US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[CountValentine]

Now can you answer the simple question so we can all judge if you finally went off the deep end? @zh cohen

Now you are putting Roberts in the "playing games" category?

[zh cohen]

What he tried is to ask the question a different way to get the same result. Roberts is not an idiot.

What result?

If the identity of the whistleblower is unknown, what about that question is objectionable?

[zh cohen]

Now can you answer the simple question? @zh cohen

I already have repeatedly. And if you haven't heard the widespread and long-standing criticism of John Roberts as acting to preserve the "image" of the Supreme Court rather than doing what is right, then you really do need to get out more.

[CountValentine]

I already have repeatedly.

I missed it repeatedly, sorry. You are saying the Chief Justice is "playing games"?

[CountValentine]

Here is every post of yours after I asked the question. Where have you answered it?

From @seanmdav yesterday;

How else do you explain his refusal to ask this question?

Care to share the joke?

Different question. On a different day.

Which law is he following? Unless he (and the House) do know who the whistleblower is and are just playing the game I described above

What result?

If the identity of the whistleblower is unknown, what about that question is objectionable?

I already have repeatedly. And if you haven't heard the widespread and long-standing criticism of John Roberts as acting to preserve the "image" of the Supreme Court rather than doing what is right, then you really do need to get out more.

The question:

Now you are putting Roberts in the "playing games" category?

[zh cohen]

Here is every post of yours after I asked the question. Where have you answered it?

A wise man once said

You are now on ignore. Have a nice day/night.

[CountValentine]

I just delivered the knock out blow. ROFLMAO!!!

[whYME]

Everyone already knows that Eric Ciaramella is the "whistleblower."

This has nothing to do with hiding his identity, it's all about hiding his Obama/Biden/Schiff connections. It's about protecting the illusion of legitimacy.

If anybody doesn't already know it's him, that's because they only follow left-wing news/media and presumably that's not the demographic they claim he's under threat from.

Conversely, it's his legitimacy, not his identity, that the Rs are after.

[whYME]

Now can you answer the simple question

Now that's rich coming from you

[zh cohen]

I just delivered the knock out blow. ROFLMAO!!!

Your saying something doesn't make it true.

This thread goes in circles so much, I figured we should just quote past posts instead of typing the same thing over and over again.

[CountValentine]

This thread goes in circles so much, I figured we should just quote past posts instead of typing the same thing over and over again.

How are you quoting me when you have me on ignore? ROFLMAO!
No need to go in circles. You claim you answered my question repeatedly. I listed every post after the question. I challenge you or any of the other Kool-Aid drinkers to show which of those posts answered the question?

[ah giten]

How are you quoting me when you have me on ignore? ROFLMAO!
No need to go in circles. You claim you answered my question repeatedly. I listed every post after the question. I challenge you or any of the other Kool-Aid drinkers to show which of those posts answered the question?

Did anyone here ever get a "your right" from you, after an argument? Or when you start using profanity that means the other person is right?

[whYME]

I challenge you or any of the other Kool-Aid drinkers to show which of those posts answered the question?

How else do you explain his refusal to ask this question?

= Of course he's playing games here, otherwise he would've allowed the question.

Which law is he following? Unless he (and the House) do know who the whistleblower is and are just playing the game I described above

= Yes, he is playing games here by saying he's following the law by blocking a question because it names the whistleblower even though we don't know who the whistleblower is.

What result?

If the identity of the whistleblower is unknown, what about that question is objectionable?

= He's playing the game of claiming the whistleblower is unknown while not allowing Eric Ciaramella to be mentioned in order to protect the whistleblower's identity.

I already have repeatedly. And if you haven't heard the widespread and long-standing criticism of John Roberts as acting to preserve the "image" of the Supreme Court rather than doing what is right, then you really do need to get out more.

= Yes, I keep saying he's playing games here. And let's not pretend he's above playing games. There's  the widespread and long-standing criticism of him that he plays games.

[aygart]

What result?

If the identity of the whistleblower is unknown, what about that question is objectionable?

That it is about something irrelevant to the case.

Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with @zh cohen  while at the National Security Council together and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that @zh cohen and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.

[CountValentine]

Did anyone here ever get a "your right" from you, after an argument? Or when you start using profanity that means the other person is right?

I have been wrong many times.
Profanity? I think you are confused. Another member called me a POS not the other way around.

[whYME]

= Of course he's playing games here, otherwise he would've allowed the question.
= Yes, he is playing games here by saying he's following the law by blocking a question because it names the whistleblower even though we don't know who the whistleblower is.
= He's playing the game of claiming the whistleblower is unknown while not allowing Eric Ciaramella to be mentioned in order to protect the whistleblower's identity.
= Yes, I keep saying he's playing games here. And let's not pretend he's above playing games. There's  the widespread and long-standing criticism of him that he plays games.

For the record, I'm not saying I think he necessarily answered directly in these posts, but based on your ( @CountValentine ) standards of what you consider you having answered a question, he most definitely did.

[aygart]

For the record, I'm not saying I think he necessarily answered directly in these posts, but based on your ( @CountValentine ) standards of what you consider you having answered a question, he most definitely did.

As opposed to when he wants me to answer a question with a complex answer with only one of two words.......

[whYME]

That it is about something irrelevant to the case.

Is that the official reason?

[tweet]1222961450190344194[/tweet]?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[CountValentine]

They can't get their stories straight. Pick a lane. 
Justice Department lawyer says House can impeach over defied subpoenas
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-department-lawyer-says-house-can-impeach-over-defied-subpoenas/ar-BBZtSZf?ocid=spartandhp

[zh cohen]

That it is about something irrelevant to the case.

Is not relevant to Trump's impeachment trial that career staffers at the NSC were working with Democratic House staffers to create a pretext to impeach Trump?