The Mueller investigation.

[iceaura]

I judge the quality of government based on how the situation changes

No, you don't.
You pay no attention to the concrete, factual, or real life situation; instead you compare various presumed propaganda feeds balanced according to your a priori assumptions of bias.

That's what you say you do, remember? and that's what your posts exhibit.

You have never, for example, read the Mueller report. You have never posted any information from an accurate or even fact-based source of US political information, campaign rhetoric analysis, or news feed.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Russia#Statistics the murder rate changed from a peak of 32.26/100 000 in 1994 down to 5.18 in 2018. Quite impressive, I think.

We were discussing the murder of journalists by powerful political and economic entities - why are you changing the subject?

Meanwhile, assuming the murder of journalists has been reduced in proportion: That's normal for the aftermath of a mob war, when the winner imposes order. You can find similar statistics in various SA, MA, and Mexican regions, for example, before and after one of the cartels wins. Likewise in the mob-associated US cities, or ones with corrupt police forces. Putin won the mob war, now he's the boss and imposes order. Sometimes he has to kill journalists, of course, but not as often as in the past - Russian journalism has learned its lesson, and is under control now.

That anti-Russian propagandists will defame even such success stories is simply as expected.

Defame? You continue to misuse propaganda terms as if you had never been corrected.

I would not expect that European homicide rates will be reached in near future, independent of good or bad government

You just told us that Putin was not interested in governing Siberia or the Caucuses well, or even interfering with known bad government in his country as long as it supported his agenda. That is not independent of good or bad government - it is bad government.

but there are also large differences between murder rates in the European part and Siberia/Far East. There are a lot of natives in these regions. Given that they have not been genocided away in Russia, I would expect higher numbers in comparison with the US.

You would expect high murder rates among "natives"?
Yet another characteristic you share with US Republican voters, and fascists in general.
No wonder you can't comprehend racism and slavery in US politics and history - you've chosen government by slaveowners.
That requires and establishes a blind spot on your perceptions, familiar to US citizens. (For example: the people you call "European" are "natives" of Russian regions with lower murder rates as well as higher ones. Your inconsistent use of the term is familiar in the US).

 

[iceaura]

Not if you compute the GDP in PPP. http://www.worldeconomics.com/grossdomesticproduct/russia.gdp Given that Russia has artificially lowered the ruble to counter the low oil price in dollar as well as the sanctions (increasing artificially the costs of imports), to compare the GDP in dollar makes not much sense, except for propagandists.

In your enthusiasm for your attack strategy, you forgot to compare the GDPs in your chosen metric.
That's ok, as propaganda goes - the supposed GDP of a country whose economy is dominated by an extracted resource like oil is not a reliable number no matter how measured ( the resource curse is famous now), but it's a particular mistake if you are trying to complain about misleading propaganda. Don't throw rocks at your own windows, eh?

 

[CptBork]

The claim is about the change. US infrastructure was quite good in the past but is deteriorating. Russian infrastructure is, instead, improving. There are large differences inside Russia, one thing are streets in Moscow and Petersburg, as well as federal communication lines. Another thing are local roads, especially in or between villages, where a lot depends on the ability of the local administration.

But as I've pointed out, even Moscow and St. Petersburg are shitholes compared to world class centres like London and New York. No one goes to Moscow for anything unless hookers are involved. Plus I wasn't discussing the republic of Moscow and St. Petersburg, I was talking about this defunct old empire called Russia which sits on millions of square kilometres of stolen land whose resources it plunders for sale to Europeans so the profits can be pocketed by someone and you can call them a "genius".

No, talk about highways is irrelevant for classification as a Nazi.

Right, you have to point out why Russians aren't in any way superior to Congolese or Azerbaijanis in order to be labeled a Nazi, because Nazis support multiculturalism and not treating immigrants in your country like second class peasants after you steal their original homeland.

Not if you compute the GDP in PPP. http://www.worldeconomics.com/grossdomesticproduct/russia.gdp Given that Russia has artificially lowered the ruble to counter the low oil price in dollar as well as the sanctions (increasing artificially the costs of imports), to compare the GDP in dollar makes not much sense, except for propagandists. California taken alone is BTW the fifth-largest economy of the world (in dollar), greater than Britain. I have to admit that the idea to compare with a single state of the US instead of whole countries like Britain is a clever one from point of view of propaganda.

PPP is a bullshit statistic. If the supply of rice drops or demand increases by 5%, the price can double overnight. A more accurate statistic would come from pounding back a bottle of vodka (or beer like you say civilized people drink) and making up numbers like you and your friends usually do. As I said, you seem to think that everything's fine as long as Russia looks good on local TV, where all Olympic rings light when they're supposed to and stuff like that.

The most straightforward way to measure your country's production would be to see how much you could exchange for it with a third party, but then that would expose the sewer you live in for all the world to see, and we can't have that can we? We need people to fear you and tell you how awesome and mighty and clever you are with your missile Photoshop abilities, so they can all wish they were cool just like you.

 

[spidergoat]

Yeah but when the trains run on time it makes Schmelzer and his friends look oh so powerful and cool, like they can do anything or at least a few things just as well as the country that beat them black and blue without firing a shot. I sure wish I was cool just like them, maybe I need to find an old Ukrainian grandma to beat up or something.

To be fair, they are doing a fantastic job of disrupting democratic society. They have their very own pet US president.

 

[Schmelzer]

In your enthusiasm for your attack strategy, you forgot to compare the GDPs in your chosen metric.

Unable to follow the link I have given?

That's ok, as propaganda goes - the supposed GDP of a country whose economy is dominated by an extracted resource like oil is not a reliable number no matter how measured ( the resource curse is famous now), but it's a particular mistake if you are trying to complain about misleading propaganda. Don't throw rocks at your own windows, eh?

This is not the point. It is, BTW, only the export which is dominated by oil/gas. And the export/import of Russia is quite small in comparison with other countries. This is, in part, the result of deliberate politics, to make Russia as independent of imports as possible, and they have especially cared about this in the military sector, but also for nuclear power and also in the sector of extraction and the first steps of processing of commodities.

I agree that GDP is largely bullshit, in general. If a prostitute in the US gets five times the price than in Ukraine, it means the GDP she produced is five times that of the Ukrainian prostitute. And so for almost everything which can count as service - there are essentially no differences in what they do, they have simply higher wages, and the GDP is defined essentially by their wages.

If you add artificial exchange rates of various currencies vs. the dollar, this gives even more bullshit.

CptBork freaks completely out, nothing worth to answer.

 

[Schmelzer]

We were discussing the murder of journalists by powerful political and economic entities - why are you changing the subject?

We were discussing the murders of journalists. They declined in a way similar to the general murder rate. Propaganda claims about the murderers are nothing worth to be discussed, given their absurdity (the murders of journalists being much more during the Yeltsin time with an ideal "free press" and much lower now).

You can find similar statistics in various SA, MA, and Mexican regions, for example, before and after one of the cartels wins.

So what? Defamation remains defamation.

Defame? You continue to misuse propaganda terms as if you had never been corrected.

Feel free to correct me. You have not done it until now. Correcting requires giving nontrivial information, much more than "you are stupid" or "your sources are Rep propaganda".

You just told us that Putin was not interested in governing Siberia or the Caucuses well, or even interfering with known bad government in his country as long as it supported his agenda. That is not independent of good or bad government - it is bad government.

I think it is good government not to intrude into the culture of other people, in particular, if this culture is quite different from the orthodox Russian one. It is, btw, Russian imperial tradition to leave local cultures untouched. But, of course, "good" American government is something different, they occupy foreign states like Iraq or Afghanistan to impose there American culture.

You would expect high murder rates among "natives"?

I have simply googled for murder rates among natives and given here the first result, which has given a factor four. I have heard similar things about the Russian natives too. This is nothing I would expect, but I accept facts as they are. A connection of higher homicide rates with higher rates of alcohol abuse is quite plausible, part of the explanation of the decreasing homicide rate in Russia is also the decrease in the use of alcohol.

Given that US Rep voters are in no way Untermenschen for me, I don't bother if they share some of my views. (In fact, even if they would be, it would not matter.)

For example: the people you call "European" are "natives" of Russian regions with lower murder rates as well as higher ones.

Learn to read.

 

[iceaura]

Learn to read.

Learn to post something besides Republican Party line swill.

I have simply googled for murder rates among natives and given here the first result, which has given a factor four. I have heard similar things about the Russian natives too.

You googled using the keyword "natives"? You hear things about Russian "natives" and regard the Caucasian Russians as in a different category? I rest my case.

Like I said- Americans are familiar with that kind of rhetoric. We have a long history of slavery and its aftermaths - the rhetoric of slaveowners and their colonial minions is deeply embedded in our culture.

Given that US Rep voters are in no way Untermenschen for me, I don't bother if they share some of my views.

You get your views from the same source they get theirs.

Unable to follow the link I have given?

You did not compare the GDP's at issue. Instead, you tried to deflect the argument.

I think it is good government not to intrude into the culture of other people

You would be betraying the victims of a bad government, instead of governing them well yourself. But mob bosses and colonial powers do not care about governing well - only cooperation.

So what? Defamation remains defamation.

Simple facts are defamatory?

Feel free to correct me. You have not done it until now

I learned better after many attempts - no reason to. You don't learn.

It is, BTW, only the export which is dominated by oil/gas.

As in other resource cursed countries - Nigeria, Venezuela, etc.

We were discussing the murders of journalists. They declined in a way similar to the general murder rate.

Your chosen statistics did not bear on the matter. I had to assume - which I did.

Putin still murders journalists, lawyers, protesters, and other purveyors of information, apparently, when it benefits him. He won, of course, so he doesn't have to as much as in the past - he has obtained the necessary cooperation. That's what "winning" means, in such cases. But every so often the threat needs demonstrating.

Trump has discovered that, among others. Putin is not a nice guy - Trump has his tit in the wringer. One could almost sympathize, if he were in any way a decent human being.

 

[spidergoat]

Propaganda claims about the murderers are nothing worth to be discussed...

Which is itself a statement of disinformation. Humans sometimes murder other people. But when the government does it, it becomes a much more serious problem, an aspect of a despotic regime.

 

[Schmelzer]

You googled using the keyword "natives"? You hear things about Russian "natives" and regard the Caucasian Russians as in a different category? I rest my case.

The Siberian natives are quite close to the American ones. I don't know that much about the details of how to name PC the various tribes, to name them natives seems quite common. They have much less in common with the Caucasian people. In particular, these are Muslim, thus, have no alcohol problem. So it makes sense to distinguish them. The Russians sloppily use the name of one of the tribes to refer to them, Chukcha, especially in politically incorrect jokes, but there is no established common name for them all. "Siberian tribes" could be used.

Like I said- Americans are familiar with that kind of rhetoric.

Fine, to reach this was my point. I'm writing here for a mainly American public, which cannot be expected to know anything about other states, so to use something similar they are familiar with is the best way to explain them such things.

In your rhetorics, this will not change anything at all.

You did not compare the GDP's at issue. Instead, you tried to deflect the argument.

So why do you think I should compare nonsensical numbers? I have explained why I don't care much about GDP in any form, and given some recommendation to those interested in using GDP as some number anyway, that they would better use the GDP PPP. The links I have given contain the numbers. If you are unable to use them, your problem.

You would be betraying the victims of a bad government, instead of governing them well yourself. But mob bosses and colonial powers do not care about governing well - only cooperation.

You would try to establish a totalitarian world culture, of the same type as the American "culture". And you would have to murder all those who resist, as people will resist, they are already doing this, for example, in Afghanistan.

As in other resource cursed countries - Nigeria, Venezuela, etc.

They are cursed not by resources, but by bad government, like the socialist nonsense tried by Chaves. In Venezuela, you have to add US aggression during the Chaves time up to now.

The problem of states with many resources is that this attracts US aggression. This usually means regime change to get there a government that allows the US firms to do what they like and takes large credits (essentially bribes for the government, because this is the way the money will be used) which the states would have to pay back in future. This has been the problem in Russia too, before Putin time.

Your chosen statistics did not bear on the matter. I had to assume - which I did.

The numbers of murdered journalists came from the anti-Russian propaganda article linked here by somebody else, the statistics of homicide rate I have linked, both showed a serious decline.

Putin still murders journalists, lawyers, protesters, and other purveyors of information, apparently, when it benefits him.

Which is propaganda nonsense.

Which is itself a statement of disinformation. Humans sometimes murder other people. But when the government does it, it becomes a much more serious problem, an aspect of a despotic regime.

But the Russian government is not doing such things, except in Western propaganda fantasies. And these propaganda fantasies are not worth to be discussed. All that has to be said about them is that they are Western propaganda fantasies.

 

[iceaura]

The numbers of murdered journalists came from the anti-Russian propaganda article linked here by somebody else, the statistics of homicide rate I have linked, both showed a serious decline.

Your posted link and take was a deflection.

So why do you think I should compare nonsensical numbers?

I have various speculative notions about why you consistently insist on posting and comparing irrelevant and deceptive numbers in these discussions, rather than addressing the matters at hand. But they are not relevant here.

I'm writing here for a mainly American public

Of course. That's what the sources you parrot are trying to deceive and manipulate.

. I don't know that much about the details of how to name PC the various tribes, to name them natives seems quite common.

Not the white ones, or the black ones, or even the brown ones if they speak Spanish. You follow the racial labeling of the US Republican voting base and its propaganda feeds, not the anthropological or demographic or historical realities involved.

You don't label the Caucasian and central European Russians "native", for example - even though they almost certainly evolved in place many hundreds or thousands of years ago, and are often visibly tribal. You follow the US Republican Party line in all your labeling, and white people are never "natives" in that line.

Your rhetoric is most common among the more racially bigoted Americans, in other words. You got all that - the "natives", the "PC", the racially based labels, the entire schtick you parrot here - from a familiar source: US rightwing corporate authoritarian propagandists. They are heirs of the slaveowning culture that developed in the colonial regions of the US, leading to the Civil War. You are part of their current propaganda operations, which play on racial bigotry to manipulate voters.

And that's why you will never read the Mueller report.

The Siberian natives are quite close to the American ones.

Only some of them.

You would try to establish a totalitarian world culture, of the same type as the American "culture".

No, I would not. I would try to establish liberal democratic government. Liberal democracy is a form of government, not a culture, and it is not totalitarian.
Unlike you and your US Republican sources of political bs, I would not even try to impose capitalism or "free trade".
And unlike you, I have some idea of what American culture is.

So do your sources. That's why they work so hard to prevent Americans from reading the Mueller report, or similar sources of factual information - they know what kinds of reactions an ordinary American would have to the events and behaviors documented therein.

 

[Schmelzer]

Not the white ones, or the black ones, or even the brown ones if they speak Spanish. You follow the racial labeling of the US Republican voting base and its propaganda feeds, not the anthropological or demographic or historical realities involved.

Indeed, I did not want to compare the Siberian tribes with whites, blacks, or Spanish speaking brown people, because they have no common origin. Same for Caucasian and central European Russians. Of course, I will use established language, to be understood here. You have, given your description, understood correctly those tribes in the US I have in mind. That "native" does not make much sense is clear, but so what, many widely used words do not make much sense, such is life.

And of course, I always follow the Rep line, by definition, no iceaura posting without this claim.

No, I would not. I would try to establish liberal democratic government. Liberal democracy is a form of government, not a culture, and it is not totalitarian.

That means that you would try to establish governments in other countries than your own. This is already sufficient for a quite catastrophic outcome.

And unlike you, I have some idea of what American culture is.

Quite plausible. But you have to live with the fact that people outside the US have their own picture about American culture - it is the culture popularized in their own countries as American culture. One would reasonably expect that real, original US culture is something much better, more valuable than what is distributed as American culture worldwide. Or at least I would hope so, for the Americans.

That's why they work so hard to prevent Americans from reading the Mueller report, or similar sources of factual information - they know what kinds of reactions an ordinary American would have to the events and behaviors documented therein.

LOL. In a civilized nation, such an attempt would be hopeless. It would be sufficient for the Dems to post some interesting quotes, and if those quotes would be interesting enough, people would read the original too (even if possibly only to check the context). And no propaganda would be able to prevent this, so the propagandists would not even try.

You have been unable to quote anything interesting from the report here too. You failed even to interest me (which would have been really simple, but you have not even tried).

By the way, what I think about Trump is quite close to what the Saker thinks about him: http://thesaker.is/saker-rant-the-man-is-truly-a-narcissistic-imbecile-5d-chess-anybody/

As a Russian, I am in heaven, truly. Trump is destroying the Empire faster and better than all the combined powers of the Russian/Chinese/Iranian intelligence community ever could.

But as a resident of the USA I am absolutely appalled because this narcissistic imbecile (dumb narcissists are the most unbearable!) is destroying not just the Empire, but also the US, country and people I love very much!

And when I see what might replace Trump (except Tulsi Gabbard) I am very, very afraid for the future of this country and its people.

This being said, I have a feeling that Trump will be re-elected.

After all, a narcissistic imbecile who does not start wars is still A LOT better than a narcissistic imbecile who will start them (every Dem except Gabard, again).

 

[CptBork]

Who needs to worry about meddlesome elections and evil plots to help foreigners govern themselves democratically, when you can just get Borat Sagdiyev to choose your leaders for you and bomb all the terrorists who refuse his wisdom?

 

[Tiassa]

So like impeachment, you've made a pretense of criminality only to backpedal to "gravity".

You need to learn to follow the discussion. Remember, you're inquiring about your own make-believe standard of, "Where is the evidence they were ordered by Trump?" and therein we find the problem: Your make-believe is make-believe; asking questions invested in ignorance does not a reasonable argument make.

Any declaration of executive privilege to be enforced requires the president's say-so; thus, witnesses declaring executive privilege while refusing to discuss with Congress or other federal officials matters and information not covered by executive privilege are either improperly invoking it for themselves, or have been directed to silence by Trump.

So, like I said, "Where is the evidence they were ordered by Trump?" is the wrong question.

IOW, you just don't like the fact that they are, indeed, correct...and are backpedaling to what you personally deem is "appropriate".

No, actually, the problem here is your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range. As with your failure to comprehend the Seventeenth Amendment, the difference between law and law enforcement, or the basics of American history and white supremacism, or the not-so-subtleties of constitutional law,

Your constant failure to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique is its own self-inflicted denigration.

"Known" is not evidence, as it's become painfully obvious that people will claim knowledge based solely on their own biases.

We have the audio of Trump's attorney dangling a pardon. "'Known' is not evidence"? It is known because of the evidence.

See, the thing is that you say these things that might sound perfectly reasonable to you, like, "'Known' is not evidence, as it's become painfully obvious that people will claim knowledge based solely on their own biases", but it doesn't actually apply because it is obsolete: The fact is known because of the evidence.

Perhaps the most fascinating mystery is how in the world someone fronting your attitude can actually be so ignorant about pretty much everything he says.

At the time of your post, no subpoenas had been issued, hence no need for any executive privilege. And there could be genuine executive privilege concerns involved. It's not unlimited, nor is it completely impotent.

You really don't know what's going on, do you?

Seriously, you need to learn to follow the discussion. For instance, I said Cobb, but it was, more directly, Dowd; in either case, that took place well before the impeachment inquiry, so saying, "no subpoenas have been issued", in the impeachment inquiry is you flailing and utterly missing again.

And? That only supports my point that impeachment is only political and doesn't require any strict criteria of evidence, much less of criminal wrongdoing.

Learn to follow the discussion. One of the reasons you are not considered credible, around here, is that you apparently are not able to account for yourself from post to post.

Or perhaps you can point to that one? No, seriously, you're so off-clue, at this point, I started by disputing the part about, "Where is the evidence they were ordered by Trump? Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power. Nothing unlawful about either." You played a couple word games that might have sounded good to you in the moment, but lack any continuity.

But it's probably not when you said, "Just because Dems have called Trump a 'unindicted co-conspirator' (and that's all they've done) doesn't make him one".

Meanwhile, here's the thing: Of course impeachment is a political process; that's hardly news.

Since when were you talking about the release of the full, unredacted report and not the content of the report itself?

That's your own desperate revision, added in the moment. Going back to the point of contention, this had to do with disrupting witnesses.

No evidence of extortion.

The White House handed out the evidence.

Is saying factual things, like presidents having freedom of speech, are stupid suppose to distract from you offering nothing by way of evidence for your claims? Not working here, as that's more of an ad hominem admission to having nothing.

We've already covered this point: Such as it is, some sentences might be generally correct, but they are not necessarily appropriate to the particular application. Presidents might have their right to free speech, but, like I said, every job comes with obligations toward speech and conduct.

Posturing about who has a clue is not actually making one yourself. Yawn.

Your arguments depend on the merit of pretending your own ignorance. And while it feels good to puff yourself up like you have an actual purpose, the point remains that your arguments depend on a pretense of ignorance.

 

[iceaura]

LOL. In a civilized nation, such an attempt would be hopeless.

It isn't hopeless in the US - it's been effective, including with you. Do you regard yourself as "civilized"?

Of course, I will use established language, to be understood here.

The rhetoric you are using identifies you as a racial bigot, like the others who use such established language in this context. Is that your intention?

And of course, I always follow the Rep line, by definition, no iceaura posting without this claim.

By observation, not definition.
The idea behind it is that repetition of accuracy and truth will partly counter the well-financed repetition of bullshit and falsehood.

You have been unable to quote anything interesting from the report here too. You failed even to interest me (which would have been really simple, but you have not even tried).

You have never read the Mueller report, and you never will. You are not interested in the report, or its contents, and you don't need to know anything about it to post your standard wingnut media feed, so you won't bother informing yourself. But you will continue to post about it.

My major interest in your posting is tracking what the Republican media pros are selling to the hicks these days - your extreme vulnerability to the wingnut media feed, coupled with your willingness to post anything no matter how ridiculous, makes you an ideal source.

Otherwise, there is nothing of interest in your failure to inform yourself about the subject matters of your posts - you are completely and tediously devoted to reposting the US corporate authoritarian media feed on matters of US politics anyway, and all that is long familiar to any US citizen in the dump zone.

By the way, what I think about Trump is quite close to what the Saker thinks about him

It doesn't matter what you think about Trump - you don't know anything about him, and everything you post about him is Republican media feed bs.
Saker, meanwhile, is another of these deep thinkers who regard all Democrats (except Tulsi Gabbard, whom they know little about) as warmongers, Trump as pacific and unlikely to start wars (? where did that idiocy come from?) and the Republican Party as somehow not represented by Trump - he's supposed to be some kind of outlier, different from the rest, not the warmongering thug arm of Exxon et al the rest of Republican Party is and has been for decades.

And while they are overlooking fascism shoved in their face, all these guys think Russia is a major power posing geopolitical "challenges" to the entire West - but not a serious vandalizer of US politics and government. Go figure.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Meanwhile, here's the thing: Of course impeachment is a political process; that's hardly news.

One of the reasons why this impeachment of Trump will probably fail is because of the politicization of what is essentially an criminal indictment process for those in high office ( law makers). IMO
It works to the defendants (Trumps) advantage to ensure that the process is as political as possible thus destroying or diminishing the credibility of any evidence of wrong doing to that of mere political posturing.
If Trump's supporters are allowed to politicize the impeachment process it will most likely fail in the Senate.

Just thoughts...

 

[Schmelzer]

It isn't hopeless in the US - it's been effective, including with you. Do you regard yourself as "civilized"?

Of course. I have explained why such attempts would have been hopeless in a civilized society. Because it would be trivial to counter them, by a few interesting quotes or short descriptions of interesting content. You have not countered them, despite many requests from my side to do so. So blame yourself, not some Rep propagandists coming out of your fantasy.

The rhetoric you are using identifies you as a racial bigot, like the others who use such established language in this context. Is that your intention?

My intention is to be understood by the readers. It is not to meet the various PC criteria. I know that violating PC prescriptions will be used to defame me as something evil, in this case "racial bigot". I don't care, because I can afford it not to care.

The idea behind it is that repetition of accuracy and truth will partly counter the well-financed repetition of bullshit and falsehood.

Except that what you repeat are defamations.

You have never read the Mueller report, and you never will.

Given that it would be a loss of time, once there is nothing interesting for me inside, what would be the point of reading it? Give me some hint, some interesting quote, something in contradiction with what I have said (but, please, accurately what I have said, not some of your regular distortions).

My major interest in your posting is tracking what the Republican media pros are selling to the hicks these days - your extreme vulnerability to the wingnut media feed, coupled with your willingness to post anything no matter how ridiculous, makes you an ideal source.

Do you at least recognize what logically follows from this? Your information "what the Republican media pros are selling" you get from reading my posts. So, your claims that my posts follow "what the Republican media pros are selling" is nothing but a tautology, I could post something no Rep has ever wrote and it would become "what the Republican media pros are selling" anyway.

Saker, meanwhile, is another of these deep thinkers who regard all Democrats (except Tulsi Gabbard, whom they know little about) as warmongers, Trump as pacific and unlikely to start wars (? where did that idiocy come from?) and the Republican Party as somehow not represented by Trump - he's supposed to be some kind of outlier, different from the rest, not the warmongering thug arm of Exxon et al the rest of Republican Party is and has been for decades.

As usual, nothing but namecalling.

And while they are overlooking fascism shoved in their face, all these guys think Russia is a major power posing geopolitical "challenges" to the entire West - but not a serious vandalizer of US politics and government. Go figure.

???? US foreign politics deserves to be vandalized. Instead, the US government is nothing Russia even tries to vandalize. Russia fights for its sovereignty. As long as the US does not try to meddle into Russia's internal affairs (as they do all the time), Russia would not care about the US at all.
Or do you really believe those fairy tales about Russian meddling into the US elections? LOL.

 

[Vociferous]

You need to learn to follow the discussion. Remember, you're inquiring about your own make-believe standard of, "Where is the evidence they were ordered by Trump?" and therein we find the problem: Your make-believe is make-believe; asking questions invested in ignorance does not a reasonable argument make.

Any declaration of executive privilege to be enforced requires the president's say-so; thus, witnesses declaring executive privilege while refusing to discuss with Congress or other federal officials matters and information not covered by executive privilege are either improperly invoking it for themselves, or have been directed to silence by Trump.

So, like I said, "Where is the evidence they were ordered by Trump?" is the wrong question.



No, actually, the problem here is your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range. As with your failure to comprehend the Seventeenth Amendment, the difference between law and law enforcement, or the basics of American history and white supremacism, or the not-so-subtleties of constitutional law,

Your constant failure to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique is its own self-inflicted denigration.



We have the audio of Trump's attorney dangling a pardon. "'Known' is not evidence"? It is known because of the evidence.

See, the thing is that you say these things that might sound perfectly reasonable to you, like, "'Known' is not evidence, as it's become painfully obvious that people will claim knowledge based solely on their own biases", but it doesn't actually apply because it is obsolete: The fact is known because of the evidence.

Perhaps the most fascinating mystery is how in the world someone fronting your attitude can actually be so ignorant about pretty much everything he says.



You really don't know what's going on, do you?

Seriously, you need to learn to follow the discussion. For instance, I said Cobb, but it was, more directly, Dowd; in either case, that took place well before the impeachment inquiry, so saying, "no subpoenas have been issued", in the impeachment inquiry is you flailing and utterly missing again.



Learn to follow the discussion. One of the reasons you are not considered credible, around here, is that you apparently are not able to account for yourself from post to post.

Or perhaps you can point to that one? No, seriously, you're so off-clue, at this point, I started by disputing the part about, "Where is the evidence they were ordered by Trump? Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power. Nothing unlawful about either." You played a couple word games that might have sounded good to you in the moment, but lack any continuity.

But it's probably not when you said, "Just because Dems have called Trump a 'unindicted co-conspirator' (and that's all they've done) doesn't make him one".

Meanwhile, here's the thing: Of course impeachment is a political process; that's hardly news.



That's your own desperate revision, added in the moment. Going back to the point of contention, this had to do with disrupting witnesses.



The White House handed out the evidence.



We've already covered this point: Such as it is, some sentences might be generally correct, but they are not necessarily appropriate to the particular application. Presidents might have their right to free speech, but, like I said, every job comes with obligations toward speech and conduct.



Your arguments depend on the merit of pretending your own ignorance. And while it feels good to puff yourself up like you have an actual purpose, the point remains that your arguments depend on a pretense of ignorance.

Man, you say a lot but it doesn't mean much. Mostly not so thinly veiled ad hominems.
Conflating "ordered by Trump" with executive privilege, when no one argued the two were related is intellectually suspect.
What you imagine the popular election of US senators (17th amendment) has to do with any of this would seem to indicate "your failure to comprehend" "the not-so-subtleties of constitutional law".
Again, what Trump's attorney may do is a guilt by association fallacy without connective evidence.
You saying a Rorschach test is evidence is...well.

 

[Tiassa]

Conflating "ordered by Trump" with executive privilege, when no one argued the two were related is intellectually suspect.

We've already been through this. Learn to follow the discussion.

What you imagine the popular election of US senators (17th amendment) has to do with any of this would seem to indicate "your failure to comprehend" "the not-so-subtleties of constitutional law".

As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance.

For instance, your inability to follow along from post to post results, in some part, from not actually knowing what you're on about, just like when you waxed ignorant about the Seventeenth, or white supremacism, or even the basic difference between law and law enforcement; the problem with your argument is that it's excrement.

 

[Vociferous]

We've already been through this. Learn to follow the discussion.

Arm waving and ad hominems do not justify conflating the two. If that's the best you can do. Meh.

As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance.

For instance, your inability to follow along from post to post results, in some part, from not actually knowing what you're on about, just like when you waxed ignorant about the Seventeenth, or white supremacism, or even the basic difference between law and law enforcement; the problem with your argument is that it's excrement.

Lots of meaningless ad hominems without any justification whatsoever. I assume you think you know what you're on about, but nothing coherent is making its way through.

 

[iceaura]

Mostly not so thinly veiled ad hominems.

Lots of meaningless ad hominems without any justification whatsoever.

For some reason the American right wing cannot use that term accurately - illiterate misuse of that term is a field mark of the American wingnut.
Nobody has explained that, afaik. My own guess is that it spread from the Republican media feeds they rely on for information, which are illiterate by design - one sees a lot of word for word repetition from those sources in general, and the term "ad hominem" seems to be especially attractive. It sounds intellectual or something, maybe.
- - - - - - - -

Or do you really believe those fairy tales about Russian meddling into the US elections?

Mueller documented several in his report, which you have not read. They and others have been discovered and described elsewhere as well, - the well-documented Russian meddling in US elections did not stop after the vote in 2016, and it has turned up in local races as well as national recently.

US foreign politics deserves to be vandalized. Instead, the US government is nothing Russia even tries to vandalize.

Now you are being silly.

Because it would be trivial to counter them, by a few interesting quotes or short descriptions of interesting content. You have not countered them, despite many requests from my side to do so.

Other methods of countering the propaganda techniques you and your kind employ have a better chance of working - repetition of bullshit met with repetition of labeling it bullshit, etc.

And they are less work.

Thing is, you aren't here to learn. You are here to repost US rightwing corporate media feeds, Republican Party propaganda. Propaganda is not countered by argument - that discovery was central to the rise of fascism.

As usual, nothing but namecalling.

An accurate description of one aspect of Saker's intellectual output is "namecalling"?
Who or what did I call names?

Except that what you repeat are defamations.

It's good that you recognize the inevitably defamatory nature of accurate descriptions and true accounts in these matters.

Given that it would be a loss of time, once there is nothing interesting for me inside, what would be the point of reading it?

You would know what it says, before posting about it. Your posts might then be less obviously ignorant - although I tend to think they would not change at all. You have never displayed any interest in knowing what you are talking about, and that is to be expected given your apparent agenda.

I could post something no Rep has ever wrote and it would become "what the Republican media pros are selling" anyway.

Nope. I reality check all the new stuff, and multiply source everything. You are a very good source, and I appreciate the work you save me, but you are far from the only one.

Your information "what the Republican media pros are selling" you get from reading my posts. So, your claims that my posts follow "what the Republican media pros are selling" is nothing but a tautology,

Nope. It's an observation, checked against reality for many months now.
You lack information, again.
In addition to not knowing anything about my sources, not knowing the grounds of my assessment of your posts, not knowing how one recognizes a repost of a wingnut media feed, not knowing how swamped by Republican bullshit an American is, etc,

another thing you don't know this time is that almost all the stuff you post from these professional American sources is years old - even decades - with only minor changes of wording to apply it to recent events. When I talk about what the pros are selling to the hicks, I'm usually talking about what they are drawing from their portfolio now - the contents of the portfolio are on file from past years, already sourced and labeled. They are familiar, there is only one source of them, and I know you don't go back years in archived US media for your rhetoric and issues and arguments. So when one of them suddenly shows up in your posting, same vocabulary, same argument, same errors and falsehoods, same approach - - - -