Ambassador Taylor Testimony

[Jose Fly]

i asked him that same question too!

"When did Obama order a hold on military aid to a country until they investigated his political rival"?

he has yet to give an adequate response. All he keeps doing is playing the whataboutism card

Just like creationists....shout "no evidence", wave away or ignore whatever evidence is provided, and declare victory.

It's no different than one particular JW creationist's tactics in the EvC forum.

 

[Shad]

So we both agree that Obama did not withhold military aid to Egypt to pressure them to investigate his political rivals.

Loaded question

Um.....your first post in this thread: "All his testimony is 3rd hand. I heard from X. I believe X. I inferred X. Not one single direct contact piece of testimony. Yawn."

Yes it is as he was not directly involved.

That's the problem with ad hoc talking points....after a period of time it can get difficult to keep them straight.

Wrong again. You brought up a point about the aid hold. The hold was public knowledge over a month ago before Taylor said anything. More so his information is still 2nd hand.

 

[Shad]

Just like creationists....shout "no evidence", wave away or ignore whatever evidence is provided, and declare victory.

A linked article does not mean it turn's into evidence because you say so. More so you couldn't even prove your claim that Biden's action had support. You still can't. Try again.

Throwing an article at me isn't an argument. You have yet to refute anything I said. You merely repeating your assertions.

It's no different than one particular JW creationist's tactics in the EvC forum.

Ironic as you just proved you are doing exactly what you accused me of. Try again son. You are smearing then running away.

 

[Prometheus85]

Loaded question




Yes it is as he was not directly involved.



Wrong again. You brought up a point about the aid hold. The hold was public knowledge over a month ago before Taylor said anything. More so his information is still 2nd hand.

he was not directly involved?? He was the US ambassador in Ukraine appointed by trump.

 

[Jose Fly]

Loaded question

LOL.....apparently details aren't important to you. All that matters is "Obama held up military aid too", regardless of the reasons he had for doing so.

Yes it is as he was not directly involved.

You can't admit you were wrong, can you? First you chide me for referring to "a point that is almost a month old and open to the public before Taylor said a word to Congress", but when I show that you just said it two days ago, in response to Taylor's testimony, suddenly it's not so old, is it?

Hilarious.

Wrong again. You brought up a point about the aid hold. The hold was public knowledge over a month ago before Taylor said anything. More so his information is still 2nd hand.

?????????? What the heck is your point? Taylor's information, accounts, and documents don't matter because we all already knew Trump withheld military aid in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals?

And if it's public knowledge, then whether Taylor's accounts are second-hand is irrelevant, since the best is can do is confirm what we already know.

IOW, your talking points are self-defeating.

 

[Shad]

he was not directly involved?? He was the US ambassador in Ukraine appointed by trump.

He was not involved with the hold nor was part of decision making. He was completely bypassed.

 

[Jose Fly]

A linked article does not mean it turn's into evidence because you say so. More so you couldn't even prove your claim that Biden's action had support. You still can't. Try again.

Throwing an article at me isn't an argument. You have yet to refute anything I said. You merely repeating your assertions.

Yup, exactly like a creationist. With a creationist, it's....

Where's the evidence?

<posts links to multiple scientific papers>

That's not evidence! It's just the words of fallible men!​

With you and others in Team Trump, it's.....

Where's the evidence?

<posts links to multiple news articles>​

That's not evidence! You're just throwing articles at me!​

 

[Shad]

LOL.....apparently details aren't important to you. All that matters is "Obama held up military aid too", regardless of the reasons he had for doing so.

Wrong. You presented a loaded question with your conclusion then wanting me to answer it. So either you are dishonest or are clueless.

You can't admit you were wrong, can you?

You have yet to prove me wrong.

First you chide me for referring to "a point that is almost a month old and open to the public before Taylor said a word to Congress", but when I show that you just said it two days ago, in response to Taylor's testimony, suddenly it's not so old, is it?

Wrong. You are horrible at research.

Trump instructed administration to withhold military aid for Ukraine days before call with president: report

Hilarious.

Put some effort in son.

What the heck is your point? Taylor's information, accounts, and documents don't matter because we all already knew Trump withheld military aid in order to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals?

Loaded question

And if it's public knowledge, then whether Taylor's accounts are second-hand is irrelevant, since the best is can do is confirm what we already know.

Ergo you just agreed that your point was irrelevant which is what I said already.

IOW, your talking points are self-defeating.

Wrong. You just are horrible at research. Try again.

 

[Shad]

Yup, exactly like a creationist. With a creationist, it's....

Where's the evidence?

<posts links to multiple scientific papers>

That's not evidence! It's just the words of fallible men!​

With you and others in Team Trump, it's.....

Where's the evidence?

<posts links to multiple news articles>​

That's not evidence! You're just throwing articles at me!​

You made a serious blunder about when the hold became public knowledge. It was known a month ago.

Media isn't scientific papers. You are conflating issues and misplacing authority. Also note peer-review is open to many experts not merely those selected by one party and in control of one party. More so science itself is open to public debate and scrutiny while this case is not. You are really bad at making comparisons. Try again.

You linking an article is not evidence. It is an argument from authority. You are just doing a low effort gish gallop. I am not debating you I am debating your source as you put in no effort. If I disagree with the source you just whine and smear. Try again son.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wrong. You presented a loaded question with your conclusion then wanting me to answer it. So either you are dishonest or are clueless.

???????? Are the reasons Obama held up military aid to Egypt important to you or not?

Wrong. You are horrible at research.

Trump instructed administration to withhold military aid for Ukraine days before call with president: report

Ah, I see what happened. When you complained about an old talking point, you were referring to "Yeah, he withheld military aid to Ukraine. So what?". I thought you were referring to "it's all second-hand info" regarding Taylor's testimony.

Loaded question

Asking what your point is is a loaded question? That speaks volumes.

Ergo you just agreed that your point was irrelevant which is what I said already.

So now we're back to "so what". As the polls are showing, an increasing number of US citizens don't share your lack of concern.

 

[Shad]

???????? Are the reasons Obama held up military aid to Egypt important to you or not?

I rejected the framing of your question. Reform your question and try again.

Ah, I see what happened. When you complained about an old talking point, you were referring to "Yeah, he withheld military aid to Ukraine. So what?". I thought you were referring to "it's all second-hand info" regarding Taylor's testimony.

Public knowledge but yes.

Asking what your point is is a loaded question? That speaks volumes.

Wrong. You included your conclusion in this case as part of the question about Obama. So are you dishonest or clueless?

So now we're back to "so what".

Wrong. Now we are back to your provide evidence of quid pro quo

As the polls are showing, an increasing number of US citizens don't share your lack of concern.

I care little about the views of the masses nor their whims.

You still missed the point. Try again

 

[Jose Fly]

I rejected the framing of your question. Reform your question and try again.

What framing aspect of "Are the reasons Obama held up military aid to Egypt important to you" is problematic for you?

Wrong. You included your conclusion in this case as part of the question about Obama.

Wrong. Now we are back to your provide evidence of quid pro quo

So now we're back to your position that there's absolutely no link between "We're ready to buy javelins" and "I need a favor though".

As I said before, that argument falls into the "too stupid to bother with" category.

I care little about the views of the masses nor their whims.

You still missed the point. Try again

So what sort of "evidence" were you expecting? And does this mean you will never refer to any news articles in your posts?

 

[Shad]

What framing aspect of "Are the reasons Obama held up military aid to Egypt important to you" is problematic for you?

That wasn't the question. The question was

So we both agree that Obama did not withhold military aid to Egypt to pressure them to investigate his political rivals.

The bold is the loaded part.

So now we're back to your position that there's absolutely no link between "We're ready to buy javelins" and "I need a favor though".

Yup.

As I said before, that argument falls into the "too stupid to bother with" category.

Smear and running away. People can change topics in a conversation. Have you heard of the concept before?

So what sort of "evidence" were you expecting? And does this mean you will never refer to any news articles in your posts?

I refer to specific arguments not an article which no specific points quoted by you. Hence why I answered specific points and reject your reference to the article as a whole being evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

That wasn't the question.

It was the second question I asked you. Again, are the reasons Obama held up military aid to Egypt important to you?

I refer to specific arguments not an article which no specific points quoted by you. Hence why I answered specific points and reject your reference to the article as a whole being evidence.

Like I said.....just like trying to show science to a creationist. You'll make whatever excuse you can to wave away inconvenient information.

 

[Shad]

It was the second question I asked you.

Nope. You quote-mined yourself trying to deceive. You ignored the point I made completely and cut out the part I was talking about. More so you lost track of the comment chain. Try again. Your dishonesty and/or incompetence has been noted. I will use smaller words next time.

Again, are the reasons Obama held up military aid to Egypt important to you?

In part. I do not think Egypt should get aid in the first place.

Like I said.....just like trying to show science to a creationist.

Flawed comparison. Media isn't a science. Try again.

You'll make whatever excuse you can to wave away inconvenient information.

You are just deflecting as you can not make an argument that can withstand scrutiny.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. You quote-mined yourself trying to deceive. You ignored the point I made completely and cut out the part I was talking about. More so you lost track of the comment chain. Try again. Your dishonesty and/or incompetence has been noted. I will use smaller words next time.

In part. I do not think Egypt should get aid in the first place.

Flawed comparison. Media isn't a science. Try again.

You are just deflecting as you can not make an argument that can withstand scrutiny.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Shad]

Thanks for your time.

Thanks for you time as well.

I am taking this as a neutral tone and returning it in kind.

 

[Yerda]

I fail to see how using public office for personal gain can benefit any polity. It's nothing but a form of corruption.

I agree. It's also corrosive to almost every positive feature of democracy.

 

[fantome profane]

Media isn't scientific papers. You are conflating issues and misplacing authority. Also note peer-review is open to many experts not merely those selected by one party and in control of one party. More so science itself is open to public debate and scrutiny while this case is not. You are really bad at making comparisons. Try again.

Are you waiting for a scientific peer reviewed paper published to show Donald Trump was with extorting the President of Ukraine?

That is not the way it works.

News articles are not scientific papers, but they are historical documents. Very very recent historical documents, but historical documents nonetheless. And so they are valid evidence.

 

[Shad]

Are you waiting for a scientific peer reviewed paper published to show Donald Trump was with extorting the President of Ukraine?

I need more than your interpretation.

That is not the way it works.

Of course not. Dems are making up the rules as they go along.

News articles are not scientific papers, but they are historical documents. Very very recent historical documents, but historical documents nonetheless. And so they are valid evidence.

Except there was a comparison made between the two not created by me. You are saying nothing new here. That was my objection