Colonel Vindman Tells Ukraine to Ignore Requests From His Boss President Trump.

a reply to: Grambler

When all the intelligence agencies in the western world all agree that Ukraine interfere with the 2016 elections then we will talk okay?
Until then... well you know.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

An opinion piece has nothing but opinions. You cant insure any source. You cannot check any source.
It is not a source for anythig but what one person thinks. Its not news, its not journalism.
Its anecdotal rhetoric.

First, if an opinion piece quotes someone, that quote can be looked at as legitimate, not the authors opinion on if that quote happened.

Secondly,. show me where either article I linked is an opinion piece?

I let it slide because I wanted to see how many people would pick up on this stupid talking point, and sure enough we caught ourselves a fish

Show me where the first article I posted, is an opinion piece.

www.ft.com...

Show me where the second article I posted, from Politico, is opinion.

www.politico.com...

So now that you know they are not opinion, what is your excuse as to why we should disregard them?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen

ALSO:

No wonder Adam Schiff wouldn't let Republicans have personal copies of any Witness transcripts.

He DOCTORED THEM, according to President Trump.

Source: twitter.com...

That sounds like an admission of guilt, on Trump's part.

He can't argue against the substance of the sworn testimony in the transcripts, so he claims that someone aftered their words to make him look guilty of wrong doing.

Not only that, as we’ve seen time after time here and specifically in this thread Trump apologists misrepresent, misquote, and sometimes post outright deceptions ... and think they’re fooling anyone.

It’s crazy.

a reply to: Grambler

PM for you, Grambler.

Cheers

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I think I’ll take the word of a decorated Armed Services member who has been wounded in the service of our country over the cowardly whimpering of a blogger.

Really? What an a$$hole.

a reply to: Sillyolme

That’s funny...

There is NOTHING political they believe that does not come from conspiracy sites and fake news sources..

Nothing...

Anything from a news site that holds their reporters accountable for fake stories is “fake news”, but any BS conservative conspiracy site is the gospel..

Forget the fact that none of the articles from the conservative conspiracy sites ever manifest.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

So your source to counter an acknowledged expert in foreign policy particularly in regard to Ukraine is to quote an opinion article from Financial Times?

LOL.

Your own source states clearly that any actions by Ukraine would have only had a “small effect” on the election, but hey, that’s just another opinion from an opinion article.

Why don’t you tell us the specific actions taken by Mr. Leshchenko to “interfere” in our election?

What are those actions, because we sure as heck know what the Russians did.

You lied again.

This was not an opinion article from the finacial times.

It is evident from your posts on this thread you either havent read the majority of the links people have posted, or you are intentionally lying

Either way, it is pathetic.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

An opinion piece has nothing but opinions. You cant insure any source. You cannot check any source.
It is not a source for anythig but what one person thinks. Its not news, its not journalism.
Its anecdotal rhetoric.

First, if an opinion piece quotes someone, that quote can be looked at as legitimate, not the authors opinion on if that quote happened.

Secondly,. show me where either article I linked is an opinion piece?

I let it slide because I wanted to see how many people would pick up on this stupid talking point, and sure enough we caught ourselves a fish

Show me where the first article I posted, is an opinion piece.

www.ft.com...

Show me where the second article I posted, from Politico, is opinion.

www.politico.com...

So now that you know they are not opinion, what is your excuse as to why we should disregard them?

Wow, you really can’t tell the difference between Opinion and Fact can you?

Now you want a big red header at the top that says “OPINION”?

Let’s see so far you’ve claimed that Vindman said something he didn’t say, repeated that untruth multiple times, then you claim that your article proves that Ukraine interfered in the election, but then Mr. Trump says that Manafort’s departure really didn't’ affect his Campaign at all...

And now you want to complain that we’ve called you out for it?????

Pffft.

a reply to: StevenCrowley06

Please show me proof that the financial times or politico are fake right wing news sources.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

So your source to counter an acknowledged expert in foreign policy particularly in regard to Ukraine is to quote an opinion article from Financial Times?

LOL.

Your own source states clearly that any actions by Ukraine would have only had a “small effect” on the election, but hey, that’s just another opinion from an opinion article.

Why don’t you tell us the specific actions taken by Mr. Leshchenko to “interfere” in our election?

What are those actions, because we sure as heck know what the Russians did.

You lied again.

This was not an opinion article from the finacial times.

It is evident from your posts on this thread you either havent read the majority of the links people have posted, or you are intentionally lying

Either way, it is pathetic.

Yep, typical argumentation pattern for you.

When you’re shown to have misrepresented your sources, you claim the other person is lying.

When you don’t get someone to agree with your fallacious interpretations of the sources you do have, well then they didn’t read them.

If you are serious about political discussions, stop with the Ad Hominem. That’s all you’ve got. You lose on facts, you lose on validity of your sources, you lose logically, so all you’re left with is to attack the other poster.

As you do OVER AND OVER AND OVER here.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: StevenCrowley06

Please show me proof that the financial times or politico are fake right wing news sources.

I wouldnt bother with arguing with folks that are not going to stop telling mistrustful information.

Some of the ones you argue with left ATS for 3 years and just so happened to come back for another presidential election.....

Lolz🤪

a reply to: Gryphon66

Youre a liar.

These werent opinion articles. And they directly quoted at least one ukrainain official admitting to interfering in the election to help hillary.

And I posted exactly what Vindman said, and showed how that was undermining trump.

Your interpretation that someon can tell another country to not act on a request from the president, but then say its cool because they didnt feel that was disobeying the president is ludicrous.

Its be like saying "Yes, I told those people to rob a bank. But oh its cool, because I didnt tell them to break the law"

Oh well case closed! He said he didnt tell them to break the law, and therefore pointing out he told them to rob a bank is dishonest!

a reply to: Scepticaldem
they will run off again when trump is re elected
"breaks" or some such nonsense

dish it out but cant take it is what my grandpappy called it

a reply to: Gryphon66

You started this thread calling people dishonest, now you claim these are ad homs?

The articles I posted werent opinion pieces, you falsely claimed that because you dont want to admit the truth that ukraine did interfere in the election, and Vindman was wrong.

You have no reason to say financial times or politico are not valid sources, especially when they are quoting the ukrainian politician admitting he interfered.

The fact you think just declaring something an opinion means you win an argument is laughable, especially when every single person can look up the article and see you lied, it is not an opinion piece.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What are those actions, because we sure as heck know what the Russians did.

Yeah, those evil Russians, posting a few Facebook ads...

Off with their heads!

a reply to: Grambler

Calling a post or a claim dishonest is not as hom. Using stupid insults as you do is. (That's ad hom.)

They absolutely were opinion pieces. Here's you tell: Opinion is summations and paraphrases and facts are quotes, times dates places, primary sources etc.

For example right now I'm giving my OPINION of your posts not of YOU

You on the other hand routinely talk about other posters rather than what they POST.

As you do here. That's a fail in debate.

Uh Oh... Someone one has blown the whistle on whistleblower Ciaramella!

ICIG complaint alleges Trump-Ukraine whistleblower may be soliciting illicit donations

EXCLUSIVE: A newly filed complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) alleges that the whistleblower whose allegations touched off House Democrats' impeachment inquiry may have violated federal law by indirectly soliciting more than a quarter-million dollars from mostly anonymous sources via a GoFundMe page.

The complaint, which was filed last week and obtained by Fox News, alleged the donations from roughly 6,000 individuals "clearly constitute" gifts to a current intelligence official that may be restricted because of the employee's official position pursuant to 5 CFR 2635.203 and other statutes. To date, the GoFundMe has raised over $227,000.

Source: www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What are those actions, because we sure as heck know what the Russians did.

Yeah, those evil Russians, posting a few Facebook ads...

Off with their heads!

LOL. The fact that you need to minimize it is telling Your Majesty.

a reply to: carewemust

Filed a complaint?

Maybe if the DOJ hadn't obstructed justice (again) the whistleblower wouldn't need help with ridiculous legal fees huh?

a reply to: tanstaafl

They didn’t only post face book ads..

They also organized trump rallies, faked being BLM ,feminists and other liberal groups and started spouting nonsense, which as always the conservatives ALL believed book line and sinker..


They literally set up a pro-trump rally and Muslim rally across the street from each other..


Which I guess the Muslims who showed up got played like dummies too...



I also think it is VERY ignored that the Russians also attacked all trumps republican opponents as well... they were not just trying to sow decent.. They specifically wanted trump to win and ONLY trump to win..


So why did our biggest global opponent want trump specifically?