Trump attacks impeachment witness on Twitter, Democrats see intimidation

[Tippaporn]

33 minutes ago, sfokevin said:

Everyone need to at least watch this C-Span clip

 

 

So, everyone is set for the talking points provided by the commentator?

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

"Democrats see intimidation."

 

Who in their right mind can interpret Trump's tweet as intimidation?

 

A few synonyms:

 

• coercion
• frightening
• browbeating
• cowing
• daunting
• demoralizing
• scare tactics
• terrorizing
• threatening

What language in that tweet suggests any of the above?

 

None.

 

Just another instance where Democrats expose themselves for the lying, fake people that they are.

You can pull as many synonyms out of your butt as your search engine permits but you unsurprisingly fail to consider the TIMING of his Twitter rant when it comes to POSSIBLE intimidation.

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Intimidating how so, bristolboy?  There are other adjectives that would be appropriate but intimidating?  That adjective doesn't fit.  Not in the slightest.  But libs just don't care about truth.  They distort reality and the truth.

 

Try this:  define the word and then apply it to Trump's tweet and show where it's applicable.   You won't do this because you can't.  And you know it.  So your only option for actual, substantive debate is to spout nonsense.  No different than Chomper.  When challenged he gave it up.

 

Really? In the business world if your boss tweets something nasty about you, in response to some thing you are doing, that wouldn't be intimidating? There's really no way of conversing with someone like yourself who insists black is white.

[bendejo]

2 hours ago, PAWNEESE said:

I stayed up late watching the impeachment hearing about the sacking of the American ambasador to Ukraine.

Keep an eye on the blonde guy who is always in shirt sleeves, he's one of the grand buffoons.

He keeps saying nothing wrong was said in the phone call, and is constantly attacking the proceeding itself, but sometimes he'll say DT was baiting Zelensky with a corrupt offer to see he if Z was corrupt.  Oh, so DT did make a corrupt proposal?

 

For some strange reason the GOP has no witnesses to counter what is being said.  Why is that?  And no one can say they are being prohibited from bringing them in.

And every day DT produces another charge against himself, just like Stone did.

 

 

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

While Sonderland waits his turn he can ponder the fact that a witness to his call with Trump has already given his sworn testimony to Congress and named two other witnesses into the bargain.

 

Sonderland has no wiggle room left.

 

He might throw a glance at Stone if he wishes to consider gaming it.

Gordon has what, 3 days to restate and reissue his previous testimony? That's still some kinda wiggle room, no?

[Becker]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A key factor in this group changing their minds was the horrible tweet by the current president. (Does he want to be impeached?)

That's a distinct possibility:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/15/opinions/trump-yovanovitch-tweet-heye/index.html

 

"Trump's tweet also stepped on the GOP's prime directive: Don't attack Yovanovitch; she's credible and has a sterling reputation.

Having to talk about a presidential attack that occurred during the hearing, and to disagree with it, just wasn't part of the House GOP's game plan. But it might have been a part of Trump's.

If you accept the possibility that Trump might secretly want to be impeached -- because it could convince his base of Trump's argument that the Democrats and the "deep state" were always out to get him -- and that he will portray anything short of a Senate conviction as complete exoneration (as he did following the Mueller Report), then the tweet should almost have been anticipated."

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

What a bunch of opinionated tripe.  Not a shred of truth in what you wrote.  Pure biased opinion.

Well, you started it.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

You can pull as many synonyms out of your butt as your search engine permits but you unsurprisingly fail to consider the TIMING of his Twitter rant when it comes to POSSIBLE intimidation.

Another lib who refuses to show the language of Trump's tweet as fitting of intimidation.  They've been told it's intimidation so therefore for them it is.  They don't need to think about it for themselves.

 

I'm unfazed by the timing or the tweet.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Another lib who refuses to show the language of Trump's tweet as fitting of intimidation.  They've been told it's intimidation so therefore for them it is.  They don't need to think about it for themselves.

 

I'm unfazed by the timing or the tweet.

Because it was just a coincidence? An odd one considering that Trump claims he isn't following the hearings.

[Becker]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Another lib who refuses to show the language of Trump's tweet as fitting of intimidation.  They've been told it's intimidation so therefore for them it is.  They don't need to think about it for themselves.

 

I'm unfazed by the timing or the tweet.

What a complete and utter shocker!!

 

PS. Just out of curiosity is there anything Trump has said or done over the last three years that has fazed you?

Edited November 16, 2019 by Becker

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, meechai said:

That aside....How does what your pointing out change the right of Trump or anyone else to have a different opinion of her? These are fundamental rights we all have yes?

 

I agree with what Tippaporn is saying & the "snowflake" nick name is well earned by this party (just my opinion)

It's more about the timing and manner of DJT's specifically personal take-down of a key impeachment witness.

 

No matter, most non-snowflakes appear blind to the importance of context.

[bristolboy]

Just now, NanLaew said:

It's more about the timing and manner of DJT's specifically personal take-down of a key impeachment witness.

 

No matter, most non-snowflakes appear blind to the importance of context.

As does the biggest snowflake of them all: Donald Trump.

[Tippaporn]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Really? In the business world if your boss tweets something nasty about you, in response to some thing you are doing, that wouldn't be intimidating? There's really no way of conversing with someone like yourself who insists black is white.

intimidate

verb [ T ]

UK  /ɪnˈtɪm.ɪ.deɪt/ US  /ɪnˈtɪm.ə.deɪt/

 

to frighten or threaten someone, usually in order to persuade them to do something that you want them to do:

They were intimidated into accepting a pay cut by the threat of losing their jobs.

 

The definition of the word doesn't fit.  Even in your example (and no, I wouldn't feel intimidated).  You can misuse the word as much as you like.

 

Intimidation is meant to frighten, threaten, or persuade.  If that was the purpose of Trump's tweet, the fact that Trump tweeted his criticism of her during her testimony, when she could not be aware of his tweet, then given the timeline of events his tweet couldn't be effective.  The "timing" theory being pushed now is bunk.

 

So again, this entire narrative is just more "scandal" created out of thin air by desperate libs.

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Tippaporn

[TopDeadSenter]

11 minutes ago, bendejo said:

For some strange reason the GOP has no witnesses to counter what is being said.

Because it is a sham trial. None of the vital witnesses the Republicans needed were allowed to appear by Schiff. Had it been an honest and fair trial, we would have the CIA deep state activist/whistleblower, and both Bidens as witnesses to clear up what the heck was going on, the timelines involved, when Schiff was involved, and why Joe bragged about withholding a billion dollars in aid to the Ukraine unless some prosecutor was fired(bribery).

 But then there is nothing fair and honest about this coup attempt by bitter losers that can't run a fair election campaign and resort to these dirty tricks.

[NanLaew]

13 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

25 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

You can pull as many synonyms out of your butt as your search engine permits but you unsurprisingly fail to consider the TIMING of his Twitter rant when it comes to POSSIBLE intimidation.

Another lib who refuses to show the language of Trump's tweet as fitting of intimidation.  They've been told it's intimidation so therefore for them it is.  They don't need to think about it for themselves.

 

I'm unfazed by the timing or the tweet.

I have REPEATEDLY said it's not about what DJT Tweeted or how he said it so why am I NOT surprised that you see the timing as irrelevant?

 

You probably will have an "alternative fact" opinion on why the following happened:

 

14 minutes ago, Becker said:

"Trump's tweet also stepped on the GOP's prime directive: Don't attack Yovanovitch; she's credible and has a sterling reputation.

 

PS: I'm not a 'lib' however much you want me to be.

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Because it is a sham trial. None of the vital witnesses the Republicans needed were allowed to appear by Schiff. Had it been an honest and fair trial, we would have the CIA deep state activist/whistleblower, and both Bidens as witnesses to clear up what the heck was going on, the timelines involved, when Schiff was involved, and why Joe bragged about withholding a billion dollars in aid to the Ukraine unless some prosecutor was fired(bribery).

 But then there is nothing fair and honest about this coup attempt by bitter losers that can't run a fair election campaign and resort to these dirty tricks.

Those vital witnesses were blocked by the WH to testify. 

[EurasianDude]

Quote

As far as I know she wasn't aware of the tweet until it was read to her today.

Why would this matter?

 

Is it okay to slander someone if they don't know about it?

 

The post quoted above is emblematic of the current state of decline in the US. Does it contribute to a discussion? No. Does it contribute to a point/position? No. does it advance a point of view? No. Does it elevate the discussion in any way? No. was it helpful in any way, shape or form? No.

 

It is a knee-jerk reaction to an indefensible action.

 

It is the equivalent of a school-yard chant of "Neener Neener".

 

It epitomizes the dearth of intellect prevalent in the US political discourse.

 

It is textbook Trumpism; it says nothing while insulting a person. It is a by-product of a movement based on nothing but grievance-spewing and childish rants, concerned only with trying to defend their side sans intellect, morals, or empathy. It demonstrates the emptiness of Trumpism, an "ideology" that is meaningless save for the idea that 'I hate my perceived opponents'.

 

It is terribly sad to see what the US has become.

 

The sadder part is that one really has to wonder if the US can ever recover.

How about you tell that to the democrats and the biased media. I like how the media has been bashing Trump since he got elected but the moment he says something like this y'all just criticize him. Ironic, really.

[Becker]

11 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Because it is a sham trial. None of the vital witnesses the Republicans needed were allowed to appear by Schiff. Had it been an honest and fair trial, we would have the CIA deep state activist/whistleblower, and both Bidens as witnesses to clear up what the heck was going on, the timelines involved, when Schiff was involved, and why Joe bragged about withholding a billion dollars in aid to the Ukraine unless some prosecutor was fired(bribery).

 But then there is nothing fair and honest about this coup attempt by bitter losers that can't run a fair election campaign and resort to these dirty tricks.

How amusing it is to see base Trump supporters babble on about "deep state" and not realize it makes them look totally ridiculous!

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, EurasianDude said:

How about you tell that to the democrats and the biased media. I like how the media has been bashing Trump since he got elected but the moment he says something like this y'all just criticize him. Ironic, really.

He still has Fox, Tucker and Hannity and all those conspiracy theorists to cheer him on. So kind of balance up. 

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I have REPEATEDLY said it's not about what DJT Tweeted or how he said it so why am I NOT surprised that you see the timing as irrelevant?

 

You probably will have an "alternative fact" opinion on why the following happened:

 

 

PS: I'm not a 'lib' however much you want me to be.

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

<snip>

 

Intimidation is meant to frighten, threaten, or persuade.  If that was the purpose of Trump's tweet, the fact that Trump tweeted his criticism of her during her testimony, when she could not be aware of his tweet, then given the timeline of events his tweet couldn't be effective.  The "timing" theory being pushed now is bunk.

 

So again, this entire narrative is just more "scandal" created out of thin air by desperate libs.

 

The timing is irrelevant.  If you use logic.

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Those vital witnesses were blocked by the WH to testify. 

You're deliberately spinning the facts.  You know damn well that the Republicans submitted their list of witnesses and Schiff refused them.  But don't let me stop you from lying.

[sfokevin]

51 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

So, everyone is set for the talking points provided by the commentator?

So everyone sees a brave public servant do her duty put here hand on a Bible tell the truth and get a standing ovation...

Edited November 16, 2019 by sfokevin

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, sfokevin said:

 

 

There is only one thing worse than being smeared by Donald Trump, and that is being praised by him!

It has been said and proven true over and over > Everything that Trump touches, dies...

Those defending his vile and criminal behavior in order to get favored for a lucrative job, will eventually find out that their brown-nosing has destroyed both their careers and their reputation.

Imagine after the inevitable down-fall of the Don, that his defenders ever have to make a public appearance > finished before even starting...

 

[JHolmesJr]

Opposition lawyers discredit hostile witnesses all the time.

Trump just pointed out her unimpressive record...how's this intimidation?

If anything it should cause her to be more determined to get him.

 

 

[NanLaew]

38 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Because it is a sham trial. None of the vital witnesses the Republicans needed were allowed to appear by Schiff. Had it been an honest and fair trial, we would have the CIA deep state activist/whistleblower, and both Bidens as witnesses to clear up what the heck was going on, the timelines involved, when Schiff was involved, and why Joe bragged about withholding a billion dollars in aid to the Ukraine unless some prosecutor was fired(bribery).

 But then there is nothing fair and honest about this coup attempt by bitter losers that can't run a fair election campaign and resort to these dirty tricks.

But despite the tape loop in your and Jim Jordan's head, it is NOT A TRIAL and this is NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE about the whistleblower or the Bidens.

 

The White House has simply prohibited several key witnesses from the administration from answering any subpoenas and it is not because anyone thinks it's a sham or a 'witch hunt.'

 

When a person starts lying, they have to keep lying and eventually they will be undone by their own lies. When you have a whole house full of people being basically paid-to-lie, then it is truly only a matter of time before someone slips up and steps on their own, overly-long necktie.

 

...unless you prohibit them all from speaking publicly that is. I bet that right now, Stephen Miller is locked up somewhere, wearing one of those special Hannibal Lechter suits with Mulvaney tasked with watching him under DJT's 'this could happen to you' admonishment.

Edited November 16, 2019 by NanLaew

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

You're deliberately spinning the facts.  You know damn well that the Republicans submitted their list of witnesses and Schiff refused them.  But don't let me stop you from lying.

Im sure if they produce a list of witnesses that would actually be relevant to the hearing, like bolton, mulvaney, giuliano, or trump himself they would be allowed as they are in fact relevant.

[roobaa01]

the president can fire and hire at his will. freedom of speech giving his own opinion, smalwell got it already wrong with the word extortion.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Sujo]

I noted even all the repubs said she was a wonderful ambassador, a credit.  At the same time trump tweeting she was not.

 

So for all this wonderful stuff the repubs have no issue with her firing, for nothing.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Sujo said:

I noted even all the repubs said she was a wonderful ambassador, a credit.  At the same time trump tweeting she was not.

 

So for all this wonderful stuff the repubs have no issue with her firing, for nothing.

Yes a way I've heard it up is that of course any president has the full right to dismiss any ambassador for any reason she likes EXCEPT if the reasons are for CORRUPT purposes. Her testimony and that of others strongly points to the conclusion that this amazing public servant was indeed dismissed for CORRUPT purposes. Really, 45 deserves to be impeached more than any president in history. People like him are what impeachment is for. If he isn't impeached may as well change the constitution and kill that power.

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Im sure if they produce a list of witnesses that would actually be relevant to the hearing, like bolton, mulvaney, giuliano, or trump himself they would be allowed as they are in fact relevant.

Points to the "unfairness" claim the Republicans have rebelled against.  Only Schiff, a guy who hates Trump perhaps more than anyone, gets to decide who is and who is not relevant.  Kind of one-sided, isn't it?  But I know that it's perfectly fair in your eyes as you agree with Schiff's opinion as to what constitutes relevancy.

 

Explain why only one side gets to decide relevancy and how that can possibly be fair.  You won't though, because you'd be led to understand that it is not fair.

 

To slightly rephrase an Upton Sinclair quote:  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary bias and political leanings depends upon his not understanding it."