Tiff you're simply dreaming if you think this has anything to do with a larger American backdown. This is Trump being played by a foreign leader, and then appealing to the fantasy of an American backdown to justify it - and in turn leading dupes to think such a backdown has anything to do with it. The Americans fucking off from Saudi Arabia - the no.1 exporter to Wahabi Islam and origin of most of the 9/11 attackers - might actually count as a move worth calling a backdown. This is just a weak president playing people like you to justify a fatally bad decision, impulsively made. You owe yourself better than the fiddle you currently are — StreetlightX
Clinton needs to be run over by a bus, ASAP. — StreetlightX
I am processing, searching for the role morality plays in a military operation and I am having a hard time finding it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
but how can you claim "zero" evidence? — Relativist
Retired Gen. Jack Keane, a Fox News analyst, first walked the president through a map showing Syria, Turkey and Iraq on Oct. 8, pointing out the locations of oil fields in northern Syria that have been under the control of the United States and its Kurdish allies, two people familiar with the discussion said. That oil, they said Keane explained, would fall into Iran's hands if Trump withdrew all U.S. troops from the country.
Keane went through the same exercise with Trump again Oct. 14, this time with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., at his side, according to four people familiar with the meeting. Keane displayed a map showing that almost three quarters of Syria's oil fields are in the parts of the country where U.S. troops are deployed, the people familiar with the meeting said. They said that Graham and Keane told the president that Iran is preparing to move toward the oil fields and could seize the air space above them once the U.S. leaves. - On Monday, the president delivered contradictory public statements about a plan that would keep some U.S. troops in northern Syria indefinitely to conduct counterterrorism missions and protect the oil fields.
"I don't want to leave any troops there," Trump told reporters. "I don't think it's necessary other than we secure the oil."
The president's comments came as the Pentagon was preparing orders for maintaining several hundred troops in northern Syria, according to a senior U.S. official.
What lie or lies did she tell? — tim wood
Any differences between, that you can discern? — tim wood
If he was withholding aid money until he was assured that the Ukrainian leadership was going to work with current DOJ investigations, such as the Durham investigation, or to root out general corruption, of which Biden may or may not have been involved, then he is merely doing his job.
If he withheld money for the purposes of finding political dirt so as to help him in the next election, yes I think that could perhaps rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and therefor an impeachable offense.
There is plenty evidence of the former, zero evidence of the latter. — NOS4A2
Why was it being spearheaded by Rudy? He's not a government official. According to the envoy to Ukraine's testimony, this requirement to commit to an investigation wasn't directed through the official channels.
And the requirement wasn't just to carry out an investigation or root out corruption: "But President Trump did insist that President Zelenskyy go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference". Certainly seems to be concerned with damaging optics of a political rival.
Yes, it's evidence, because he was in position to know what was going on.Bill Taylor’s fears are evidence of Trump’s criminality? That does not constitute evidence of anything, except perhaps Taylor’s assumptions and fears. — NOS4A2
I think you mean Sondland. Sure, taken at face value, Sondland's response is evidence to the contrary. I didn't mention that because I was simply challenging your claim of "zero" evidence of quid pro quo. Contrary evidence does not erase the existence of the positive evidence.If that constitutes evidence, then what about Sunderland’s response to that text, which is suspiciously missing from your analysis?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.