Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Yet, still today, millions of Americans believe in their heart of hearts that Trump was and still is Putin's White House Puppet who interfered with the 2016 election.

Sounds like you might still be one of these "believers."

what is in an L? Liberal narrative I often cannot distinguish from LSM narrative. They're so much alike. Both very dismissive to contrarian thoughts. Liberal narrative rejects the contrarian views as being "Russian puppet" or "Russian assets" much like the LSM narrative would reject contrarian views as "opposers".
Now we have Democratic Presidential candidate taking a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for her words calling Tulsi a "Russian asset". Shouldn't there be accountability?
Much like the LSM narrative, I see the liberal narrative as a lot of projecting. Accusing Trump what they're doing themselves. There was Russian collusion. There was Ukrainian collusion, there was British collusion, and there was Italian collusion, but it was not coming from Trump's campaign.
Just like in the LSM there was collusion to undermine brothers in the late 1980's. It wasn't the brothers that were eventually quarantined that were doing the colluding.
Facts and evidence trumps narrative. Much like in the late 80's turmoil and the Great Lakes turmoil, all I was hearing was narrative. No facts. No evidence. Just like the current Impeachment going on. House managers had presented a lot in narrative, but nothing in facts and evidence unless they're able to provide proof in their abilities to discern thoughts, intent, and motive.
A sort of substituting "feeling" for facts. As is the case in the LC.
Providing the "opposers" (meaning Trumps legal team) has the facts and evidence on their side, just take the L.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

what is in an L? Liberal narrative I often cannot distinguish from LSM narrative. They're so much alike. Both very dismissive to contrarian thoughts. Liberal narrative rejects the contrarian views as being "Russian puppet" or "Russian assets" much like the LSM narrative would reject contrarian views as "opposers".
Now we have Democratic Presidential candidate taking a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for her words calling Tulsi a "Russian asset". Shouldn't there be accountability?
Much like the LSM narrative, I see the liberal narrative as a lot of projecting. Accusing Trump what they're doing themselves. There was Russian collusion. There was Ukrainian collusion, there was British collusion, and there was Italian collusion, but it was not coming from Trump's campaign.
Just like in the LSM there was collusion to undermine brothers in the late 1980's. It wasn't the brothers that were eventually quarantined that were doing the colluding.
Facts and evidence trumps narrative. Much like in the late 80's turmoil and the Great Lakes turmoil, all I was hearing was narrative. No facts. No evidence. Just like the current Impeachment going on. House managers had presented a lot in narrative, but nothing in facts and evidence unless they're able to provide proof in their abilities to discern thoughts, intent, and motive.
A sort of substituting "feeling" for facts. As is the case in the LC.
Providing the "opposers" (meaning Trumps legal team) has the facts and evidence on their side, just take the L.

Great connections here Terry.

LSM has become every bit a political organization as the Democratic Party. Same tactics, same dissembling, same accusing and excusing, projecting their own unrighteous actions upon their enemies. (Romans 2 spells some of this out.) Compare what LSM did to the Casteels to the Media's mischaracterizations of the Covington Catholic boys.

The Whistler Kangaroo Court impeachment trial of TC mirrored Schiff's secret impeachment inquiry in the House SCIF. The hoax perpetrated on the Recovery about so-called "rebellions" duplicates the so-called "Russian collusion." The claims that ex-members have been poisoned by "internet lies," corresponds to Hilary's on going "vast right wing" conspiracy by Trump's many "deplorables."

These days the casual reader might ask "who is lying here." Let me point something out. Who is more apt to lie? The guy in the White House under unbelievable scrutiny 24/7/52, or a guy like VP Joe Biden who got a free pass from every media outlet for decades, except for Fox?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These days the casual reader might ask "who is lying here." Let me point something out. Who is more apt to lie? The guy in the White House under unbelievable scrutiny 24/7/52, or a guy like VP Joe Biden who got a free pass from every media outlet for decades, except for Fox?

Question is who is objecting to transparency?
In the same breath I say I want Trump's tax returns disclosed, I want the same from every Senator and House Rep. Of course that cannot happen. Remember the phrase "cover the brothers"? Same applies to those practicing graft while a public servant.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Question is who is objecting to transparency?
In the same breath I say I want Trump's tax returns disclosed, I want the same from every Senator and House Rep. Of course that cannot happen. Remember the phrase "cover the brothers"? Same applies to those practicing graft while a public servant.

I agree with you on transparancy.

When it comes to personal tax returns, however, I think of how Romney was smeared in 2012 by the media for his taxes. His taxes were clean, but as a successful investor, the media smeared Romney's success for evil. The IRS obviously can scrutinize their taxes via audits, and that should be sufficient. Both Clinton and Obama both used the power of the IRS to attack their enemies. That provides me with enough "transparency."

I prefer a Candidate who could "buy" the presidency than one who would "sell" it, as bad as that sounds. In other words, the power of the presidency is far more dangerous in the hands of a "community organizer" with no accomplishments, than a seasoned and successful entrepreneurial CEO, whose goal was to "give back" to his country in the sunset of his life.

Compare Trump to Obama or the Clinton's. They used their great power for personal gains. They left office with a stack of IOU's. They peddled their influence. Clinton's even rented out the Lincoln bedroom! Does anyone think that Joe Biden and family were unique in this regard? Obama left his 450K per year job at the Whit House and somehow had amassed millions. I want to see his taxes! Supposedly the Clinton's left office broke, yet quickly were worth close to a billion. How does the math work here?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obama left his 450K per year job at the Whit House and somehow had amassed millions. I want to see his taxes!

Could be legitimate or could be payoff from Penguin Random House for Common Core in form of "a book deal"?

[Sons to Glory!]

In light of the senate apparently saying that "quid pro quo" in itself is not a crime and the president's specific actions do not rise to the level of an impeachable offence, upon hearing it my wife was a bit appalled. I think she see's the president's interaction with the Ukrainian officials as detestable and those of a morally bankrupt person, and a rotten example to make as the president of this country. I'm inclined to agree in part, but am not sure if it does rise to the impeachable level.

We humans often tend to excuse those who line-up with us in some way, and therefore are guilty of Machiavellian motives (i.e., ends justify the means) - those on both sides of the aisle do this all the time (yes, ol' Adam is a major hypocrite)! This has been strongly exhibited, and increasingly so, with the last several presidents and the two parties' view of them.

What do you think oh Christian?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

In light of the senate apparently saying that "quid pro quo" in itself is not a crime and the president's specific actions do not rise to the level of an impeachable offence, upon hearing it my wife was a bit appalled. I think she see's the president's interaction with the Ukrainian officials as detestable and those of a morally bankrupt person, and a rotten example to make as the president of this country. I'm inclined to agree in part, but am not sure if it does rise to the impeachable level.

The Quid Pro Quo was about the past, the 2016 election. It was the Democrats who twisted the facts to make it about the future, the 2020 election.

How is Trump's request to examine past Biden/Burisma corruption "appalling," while the impeachment of Trump by the House can not be construed as election interference in the 2020 election? Does this not then acknowledge that the Biden's business dealings are corrupt? If the Biden's are innocent, then what should they fear? Are they afraid of witnesses? Are they above the law? What do they have to hide?

Have you seen the video clip where Joe Biden bragged about firing the Ukranian Prosecutor General who was investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma at the time? Joe Biden leveraged a $Billion to get this official fired. Check it out. It tells you everything you need to know -- the corruption, the arrogance, and how Biden used Congressionally authorized American foreign aid to prevent prosecutorial "sunshine" from exposing his lucrative "cash cow."

Have you seen Peter Schweizer's new book Profiles in Corruption? It has a chapter on Biden. His corruption enriched his family for decades.

In conclusion, it behooves you and others to discover just how corrupt the Media really is. There are millions of Americans who currently believe that Trump is a Russian agent. The Media has used this propaganda on a daily basis for nearly 4 years. Lots of very "smart" people are convinced it is absolute "gospel" truth. But Robert Muller and his team of DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents took two years, endless subpoenas and witnesses, millions of documents, unlimited funds, surveillance taps, etc. and NEVER FOUND ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS EVIL ACCUSATION, neither by Trump or any of his staff. Should not this tell you something about today's political climate.


Hilary paid for this rotten and mythical Steele Dossier to influence the 2016 election. Shouldn't your level of "appall" concerning her be a thousand times greater?