He always touts freedom and fairness and justice in his speeches. — NOS4A2

Wow, check your gullibometer.

Let me translate your assertion: Trump always lies about freedom and fairness and justice in his speeches.

You know, I hope, that Trump is the biggest, fattest liar ever to disgrace the Oval Office.

The US response to the Kashoggi murder was appropriate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-bans-16-saudi-individuals-u-s-role-khashoggi-n992311

~That’s more than what the UK or EU did.~

I retract the previous statement. The EU imposed travel bans.

The US response to the Kashoggi murder was appropriate. — NOS4A2

Obviously a token gesture.

Obviously a token gesture.

One far more effective than any anti-Trump virtue signalling, but sure.

One far more effective — NOS4A2

Huh? Effective how? What was the effect?

The point of the Global Magninski Act is to deny individuals entry into the US, allow the seizure of any of their property held in the country, and effectively prevent them from entering into transactions with large numbers of banks and companies.

The point of the Global Magninski Act is to deny individuals entry into the US, allow the seizure of any of their property held in the country, and effectively prevent them from entering into transactions with large numbers of banks and companies. — NOS4A2

Another post, another attempted diversion and distraction.

Again: If, as you say, it wasn't a token gesture, what was the effect - what constitutes (as you say) the "effectiveness" - of denying these 16 individuals entry to the US?

False, I said it was far more effective than any anti-Trump virtue signalling. I never said “effectiveness” so your use of quotes is a fabrication.

The act promotes respect for human rights at all levels of government by enabling the US executive branch to apply targeted sanctions on any individual involved in a human rights violation, from senior officials to low-level officers and even nongovernment associates. These sanctions can take the form of asset freezes for funds held in US banks and bans on visas for coming to the US.

The Global Magnitsky Act functions as a deterrent, forcing foreign officials at all levels who would use unlawful violence or corruption to consider repercussions from the US government. The act also provides incentives to foreign governments to improve their own accountability mechanisms. By cooperating with the US on Global Magnitsky investigations, foreign leaders can show that they will not tolerate human rights abusers in their own countries.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/13/us-global-magnitsky-act

False, I said it was far more effective than any anti-Trump virtue signalling. I never said “effectiveness” so your use of quotes is a fabrication.

The act promotes respect for human rights at all levels of government by enabling the US executive branch to apply targeted sanctions on any individual involved in a human rights violation, from senior officials to low-level officers and even nongovernment associates. These sanctions can take the form of asset freezes for funds held in US banks and bans on visas for coming to the US.

The Global Magnitsky Act functions as a deterrent, forcing foreign officials at all levels who would use unlawful violence or corruption to consider repercussions from the US government. The act also provides incentives to foreign governments to improve their own accountability mechanisms. By cooperating with the US on Global Magnitsky investigations, foreign leaders can show that they will not tolerate human rights abusers in their own countries.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/13/us-global-magnitsky-act — NOS4A2

Yet another diversion.

If it was "more effective" than X, it must have been to some degree effective. If it was to some degree effective, it had, to some degree, the quality of "effectiveness."

Again: If, as you say, it wasn't a token gesture, what was the effect - what constitutes (as you say) the effectiveness* - of denying these 16 individuals entry to the US?

I'm looking for a description of its effectiveness. Be specific.



*I removed the quotes. My apologies. Do you like it better now?

I’m not going to explain to you how sanctions are more effective than hashtags and Guardian articles.

I’m not going to explain to you how sanctions are more effective than hashtags and Guardian articles. — NOS4A2

Awesome, since that's not what I'm asking you to explain.

Closing this chapter of Diversiology 101.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mcconnell-white-house-privately-at-odds-senate-trial-format

According to the WSJ¹, in a meeting with Senate Republicans last week, McConnell thinks bringing in witnesses would be mistake, both because it would prolong proceedings but also might complicate Senate Republicans reelection efforts.

“Mutually assured destruction,” Mr. McConnell told his colleagues.

Republican senators are wary of ignoring Trump’s wishes, but the majority of those who spoke to WSJ said allowing witnesses to speak, and possibly reveal new information, might make it more difficult to acquit Trump.

¹https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-senators-seek-quick-acquittal-for-trump-the-president-wants-more-11576535310?mod=hp_lead_pos5

So they're admitting to being partisan hacks who care more about protecting the Republican party than holding the President accountable for misbehaviour.

So they're admitting to being partisan hacks who care more about protecting the Republican party than holding the President accountable for misbehaviour.

What misbehavior? You guys keep saying he did something wrong.

We’ve been over that before, but that’s not the point of my comment. The Republicans don’t want witnesses because they’re worried that (more) impeachable behaviour will be uncovered. So they’re actively saying that they don’t care if he’s done something that warrants removal; they only care about acquitting him, and want that to be as easy as possible.

Right, so they seem more worried about the politics and not justice. I don’t think you’re wrong on that one though I would say this has been a partisan charade since the beginning. We’ll find out just how partisan it is with tomorrow’s votes on the articles of impeachment. My own suspicion is it will be more partisan on votes “for” and more bipartisan on votes “against”.

I really wish the Democrats wouldn't put so much energy into impeachment, knowing it's not going anywhere. The polls seem split on this issue, and not moving much, so that's not an argument. It being the "right thing" is nonsense, too. There were a thousand things to impeach Trump about - why this one, especially? Ask yourselves that question.

They’ve been trying to impeach the president before he took office. I suspect they’ve chosen this time because their ability to win the next election through democratic means has quickly diminished.

I suspect they’ve chosen this time because their ability to win the next election through democratic means has quickly diminished. — NOS4A2

What evidence do you have to ground this suspicion?

What evidence do you have to ground this suspicion?

It’s complete speculation. Democrat megalomania and duplicity was made apparent in their emails. Given the flimsy case it is almost certain to be politically motivated. Then again, never attribute to malice that which could be explained by stupidity. I could be wrong.

If Trump is acquitted by the supine Republican lackeys, then the USA will in effect be governed by an un-convicted felon

It’s complete speculation. — NOS4A2

... Like the bulk of your assertions in this thread.

It’s complete speculation. Democrat megalomania and duplicity was made apparent in their emails. Given the flimsy case it is almost certain to be politically motivated. Then again, never attribute to malice that which could be explained by stupidity. I could be wrong. — NOS4A2

Facts notwithstanding, and whatever it takes to make them notwithstanding.

I think it's more the fact that, much like Nixon, he went too far in attacking the Democrats, who have the power to fight back when they're the victims of his corruption. He could have just as easily, and more rightfully, been impeached for about 20 other things in the last three years.

To say the Democrats are doing this because they're afraid they can't win head-on is kind of a joke. Trump's victory was not a landslide. In fact it was rather narrow and a 1 in 4 shot. He lost the popular voted handedly. His approval ratings have been consistently low for three years. True, it's the democrats' election to lose -- again -- but I'd hardly say they're afraid they can't beat him. A much better case can be made about Republicans -- hence the attempts at voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering.

So Trump wrote a letter to Pelosi today. He says that Impeachment is a very ugly word :lol:. Is that supposed to be written in a four-year old voice? The worst argument yet must have been one he himself actually authored here:

I said to President Zelensky: “I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” I said do us a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States. Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.

It’s complete speculation — NOS4A2

Meanwhile the GOP is actually purging voters

That’s a fair analysis. I appreciate it.

Though I cannot think of one thing he could be impeached for—they were trying to impeach him before he even stepped into office—you are right that Trump shouldn’t be confident in his win. The Democrats are winning in the dark money front.

Nonetheless, Trump might have an easy win in 2020, according to Moody's accurate election model.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/15/moodys-trump-on-his-way-to-an-easy-2020-win-if-economy-holds-up.html

Trump’s repeated assertion that the whistleblower who reported his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky ‘got it entirely wrong’ is Politifact’s 2019 lLie of the Year.

I started reading Trump’s rant letter to Pelosi, but the first two paragraphs entirely comprised falsehoods and lies, and so I thought it not worth the bother of reading the remained. Suffice to say that all of the things Trump accuses ‘the Dems’ of doing, are things that he has done and is doing.

Pelosi herself made the comment some weeks back that Trump projects onto others all of the faults that he sees in himself, but cannot ever admit. So when he calls others slimy and dishonest and so on, really it stems from a deep-seated realisation of his own many failures and weaknesses, which, of course, in Trumpworld, neither he nor his supporters can ever admit to. Everything Trump does - even the clearly incriminating phone call that triggered the impeachment - is ‘perfect’. If you don’t see it as perfect, then that’s a fault with you, and if there were any justice, you would be punished for it.

The whistleblower alleges that Trump made “a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,”

Politifact even quotes both. Except the transcript reveals he made no such “specific request” to locate and turn over servers.

The Whistleblower alleges “ The President also praised Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested that Mr. Zelensky might want to keep him in his position”.

But that’s not true.

But politifact is right about one thing, something I’ve been saying the whole time.

Where the complaint and the president veer apart is on what the events mean. The whistleblower writes: Trump "is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election." That’s also how House Democrats have framed it in the first article of impeachment.

Republicans dispute that interpretation of Trump’s call. They point out that there is no explicit mention of either 2020 or the re-election campaign in the White House summary of the Trump-Zelensky call. They say the whistleblower made a sensational leap in word choice (none more so than "Trump pressured") that unfairly shaped media coverage of Trump’s handling of Ukraine.

Given the history of corruption in Ukraine and Hunter Biden’s involvement there, Trump asking about it was legitimate.

Of course politifact wouldn’t go so far as to say that part is a complete and utter lie, fantasy, fabrication as I have done, but at least it’s there. That’s pretty damning to their whole case. This mischaracterization of Trump’s call, his motives, will sink the dem and whistleblower’s whole case.

You've been parrotting GOP lies the whole time. I think you're a disinformation agent.