Elixir
Made in America
However, like I said, there are likely other "high crimes" that would be impeachable.
IMHO, a half-century-long record of being a total crapweasel should be enough.
However, like I said, there are likely other "high crimes" that would be impeachable.
South/central America, Middle East, Russia, China, Eastern Europe is close to be half of the world.Then US is at war with the half of the World.However, I would claim that a government sponsored attack on our Democratic processes is an act of war, dissolving the treaty.
There's your problem - Russia + China ≠ half the world.
South/central America, Middle East, Russia, China, Eastern Europe is close to be half of the world.There's your problem - Russia + China ≠ half the world.
South/central America, Middle East, Russia, China, Eastern Europe is close to be half of the world.There's your problem - Russia + China ≠ half the world.
Please do tell which South/central American, Middle Eastern, Russia and Eastern European countries are indulging in government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes.
I'll wait right here, while you try to make some shit up.
Please do tell which South/central American, Middle Eastern, Russia and Eastern European countries are indulging in government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes.
I'll wait right here, while you try to make some shit up.
It's other way around.
No, that's not what I asserted.Please do tell which South/central American, Middle Eastern, Russia and Eastern European countries are indulging in government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes.
I'll wait right here, while you try to make some shit up.
It's other way around.
WHAT "other way around"? You asserted that the US is at war with half the world for their "government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes".
Russia is not an enemy of the United States, so it can't be "treason".Yep! Just outright treason.
I think the most accurate term is ‘betrayal’. I’ll let lawyers determine why he should be shot out of the cannon into the Arctic Ocean.Russia is not an enemy of the United States, so it can't be "treason".
Since Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, the US has held in force severe sanctions against Russia; sanctions put in place by Obama that have continued to hinder Russia from developing its vast new oil fields. Russia openly called Obama’s sanctions a hostile act, which is not a layman’s term.
Vice President Dick Cheney called Putin’s actions in the 2016 election a “hostile act”—tantamount to an “act of war” no less—as did Senator John McCain and Senator Martin Heinrich to name a few. Iow, a hostile act by the US was met by an escalated hostile act by Russia, but not just any act; the successful overthrow of our government, placing a “creature” (as Hamilton put it) “of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.”
In that sense alone, Russia is a defacto enemy of the US. Any nation that would label our sanctions a hostile act against them and then in turn retaliate with their own escalated hostile act against us—a “cyberwar” whose intent was to overthrow our government, no less—is automatically considered our enemy, whether or not it has been officially declared in Congress.
The fact that Trump was informed of Russia’s hostile actions during the general election and openly attempted to deny or otherwise undermine the findings of our own intelligence community in that regard—while at the same time repeatedly courting Russia’s continued involvement both openly and clandestinely (if not directly, certainly through immediate proxies)—were undeniably treasonous acts, as Trump’s own right-hand man (Bannon) confirmed.
Some have argued that Russia is merely a “rival” or “competitor” while an “enemy...is the hostile opposition -- an antagonist that seeks the destruction of its opponent.” Well, that definition has been firmly met imho, but I suppose to be unnecessarily pedantic I should have said Trump’s actions were “treasonous” rather than constituting “treason.”
No, that's not what I asserted.WHAT "other way around"? You asserted that the US is at war with half the world for their "government sponsored attacks on our Democratic processes".
Then US is at war with the half of the World.However, I would claim that a government sponsored attack on our Democratic processes is an act of war, dissolving the treaty.
I said that US have been sponsoring attacks on Democratic processes in other countries. You are the one being dishonest here.Oh really?
Here it is in your own words:
Then US is at war with the half of the World.However, I would claim that a government sponsored attack on our Democratic processes is an act of war, dissolving the treaty.
Maybe you can translate that from your native language in some manner that will tell us how you didn't say what you said.
You appear to be a very dishonest broker in conversation, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the overwhelming doubt, if you can explain why you say something, then tell us it wasn't what you asserted.
ETA: Jinx.
Original: I believe he meant that the US is likewise engaging in “government sponsored” attacks on Democratic processes in other countries amounting to “half of the World.” It’s a tu quoque attempt (or “whataboutism”), which betrays the fact that he recognizes it is wrong.
So really what he just posted was an affirmation that interfering in another country’s Democratic process is an act of war.
The fact is, Putin himself was an indirect result of US meddling Russian presidential elections in the 90s when by all accounts Zyuganov (a communist) was projected to win. US wanted Eltsin (an alcoholic) to win. so they sent a team to help to rig the electiopns. US now sanction russian oligarchs, forgetting how they came about. Do you want me to remind you how they were created? They were created during these elections where they were promised cheap privatization (basically stealing) in exchange for financing Eltsin elections. I don't remember US protesting at the time.
Well, now you have Putin who was hand-picked by Eltsin and oligarchs US election specialists helped to create, but it was a result of US meddling in russian elections. Enjoy.
You said that election meddling is an act of war.
I merely noted thatif it were truethenUS is at war with half of the world
ETA: Jinx.
Original: I believe he meant that the US is likewise engaging in “government sponsored” attacks on Democratic processes in other countries amounting to “half of the World.” It’s a tu quoque attempt (or “whataboutism”), which betrays the fact that he recognizes it is wrong.
So really what he just posted was an affirmation that interfering in another country’s Democratic process is an act of war.
Will you stop this game of labeling other people posts?
You said that election meddling is an act of war. I merely noted that if it were true then US is at war with half of the world implying that US is meddling in other countries elections. Just because you label it does not make it go away. And were exactly did you get this idea of me advocating that election meddling is not wrong? Your stupid posts make no sense.
First, he did not catch me. Second, I did not admit that. Third, I have never been fan of meddling.ETA: Jinx.
Original: I believe he meant that the US is likewise engaging in “government sponsored” attacks on Democratic processes in other countries amounting to “half of the World.” It’s a tu quoque attempt (or “whataboutism”), which betrays the fact that he recognizes it is wrong.
So really what he just posted was an affirmation that interfering in another country’s Democratic process is an act of war.
Will you stop this game of labeling other people posts?
You said that election meddling is an act of war. I merely noted that if it were true then US is at war with half of the world implying that US is meddling in other countries elections. Just because you label it does not make it go away. And were exactly did you get this idea of me advocating that election meddling is not wrong? Your stupid posts make no sense.
Actually, koy was defending you by pointing out that you were making a tu quoque argument--that, if Russian had engaged in an act of war, the US had also been engaging in such acts of war against other nations. What upsets you is that he actually caught you agreeing with the criticism of Putin--that what he did was wrong.
Well, Putin is on record criticizing US meddling in Russia and other countries long before alleged russian meddling in US elections, funny fact, US completely ignored it, so he might have thought that meddling is now acceptable?You pointing out that the US does the same thing is not an excuse for Putin's behavior.
Yes, that's how I think it works in reality. If you keep pissing someone off, eventually they will react.Surely you understand that, don't you? All you are saying is that everyone behaves badly, so behaving badly is ok.
No, you don't recognize it at all. You still believe you were right, in fact you are not even aware of the bad behavior. At best you say, "I am sorry" and keep on doing it again and again and again. That's how neocons operate.You are so used to hearing this kind of tu quoque justification for bad behavior--a very common method of distraction used forever in Russian propaganda tirades--that you don't see what is wrong with it. Nobody here is trying to defend bad behavior by the US in the past, because we all recognize that it was bad behavior.
Well, Putin is on record criticizing US meddling in Russia and other countries long before alleged russian meddling in US elections, funny fact, US completely ignored it, so he might have thought that meddling is now acceptable?You pointing out that the US does the same thing is not an excuse for Putin's behavior.
Ah, so you still don't understand. I wasn't saying that Putin had no right to be angry and resentful. Nor was I saying he had no right to react. I was saying that he had no right to react in the way he did--by meddling in the US election that went way beyond just criticizing. He was not responding to her in the way that she responded to him. He actually ordered Russian military and intelligence agencies to intervene directly. Not only that, but we now know that he had these agencies intervene in other Western elections, including the Brexit vote and the presidential elections in France.Yes, that's how I think it works in reality. If you keep pissing someone off, eventually they will react.Surely you understand that, don't you? All you are saying is that everyone behaves badly, so behaving badly is ok.
No, you don't recognize it at all. You still believe you were right, in fact you are not even aware of the bad behavior. At best you say, "I am sorry" and keep on doing it again and again and again. That's how neocons operate.You are so used to hearing this kind of tu quoque justification for bad behavior--a very common method of distraction used forever in Russian propaganda tirades--that you don't see what is wrong with it. Nobody here is trying to defend bad behavior by the US in the past, because we all recognize that it was bad behavior.