Decoding POLITICAL-DOUBLESPEAK with LOGIC

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 40
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Steve VS Hogan


starting at 38 seconds

ending at 5 minutes 25 seconds

> Steve: Does the house process make the impeachment process any more fair?

LOGIC: #1 asking about "fairness" is OPINION NOT FACT (CRITICAL ERROR, FLAG ON THE PLAY, BUG IDENTIFIED).  #2 It is the same process the republicans used to impeach Clinton so it stands to reason that (IFF) it was fair enough for Clinton (THEN) it must also be fair enough for Trump.  It would be categorically UNFAIR to use a different process.

> Hogan: 2 things, 1st thing, I dispute your premise, Trump was primarily concerned about Ukrainian Government Corruption.  Ukraine was rife with corruption. 

LOGIC: ABSOLUTELY 100% DODGES THE QUESTION (ABOUT FAIRNESS).  You can dispute a premise, but you then need to explain exactly what you think that premise is and your REASONS for disputing it.  Simply saying "i dispute the premise" is not CARTE BLANCHE to just ignore the interviewer and start SPOUTING YOUR TALKING-POINTS.

> Steve: Just to be perfectly clear, you said the premise was incorrect?  I've carefully reviewed the transcript, and the president asks about a couple of specific things.  #1 a conspiracy theory involving crowdstrike and the DNC server, and #2 involves Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.  Those are the ONLY things the president asks about regarding Ukrainian Government Corruption.

LOGIC: Steve mentions "the premise" (still unspecified), and then forgets all about his fairness question (1st interview question!) and instead follows Hogan's RED-HERRING.  And then pointedly questions Hogan's bald assertion that Trump is very concerned about Ukrainian Government Corruption.  Crowdstrike is not part of the Ukrainian Government.  Hunter Biden is not part of the Ukrainian Government.  (IFF) you are concerned about UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION (THEN) you should be investigating UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

> Hogan: What he didn't talk about were his political rivals for 2020.  I remember when democrats used to care about what happened in the 2016 election, that's what he was talking about and quite frankly [TALKING-POINT] this is what the president ran on and won on in 2016 [/TALKING POINT] which is making sure the money we give to our allies is spent wisely.  I understand that democrats don't care how we spend taxpayer dollars at home much less abroad, but this president does.

LOGIC: Hogan throws down another RED-HERRING.  Trump never mentioned 2020.  This is a non-sequitur.  Nobody is claiming that "Trump mentioned 2020".  The actual implicit claim is that Trump IS THINKING ABOUT 2020 A LOT, SOMETIMES EVEN WHEN HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY THE WORDS 2020.  The "fact" that Trump never mentioned 2020 on the call is 100% MOOT.  Hogan throws down another RED-HERRING.


POSTULATE WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED.  Hogan, out of the blue, says he remembers when democrats used to care about 2016.  This is a statement of opinion which is stated as fact, conflating opinion with fact.  It is also PROVABLY FALSE.  Just ask one person, any person who calls themself a democrat, just ask them if they "care about what happened in 2016" and see if their answer contradicts Hogan's opinion stated as fact.

Wildly off-topic, [TALKING-POINT] this is what the president ran on and won on in 2016 [/TALKING POINT].

Are you sure you want to talk about that?  Is this the same president who lost the popular vote by over 2 million?  Can you perhaps answer the very first question of this interview mr. "landslide"?

We need to make sure our allies spend the money we give them wisely.  That sounds nice, but the problem is it is a statement of PURE 100% OPINION.  There is absolutely no way anyone can determine if American allies will spend the money they are given "wisely" or not.  There never has been and there never will be.  Is it wise to pursue a conspiracy theory about the hacking of a DNC server in 2016?  Is that really the wisest way the UKRAINIAN GOVERNMENT WHO IS BASICALLY AT WAR WITH RUSSIA AT THE MOMENT, is that really the most important thing for them to be doing?

If Trump is really super concerned about a DNC server hack from 2016, why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION??????????????????????????????????

Hogan closes his statement with another RED-HERRING, POSTULATE WHAT HAS TO BE PROVED, the democrats don't care about how tax money is spent.  Same as before, this statement, bald-assertion, opinion stated as fact, IS PROVABLY FALSE.

> Steve: Please wait a second, we've gotta correct a fact here, you said the president did not ask about a 2020 rival, the record shows, the white-house record of the call, the record you released says, Trump asked about Joe Biden, so that is totally false what you just said.  Why did you say that false thing?

LOGIC: (1) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Hogan: In relation to the 2016 corruption, he wasn't talking 2020 and you and your listeners know that.

LOGIC: (2) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Steve: How is Joe Biden involved in the crowdstrike thing exactly?

LOGIC: (3) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.
Topic's author
#2
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
> Hogan: If you're talking about the 2016 election and you're talking about the corruption as it related to Ukraine, you talk about the person who dealt with Ukraine and that was Joe Biden.  I'm sorry, but running for president doesn't insulate you from any criticism or any investigation in any way.

LOGIC: (4) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Steve: That is certainly true.  Let's go on to your question about the process now.  Because you wanted to make a point about the process and whether or not it's more fair. 

LOGIC: (5) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Hogan: Right, it's not.  What the democrats have done is run a sham impeachment process, all behind closed doors, without any sunlight whatsoever, selectively leaking pieces of information without full testimony, to try and build a narrative moving into the second round.  The vote yesterday did nothing except say we're going to make portions of the next part public after we've already tried to tie your hands, bound your feet, bind-folded you put you in a closet and beat you senseless, then we're just gonna take the blindfold off for round 2.  Round 3 is when we're gonna take you in front of the judiciary committee, and we expect though that you're gonna be bloodied up enough that it won't matter.  The problem is, who they're fighting against is Donald Trump, he's gonna stand up by round 3 and fight back. 

LOGIC: (6) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Steve: That's interesting, I think democrats would characterize it differently, but there is an element of truth in what you said, that they would have to admit, which is that they have just taken a bunch of testimony in these private hearings and they're going to call those witnesses back in public and expect them to stand behind those stories, which we largely know.  Is that going to make it challenging to defend the president in public?

LOGIC: (7) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Hogan: Right, and face cross-examination.  I agree.

LOGIC: (8) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Steve: Do you think there's going to be difficulty defending that case given that so much of it is already on the record?

LOGIC: (9) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Hogan: No, because you're only hearing selected pieces of one portion.  And then also yesterday for example, a lot of things they're doing in private is beginning to back-fire.  There are reports of Mr. Morrison's testimony are that he felt that the president had done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.  So there are all types of things coming out of these hearings and you're kinda making my point which is it'd be really nice for the American People to get to see this, out in the open and in public.  If you get a parking ticket, you are afforded due process, you can confront the policeman who gave it to you, you can talk to the judge about it, you can submit evidence, you can ask questions.

LOGIC: (10) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Steve: Although, as you know, the police might investigate that in private first, then you get a trial, which could be coming, who knows?
>
> Hogan Gidly, thanks so much, really appreciate it.

LOGIC: (11) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

> Hogan: Thanks for the time.

LOGIC: (12) ENTER YOUR LOGIC NOTES FOR THIS BLANK IN THE COMMENTS.

#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
No no cares, how fitting
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
??????????????????????????????????

Are you sure this is the correct amount of question marks to signify your manufactured e-rage?

Why not ??????????????????????????????????+ one more ?

Faux pas I guess.
Topic's author
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
If Trump is really super concerned about a DNC server hack from 2016, why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?

Well, it got a comment out of you didn't it?

Why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?

Why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?

Why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?

Why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?

Why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?

Why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?
Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
No no cares, how fitting
Of course you don't care about logical fallacies.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Because you need diplomacy to ask another nation for justice?

Jus spitballin here Mr. stuck '?' key.

#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Also, I believe Barr is looking into it on our shores. Along with Durham.

Are you not sufficiently impressed with John Durham's beard?

Topic's author
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Also, I believe Barr is looking into it on our shores.
Barr and Giuliani have absolutely no business interacting with foreign nations.
#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you not sufficiently impressed with John Durham's beard?


#11
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
ITs just an interview, it hold zero weight

Topic's author
#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
ITs just an interview, it hold zero weight
If you personally don't care about the impeachment processes, WHY ARE YOU POSTING ON THE POLITICS FORUM?

The point here is that the FACTS are being obscured.

It's PROPAGANDA.
Topic's author
#13
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Because you need diplomacy to ask another nation for justice?
Why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?
#14
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Impeachment bad
Topic's author
#15
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Impeachment bad
Thank you for sharing your OPINION.

Do you have any FACTS you'd like to discuss?
#16
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Its bidens scandal
Topic's author
#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Its bidens scandal
Once again, this is your personal opinion.

Do you have any FACTS you'd like to discuss?
#18
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
However, the transcript of the call shows that the help sought by Trump was in regard to activities that took place during and before the 2016 election.
“I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The [DNC] server, they say Ukraine has it,” Trump said to Zelensky.
Trump also referenced alleged corruption by then-Vice President Joe Biden: “The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”
In 2014, Biden’s son, Hunter, was hired to the board of Ukrainian company Burisma and paid a salary of $83,333 per month, despite having had no previous experience in the energy sector. Fox News reported, “All told, the Ukraine company paid $3.4 million to Rosemont Seneca Bohai LLC, a company headed by Hunter Biden business partner Devon Archer.”
Ukrainian prosecutors were investigating Burisma and it was Joe Biden himself who publicly bragged “about threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine as a pressure tactic to force the firing of a prosecutor he did not like,” according to Real Clear Politics.
It was actually Biden who did everything Democrats are accusing Trump of having done. This is further evidenced by the fact that it’s impossible for Trump to have engaged in a quid-pro-quo with Ukraine, because Ukrainian officials didn’t even know the funds were being withheld until a month after the phone call.

Topic's author
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
However, the transcript of the call shows that the help sought by Trump was in regard to activities that took place during and before the 2016 election.
“I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The [DNC] server, they say Ukraine has it,” Trump said to Zelensky.
Why doesn't he ask the STATE DEPARTMENT TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION?
#20
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Ukraine is a primary source of waht happened
Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Trump also referenced alleged corruption by then-Vice President Joe Biden: “The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”
Biden NEVER "went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution".

NEVER.

NOT EVEN ONCE.

This is PROVABLY FALSE.

Not to mention the FACT that the US Attorney General has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER SPEAKING TO A FOREIGN PRESIDENT.
Topic's author
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ukraine is a primary source of waht happened
That is your personal OPINION.

Do you have any FACTS you'd like to discuss?
#23
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Biden NEVER "went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution".

NEVER.

NOT EVEN ONCE.

This is PROVABLY FALSE.

Not to mention the FACT that the US Attorney General has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER SPEAKING TO A FOREIGN PRESIDENT.

That is your personal OPINION.

Do you have any FACTS you'd like to discuss?

Ukraine is a primary source of what happened there, FACT


#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
He has opened an investigation,

Is john Durham's beard not impressive enough for you?


Topic's author
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Ukraine is a primary source of what happened there, FACT
Where are your FACTS that support this OPINION?
Topic's author
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Biden NEVER "went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution".
Please present a COUNTER FACTUAL.

FACT - There is absolutely no evidence, no recordings, no video, no sworn testimony that Biden "went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution" of Hunter Biden.

THIS STATEMENT IS A BALD-FACED-LIE.

And for the record, I don't give a flying flip about Biden, I think he's a crook and a complete idiot, BUT you should be SMART ENOUGH to actually accuse people of things they ACTUALLY DID.

I can't believe how easily they can get you to drink their OPINION kool-aid.
Topic's author
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you even watch your own clip?

What exactly is being investigated here?

#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL

This.

And you have yet to comment on Durham's beard.
Topic's author
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Getting the head of the STATE DEPARTMENT to give their OPINION on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW is a RED-HERRING.

This person has no authority over congressional hearings.

No authority whatsoever.

This impeachment process is IDENTICAL TO THE BILL CLINTON IMPEACHMENT.

All of this "fair and open hearings" BS is pure PROPAGANDA.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Minority had subpoena power in Bill Impeachment. Also, vote to proceed was bipartisan.

Nothing is identical.