i mean, i'm fully aware that i'm talking to a fact denying cultist here, but what exactly is 'pretentious' about acknowledging that impeachment should be about the truth, and not blind party allegiance?

also, why did you dodge my question about sondland and vindman's brother? have don jr. and fox news not offered a spin for that yet?

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=82516617&f=119&p=554736310#p554736310
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=82516617&f=119&p=554741713#p554741713




Just because I dont respond to every aspect of your posts doesnt mean that I "dodged" you, it just means that I didnt have the time or motivation to respond to this particular point.
You're a toxic, angry little fellow, discussions with you tend to be of low productivity and to feel like I'm the defendant during the Spanish Inquisition. So sometimes, I'm just not in the mood to respond to every point you're making.


That being said, I'm not a huge fan of firing Vindman's brother. Trump certainly has the right to fire him for whatever reason he likes since the brother also held an assignment post serving at Trump's sole discretion. And I understand why Trump doesnt want to trust the brother anymore after Vindman turned on him. But yeah, not a huge fan of this decision. I guess the reality is simply that "guilty by association" is frowned upon for good reason, but that it's at the same time an unrealistic standard and that there are situations where it would be gullible to not expect family members to stick together or share crucial info with each other.

Sondland's firing is perfectly justified. Abused his president's trust, and on top of that, he has displayed large amounts of incompetence and irresponsibility during his testimony, which he turned into a clown show. If I were in Trump's shoes, I definitely wouldnt consider Sondland to be a trustworthy representative of my administration anymore.

*UCMJ Article 90 has entered the chat*

I was rather thinking of article 91, but ok.

Also, as I pointed out earlier, Vindman didnt get fired from his actual job, which is with the Pentagon. He got removed from the discretionary position he was assigned to.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 8 2020 02:06pm

The State Depts. ONLY job is to implement the President's foreign policy. They are NOT supposed to listen to the POTUS and then do w/e THEY think is right or smart, etc.
Having a State Dept. that doesn't EXCATLY implement the foreign policy of the POTUS is a direct short cut to international disaster and possibly WW III.

The State Dept. we have at present is like a hammer with a crooked handle that LOOKS straight. The POTUS swings at where he sees th nail, but the hammer hits w/e it wants besides the nail. Not a good way to run international politics.



IF the State Dept. HAD done EXACTLY what they were told to do by the POTUS, then, the impeachment might have succeeded. They should have FOLLOWED ORDERS like they were hired to do. EXACTLY. THEN if it was wrong, they could have pinned it on the POTUS. Instead we have a situation where they did w/e they wanted, then tried to pin it on the POTUS.
SO.... during their testimonies, all they could really say is... well, we did what we "assumed" the POTUS wanted, but with our oversight. Oversight responsibilities they do not have.



1st thing you learn in a govt. job... do EXACTLY what you are told, and if you think it's wrong... THEN complain about it, AFTER you have done what you were told. You have NO case for censure or even impeachment, if you have to admit you didn't do what you were ordered to do.



/e It LOOKS like a case of article 91, but it's actually an article 90 issue. But, I'm sure they will tack on article 91 as well.

This post was edited by Ghot on Feb 8 2020 02:09pm

he can be in the special liasion (consisting of only him) to stand solitary watch over an abandoned base in the pacific to guard against any potential attacks from China for his next assignment

or he gets assigned to the Deadhorse airport near Prudhoe Bay.

so basically just your 'feeling' how evil mitt treated poor baby donny unfairly, got it. sorry, but in the real world people consider principled decisions (which were always going to result in character assassination attempts by trump and his cultists, like you have illustrated so perfectly here) commendable, and don't immediately resort to moronic narratives like 'he just hates him and doesn't care about the substance at all'. guess what, for all his flaws and terrible political positions, there is one thing you can not say about romney: that he doesn't have at least some level of integrity - unlike almost the entire rest of the party. there are others who publicly admitted that trump's call was quite the opposite of perfect, in case you didn't know - but they did not reflect that in their vote.

don't tell me you consider the likes of susan collins, who, at the same time trump was doubling down on not having done anything wrong, and exacting revenge on his own henchmen and innocent bystanders, pretended there was a chance he learned from this not to abuse his powers for his own personal and political benefit again (hilarious!), a more principled person? or lindsey graham, who did a complete 180 on his preachings about moral integrity and valid reasons to remove a president from office, compared to his clinton impeachment sermons? or mitch mcconnell, who publicly announced to violate his oaths of office and impartiality, and coordinate with the president to get him acquitted? i don't see you criticise any of them, no, you're triggered by the one person who had the audacity to go against your cult leader.



again, you're moving the goal post to 'he has the right to', which i never questioned - what i'm saying is that he is quite obviously exacting petty revenge, and not 'removing incompetent / untrustworthy actors for the benefit of the nation' or whatever the current propaganda spin of it is.
that's the reason why you dodged it, because it disproves that flimsy excuse.

regarding sondland, the dude literally gave a million dollars to trump, and coordinated the whole shady ukraine operation for him, despite being ambassador to the EU. how is that 'abusing his trust'?! telling the truth under oath is not 'irresponsible' - you people are quite literally insane. brownshirts gonna brownshirt i guess...

This post was edited by fender on Feb 8 2020 02:19pm

I actually know people that were stationed at both places. From THEIR recounting, the "tiny island in the middle of the Pacific is... worse.
Btw, that island's name would be French Frigate Shoals.

It's about 1.7 miles long and somewhere around 100-200 yards wide. Every time there's a storm in the Pacific, FFS gets 100% flooded, as in sitting in rafts, waiting for the water level to drop.
It's kind of prophetic that the initials for French Frigate Shoals, are the same initials used for: "for fucks sake"




/e French Frigate Shoals... that rectangular looking thing is the runway.
















This post was edited by Ghot on Feb 8 2020 02:32pm

as if we needed any more proof of that deep down you're well aware that this is clearly just petty revenge, you keep harping on about this technicality in order to downplay your cult leader's petty actions...