Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Good to know I'm not a leftwit after all. I like to think of myself as a good wit.
You do realize, Crunch, that saying "Orange Man Bad" is just another way to dismiss someone else's argument without actually addressing the argument. Just like accusing them of TDS.
What? No props for the recursive algorithm? Come on, it was pretty good.
The thing is, most of you are not making any argument at all.
Both parties have always wanted to build a permanent majority. If you remember all the way back in history to 2008, Democrats thought they’d done it.
Until relatively recently gerrymandering was favoring Democrats as well - it’s really only in the last two redrawings of districts that Republicans took this particular power scam over.
Trump is going to eat him whole. Trump will put Hunter’s baby momma and illegitimate child in the front row of the debate and tee it up. Then he’ll go down the Biden crime family deals, cut over to Uncle Joe constantly sniffing and fondling 11 year old girls, groping grown women, and finish with Joe not even knowing what city he’s in or the office he’s running for or even the day of the week.
It’s going to be brutal. Trump bringing up Clinton’s history of raping women will seem quaint.
This is a great post.
There are no deal makers in the party! I means sure, there’s some deals made by a few people that run things and then there’s the people that so conveniently cut deals to exit right before Super Tuesday but that’s it! Other than that, totally open and honest!
Now looking like homeless drifters, the Left elitists don't want to become them. They seem to be deathly afraid of what Bernie Sanders would do to their party.
It’s amazing to see the Democrats literally have an elite group that decides who you get to vote for; anybody can run for the nomination but it’s an illusion of choice. The nominee is decided in back room deals before the primaries even start.
Following a disastrous week last week, the Dow Jones had a nice little rebound on Monday, posting a 1,294-point gain, the largest in history by points. That doesn't erase all of the 3,583 points it lost in the seven previous days, but it does erase a big chunk of it.
So, what comes next for this roller coaster of a stock market? Well, the experts agree that there is definitely a possibility that the Dow Jones might just go up or down, or it may stay steady, but it is absolutely certain that either something good or something bad is about to happen unless, of course, nothing much happens at all. You can take that to the bank.
I told you before, I'm not calling you insane. Nobody is. It's just something you're making up.QuoteTDS makes you bitter.
I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.
But dude, the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome.
TDS makes you bitter.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a form of insanity.
I think you missed part of "the deep state" issue is that they will go after those they deem a threat to their interests, and will generally ignore those they consider to be friendly towards them.
Pair that with how Hillary was handled by Obama's DoJ/FBI, and you end with valid questions about if the lack of corruption charges/convictions under Obama has more to do with lack of interest by the decision makers in pursuing the matter. (And offering immunity deals for doing basically nothing; if they've been given immunity, you can't press charges against them, or convict them)
How did Bernie not get the nomination in 2016?
)TDS makes you bitter.
You know what Biden does with 4th graders, right? Very handsy, loves to sniff’em. Also not a good look.
The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!
Obama got plenty of praise for a couple thousand pardons he issued. The very same people are outraged at Trump doing a fraction of the same thing. It’s tiresome.
) But for most or all of them? You'd best come up with some links for that.And let’s also stop pretending you’re somehow offended. It’s yet another strawman you’re trying to build, another in the long train of logical fallacies used to say orange man bad and attack me. I’m not calling you insane, nobody is calling you insane, nobody has, nobody will. No matter how you want to pretend I am, it’s a false claim you’re making. It would be nice if you’d stop doing these things but I’m pretty sure you’re gonna double down on it and then report it to the moderator or something like that. It’s as predictable as it’s tiresome.
Except for the part that I'm somehow "pretending" I'm offended. You have no idea how much it pisses me off.Trump Derangement Syndrome is a form of insanity.
Sorry, maybe that was rude. But dude, the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome. Obama did something like 2000 pardons and commutations - these were heralded as proof of the second coming. Now, suddenly, these things are proof of ... what? I don't know, something horrible and world-ending or whatever the point is.
Going back to the issue of Trump being the most likely candidate willing to expose government corruption, especially much of what Obama is hiding, this is an example:
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/tom-fitton/what-does-fbi-have-obama-gang
" By Tom Fitton | April 13, 2016
Barack Obama at a news conference last month with Rahm Emanuel. They and another Obama staffer, Valerie Jarrett, have been interviewed in connection with the investigation of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
For several years we have been seeking records of then President-elect Barack Obama’s interview with two FBI agents and two assistant U.S. attorneys regarding former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was sentenced to fourteen years in federal prison for attempting to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat...
... The FBI contends the release of these records “could reasonably be expected” to interfere with law enforcement proceedings...
... Writing in The Washington Examiner, Rudy Takala noted, “There are no enforcement proceedings related to the case known to be pending, leading critics to charge that the agency's denial is politically motivated...
... Well, yes. This lawsuit highlights the personal corruption issues of Barack Obama. He and his closest aides were interviewed by the FBI in a criminal investigation, and his administration doesn’t want Americans to have the details. The Chicago way shouldn’t TRUMP the American people’s right to know.
It won’t if we have anything to do with it."
---------------------------------------------------
I put the TRUMP in all caps. What did Obama know and when did he know it? What is "the most transparent administration in history" hiding? If Bernie or Hillary get elected will we ever find out? Not a chance. What about Kasich or some other Pollyanna? Not likely. Cruz might tell us but he won't gloat as much as he should about it. Trump will gleefully expose the massive corruption of Obama without hesitation and publicly scoff and ridicule the naivete of most Obama supporters while revealing the true colors of those who know Obama is corrupt and just don't care or know exactly how corrupt he is and delight in the fact that he has gotten away with so much. Until now.
), instead of exploiting their perceived corruption to practice even more, greater corruption.
No, because this whole thing is through the lens of orange man bad. If Trump discovered the cure for cancer, a thread would be immediately started about how Trump has denied us the right to die from cancer and we should all be outraged that Trump would do such a horrific thing.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a form of insanity.
QuoteNow which Constitutional power did Trump usurp by taking money allocated for a certain program and using it for another?
Probably none. However, Congress could have limited his ability to act in such a manner had they not deliberately chosen to provide flexibility to reallocate certain funds within certain constraints. Then he would have been violating their Constitutional control of the nation's purse.
If Trump allocated $500 billion to build a giant statue of Trump, he'd be violating the Constitution.
There's no question that you'd flip your lid if he decided, for example, to declare that the DOJ would no longer be enforcing say laws against election interference. There is no legitimate discretion to enact DACA, through which the President unilaterally rewrote and violated the laws of the US.
) So while you are quite certain Obama broke the law in enacting DACA, the courts have not agreed so far.Not that every liberal is required to believe precisely what every other one is, but it strikes me as historically standard for liberal people to prefer peaceful international relations, while right-wing people believe more strongly in the strong military to create the peace. ... Can you really say you generally believe this proposition, or is it only in this case because it's Trump doing it for a project that you think is stupid?
If you really are for reducing the military's budget, shouldn't you be happy for this to happen for any reason at all?
Congress has spent decades ceding its authority to the executive branch. If Trump can get them to pull it back, that would be another great win for him and America.
So you consider abusing Presidential authority to the point of nearly breaking the Constitution, so much so that Congress is forced to take away authority from the Presidency (if they can!) as a "win" for Trump??
No wonder the Republican party is so screwed up!
No. Of course you mischaracterize my words. Without straw man arguments, you got nothing.
In any event, hard to see why you'd be upset, nothing Trump has done remotely hits the level of creating DACA out of whole cloth and that still doesn't bother you.
Congress has spent decades ceding its authority to the executive branch. If Trump can get them to pull it back, that would be another great win for him and America.
) as a "win" for Trump?? 
The Trump administration plans to sap money intended to build fighter jets, ships, vehicles and National Guard equipment in order to fund barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border, the Pentagon told Congress on Thursday, a move that has agitated Democrats and even drawn condemnation from a top House Republican.
The surprise reprogramming of another $3.8 billion, transmitted to Congress and provided to POLITICO, means the Pentagon will have forked over nearly $10 billion since last year to help pay for President Donald Trump's border wall.
But this shift in funding marks a new phase for the administration, which until now had used money set for military construction and counterdrug operations, not combat equipment. The fiscal 2020 money will be moved into drug interdiction accounts that the Pentagon tapped last year to fund border barrier projects...
The money will be drawn from a host of procurement accounts, many of which are popular on Capitol Hill. The move includes a cut of two Marine Corps F-35B fighter jets at a cost of $223 million; $100 million from the Army National Guard's Humvee modernization program; $650 million cut from the Navy's amphibious assault ship replacement; and $261 million from the Expeditionary Fast Transport ship. The reprogramming also trimmed two Air Force C-130J transport aircraft for a cut of $196 million and $180 million from the service's light attack aircraft program.
The Pentagon also sapped an extra $1.3 billion from National Guard and Reserve equipment accounts, for which Congress has typically sought to allocate increased funding.
Fact is, Trump told you what he was doing and why, and got the results he told you he would get. I think that means those who continue to pretend he didn't know what he was doing are the ones with the simplistic and naive understanding.
).Still waiting for your explanation on how denying cross examination helped us get to the truth.
The Republicans in the Senate, and apparently a lot of other people, decided that the Senate trial was to evaluate the quality of the House's evidence, rather than to determine whether Trump was guilty of the charges or not.
You think deciding on a person's guilt should be based on something...other than...evaluating the quality of the evidence? This sounds like a Troy McClure bit.
I think in proper court cases the jury is explicitly instructed to rule based on the evidence alone and not whether they "think" the defendant is guilty. So...yeah..."we all know he did it" isn't a kind of evidence.
Given Pelosi's statement that impeachment is forever vetting the facts in the House before impeachment seems like the minimum standard that should apply. Or do you believe that once the Senate chooses not to remove that Trump is exonerated?
Can't have it both ways, if Impeachment means something it's the Houses job to make sure they have it correct.
Trump directly pandered to the racists and the sexists and bigots of all stripes, to the greedy and the selfish, to the nationalists and the xenophobes and the war mongers. Trump appealed to that guy at the end of every bar. You know, that guy, the loud drunk, the blowhard, who knows it all and is determined to tell you. The guy who thinks that if we just drop enough bombs, kill enough people, the rest will fall in line. That’s his answer to everything, bomb ‘em! Violence. A punch in the nose. Trump appealed to that guy because instead of attempting to lead from out in front, from a position of (alleged) moral high ground, Trump instead told that guy he was right.
The simpleminded demand simple solutions to complex problems, and Trump gave them that.
Trump told them they didn’t need to be better people.
That’s what a real leader does, encourage you to be better.
But not Trump.
No. Trump told Conservatives they were fine, the very best, in fact, they didn’t need to be better people because they were already the best people. Better than everybody else.
Trump didn’t appeal to their supposed better nature. Instead, he told *censored*ty terrible people that it was okay to be *censored*ty terrible people. Trump told the privileged that they were the real victims. That’s right.
Trump told racists that they were very fine people indeed, that it was okay to be racists, and he welcomed them to his rallies. The Klan. Nazis. Confederates. Proud Boys. For the first time since 1968, since George Wallace, they were all welcome up front. Come as you are!
Trump told the misogynists that it was okay to grab ‘em by the pussy so long as you popped in a Tic Tac first. He told the haters it was okay to hate gay people and Muslims and people of color. Trump told the greedy that it was okay to be selfish. He told the warmongers peace could only be had with the application of high explosives. He told the deliberately ignorant stupidity was a virtue, history was a liberal plot, education was elitism, compassion was an assault on manhood, and that money – and only money -- was proof of intellect.
Trump told terrible people that it was okay to be terrible.
Trump told terrible people that they didn’t need to feel bad about being terrible.
The defining moment was when Trump stood in front of America on national TV and told conservatives that it was A-OK to mock the disabled and he flapped his arms around and made weird squawking noises. The audience, instead of being appalled, they roared with laughter.
They roared with laughter.
It’ll be a choice between the current economy or eating your pets to survive.
Whilst I chuckle at the sentimentism, Wayward, it's a bit Facebooky. Like, you know, what Crunch would forward to us from Facebook.
I would be much more interested in hearing your thoughts on the Killer Mike campaign speech.
Or even my other potentially offensive-to-the-left thoughts, as you are one of the people I actually look to on this board on that side of the spectrum.
Where is the list of topics the president is supposed to be an expert in? I’d be interested in seeing that.
"60x richer and more successful then Trump"
In 2018, the Trump administration fired the government’s entire pandemic response chain of command, including the White House management infrastructure. In numerous phone calls and emails with key agencies across the U.S. government, the only consistent response I encountered was distressed confusion. If the United States still has a clear chain of command for pandemic response, the White House urgently needs to clarify what it is—not just for the public but for the government itself, which largely finds itself in the dark...
In the spring of 2018, the White House pushed Congress to cut funding for Obama-era disease security programs, proposing to eliminate $252 million in previously committed resources for rebuilding health systems in Ebola-ravaged Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea. Under fire from both sides of the aisle, President Donald Trump dropped the proposal to eliminate Ebola funds a month later. But other White House efforts included reducing $15 billion in national health spending and cutting the global disease-fighting operational budgets of the CDC, NSC, DHS, and HHS. And the government’s $30 million Complex Crises Fund was eliminated.
In May 2018, Trump ordered the NSC’s entire global health security unit shut down, calling for reassignment of Rear Adm. Timothy Ziemer and dissolution of his team inside the agency. The month before, then-White House National Security Advisor John Bolton pressured Ziemer’s DHS counterpart, Tom Bossert, to resign along with his team. Neither the NSC nor DHS epidemic teams have been replaced. The global health section of the CDC was so drastically cut in 2018 that much of its staff was laid off and the number of countries it was working in was reduced from 49 to merely 10. Meanwhile, throughout 2018, the U.S. Agency for International Development and its director, Mark Green, came repeatedly under fire from both the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. And though Congress has so far managed to block Trump administration plans to cut the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps by 40 percent, the disease-fighting cadres have steadily eroded as retiring officers go unreplaced.
Public health advocates have been ringing alarm bells to no avail. Klain has been warning for two years that the United States was in grave danger should a pandemic emerge. In 2017 and 2018, the philanthropist billionaire Bill Gates met repeatedly with Bolton and his predecessor, H.R. McMaster, warning that ongoing cuts to the global health disease infrastructure would render the United States vulnerable to, as he put it, the “significant probability of a large and lethal modern-day pandemic occurring in our lifetimes.” And an independent, bipartisan panel formed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded that lack of preparedness was so acute in the Trump administration that the “United States must either pay now and gain protection and security or wait for the next epidemic and pay a much greater price in human and economic costs.”
And you've still failed to address Fenring's point that you haven't actually connected the motive to the act - in other words, you keep "jumping to" or "assuming" election assistance without showing it.
Are you actually arguing that, if Ukraine announced it was investigating Joe Biden and his son for corruption, it would not hurt his campaign in any way? And if Biden was the best Democratic nominee, or even the nominee, that this would not benefit Trump's campaign?
It's not so much an "assumption" that such an investigation would assist Trump's election effort as "painfully obvious."
This is irrelevant to the point. You asserted an equivalence between bribery and extortion, which (a) are not equivalent, and (b) not applicable to Trump unless you can show one of them is. I have alternatively heard the accusation flip-flopping between bribery and extortion, but actually these are contradictory claims and cannot both be true. The fact that I've heard both suggests strongly that people are misinformed about what certain foreign interactions actually mean. Hence my question to you about campaign finance law. You seem to be connecting investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Trump would help him - duh! - and concluding from this that bribery extortion must have been what's happening. Do you not see how this conclusion does not follow from the circumstances? It *might* explain them but it does not follow from them as a direct consequence. The only argument I could see making sense here would be a campaign finance violation, i.e. that Ukraine doing something beneficial to Trump's re-election is in an of itself against the law. Whether you realize it or not, this was the point you were (intentionally or not) actually making.
You seem to be connecting investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Trump would help him - duh! - and concluding from this that bribery extortion must have been what's happening. Do you not see how this conclusion does not follow from the circumstances?
Let me ask a question Betty Warren asked yesterday to the wrong people (the House Impeach Committee, rather than Trump's Lawyers):
If Ukraine had offered to Trump to investigate Biden (which would possibly help his campaign) for weapons to defend themselves, that would be illegal, right? Offering assistance to a campaign in exchange for badly-needed assistance.
If that is illegal, why is the opposite--offering to release badly-needed weapons for an investigation into Biden--not illegal?
It was established as fact that the provision of Javellins was not at anytime delayed. Ergo, your entire supposition about delaying release of weapons is counterfactual.
Lawyer: What happened then?
Witness: He told me, he says, "I have to kill you because you can identify me!"
Lawyer: Did he kill you?
And you've still failed to address Fenring's point that you haven't actually connected the motive to the act - in other words, you keep "jumping to" or "assuming" election assistance without showing it.
QuoteIf the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.
Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.
I hadn't heard the House lost their case in court. How well did it go for them again?
Last I checked one could still challenge any subpeona in court and that's not evidence of a separate crime of obstruction.QuoteQuoteThe House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.
Except that he specifically said he would testify to the Senate, not the House. And the impeachment was already headed to the Senate by then. Day late and wrong house.
Again, the Senate should reject the House's defective record. If this was a real court the case would be dismissed with leave to refile or remanded to the lower court to fix the problem.
In fact this is not a real case, it's a government funded campaign ad to interfere in the 2020 election. Every single step of this has been managed by the left on a political basis.
Abuse of power by Trump? My ass, clear abuse of power by the Dems.QuoteAnd in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.
If the House needed that information they should have obtained it. You can't impeach someone for claims they didn't develop without uncostitutionally taking the sole power to impeach from the House.QuoteThe only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up.
The only question is whether they will realize that this is nothing but politics and shut it down or let the Dems get away with the biggest political crime in our history.
BTW, the Dershowitz comment that constitutes a kill shot for the impeachment, and has opponents hot and bothered is this:
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”
This quite clearly refers to something that is in the public interest AND could help a president get elected. Dershowitz does not have a history of being obtuse or vague.
The reactions are boringly predictable but basically variations of "So what you're saying is if Trump thinks his re-election is in the public interest, he can do anything!"
In my experience, anytime an logical arguments begin with "so what you (he/she/they) are saying is..", you're no longer arguing logically/factually and have directly crossed into mind reading.
Schiff and lots of others (Colbert, seriously I thought you were smarter dude) are already using edited/mind-reading versions of Dershowitz's quote across the media. It's all they have left because how would you argue it as stated?
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.
What makes you think it would be any different with Bolton, who already said he wouldn't testify to the House until a court ordered him to, because Trump ordered him not to? Do we have to go over the Obstruction of Justice charge? The House then declined to pursue the matter further, even when Bolton subsequently announced he was willing to testify.
