Okay. Link to his videos where he is actually supporting their positions, not simply saying that he used to support them. Show where he actually supports their position (as something other than "not Hillary" or "not Biden").

He has stated that we was a Bernie Sanders suporter which RationalWiki even stated and actually sourced. He has also stated in several of his videos that he supports Tulsi Gabbard. She didn't last long enough for him to confirm her vote but he supported both her and yang in the primaries. I'm not going to dig through them to prove it to you. You can believe whatever you want, but if you want me to believe he is anything other than what he says he is then provide evidence for it.

 

[cow451]

Yes, well neither of that was what I asked for with the exception of the appreciated loss of mockery.

Try a sense of humor on. Sorry u is f you’re offended.

 

[Sanoy]

Try a sense of humor on. Sorry u is f you’re offended.

My sense of humor is just fine, perhaps it's my expectation that are to blame.

 

[cow451]

My sense of humor is just fine, perhaps it's my expectation that are to blame.

Time to move on.

 

[DaisyDay]

The decision to hold to innocence until proven guilty in the court of law is not arbitrary, but based on a universal concept. When I say my country believes it, I mean they believe in the universal concept, not just the law that arises from it.

I'm sorry, but countries don't have beliefs because they are not persons. The concept isn't universal, but abstract.

You stated that you performed a non biased search for Tim Pool, and demanded I take your word for it and now demand I don't take Pools word. It is certainly far from clear that you did, because I check this section far more often than I post on it and have seen a lot of your content beforehand. But I will choose to take your word all the same.

Well, if that's how you take me at my word, I'd hate to see how you accuse someone of lying.

You are quite correct that there is a semantic difference between a plant and a poseur,

That's not what I said, so that is not correct. There is an actual difference in meaning whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

... but that revelation does nothing to conceal the fact that you have no evidence for what you claim.

That's not true either - I have evidence, but you reject it as proof.

You are mistaken on your use of the word pundit. Here is the definition - an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public.

• Merriam-Webster: a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media : CRITIC
• American Heritage: A source of opinion; a critic: a political pundit.
• Wordnik: A source of opinion; a critic.
• Cambridge Learners': a person who knows a lot about a particular subject, or someone who gives opinions in a way that sounds intelligent or wise
• Wordsmyth:an authoritative, or purportedly authoritative, commentator or critic.
• theFreeDictionary: A source of opinion; a critic: a political pundit.
• InfoPlease: a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.
• WordDetective: How this honorable word came to mean "print journalist who hangs out on Sunday morning television talk shows pretending to know what's really going on in Washington" is anybody's guess, but, then again, "airbag" was already taken.
• Bartleby:
  We use the word for a porcus litera’rum, one more stocked with book lore than deep erudition.
• WordsmithWord-A-Day:
  A source of opinion.

Huh, "the" definition: your mileage may vary.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm sorry, but countries don't have beliefs because they are not persons. The concept isn't universal, but abstract.

Well, if that's how you take me at my word, I'd hate to see how you accuse someone of lying.

That's not what I said, so that is not correct. There is an actual difference in meaning whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

That's not true either - I have evidence, but you reject it as proof.

• Merriam-Webster: a person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner usually through the mass media : CRITIC
• American Heritage: A source of opinion; a critic: a political pundit.
• Wordnik: A source of opinion; a critic.
• Cambridge Learners': a person who knows a lot about a particular subject, or someone who gives opinions in a way that sounds intelligent or wise
• Wordsmyth:an authoritative, or purportedly authoritative, commentator or critic.
• theFreeDictionary: A source of opinion; a critic: a political pundit.
• InfoPlease: a person who makes comments or judgments, esp. in an authoritative manner; critic or commentator.
• WordDetective: How this honorable word came to mean "print journalist who hangs out on Sunday morning television talk shows pretending to know what's really going on in Washington" is anybody's guess, but, then again, "airbag" was already taken.
• Bartleby:
  We use the word for a porcus litera’rum, one more stocked with book lore than deep erudition.
• WordsmithWord-A-Day:
  A source of opinion.

Huh, "the" definition: your mileage may vary.

A country is defined as a large body of people united for various reasons, and people have beliefs so I don't know why you bother with such a glib reply as 'countries don't have beliefs'.

You haven't presented any evidence, you have merely selected what came up on your google search. I told you if you want to provide evidence to present the evidence itself. Your decision not to do so was your own choice.

The word semantic regards the meaning of something, so when you say there is an actual difference in meaning, that is what I was confirming. One of the definitions you listed for pundit was an east indian scholar. Was that what you meant when you called Tim Pool a pundit? What sort of counterpoint do you suppose you made here?

 

[whatbogsends]

A country is defined as a large body of people united for various reasons, and people have beliefs so I don't know why you bother with such a glib reply as 'countries don't have beliefs'.

You haven't presented any evidence, you have merely selected what came up on your google search. I told you if you want to provide evidence to present the evidence itself.

The word semantic regards the meaning of something, so when you say there is an actual difference in meaning, that is what I was confirming. One of the definitions you listed for pundit was an east indian scholar. Was that what you meant when you called Tim Pool a pundit? What sort of counterpoint do you suppose you made here?

And I went ahead and provided evidence that Tim Poole isn't left of center. His commentary mimics far-right punditry, but you want us to overlook that and believe that he's left of center because that's how he claims to self-identify. You dismissed his videos as "criticizing the left", when he's gone far and above criticism, and wholly embraces essentially every conspiracy theory the far right has been pushing in politics.

You make the nonsense claim (in post #45) "There is only one fact at play here. Tim Pool has stated he is left of center, a position that is clear from his content, and he should be believed unless there is a reason to believe otherwise." That isn't the only fact at play. It's one small piece of the puzzle. How a person describes themselves plays only a tiny fraction in how we draw conclusions about that person. When that persons self-description is at odds with their actions, then we can often conclude that the person is being dishonest either with himself or with others in his self-description.

You can keep insisting Tim Poole is left of center, but your insistence is at odds with the available evidence.

 

[DaisyDay]

A country is defined as a large body of people united for various reasons, and people have beliefs so I don't know why you bother with such a glib reply as 'countries don't have beliefs'.

Because they don't.

You haven't presented any evidence, you have merely selected what came up on your google search. I told you if you want to provide evidence to present the evidence itself.

You've been given evidence, but what you want is proof.

The word semantic regards the meaning of something, so when you say there is an actual difference in meaning, that is what I was confirming.

Yes, you're right.

One of the definitions you listed for pundit was an east indian scholar. Was that what you meant when you called Tim Pool a pundit? What sort of counterpoint do you suppose you made here?

That was the origin of the word - you couldn't figure that one out? I already told you which meaning I was using, but you said that wasn't "the" meaning, so the counterpoint is that words often have multiple meanings. Do I really need to explain every point I make? I apologize if my meaning is obscure; I really thought I was being obvious.

 

[Sanoy]

And I went ahead and provided evidence that Tim Poole isn't left of center. His commentary mimics far-right punditry, but you want us to overlook that and believe that he's left of center because that's how he claims to self-identify. You dismissed his videos as "criticizing the left", when he's gone far and above criticism, and wholly embraces essentially every conspiracy theory the far right has been pushing in politics.

You make the nonsense claim (in post #45) "There is only one fact at play here. Tim Pool has stated he is left of center, a position that is clear from his content, and he should be believed unless there is a reason to believe otherwise." That isn't the only fact at play. It's one small piece of the puzzle. How a person describes themselves plays only a tiny fraction in how we draw conclusions about that person. When that persons self-description is at odds with their actions, then we can often conclude that the person is being dishonest either with himself or with others in his self-description.

You can keep insisting Tim Poole is left of center, but your insistence is at odds with the available evidence.

You linked me his channel which I go to daily, and never explained the logic of you accusation. Please explain how criticizing the left as a disaffected liberal means he is right? You claim to be a "die hard conservative" yet you are criticizing me who is also conservative, so I guess that makes you on the left then. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Sanoy]

Because they don't.

You've been given evidence, but what you want is proof.

Yes, you're right.

That was the origin of the word - you couldn't figure that one out? I already told you which meaning I was using, but you said that wasn't "the" meaning, so the counterpoint is that words often have multiple meanings. Do I really need to explain every point I make? I apologize if my meaning is obscure; I really thought I was being obvious.

Not only do countries have beliefs, they have religions. You are deeply mistaken with this pointless and glib remark.

As I said your google selection isn't evidence, the first one is an unsourced opinion, and you didn't even link the other. I'm not going to read "articles that show up in your google search". If you have evidence, give it. Citing peoples opinions is not evidence.

Calling someone that gives their opinion publicly a pundit is a pointless use of the word since that makes everyone a pundit. Using it that way in contrast with journalist makes even less sense.