Two days after President Donald Trump’s impeachment acquittal, … Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland (have been removed from their respective positions) …
Vinland said that he was leaving in July and it's normal for folks to be asked to leave earlier. Besides people serve at the pleasure of the president and why should he leave anyone in place if they don't like him or are working against them?
Same with the woman ambassador that Trump let go. She had been bad mouthing Trump and all those things people say about Trump taking out a hit on her was from a year before he fired her.
up
16 users have voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Not supporting Donnie boy, but it seemed like Vindland was vindictive because Trump disagreed with him on policy.
I would have fired him too and I am pretty forgiving, lol!
Vinland said that he was leaving in July and it's normal for folks to be asked to leave earlier. Besides people serve at the pleasure of the president and why should he leave anyone in place if they don't like him or are working against them?
Same with the woman ambassador that Trump let go. She had been bad mouthing Trump and all those things people say about Trump taking out a hit on her was from a year before he fired her.
up
13 users have voted.
—
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
of Trump’s Zelinsky conversation, he had no basis in law to object to the substance of the conversation, and admitted as much in his testimony. He is not the impartial patriot the MSM has been portraying in their defense of him and his impeachment testimony. He was working against Trump before the impeachment dust up even got off the ground.
The optics of firing him would have been terrible while the impeachment process was under way. So Trump waited, and then asked him to leave early, after Vindman had already given notice.
We may well be on the way to dictatorship, but if so, that process began decades ago with the assassination of JFK, not with the election of Trump.
up
18 users have voted.
—
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
The article I read on HuffPoo tried to make it seem like Trump was acting out of vindictiveness just because he is emboldened by not getting tossed out of office. The media has been going out of its way to create conflict when none is warranted. But of course one site is calling Vindman a national hero cuz he stuck it to the Man.
I would like to know how many of the Ukraine folks worked with Hillary against Trump? He should have cleaned house once he took office, but we know lots of people from both parties stay in government to keep the agendas going forward. Obama never cleaned house either.
of Trump’s Zelinsky conversation, he had no basis in law to object to the substance of the conversation, and admitted as much in his testimony. He is not the impartial patriot the MSM has been portraying in their defense of him and his impeachment testimony. He was working against Trump before the impeachment dust up even got off the ground.
The optics of firing him would have been terrible while the impeachment process was under way. So Trump waited, and then asked him to leave early, after Vindman had already given notice.
We may well be on the way to dictatorship, but if so, that process began decades ago with the assassination of JFK, not with the election of Trump.
up
8 users have voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Even on Duck-Duck-Go you need to scroll down several pages to find any new information or divergence from the “official” narrative that we are supposed to simply accept as fact by acclamation. This divergent viewpoint was at least thought provoking, even though it may not be an unimpeachable source.
The article I read on HuffPoo tried to make it seem like Trump was acting out of vindictiveness just because he is emboldened by not getting tossed out of office. The media has been going out of its way to create conflict when none is warranted. But of course one site is calling Vindman a national hero cuz he stuck it to the Man.
I would like to know how many of the Ukraine folks worked with Hillary against Trump? He should have cleaned house once he took office, but we know lots of people from both parties stay in government to keep the agendas going forward. Obama never cleaned house either.
up
9 users have voted.
—
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
"I know nothing. It's my opinion that Trump did something wrong."
And this is what many of the other witnesses said. It was their opinion that Trump...."
But the Vindman transcript also showed a witness whose testimony was filled with opinion, with impressions, who had little new to offer, who withheld important information from the committee, who was steeped in a bureaucracy that has often been hostile to the president, and whose lawyer, presumably with Vindman's approval, expressed unmistakable disdain, verging on contempt, for members of Congress who asked inconvenient questions.
Every witness I saw told the republican lawyer that it was their opinion that Trump did something. Not many of them were even on the phone call and only heard about it from someone else. This is called hearsay is it not?
Trump had been told that there was a lot of corruption in Ukraine and lots of people from both parties had their hands in the cookie jar and this was what they didn't want Trump looking into.
If the article I read was true ByeDone himself took $900,000 of tax payer money that was supposed to go to the Ukraine people for his lobbying company. Oops.
But yeah if people are against the president they are working for then he has every right to boot them out. But wasn't it interesting that Obama wasn't impeached for refusing to send weapons to Ukraine? Funny how no one talks about that.
Even on Duck-Duck-Go you need to scroll down several pages to find any new information or divergence from the “official” narrative that we are supposed to simply accept as fact by acclamation. This divergent viewpoint was at least thought provoking, even though it may not be an unimpeachable source.
up
11 users have voted.
—
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Language is a difficult thing (see sig) that I deal with daily (see professional résumé). Most individuals I have interacted with, over several decades, were in the process of transforming their weltanschauung, and the choice of words was always critical for their future success.
The term oligarchy (so in vogue in too many venues) is less about communicating understanding and more about branding. If, in the next few months, Trump could be properly labeled a "dictator in waiting" then we could actually start decisive actions to transform our political system. (I am using Kearney NE as a model)
To be clear, trying to attach an arbitrary label is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that our moron in chief is very manipulatable, as are all people of his ilk (please pay attention to what Bernie is doing and stop thinking of him as a schlemiel). If the right stimulus is present, Trump could very well "step in it" in a big way.
The current tragic comedy is that few on the left are working to really transform society. I recommend the Foundation series as a primer for the non-cognoscenti, its not perfect but for a lack of a better tutorial it will have to serve the purpose.
RIP
attendant police state?
After all, it's our government that waterboards people 187 times.
I agree that Trump is a danger. But I don't see how opposing him--or trying to remove him from office--advances the cause of transforming society in a direction I want. Unless you think we can steal anti-Trump rhetoric from the media apparatus and their buddies in the CIA/security state (is there even any distinction between the two anymore, what with John Brennan being a media figure now?) and use it for our own purposes. I'm not sure arm-wrestling them for their terms is going to work out in our favor. I realize I'm not suggesting anything else, which makes my comment less than helpful--but I have to say when I think we're massively outclassed. Their tactic (in: re propaganda) is repetition and melodrama. We can't compete with them on the repetition front. Not in terms of sheer number of repetitions. Apart from anything else, they pay people six or seven figures to repeat their talking points. Most of the people on our side are either doing this for free while trying to earn their living elsewhere or are getting paid...not very much.
Language is a difficult thing (see sig) that I deal with daily (see professional résumé). Most individuals I have interacted with, over several decades, were in the process of transforming their weltanschauung, and the choice of words was always critical for their future success.
The term oligarchy (so in vogue in too many venues) is less about communicating understanding and more about branding. If, in the next few months, Trump could be properly labeled a "dictator in waiting" then we could actually start decisive actions to transform our political system. (I am using Kearney NE as a model)
To be clear, trying to attach an arbitrary label is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that our moron in chief is very manipulatable, as are all people of his ilk (please pay attention to what Bernie is doing and stop thinking of him as a schlemiel). If the right stimulus is present, Trump could very well "step in it" in a big way.
The current tragic comedy is that few on the left are working to really transform society. I recommend the Foundation series as a primer for the non-cognoscenti, its not perfect but for a lack of a better tutorial it will have to serve the purpose.
RIP
up
3 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
… advances the cause of transforming society in a direction I want.
Step one: it is very important that we have a clear case for the fact that the Republican Party, as a well defined organization, has no problem denying the constitution as the foundation of "our republic with socialist characteristics" as @earthling1 put it.
Step two through Step ℵ0: to be added on into the future and beyond.
I agree that Trump is a danger. But I don't see how opposing him--or trying to remove him from office--advances the cause of transforming society in a direction I want. Unless you think we can steal anti-Trump rhetoric from the media apparatus and their buddies in the CIA/security state (is there even any distinction between the two anymore, what with John Brennan being a media figure now?) and use it for our own purposes. I'm not sure arm-wrestling them for their terms is going to work out in our favor. I realize I'm not suggesting anything else, which makes my comment less than helpful--but I have to say when I think we're massively outclassed. Their tactic (in: re propaganda) is repetition and melodrama. We can't compete with them on the repetition front. Not in terms of sheer number of repetitions. Apart from anything else, they pay people six or seven figures to repeat their talking points. Most of the people on our side are either doing this for free while trying to earn their living elsewhere or are getting paid...not very much.
that statement only works for me if one assumes that the Democratic Party *has* a problem with
denying the constitution as the foundation of "our republic with socialist characteristics"
Otherwise, a person wouldn't say
we have a clear case for the fact that the Republican Party, as a well defined organization, has no problem denying the constitution as the foundation of "our republic with socialist characteristics"
but would say
"we have a clear case for the fact that elected officials, most of whom belong to two well-defined parties, have no problem denying the constitution as the foundation of `our republic with socialist characteristics.'"
It's actually remarkable to me how much impact that change makes. The problem goes from being the problem of a powerful political organization gone rogue to being a failure both more individual and more pervasive: at one and the same time, we're talking about the individual failures of elected officials to keep their sworn oaths and thus keep faith with their people and we're also talking about a republic barely alive: if it is alive at all, sustained merely by the lifeline of the memories and mental habits of some of its members.
This may seem unimportant but it seems to me that one scenario suggests one group being assaulted by another; more corrupt and more powerful, yes, but definitely OVER THERE and distinct from us.
Something like this:
And indeed, this is how I felt, politically, in 2002.
Or, if one is more optimistic, it could look like this:
which is basically how I felt, politically, in 2006.
(Excuse me a minute as I wipe my eyes. Damn Peter Jackson anyway.)
In other words, believing that the problem is a distinct, corrupt organization leads to certain kinds of tactics, tactics that are very different from the ones that arise in response to a problem that is pervasive. I believe the problem is pervasive and pre-dates Trump; potentially it even pre-dates W.
… advances the cause of transforming society in a direction I want.
Step one: it is very important that we have a clear case for the fact that the Republican Party, as a well defined organization, has no problem denying the constitution as the foundation of "our republic with socialist characteristics" as @earthling1 put it.
Step two through Step ℵ0: to be added on into the future and beyond.
RIP
up
2 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I think of him as stuck in, or choosing to be stuck in, a system that is rigged against him and his. I cannot see the way he can win this game within that rigged system. If he can, I will be more than happy to take the chance of being tricked again, and give him my full support in the general.
Language is a difficult thing (see sig) that I deal with daily (see professional résumé). Most individuals I have interacted with, over several decades, were in the process of transforming their weltanschauung, and the choice of words was always critical for their future success.
The term oligarchy (so in vogue in too many venues) is less about communicating understanding and more about branding. If, in the next few months, Trump could be properly labeled a "dictator in waiting" then we could actually start decisive actions to transform our political system. (I am using Kearney NE as a model)
To be clear, trying to attach an arbitrary label is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that our moron in chief is very manipulatable, as are all people of his ilk (please pay attention to what Bernie is doing and stop thinking of him as a schlemiel). If the right stimulus is present, Trump could very well "step in it" in a big way.
The current tragic comedy is that few on the left are working to really transform society. I recommend the Foundation series as a primer for the non-cognoscenti, its not perfect but for a lack of a better tutorial it will have to serve the purpose.
RIP
up
3 users have voted.
—
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I think of him as stuck in, or choosing to be stuck in, a system that is rigged against him and his. I cannot see the way he can win this game within that rigged system. If he can, I will be more than happy to take the chance of being tricked again, and give him my full support in the general.
Comments
Not in my opinion
Vinland said that he was leaving in July and it's normal for folks to be asked to leave earlier. Besides people serve at the pleasure of the president and why should he leave anyone in place if they don't like him or are working against them?
Same with the woman ambassador that Trump let go. She had been bad mouthing Trump and all those things people say about Trump taking out a hit on her was from a year before he fired her.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
@snoopydawg I agree.
I agree.
Not supporting Donnie boy, but it seemed like Vindland was vindictive because Trump disagreed with him on policy.
I would have fired him too and I am pretty forgiving, lol!
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
If he had been an enlisted
he would have been demoted for not following the chain of command as he admitted to.
Snoops also right about "Pleasure of the president".
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
Vindman disagreed with the policy implications
of Trump’s Zelinsky conversation, he had no basis in law to object to the substance of the conversation, and admitted as much in his testimony. He is not the impartial patriot the MSM has been portraying in their defense of him and his impeachment testimony. He was working against Trump before the impeachment dust up even got off the ground.
The optics of firing him would have been terrible while the impeachment process was under way. So Trump waited, and then asked him to leave early, after Vindman had already given notice.
We may well be on the way to dictatorship, but if so, that process began decades ago with the assassination of JFK, not with the election of Trump.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Have you seen how the media is reporting this?
The article I read on HuffPoo tried to make it seem like Trump was acting out of vindictiveness just because he is emboldened by not getting tossed out of office. The media has been going out of its way to create conflict when none is warranted. But of course one site is calling Vindman a national hero cuz he stuck it to the Man.
I would like to know how many of the Ukraine folks worked with Hillary against Trump? He should have cleaned house once he took office, but we know lots of people from both parties stay in government to keep the agendas going forward. Obama never cleaned house either.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Yes, I did.
Even on Duck-Duck-Go you need to scroll down several pages to find any new information or divergence from the “official” narrative that we are supposed to simply accept as fact by acclamation. This divergent viewpoint was at least thought provoking, even though it may not be an unimpeachable source.
“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Sgt. Schultz Vindman
"I know nothing. It's my opinion that Trump did something wrong."
And this is what many of the other witnesses said. It was their opinion that Trump...."
Every witness I saw told the republican lawyer that it was their opinion that Trump did something. Not many of them were even on the phone call and only heard about it from someone else. This is called hearsay is it not?
Trump had been told that there was a lot of corruption in Ukraine and lots of people from both parties had their hands in the cookie jar and this was what they didn't want Trump looking into.
If the article I read was true ByeDone himself took $900,000 of tax payer money that was supposed to go to the Ukraine people for his lobbying company. Oops.
But yeah if people are against the president they are working for then he has every right to boot them out. But wasn't it interesting that Obama wasn't impeached for refusing to send weapons to Ukraine? Funny how no one talks about that.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Is a dictatorship worse than an oligarchy with an
attendant police state?
After all, it's our government that waterboards people 187 times.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A dictatorship is better than an oligarchy.
Language is a difficult thing (see sig) that I deal with daily (see professional résumé). Most individuals I have interacted with, over several decades, were in the process of transforming their weltanschauung, and the choice of words was always critical for their future success.
The term oligarchy (so in vogue in too many venues) is less about communicating understanding and more about branding. If, in the next few months, Trump could be properly labeled a "dictator in waiting" then we could actually start decisive actions to transform our political system. (I am using Kearney NE as a model)
To be clear, trying to attach an arbitrary label is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that our moron in chief is very manipulatable, as are all people of his ilk (please pay attention to what Bernie is doing and stop thinking of him as a schlemiel). If the right stimulus is present, Trump could very well "step in it" in a big way.
The current tragic comedy is that few on the left are working to really transform society. I recommend the Foundation series as a primer for the non-cognoscenti, its not perfect but for a lack of a better tutorial it will have to serve the purpose.
RIP
Thank you for an honest and thoughtful response.
I agree that Trump is a danger. But I don't see how opposing him--or trying to remove him from office--advances the cause of transforming society in a direction I want. Unless you think we can steal anti-Trump rhetoric from the media apparatus and their buddies in the CIA/security state (is there even any distinction between the two anymore, what with John Brennan being a media figure now?) and use it for our own purposes. I'm not sure arm-wrestling them for their terms is going to work out in our favor. I realize I'm not suggesting anything else, which makes my comment less than helpful--but I have to say when I think we're massively outclassed. Their tactic (in: re propaganda) is repetition and melodrama. We can't compete with them on the repetition front. Not in terms of sheer number of repetitions. Apart from anything else, they pay people six or seven figures to repeat their talking points. Most of the people on our side are either doing this for free while trying to earn their living elsewhere or are getting paid...not very much.
If I'm misunderstanding you, please let me know.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
So Many Steps
Step one: it is very important that we have a clear case for the fact that the Republican Party, as a well defined organization, has no problem denying the constitution as the foundation of "our republic with socialist characteristics" as @earthling1 put it.
Step two through Step ℵ0: to be added on into the future and beyond.
RIP
Sorry, but
that statement only works for me if one assumes that the Democratic Party *has* a problem with
denying the constitution as the foundation of "our republic with socialist characteristics"
Otherwise, a person wouldn't say
we have a clear case for the fact that the Republican Party, as a well defined organization, has no problem denying the constitution as the foundation of "our republic with socialist characteristics"
but would say
"we have a clear case for the fact that elected officials, most of whom belong to two well-defined parties, have no problem denying the constitution as the foundation of `our republic with socialist characteristics.'"
It's actually remarkable to me how much impact that change makes. The problem goes from being the problem of a powerful political organization gone rogue to being a failure both more individual and more pervasive: at one and the same time, we're talking about the individual failures of elected officials to keep their sworn oaths and thus keep faith with their people and we're also talking about a republic barely alive: if it is alive at all, sustained merely by the lifeline of the memories and mental habits of some of its members.
This may seem unimportant but it seems to me that one scenario suggests one group being assaulted by another; more corrupt and more powerful, yes, but definitely OVER THERE and distinct from us.
Something like this:
And indeed, this is how I felt, politically, in 2002.
Or, if one is more optimistic, it could look like this:
which is basically how I felt, politically, in 2006.
(Excuse me a minute as I wipe my eyes. Damn Peter Jackson anyway.)
In other words, believing that the problem is a distinct, corrupt organization leads to certain kinds of tactics, tactics that are very different from the ones that arise in response to a problem that is pervasive. I believe the problem is pervasive and pre-dates Trump; potentially it even pre-dates W.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
As for Bernie, I don't think of him as a hapless klutz.
I think of him as stuck in, or choosing to be stuck in, a system that is rigged against him and his. I cannot see the way he can win this game within that rigged system. If he can, I will be more than happy to take the chance of being tricked again, and give him my full support in the general.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I was stuck in,
and chose to stay in, a system rigged against me, and mine. We won the game and transformed the system.
Bernie may or may not have the skill, support, and luck I had … only time will tell.
And, as we say, your mileage may vary.
RIP