“The story here is not the word, it’s the conduct of the Democrats in the House,” the South Carolina senator said.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-lynching-lindsey-graham_n_5daf5a3ee4b0f34e3a7ddbcb
“The story here is not the word, it’s the conduct of the Democrats in the House,” Graham told reporters on Tuesday, criticizing the lower chamber for its closed-door impeachment inquiry. “If the Republicans were doing this, you’d be OK with calling it a political lynching because that’s literally what it is.”
Previous discussion:
In the West, horse thieves were "lynched", long before black people were murdered like this. But then, nowadays, just about anything can be interpreted as being "racist"... for example, talking about rats in Baltimore is "racist". (BTW, Los Angeles 'skid row" as a major rat problem, but that's not racist)
It's important to the left to "expand"defiitions of assorted words to include actions they oppose. For example, It's tough to oppose secure borders, but we learn at an early age that racism is bad. So, if you can convince people that secure borders are the actions of a racist, then secure borders become bad. Attrbuting the "racist" labels to other actions/words/deeds reinforces the claim even if an objective look at those actions/words/deeds does not support the claim. Objectivity has very little to do with most political discussion/debate these days.
its even more important for hypocrites like biden to shut the hell up after he used the very same term referring Clinton's impeachment...of course we know there are different rules for some, different justice for some, and a way different world for some
Good point mcfarm!
"Even as top Democrats rushed to condemnPresident Trump's comparison of their impeachment inquiry to a "lynching," footage and news reports have emerged showing several top Democrats referring matter-of-factly to Bill Clinton's impeachment proceedings as a "lynching" in 1998.
Among those Democrats are two African-American representatives still serving in the House, as well as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and presidential contender Joe Biden.
Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., called Clinton's impeachment a "persecution" and a "political lynching" on the House floor in 1998. And Danny Davis, D-Ill., condemned what he described as a "lynching in the People's House."
"The president’s racist language was also used by the El Paso shooter"
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/8/7/20756775/el-paso-shooting-trump-hispanic-invasion
More evidence of Trump being a racist.............he uses the word "invasion" to describe the invasion of illegal immigrants.
And that was also one of the words(of thousands) that the El Paso shooter used.
in·va·sion
/inˈvāZHən/
noun
This is actually part of the scheme that the MSM and others use to twist words, meanings and realities into manufactured realities(propaganda) to brainwash people into thinking what they want them to think.
It's right from the playbook they used to hijack climate science to turn the current climate optimum into a climate crisis/emergency.
By definition, a brainwashed person reading the stuff below on the climate change hoax will not recognize it.........they can't recognize it because their core belief system/assumptions tells them that we are having a crisis and all new information MUST conform to that or it gets discarded.
Tens of thousands of scientists come out to tell us there is no crisis but the MSM refuses to tell us about them or show the data that I show here......instead, they only show the extreme, anti science views and use the fake 97% of scientists number, alter the verbiage, including calling people like me deniers to discredit us............and impose this on viewers/readers(50% of the MSM are progressive activists) who get most of their information from them.
They are the self appointed gate keepers of our information and create narratives and marketing schemes to push their agenda.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/41293/
Scientists coming out of the woodwork-no climate crisis!
13 responses |
Started by metmike - Oct. 18, 2019, 5:08 p.m.
The Polar bear marketing scheme for Al Gore didn't work out so good in 2007 because polar bear numbers have soared higher since then.
The quintessential example of one of the most blatant and fraudulent marketing schemes in history is here:
Putin on Greta Thunberg
Started by GunterK - Oct. 2, 2019, 12:27 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/40225/
Teen Climate Activist Speaks To Congress
Started by metmike - Sept. 22, 2019, 10:18 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/39525/
In what universe is this believable????
The MANUFACTURED one that the believers believe in.
The democrats had her testifying in front of Congress.
The United Nations had her speaking in front of all the worlds governments. She is now the top high priest of the made up climate crisis religion.
Millions of, otherwise very smart people have fallen for this one.
Here are 2 dozens discussions loaded with all the empirical data and proof to obliterate the crisis/emergency. As always, I invite everyone to question and comment if you think there's anything in there which is not 100% authentic science.
Climate Reality discussions
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
Getting back to the main topic.
One side will accuse me of being a Trump apologist for defending him using the word lynching.
Trump uses plenty of unacceptable language and is mean, embellishes and bs's with his statements all the time. Continue to go after him for this and hold him accountable.
However, when the dems and MSM attack him for doing what they do, it shows partisan malice on their part.
The relationship with Ukraine to impeach for instance is an attack on him for doing what they actually did, with Schiff actually making up/lying about what was in the phone call to the Ukraine with his fake version going into the record.
Turns out the phone call had nothing at all to do with Biden.......it was about the corruption in the 2016 election and the role that the Ukraine played.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/40073/
Go after Trump on legit stuff. ...like how mean he is and exaggerates all the time and frequently gets facts wrong.
Hmmmm.....impossible to impeach over that but those are real good, legit reasons for people to NOT vote for him in 2020.
He’s extremely unpresidential/unprofessional......so let the American voters decide in 2020 if they want this sort of guy with the massively best agenda for America policies (compared to all the other very presidential personalities out there)to have another 4 years.
10:30 a.m.: O’Rourke decries Trump’s comparison of impeachment to lynching
"Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke said Wednesday that Trump made the ultimate case for why he is not fit for office when he compared the impeachment proceedings to a lynching in a tweet this week.
“If you had not been convinced of how unfit he is to lead this country, his invocation of lynching to describe what is happening to him in a fair, deliberate, democratic process, that should convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt,” O’Rourke said at a Washington Post Live event Wednesday morning."
.metmike:.........and the best weather/climate in over 1,000 years on this greening planet is a climate crisis/emergency............just take the word of the world's new 16 year old climate crisis guru.
"How dare you?” she said. “You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words, and yet, I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing.”
From NBC:
Impeachment inquiry's secrecy, and Nancy Pelosi denying a House vote, weaken Democrats' case
A closed-door process won't convince the public — or the GOP — to remove the president.
"If the Democrats are as confident that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors as they act, why not conduct witness interviews in public so everyone can see the evidence?
Watergate and its aftermath proved one of the most painful episodes in American political history, but the impeachment inquiry might be said to have brought the country together. When Gerald Ford was sworn into office as Nixon’s replacement, he could reasonably declare that “our long national nightmare is over.”
Conducted openly and led by both sides, the Nixon impeachment hearings show the importance of presenting the case to the American people. Now in week four of the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump, however, Democrats show no sign of wanting a transparent process. The three Democratic-led committees in charge of the probe House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Sept. 24 have conducted almost the entirety of their hearings in private."
metmike: The reason is clear. They want to be able to manufacture narratives and evidence with impunity, like Schiff did with his made up parody of things in the phone call that never happened........but got busted because it was in the open for all of us to see.
Anybody else have a suggestion for why they might be doing it in secret?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/cnn-impeachment-poll-trump-ukraine/index.html
(CNN)Half of Americans say President Donald Trump should be impeached and removed from office, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, a new high in CNN polling on the topic and the first time that support for impeachment and removal has significantly outpaced opposition.
As support for impeachment has inched upward, however, Trump's approval ratings overall and for handling major issues have not taken a hit. Overall, 41% approve of his handling of the presidency and 57% disapprove, similar to his ratings in early September and August polls conducted before the House of Representatives formally launched an impeachment inquiry in late September."
This shows exactly what I said earlier. The dems are controlling the narrative and what the public knows about the hearings is coming from them and isn't verified so they can spin everything with impunity to bamboozle the American people.
Is it really bamboozling?
Schiff got caught bamboozling already in full public view. Why would we think otherwise when the public and others are not allowed to watch/listen.
The dems, recently were in the MIddle East, doing what they accuse Trump of doing.........trying to discredit him in a foreign country and to use the currently very negative feelings in the US about his recent decision about our troops there to undermine and impeach him.....which they know can’t happen in the senate, so their purpose was entirely to effect the 2020 election.
Like, how many times in the past have Pelosi and Schiff had emergency trips abroad to address a foreign affairs crisis? And you and me paid for it.
"Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and disgraced lying Congressman Adam Schiff met with King Abdullah of Jordan, only to find out that the King of Jordan agrees with President Trump’s Syria withdrawal, as well as his support for maintaining the Syrian border, Assad’s government, and Russia’s reinforcement. I guess they are not ready for prime time players.
This last minute fishing expedition had two stops: Jordan to see a King, and Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban."
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other senior members of Congress held talks in Jordan on Saturday with King Abdullah II and other top Jordanian officials.
Pelosi said in a statement the visit was at “a critical time for the security and stability of the region... With the deepening crisis in Syria after Turkey’s incursion, our delegation has engaged in vital discussions about the impact to regional stability, increased flow of refugees, and the dangerous opening that has been provided to ISIS, Iran and Russia.”
Nancy Pelosi to the rescue(-:
Instead of traveling to the Middle East to try to capitalize on an issue because of a Trump decision that's unpopular(at the expense of our tax dollars no less), maybe she should stay back in our country and work for the American people............for a change.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-27-2019/index.html
"Three veterans who served with Ambassador Bill Taylor, a key witness in the House impeachment inquiry who has come under attack by President Trump, defended him as a "man of honor," "public servant" and "role model" in interviews with CNN."
metmike: There you have it. 3 veterans, who couldn't possibly be biased because all veterans are objective are used as the source for the title.
"More context: Taylor's deposition this past week was, Republican sources tell CNN, impactful and "reverberating" on Capitol Hill among Republicans. Taylor's testimony was a game-changer in the impeachment inquiry, these sources said.
Taylor detailed conversations with Trump administration officials pushing an explicit quid pro quo — he was told "everything" Ukraine wanted from the United States including military aid depended upon the Ukrainian President publicly announcing an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter."
metmike: 2 problems with that story.
1. How can it be a game changer if we've been told for a month that they have all the overwhelming evidence to impeach Trump already(actually, we were told that for 2 years during and after the Mueller investigation and at other times) and
2. if the quid pro quo military aid depended on the Ukraine President publicly announcing and investigation into Biden, and the Ukraine NEVER did that or anything like it..........but the military aid came anyways.............it's actually proof that there wasn't a quid pro quo.
I believe that Trump did want the Ukraine to investigate and probably held up the money for a short period with that in mind.............but not long enough for the transaction of a legal or otherwise quid pro quo because Trump got nothing, the Ukraine got exactly what they would have either way. It can't be a quid pro quo....period.
Anaology. Let's say I have a poor friend that I talk with in July about robbing a bank on September 3rd. Wouldn't it be great if we could get away with it, I tell him. All that money and our problems would be solved.
As September 3rd gets closer, I realize this is a bad idea and don't go thru with it and instead, go to my normal job that day doing everything like I always do...........legally.
Then on September 23rd, I get charged with robbing a bank on September 3rd...........even though no banks were robbed. An investigation is opened that includes warrants to search my house for money that should not be there.
I hire a defense attorney.
The district attorney calls in all my friends and associates to testify in secret about my intention to rob a bank earlier in the year but won't let my defense attorney be there and will only tell us selective narratives about the testimony...claiming that I robbed a bank.
The district attorney continues to mount the evidence, which includes a completely made up parody(ala Adam Schiff) about me saying things, that I never said and he claims I said them 7 times! and he puts it in the record, as its also broadcast on live TV to millions of viewers. The media who publishes this and all the other stuff from the DA about me robbing the bank on September 3rd but none of reporters are objective or bright enough to check to see that no banks were robbed on September 3rd or in the months of August or September...............as they run story after story about me robbing a bank that never got robbed based on what the DA is telling them.
The point is, you can accuse Trump of discussing a potential quid pro quo but a quid pro quo DID NOT HAPPEN!
Especially since the other party insists they were not pressured, you can't even make a substantial case for the planning of it because both parties are saying there was no quid pro quo and the evidence backs them up(as if they can't find any number of people who will testify against Trump). to say that he wanted to use the money to pressure the Ukraine............but wanting and doing are 2 different things.
No judge and no jury anywhere would convict anybody of a quid pro quo with circumstance similar to this in any court............except for the court of "get Trump" and public opinion with the corrupt dems and MSM controlling the fake narratives against President Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo
"A contract must involve the exchange of something of value for something else of value. For example, when buying an item of clothing or a gallon of milk, a pre-determined amount of money is exchanged for the product the customer is purchasing; therefore, they have received something but have given up something of equal value in return."
metmike:The Ukraine got their money........not more money, not less money but the exact amount that they were supposed to get whether there was a quid pro quo or not.
President Trump got nothing. For it to be a quid pro quo, he would have had to get something in return in the form of an actual investigation that yielded dirt on Biden before releasing the money. Unless the democrats come up with that evidence of it happening BEFORE Trump released the money, then there couldn't have been a quid pro quo-by definition of the term, legally and otherwise.
This explains why Schiff lied about having the whistle blower info for one month before he released it. He had it but was holding off on releasing it, waiting for the Ukraine to pay off their end of the quid pro quo by coming up with the dirt on Biden. Then, he would have had Trump.............but the Ukraine did NOT do this because there was no quid pro quo and then, AFTER the Ukraine got the money for nothing he released the whistle blower complaint and MADE UP the conversation of the phone call with a fake version that had Trump asking for dirt on Biden 7 times..............when the phone call was not even about Biden(and the fake narrative that it was to alter the 2020 election). If was about the 2016 election investigation!!!
Even there, there can't be a quid pro quo because the Ukraine got their money and Trump got nothing.................and since when can't a president investigate past corruption in a country he is sending massive funds to?
Only if its corruption that involves his own party?
Right. Of course politics were involved but nothing illegal and nothing on the scale of the political attacks, some based on lies, possible law breaking and ethics violations being directed at him.
Interesting how one side gets to tell us what words/terms are appropriate(the ones they pick) and what words are vile and offensive.
The term Climate "Denier" for instance, which is used to describe people like me that deny the climate crisis.
It's entirely a play off of the term Holocaust Denier, to condemn people who deny that 6,000,000 Jewish people had their lives snuffed out during WW-2.
Why wouldn't Jews and others be greatly offended by doing this?
This MSM source actually is telling its reporters and people that it should use that term:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/16/guardian-language-changes-climate-environment
2.)
“climate science denier” or “climate denier” to be used instead of “climate sceptic”
Personally, the name calling doesn't bother me because words and names are just words and names and don't get any weighting, like data, facts and observations do in authentic science.
Unfortunately, climate science in todays world is politics and based on a manufactured reality that only exists on busted climate models projecting out for decades using simulations of the atmosphere and (still greening up) planet that are too warm and can't forecast weather with any skill.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/22/abc-news-asks-is-the-phrase-climate-change-denier-offensive/
So I am not personally offended by being called a denier but if the tables were turned and Trump came up with this term(if the dems hadn't staked a claim on it) you can bet it would be seen as offensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
Holocaust denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II.[1]Holocaust deniers make one or more of the following false statements:[2][3][4]
Because Holocaust denial is a common facet of certain racist propaganda, it is considered a serious societal problem in many places where it occurs and is illegal in several European countries and Israel. Holocaust denial is sponsored by some Middle Eastern governments, including Iran and Syria.
The dems will conclude their secret hearings with leaked, false narratives intended to pursued the American people that President Trump did something wrong.
This will go to formal hearings, then the House will vote and the Dems will impeach Trump in the House with certainty, because they have the majority. Then, its goes to the Senate and all the Dems will vote to impeach and almost all the Republicans will vote no and they don't even get close to impeaching with a 2/3rd majority(the Pubs have the majority in the Senate).
So far, they have been successful with this part of their scheme because we only hear their version and don't get to see or hear anything else, like when Schiff completely made up the whistle blower phone conversation and got busted because we read the transcript of the call then heard his version(telling us that Trump asked for dirt on Biden 7 times, when the number was zero).
Nixon and Clinton were not treated this way but this is just part of the game strategy convince Americans that high crime, impeachable crime was committed...........not to remove him from office, which will never happen but to convince Americans that something happened that didn't. Nothing wrong happened.
After studying the facts more, its become more clear(vs just looking that way previously) that Trump did nothing wrong.
His "perfect" phone conversation, was in fact near perfect. There's nothing in there. As shown above by any standard, legal or otherwise no quid pro quo took place either.
In addition, there was already an ongoing Ukrainian investigation going on since earlier this year into the corruption between that country and the US with regards to the 2016 election with there being indications of the democrats being involved.
In what universe would the president of our country not be allowed to say anything about it to the president of Ukraine?
Again, there was absolutely no quid pro quo, none, nata and the dems want to impeach Trump based on him wanting information about the investigation that related to the country that he is the president of?
3/20/2019
The president of the US has a responsibility to ensure that county's we deal with are getting massive amounts of our money are not corrupt.
Yes, he's especially motivated to do that job here because it looks like corruption from democrats and he might look the other way if it was republican corruption but he was still doing his job and not breaking any laws, let alone committing high crimes.
Alexander Vindman, an NSC official, told impeachment investigators that the president undermined national security.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/29/donald-trump-alexander-vindman-testimony-061018
"Vindman is the first witness in the impeachment probe who listened in on Trump’s call with President Volodymyr Zelensky, and his testimony appears to corroborate both a whistleblower complaint lodged by an anonymous member of the intelligence community who was alarmed by accounts of the conversation, as well as a summary of the call released by the White House.
“Supposedly, according to the Corrupt Media, the Ukraine call ‘concerned’ today’s Never Trumper witness. Was he on the same call that I was? Can’t be possible! Please ask him to read the Transcript of the call. Witch Hunt!” Trump wrote, without offering any evidence that Vindman is biased against him."
metmike: Trump often goes into a tirade and gets his facts wrong but he is exactly right here. There is NOTHING wrong with that call. There was about Adam Schiff's made up/lying version of the call, however, which is what the democrats read into the record and have been using for their false narrative during the secret hearings portion of the investigation, which is part of the scheme to get everybody convinced of something that did not happen.
You see, once people believe something or believe something happened, it takes 10+ times more powerful information to convince them that it didn't..........even if it didn't happen. Sometimes, it's virtually impossible to convince them of a truth because the falsehood in their mind causes them to reject any information that isn't consistent with the falsehood..............cognitive bias:
Copy of the transcript:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pqFxJABWA5oogCwf21SFZHcPuYFgiZrN/view
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZlJqa2h_F4
It's brainwashing 101 using propaganda and the dems/MSM are using the playbook to impose it on Americans right now.
Ex-KGB on Ideological Subversion: How the UN/IPCC hijacked science/brainwashed the world. Previously warmer. Polar bear hoax. Sept. 2019
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/38156/
Related specifically to just the whistleblower phone call:
If you don't believe me, just read the actual transcript that I provided on the previous page........ then listen to Adam Schiff pretend to be reading the transcript..into the official record, also provided so that you can verify his completely made up/false version that says Trump asked the Ukraine 7 times to dig up dirt about Joe Biden in the conversation.
After reading the transcript over, Trump did mention Biden 1 time during the conversation......not 7.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-29-2019/index.html
In other words, when the White House immediately released the transcript of the phone call when asked last month, we all got to see what was said.
The dems, don't have to look hard can find people to tell them what they want to hear about that phone call, so they can use it to enhance what they want us to believe is evidence gathering, passed on every day with their leaked narratives.
But the evidence has been out there, provided by the White House over a month ago and has not changed and is not being disputed(except by Schiff, initially when he made up his version for Americans that didn't read the transcript of the actual phone call).
Again, this is the phone call to impeach a president over(there was no quid pro quo as explained earlier):
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf