Why isn't Lt. Col. Vindman being charged with treason...

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

you cannot give a description of what he did that would qualify.

I shouldn't have to describe something that anyone who has been in the military should know the answer to

 

[middleview]

I shouldn't have to describe something that anyone who has been in the military should know the answer to

you cannot give a description of what he did that would qualify.

 

[Dawg]

View attachment 46244

That could be anyone's DD-214...…….there's no name on it

 

[middleview]

That could be anyone's DD-214...…….there's no name on it

as if I'd reveal my name to you....Tell you what...you show yours first.

 

[Dawg]

as if I'd reveal my name to you....Tell you what...you show yours first.

As posted, that could be anyone's DD-214

You revealed you name long ago with the pictures of you with your beloved libs...…..

 

[middleview]

As posted, that could be anyone's DD-214

You revealed you name long ago with the pictures of you with your beloved libs...…..

1. Ok, go find one of your own to post...since it is so easy to do.
2. Really? So what is my name?

 

[Spamature]

Actually spending minus revenues is the deficit, and revenue minus spending is a surplus, assuming the lower figure is the lesser. Semantics aside, deficits and surpluses are a derivative of revenue and spending, so yes they are components. Anyone who has worked on budgets or financial statements knows that. Some people like to play silly games, pretending they're some kind of expert.

You come out with a negative either way I suppose, but yeah.

Some people, @The Thinker in this case, run out of party talking point and start throwing feces because they feel they're a suitable substitute.

 

[Dawg]

1. Ok, go find one of your own to post...since it is so easy to do.
2. Really? So what is my name?

I have no reason to post either of my DD-214's

Don't you know your own name?

 

[middleview]

I have no reason to post either of my DD-214's

Don't you know your own name?

The point is you lied.

 

[Wahbooz]

Assuming the lower figure is the lesser??? Huh??? The lower figure is ALWAYS the lesser!!!

Here, how about some more brilliance like what you just posted? Four is always less than five! Amazing, aren't I?????

View attachment 46212

Since you're confused, no it's not always the smaller figure. If revenues are less than expenditures, and you subtract expenditures from revenue, you get a deficit. Apparently you aren't aware the number scale has positive and negative numbers on it.

"The Thinker".... my ass.

 

[Wahbooz]

You come out with a negative either way I suppose, but yeah.

Some people, @The Thinker in this case, run out of party talking point and start throwing feces because they feel they're a suitable substitute.

Unless your revenues are larger than your expenditures.

Well, you have to feel sorry for Thinker. He's a quart low, just another troll.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Since you're confused, no it's not always the smaller figure. If revenues are less than expenditures, and you subtract expenditures from revenue, you get a deficit. Apparently you aren't aware the number scale has positive and negative numbers on it.

"The Thinker".... my ass.

No, you're lying. YOU POSTED (emphasis added because liberals are just plain DUMB):

Actually spending minus revenues is the deficit, and revenue minus spending is a surplus, assuming the lower figure is the lesser.

The lower figure is always the lesser. Your attempt to save yourself means I could say that sometimes six is less than five.

Try harder. You're failing miserably.

 

[Spamature]

No, you're lying. YOU POSTED (emphasis added because liberals are just plain DUMB):

Actually spending minus revenues is the deficit, and revenue minus spending is a surplus, assuming the lower figure is the lesser.

The lower figure is always the lesser. Your attempt to save yourself means I could say that sometimes six is less than five.

Try harder. You're failing miserably.

Not when spending exceeds revenues. Which has been the case since Bush and the Republicans took control of the govt at the turn of the century.

 

[Woolleybugger]

So the message is total fealty to Trump or treason? Sycophants anon wants to speak with you.

 

[Wahbooz]

No, you're lying. YOU POSTED (emphasis added because liberals are just plain DUMB):

Actually spending minus revenues is the deficit, and revenue minus spending is a surplus, assuming the lower figure is the lesser.

The lower figure is always the lesser. Your attempt to save yourself means I could say that sometimes six is less than five.

Try harder. You're failing miserably.

Wow. the lower figure is NOT always the lesser. Deducting expenditures from revenues. You've obviously never worked with negative figures before.

15,000
-3,000
12,000

or
15,000
-18,000
-3,000

 

[middleview]

Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman’s prepared statement: “….I was worried about the implications for the US government’s support of Ukraine…. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”

Vindman’s concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that “Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.”

The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia’s economy is about the size of Italy’s or Spain’s limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments.

It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole through his statement’s praise of the train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes “In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards integrating with the West. The US government policy community’s view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelensky and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine’s Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community.”

Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments about “integrating with the West” and the “Euro-Atlantic community” clearly imply just that. The expansion of NATO up to Russia’s borders by the rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities of the twentieth century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that error as both are vital national security interests for Moscow given their history and geography. Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has brought so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness and a uniform, should be regarded as little more than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/deep-state-national-security-council-colonel-vindman-expert-agenda

This guy was clearly undermining POTUS to advance Ukraine's interests - that's treason, or at least was before Trump was elected...

Why hasn't Trump been charged?

 

[Wahbooz]

Why hasn't Trump been charged?

Perhaps POTUS is undermining U.S. interests to advance his own interests. And people really need to understand what treason is.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Wow. the lower figure is NOT always the lesser. Deducting expenditures from revenues. You've obviously never worked with negative figures before.

15,000
-3,000
12,000

or
15,000
-18,000
-3,000

OK I see now. You just suck at writing. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

You come out with a negative either way I suppose, but yeah.

Some people, @The Thinker in this case, run out of party talking point and start throwing feces because they feel they're a suitable substitute.

Specifically, what are you whining about?

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Perhaps POTUS is undermining U.S. interests to advance his own interests. And people really need to understand what treason is.

Translation: I put the "perhaps" in there because I know it's complete BS.