Are you suggesting that it is not possible to disagree with a person on some issues but agree on others. Or, that if one labels a person a traitor, that the person so labeled cannot also do something that you agree with?

@Rob1948 No, I'm claiming that when someone says EMPHATICALLY that they have IRREFUTABLE proof that Trump is a Russian agent, they don't go voting for an increase in funds for that president's military, and they sure as hell don't trust that president to militarily act on other countries that are allies of Russia. If you absolutely claim someone is a traitor then you don't ally with them. That doesn't jive, and Schiff is a liar at the very least.

The other issue here is why are so many Democrats who are supposedly liberals and/or progressives so agreeable to war? Especially after our intelligence communities and politicians lied us into countless wars. Both sides have the same foreign policy.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Irrefutable proof?

I can’t stand Trump. I too think he is a traitor. But I have yet to see irrefutable proof of that fact. Perhaps you would care to share it with us.

No, it’s quite obvious that Trump and the Democrats do not share the same foreign policy. Nor do all Republicans. But, since you are making such sweeping assertions, go ahead, state your proof.

That's the successful part of fake separation 2 party supporters suffer from. In which you then get responses like

{Are you suggesting that it is not possible to disagree with a person on some issues but agree on others. Or, that if one labels a person a traitor, that the person so labeled cannot also do something that you agree with?}

While I can agree there are times for compromises in policies of legislature, the compromises we get always have black holes in them leading to further gravity to the right, or often never funded to a fruitful progress when of progressive nature for the benefit of society. End game is that most people only see and hear what the establishment MSM reports to them the day after legislators vote on an issues that are pounded into their minds for days or weeks, never finding the later results that eventually come out in alternative independent journalism that doesn't get exposed. To them it's essentially a drunken one night hookup date. They get a moment of pleasure then afterwards can't recall what really happened until years later they realize they've been screwed. If even that time comes.

Minds don't seem to "recall". 4 years later Bush was reelected even though he obviously lead a lie towards the death of many family members in the US. No one to this day seems to care! 4 years later the man of change was also reelected even though all the change he voiced became the same policies his predecessor enacted. On steroids even! That was his change. We just misunderstood his words towards what change meant.

I obviously can't stress, fail at, the importance of taking history from about 5 decades ago and relating it to today's events and policies, getting people to put that puzzle together! I actually have link this to a future further back in time on the Pinned page here. I think I and a few others here have provided a good amount of information and resources to accommodate a necessary interest in exploring and following the directions to putting the puzzle together. Yet with nearly a dozen writers and scores of alternative journalist who we use to get that message out seems to reach few who claim to want change. They like the past presidents since Reagan return to the same program and policies they claim to want to change. It still lays in pieces awaiting a future generation to confront. We only make that battle harder for them as time goes on. Possibly of horrific outcomes to them. With all others around the globe wagging their fingers at us as the sole empire builders, the generations to come after us may indeed be dealt a terrible process of a systematically orchestrated destruction.

@Rob1948 What are you talking about? I didn't say that IIIII have irrefutable proof. Schiff said it.

They don't have the same foreign policy? They both don't lie us into wars? They both don't overthrow governments? When was the last time you could tell us there wasn't a war? No matter how much both parties disagree on some issues, they both turn into clones of each other when they promote action against Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, all other Latin American countries, etc. I mean would you like me to copy and paste a document where they both say they have the same agenda towards foreign policy? Do you require signatures? Just turn on the news and see them say the same crap about every country they are economic opponents of or countries that have fossil fuel resources that lead to geopolitical positives for the U.S.

Democrats:
2011 Libya
2009 Honduras
1999 Yugoslavia
1966 Ghana
1965 Dominican Republic
1964 Brazil
1964 The Congo

Republicans:
2019 Venezuela
2004 Haiti
2003 Iraq
1991 Haiti
1989 Panama
1983 Grenada
1973 Chile
1954 Guatemala
1953 Iran

Bipartisan support for the Iraq war. The list goes on and on.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Actually you said “they” leaving attribution totally unclear.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, I clearly stated the boundaries of what I was talking about when I mentioned Trump. You’re talking about historical similarities and, while I don’t agree they are the same, I do agree there are similarities. Similaririties don’t make them the same. But, now,, clearly not!

I’m not going to waste my time, I don’t have, addressing your arguments about history when I clearly indicated the present when I said their policies are different.

If it makes you happy to cut and paste, feel free. I’m not going to read it.

@Rob1948 If you wouldn't read anything then you're a waste of my time. Just admit you are a troll then. You constantly twist words and don't understand arguments, and then when you ask for an argument you say you won't read. Piss off!

@Piece2YourPuzzle Really? “Piss off?” That’s the best you can do? And, why? All because you demanded I argue a point I never made and have no interest in discussing. Yassir, boss. I’ma gonna do that boss.” Dream on. Ain’t gonna happen.

I told you I don’t have time to go down your rabbit hole because I don’t have the fucking time. You showed a complete lack of respect to me with your reply and demand. You don’t have the right to complain about that. It’s my time, not yours.

I responded to your question about foreign policy. Before you took the discussion on a tangent, I stated that Trump and the Democrats do not have the same foreign policy interests. Instead of responding to that, you decided to answer that, through history, Dems and Republicans have the same foreign policy interests and then you throw a bunch of country names up to “prove” your point. Big whoop. So what.

That response had nothing to do with what I said. In good troll like fashion, you ignored what I said, replied with information having nothing to do with my limited response, a habit you seem to have, claimed I’m wrong, and then took great umbrage when I refuse to follow your change of direction in this discussion. All just like a good little troll. If you want to take the contrarian position that Democrats foreign policy interest are the same as Trump’s and that of current Republicans, I’ll discuss that. But, I am not going to waste my time going elsewhere and particularly not the history of US foreign policy. I don’t have the time. And, here’s a little hint, you have no right to demand that I do.

You have a habit of making personal, belittling and insulting comments to me. All out of line. You seem to expect me to dance to what ever line of discussion you care to drag and shift the conversation. That ain’t gonna happen. I don’t dance to your drum. I don’t belittle people like you do.

And, just to complete it, in almost every discussion we have had, you denigrate any source you disagree with, often because it’s mainstream, and at times have demanded that I refer to your sources. If I choose to read your sources, it is both out of courtesy and to inform myself of your sources of information. But, I’ll use any source I deem appropriate for the discussion, whether you like it or not.

Tell me something. Are you as rude to people you talk to in person as you are when you reply to me? Because, if you are, you either have no friends or you get hit in the face a lot.

@Rob1948 Piss off!

@Piece2YourPuzzle

Typical!

@Rob1948 Piss off!

@Piece2YourPuzzle

Quit being rude and acting childish then.

@William_Mary First, with all due respect, this is not your discussion and you do not have a horse in this race.

I was going to respond to you differently but, I’m sorry, I can’t get past your first point. His response to me was not appropriate. I commented on the lack of similarity between Democrat and Trump foreign policy goals. His response was to go off on me saying that Democrat and Republican foreign policy has been the same for decades. He did not acknowledge what I said. He ignored it. Completely. Then he basically challenged me to read all about it, even offering to cut and paste for me.

For all he said, I may as well have said nothing. My response was that while there are similarities between Democrats and Republicans in the past, I did not have the time to waste on the broader discussion but that I would be glad to discuss Trump foreign policies vs Democrat foreign policies with him. He has ignored that and he has refused to acknowledge that or to discuss it, instead demanding I discuss everything on his terms (funny isn’t it? You say I can’t demand what to discuss but you shrug off him doing it).

I did not deny him any right to counter what I said. He chose not to. He wanted to reframe the argument. I denied him that. And, for the record, nothing that happened 4 years ago or 10 or 30 or longer in terms of US foreign policy and any similarities between the parties on that issue has a damned thing to do with any similarities or differences between what Trump does and Democrats want now. Not one damn thing.

His “acceptable” response was to tell me I was wasting his time, that I twist words and refuse to argue even though I had just offered to do that based on what I had said, etc., that I was a troll, and to “piss off.” The latter since repeated 3 times. These things and other belittlement and insults are his habit as far as I have seen in my interactions with him. And, quite frankly, I’m tired of it and refuse to put up with it any longer.

I’m at a complete loss to see where his response has been appropriate.

As for your comment on my demeaning his means to counter, I don’t typically denigrate his sources unless I can point to specific reasons. Yet he freely does that when I quote sources he does not accept as legitimate simply because they are mainstream, and “brainwashed” or similar.

His facts, in the response we are discussing, are unsupported statements and a list of countries. I’m more than sure he will be able to support his opinions. I never said they were not supportable.

You mention establishment rhetoric being used to degrade or ridicule. I have not denigrated his sources but he has done that for those I use and he has belittled me a number of times.

You can try to shift the argument to being all about me, but the truth is that the tactics you accuse me of are those of the individual you claim to support.

One last thing. I framed my response to Trump, Democrats and foreign policy. As I noted, he did not attempt to respond to that. Had he done so, all he had to do was say... yes, they are different but, historically they have been ... and, guess what, I would have said, yes they have been similar but not exactly the same.

And, guess what. That would have ended it. But, no, he went to a tangent and got upset because I did not bite, eventually belittling me and telling me to piss off.

@William_Mary He's basically saying if I agreed with his point of Trump and the Democrats being different on foreign policy that there would have been no further back and forth argument lol

He ignores the part where I said all the Democrats in the news agree with Republican's (the group that Trump is a member of) policy on places like Iran and Venezuela.

He also wasn't astute enough to understand the comment on copying and pasting a document and requiring signatures for proof was sarcasm.

I do give him credit though. He's very good and rehearsed at twisting people's arguments to benefit his arguments. I've only encountered a handful of people like him that are as rehearsed in strawmen arguments and distraction. It's really just more annoying than anything though, and it's why I choose to not bother with him any more.

@Piece2YourPuzzle yep, he said there would have been no reason to continue because he would have agreed that they were basically the same.

“Had he done so, all he had to do was say... yes, they are different but, historically they have been ... and, guess what, I would have said, yes they have been similar but not exactly the same.”