XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

Why Do All Democrats Hate The Military?

Democratic Senator Blocks 1,123 Military Promotions Over Key Impeachment Witness

Washington - Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth, a combat veteran from Illinois, announced Thursday she plans to block more than 1,100 military promotions until she receives confirmation from Defense Secretary Mark Esper that he will not block an expected promotion for the Army officer who was a key witness in President Trump's impeachment proceedings.

Duckworth said she is seeking written confirmation from Esper that "he did not, or will not, block the expected and deserved promotion" of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who testified before House investigators during their impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump's dealings with Ukraine, to full colonel.

Duckworth's blanket hold applies to 1,123 senior military promotions above the rank of colonel.

"Our military is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy," Duckworth, who served in the Reserved Forces for more than two decades, said in a statement. "It is simply unprecedented and wrong for any commander in chief to meddle in routine military matters at all, whether or not he has a personal vendetta against a soldier who did his patriotic duty and told the truth - a soldier who has been recommended for promotion by his superiors because of his performance."

Duckworth said she will lift her hold on Senate approval of the promotions once Esper confirms whether Vindman was among those selected for promotion from lieutenant colonel to colonel, whether the Army included Vindman on its list of promotions to colonel sent to the Pentagon, and whether Esper or another Defense Department official will or has submitted a list of Army promotions to colonel to the White House for approval that includes Vindman.

As an expert on Ukraine on the National Security Council, Vindman participated in the July 2019 phone call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which the president asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. Vindman raised concerns with the call to superiors at the National Security Council.

During testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Vindman said Mr. Trump's suggestion to Zelensky was "inappropriate."

The call was the focal point of House Democrats" impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump, who was impeached by the House on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December. The president was acquitted of both charges by the Senate in February.

Days after Mr. Trump's acquittal, Vindman was removed from his post at the National Security Council and escorted out of the White House.

Mr. Trump has attacked Vindman, claiming he was "very insubordinate" and "was given a horrendous report by his superior," and his criticisms of the Army officer furthered concerns that the president was retaliating against those who testified against him during impeachment proceedings.

The Washington Post reported last month that numerous government officials were concerned Vindman's promotion was in jeopardy due to his participation in the impeachment inquiry. Promotions are typically approved by the Army and Pentagon before they are submitted to the White House and Senate for confirmation.

========================================================================

The Liberal Argument Outline

1. Use spun facts:

These can be found on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and many other liberal sources. What they do is take facts, polls or arguments and add a liberal spin in a weak attempt to make bad news for liberals look good. These are easily debunked and exposed as lies by going to the original source and posting the hard, cold facts with NO spin.

Note: At this point, you have won. It should never take more than one
post to win an argument with a liberal. It is recommended that you claim victory and disengage at this point. If you continue, for fun or
experimental purposes, no further logic will be forthcoming from the
liberals.

2. The Next Step For The Liberal Will Be To Attempt To Discredit Your
Source

If it is Fox or any perceived "right wing" source, they will refuse to
believe it. If it is a non-partisan source, they will claim it is right
wing, if it is a left of center source, they will find another lefty
source to "prove" you are wrong. They will not discuss the facts
themselves, as they know they have lost. If you must go down this road
(there is a high entertainment value), don't allow this diversion. Go
back to the facts.

3. The Limbaugh Defense:

This is one that comes out early and often. Although you know they never listen to Rush Limbaugh and have no idea what he says, they will drag him out and claim you are a Ditto head. This is another diversionary tactic. It has no relevance and is an attempt to change the subject. The more desperate they are, the more childish and ridiculous the reference to Limbaugh becomes: Flush, LimpBag, etc. Ignore this and re-post the facts. DO NOT BE DIVERTED.

4. The Personal Attack:

Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as "I am a chef".

They will attempt to engage you and call you a liar to divert attention
from the original lost argument. Ignore this and re-post the facts yet
to be refuted.

5. Name Calling:

Still another diversion. If you fail to give them any personal information, they will attempt to draw you out to gain more insight into your personal side. Then they will return to step 4. Ignore this.

6. The Liberal Bat Signal:

When they find out they are unable to engage
you, divert you or goad you into a completely irrelevant topic, they
will send out the Bat Signal. This is where a bunch of Liberals (or
often, the same one using several names, i.e., Rudy) post a number of
rapid fire posts congratulating the Liberal on handing you your head on
a platter. This tactic often works on even the most logical and
disciplined of us. The urge to rant must be resisted. Your rant will
supply them with all the personal insight they need to spew hatred and
personal attacks. The best tactic here is to use the same tactic back at
them.

Keep in mind, a Liberal will never admit you have a valid point (Dutch
did, once), much less that you won a debate. So, the only reasons to
continue a dialog with a liberal after the initial statement of facts
that established your victory are for entertainment and educational
purposes. If you refuse to take the bait and demand the topic remain on
the original premise, they will eventually just go away and try to find
someone else that will engage them on their terms.

Now, go away, Snowflake.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)