Impeachment thread . . .

If there ever was a system that failed it was Communism.   In the period 1917 to 1953 there were 52 000 000 people killed in Russia alone.   They often enough died through starvation caused by the communist farming system/

I went to Budapest and saw the bullet holes in buildings caused by communist oppression of people.   

Can you name me one communist country with a successful economy?   The whole economic system is based on the Jewish economic system thousands of years ago - can it work in modern environment?  It never has and  opened up the way for dictatorship where there is no freedom for people and all economic issues are decided on by the Government and devised by public servants,  I can assure you that is the most stupid way an economy can be run.   

If there is one system that is rejected by people.   China was socialist with millions of people murdered  - approximately 72 000 000 - but since the death of Mao Zedong they changed the economy by incorporating capitalist methods - while still retaining a dictatorship.   

Ask the people of Hong Kong what they think of the system you are endorsing,

Well I was going to respond to old Commie but seeing that you folks are all over him I will delay my reply.

What a DOOS.

"Ou Maaik, you think I'm endorsing Communism?

And I'm too lazy to articulate myself properly like Plum does, but " 'n goeie begrip het 'n halwe woord nodig".

PS, Plum, tell me when the penny drops.

DbDraasd you are on fire today and rightly so.

AJ, I shouldn't be responding to Rudeneck, but I can't ignore his hypocrisy...dog-laser-pointer -stuff...just like his rants against POTUS...imagine having admiration for a lying fraud like Adam "Skyf" eksê! No integrity, no values, just hate for the Deplorables....we'll see who gets prosecuted...

PS, I don't mind people having different beliefs and values from mine, what p!sses me off is the gross intolerance from some people towards me and my beliefs...the aggressive opposition of some the things they decided are undesirable...deplorable...they are right we are wrong...we had our time, it's their time...and the cowardly way they try to justify it boggles the mind....

Rooi

My bad. I have a weird way of phrasing questions in that I tend to assume I'm making clear myself clear when I'm often not.

Prosperity is not one of your desired outcomes? I've not download TCM yet so still a tad in the dark.

Surely, prosperity must be one comminism's end goals? It wants to abolish classes and nationalise intellectual and material wealth, fine. But how does one sell a materialisticly based concept to people when the material benefit ceiling rests well below prosperity?

Is it a case of, "Nobody will starve but we'll make sure there are no rich people either"?

Or is it more about creating social and economic equality and building toward group prosperity from there?

Surely if prosperity is removed then the selling point simply becomes the removal of envy and the shame of failure in the presence of the success of others. To most people anyway, since the weak, sick, and incapable don't make up the majority of the population. 

I have a feeling that, in light of transhumanism, communist ideals will have added weight. As far as abolishing classes goes anyway.

The reason being, in the next fifty years, humans will be creating a new class that will more powerful and many times more daunting to those not in it. You may laugh, but cyborgs are coming. Quasi-cyborgs exist already. What happens when neural implants grant vastly increased memory? When we add another ten senses to the current five, allow for automation to control higher human  functions and people are able to consume information and process solutions at rates which make today's computers seem archaic?

That's a new class of being. And it'll be on demi-god level.

My guess is, most of the people people reading this are probably terrified by such an eventuality. Suddenly the abolishment of classes doesn't seem so bad. Suddenly, a rule that says no person may have more power than others, doesn't seem so evil.

In the face of being dubbed "a natural" or "sub-optimal", people may place renewed value in communist ideas. 

When you say that human greed, IE our nature, stands in the way of achieving social utopia, I take it that you are predominately referring to leadership?

Targeted AI, may solve that issue. It's easier to develope than what general AI is and more manageable.

Beyond that, we are already linked, via our smartphones, to a global network. Once our nervous systems are physically connected to that network, we're very close to being a hive mind type species. This is happening. The integration of human consciousness into the singularity seems a when rather than if scenario.

From there, one could build a plethora of hypothetical scenarios, but communist ideas seem to lurk nearby in most of them.

Just a rant before work. Gotta make those capitalist bux after all.

SB

The fact is that the whole structure of communism as described by Marx in its purist form is found on Kibbutzim in Israel - where it works because it is closely linked to the religious values of Orthodox Jewism,   

Now for another fact - Russia in 1914 produced more food than the country did in 1984 - that despite modern technology and the scientific development in that period.   It was reported that up to 70% of food production in Russia happened on the smallholdings where farmworkers and their families were allowed to farm for their own benefit.   That is as far removed as possible from the idea of Communism.

Can it work elsewhere?   I do not think it can and never did thus far.   The reason is widescale incompetence in Public Services the world over and in dishonesty associated with it.   The other problem is that scoundrels take over governance  and enrich themselves.  They routinely end up as dictators of the worst kind.

Communism is an excuse for lazy people to receive more than they contribute...it's for slackers.

I don't have a problem with social responsibility and helping the poor and downtrodden...but don't put a Commie in charge, puleeze !!! they'll only skim off the cream.

.

Rooinek

I listened to the evidence of Taylor and the Ex-Ambassador and there was zilch of value. of anything which they did provide that is of any help to the impeachment enquiry,  They were basically floundering when questioned and so far the only thing clear is that it is a stitch-up,

Taylor was a fool who announced grandly in his statement that was counter to three meetings eh had with Trump and admitted that nothing was mentioned as to anything alleged by the Democrats, but his sworn statement had an assumption that there was a quid-pro-quo.

This is going nowhere at all - and that is just about anything made public yet.       

Watching some summaries of it now.

How is anyone even taking this seriously?

Goodness. Schiff is surely a candidate for most klapable face in history. 

Is it just me that thinks he looks like a complete slimeball?

And the real elephant in the room...Hunter and Joe Biden should actually be investigated for corruption in the Ukraine and China...nothing to do with Biden being an political opponent but all to do with him being corrupt as they come. He bragged about his quid pro quo on camera...while he was still VP...and now they want to impeach Trump for allegedly doing the same thing, but without evidence.  Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. The world is going down fast...it's time for a reset.

Mozart

Did he smoke the stuff produced by that pot??????  LMAO

Ah...a more sinister angle

From a friend in Moscow;

As you see, no such thing as something like Ukraine even on the nearest picture.

The newspaper "The Russia Beyond" has many others articles, English language. 

Seb

Historically the Crimea was never part of Ukraine until 1953 and then only I believe to establish a large Russian-Crimean population to balance out the Ukrainian population in wat was traditionally Ukraine.

The fact is that the US State Department does not want to see Russia as a potential ally - they want to maintain a "cold war" against Russia and use Ukraine as an opportunity to launder money and use corruption for their own benefit.   They used Ukraine to undermine the Trump election campaign in 2016 and the present story has more to do  with covering up the illegal abuses that happened in that case. 

Duplication 

Ol Maaik...like you I'm interested in Russian history, particularly the Tsars and other european history namely Napoleon, Bismarck (the Iron Duke/Chancellor) the 1st and 2nd World Wars etc.

However modern day politics bores me to tears as it is so contaminated and laced with deception that nobody really knows the truth, the real truth and nothing but the truth.

Seb 

It is  boring and was taken into a farcical situation by Modern Politicians.   They want to brain wash people in accepting what the political and economic elite want to happen.   Fact is I see the situation where the elite want to destroy real democracy.   The ancient Greeks said Democracy is a poor form of Government because of abuse by the crooks and it is happening all over the show.  

I think the situation is fraying at the edges and the ordinary workers are struggling - a bad  situation which could cause massive trouble in future.   The election of Trump was a revolt against the crooks in politics - the Brexit vote was the same.    There are new political oparties developing all over Europe and that can cause damage  to society,

I think that a treaty between Russia, the Ukraine and the USA will solve huge problems, but Putin was also naughty - he bribed the senior figures in the DP and wanted Clinton as President. so as to get the upper hand in negotiations with the USA,     .       

Rooinek 

There was one clear question asked of both Taylor and Kent?    What has Trump done that warrant impeachment.   They were silent and could not give any real answer - so Schiff went on a tirade.

You seems to think Schiff is honest - he is as deep into Ukrainian corruption is as Pelosi, the Biden's and Kerry.   How much of the billions of dollars of US Aid went to Burisma and from there to the corrupt DP politicians under Obama.    Biden was the point man of Obama in the Ukraine and China and there is clear evidence that massive corruption involving both countries were in evidence.   Why did a  Russian State Company pay $142 billion into the Clinton Foundation and gave one of Obama's advisors and Clinton Election Chairman - John Podesta - 75 000  shares in a Russian State Company which is proven by e-mails Podesta claimed were  stolen by the Russians.  It was not - it was uncovered by Wikileaks.   Why should the Russians steal  emails between Podesta and a Russian state-owned company?   The other e-mail that is uncovered was one from Clinton to Podesta where she claimed that she has direct access to Putin's "inner sanctum".

Even though Obama refused to provide arms to Ukraine - they provided massive aid to the country while involved in a war against Russia - the Obama administration provided Billions in dollars in aid.   There was a Russian involved in producing arms in a factory in Ukraine and the question is how much of that aid went to the company owned by the Russian residing in the USA,   The Russian was funding the Schiff election campaigns in 2016 and 2018 - previously funded by George Soros,   What else did the Russian spent on benefitting Schiff? 

The hope always was that Clinton would win the 2016 election and since then the Trump was accuse of everything the DP did before and during the 2016 election campaign.   They had crooked agents in the CIA, the FBI and the Justice Department to protect the corrupt - but the situation is unravelling and the chances are a lot of the corrupt will end up in jail.

That is why the Impeachment Story is unravelling and will go nowhere.                 

Rooinek 

There was one clear question asked of both Taylor and Kent?    What has Trump done that warrant impeachment.   They were silent and could not give any answer - so Schiff went on a tirade.

You seems to think Schiff is honest - he is as deep into Ukrainian corruption is as Pelosi, the Biden's and Kerry.   How much of the billions of dollars of US Aid went to Burisma and from there to the corrupt DP politicians under Obama.    Biden was the point man of Obama in the Ukraine and China and there is clear evidence that massive corruption involving both countries were in evidence.   Why did a  Russian State Company pay $142 billion into the Clinton Foundation and gave one of Obama's advisors and Clinton Election Chairman - John Podesta - 75 000  shares in a Russian State Company which is proven by e-mails Podesta claimed were  stolen by the Russians.  It was not - it was uncovered by Wikileaks.   Why should the Russians steal  emails between Podesta and a Russian state-owned company?   The other e-mail that is uncovered was one from Clinton to Podesta where she claimed that she has direct access to Putin's "inner sanctum".

Even though Obama refused to provide arms to Ukraine - they provided massive aid to the country while involved in a war against Russia - the Obama administration provided Billions in dollars in cash  aid.   There was a Russian involved in producing arms in a factory in Ukraine and the question is how much of that aid went to the company owned by the Russian residing in the USA,   The Russian was funding the Schiff election campaigns in 2016 and 2018 - previously funded by George Soros,   What else did the Russian spent on benefitting Schiff? 

The hope always was that Clinton would win the 2016 election and since then the Trump was accuse of everything the DP did before and during the 2016 election campaign.   They had crooked agents in the CIA, the FBI and the Justice Department to protect the corrupt - but the situation is unravelling and the chances are a lot of the corrupt will end up in jail.

That is why the Impeachment Story is unravelling and will go nowhere.                 

The ignorance of poor rooibozo is legendary. 

I see those two clowns sharktwit and blobbie going quiet. Wise move.

I have been following this coup attempt and it's clear Schiffs witness have crashed and burned. 

The demonrats have made a major blunder and it's getting worse by the day. Plus the IG report will be out in December and it will be damping. Then we have Durham and his work. 

The demonrats will be fools to take this to the Senate where there will be fair process and where Schiff and Eric CIA ramella will be called to testify. Can you imagine the carnage!

So here is a possibility. Piglosi will say the enquiry has not found sufficient evidence to impeach. They have done their constitutional duty to look into the matter etc etc.

I was slack perhaps to not post many clips and articles ripping Schiif to peaces. However it's great to see some others working over rooibozo. However that said you have missed a lot of important material that sinks Schiff completely.

I just hope the lying globalist MSM is going to get their dues. 

I note in passing the NBC and ABC are in the dwang for covering up on Epstein. 

This becomes funnier by the moment.

They compared it to Watergate.

I can't even.

Sorry Rooinek 

The question was asked and the two went into stupor and could not answer it.   Sorry to disappoint you.  The answer was given by Schiff and Taylor said on another question he is not there was a star witness for anyone. 

Both admitted they have no direct evidence to link the so-called quid-pro-quo story to Trump at all.   Fact is the latest President of Ukraine was elected in May 2019  to destroy corruption in the country and part of that is to clear up corruption of USA representatives at the time of the Obama administration.   He himself has denied repeatedly there never were any quid-pro-quo at all and has done so on TV and in the media,  He also denied the allegation about the arms delivery being a quid-pro-quo.  

I think he wants to clear up the corruption mess involving the USA government under Obama in Ukraine as well.   So why would he lie about the quid-pro-quo issue at all?     

Ummm . . . ou Maaik, on this very thread you stated "I did not listen to CNN on the hearing." . . . but now suddenly you appear to know better than those of us who did watch it. 

Without going into your usual ignorant and biased garbage about how wonderful Bozo is and how naughty the Democrats are, just explain that bit to me . . . how you know so much about something you didn't actually see?

Here is the clip of the incident that shows you to be either very stupid or a liar. 

It's one of the two. Taylor answers the question (and your idiot Ratcliffe suddenly tries to retract his question when he realises Taylor is going to answer) and explains yet again that he's not there to pass judgement or decide what is or isn't impeachable.

Easy Rooinek

I listened subsequently to the evidence that was on the internet anyway,   I wanted to hear whether there was any real evidence to impeach  Trump and there was none thus far,  

I listened to the clip and Taylor NEVER answered the question - he tried to duck and dive and did not answer a simple question - in the end the tirade of Schiff followed.   Sorry here was a diplomat that was supposed to be aware of what really happened and he should have answered the question honestly - he never did.

He did try to duck out of the question by saying he was not there to give an opinion.   So why is it that he did not have an opinion on the issue.  The follow-up question by Ratcliffe was never a changed question - it was an attempt to get an answer out of Taylor.  Ratcliffe is a top attorney and not a fool - he wanted an answer and never got one.  That caused Schiff to interfere,   

He was obviously still thinking that the Russian Hoax really implied Russian collusion in the 2016 election on the part of Trump and made a statement to that effect in the questioning. 

I wonder about one thing still - when Obama became President in 2008 he fired all the US ambassadors abroad forthwith and replaced them with his supporters.   Trump made a terrible mistake - he retained most of the ambassadors and  senior State Department officials and now they have an opportunity to strike back at him.     

Mike is that nutcase rooibozo ever strayed from the clown news network he would know Taylor got nowhere.

It hilarious to see the buffoon bumble on with his drivel. 

Yeah ... he ducked the question.

Anyone can see that.

Is this honestly the best the Democrats can do?

Seems Bozo is well on his way to coming out unscathed ... again.

Ambassador Bill Taylor's opening statement:

"Mr. Chairman, I am appearing today at the Committee’s request to provide my perspective on the events that are the subject of the Committee’s inquiry. I want to emphasize at the outset that, while I am aware that the Committee has requested my testimony as part of impeachment proceedings, I am not here to take one side or the other, or to advocate for any particular outcome of these proceedings. My sole purpose is to provide facts as I know them about the incidents in question as well as my views about the strategic importance of Ukraine to the United States."

Subsequent stupid questions fro m Congressman Ratcliffe and answer from Bill Taylor (when Ratcliffe wasn't talking over him):

Okay, very good. In this impeachment hearing today where we impeach presidents for treason or bribery or other high crimes, where is the impeachable offense in that call? Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? Shout it out. Anyone?

Bill Taylor: (04:05)
Mr. Ratcliffe if I can just respond. Let me just reiterate that I’m not here …

John Ratcliffe: (04:13)
I’ve got one minute left.

Bill Taylor: (04:13)
I know you only got a minute left.

John Ratcliffe: (04:13)
Let me just make this point.

Speaker 3: (04:14)
You asked the witness a question.

John Ratcliffe: (04:14)
I withdraw the question. Let me just make this point …

Bill Taylor: (04:16)
I’m not here to take one side or the other, that’s your [crosstalk 00:04:20].

John Ratcliffe: (04:16)
Let me ask this question …

Speaker 3: (04:21)
The general will suspend.

John Ratcliffe: (04:22)
Suspend the time please.

Speaker 3: (04:24)
Ambassador Taylor, would you like to answer the question?

John Ratcliffe: (04:27)
Suspend the time please. I withdrew the question.

Speaker 3: (04:28)
The general will suspend. We will suspend the clock.

John Ratcliffe: (04:31)
Suspend the clock in one minute please.

Speaker 3: (04:33)
Ambassador Taylor, would you like toe respond to the question?

Bill Taylor: (04:36)
Mr. Ratcliffe, I would just like to say that I am not here to do anything having to do with having to decide about impeachment. That is not what either of us are here to do. This is your job. Thank you Mr. General.

Trumpanzees:

"Duhh . . . Taylor ducked the question . . . duh-huh"

LMAO!