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.


Messages - Wayward Son

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 32
101
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 09, 2020, 01:38:25 PM »
Quote
Good to know I'm not a leftwit after all. I like to think of myself as a good wit.

I personally like to consider myself to be simply a wit. :)

Unfortunately, people tell me I'm only half-right about that. ;)

102
General Comments / Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« on: March 06, 2020, 06:39:47 PM »
Better for me to hate you for rebutting an argument than for dismissing it, don't ya think?  If only for everyone else reading these threads. :)

103
General Comments / Re: Trump's fake census
« on: March 06, 2020, 02:51:27 PM »
And this is why you don't understand Democrats, and your characterizations of them are typically utter nonsense.

You're closed-minded and lack curiosity.

If you'd consider it for one second, you'd realize that Democrats see themselves as heroes, just as Republicans, Communists, and everyone else in this world does.  So any explanation of their own motivation would be high-minded, such as being fair and just to all.  And there are many sources you could look at to justify that belief.

Now, you may disagree with that belief, just as you may disagree with the way I characterized how Republicans are trying to make their majority permanent.  (They would say they are preventing voter fraud and such.)  But you should not dismiss it out-of-hand.  Even worse, you should not dismiss me out-of-hand and everything I say just because I tell you what Democrats are really thinking.

You would learn a lot more if you considered the others' point of view, why they believe what they believe, and the justifications they use for believing that.  After all, that is the purpose of this board, isn't it?  If we were here just to throw brick-bats at each other and ignore/dismiss what each other say, it would get pretty boring pretty fast, wouldn't it?  We'd become another Reddit or any of the many, many other boards out there that are full of nonsense, just saying "hurrah for our side!"

So while you may vigorously disagree with what I say, I'd suggest you still read it.  If only for your own edification.

104
General Comments / Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« on: March 06, 2020, 01:33:31 PM »
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.

As Bones would say, "Damnit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a programmer!"  Or something like that. :)

Quote
The thing is, most of you are not making any argument at all.

It would be better to point out and/or explain how it isn't an argument, than to simply dismiss it with a snide comment.  Because a lot of times, you miss the actual argument that was there, and just come off sounding like a jerk who doesn't have a good rebuttal.

105
General Comments / Re: Trump's fake census
« on: March 06, 2020, 11:59:53 AM »
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.


The big difference is that Democrats thought they had done it by permanently winning over a majority of the country with fairness to all.  Republicans are trying to do it by disenfranchising the majority of the country (or at least enough so that the majority cannot win).

Quote
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.

Considering that redrawing of districts happens only once every 10 years, and we're about to have another such redrawing, "relatively recently" means about 29 years.  Which means Republicans have "taken over" this scam longer than the age of about 40 percent of the U.S. population.  I think it's time for them to own it. ;)

106
General Comments / Re: Trump's fake census
« on: March 05, 2020, 05:46:50 PM »
Now, now, Drake, I don't believe Crunch is saying that anyone here has "TDS" anymore, out of courtesy for myself and others on the board who find it offensive.

And most people will quickly realize that it's a campaign poll just from the questions.

What is worrisome is that some will consider it to be the "official" census.  Some of them will probably not fill out the real census form (especially the first round which they are asked to do on the internet) and require people to come to their door.  Some of them may not even provide information then, having "already done it" on this site.

Which, in the end, will bite Republicans in their hindquarters, since those people will be uncounted, and their districts may not get their full funding and representation. :)

I don't think the people who put this together thought it through very well...

107
General Comments / Re: Peace deal with Taliban
« on: March 04, 2020, 05:50:48 PM »
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.

108
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 04, 2020, 04:20:02 PM »
Quote
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.

So the family that currently makes millions in overseas deals is going to criticize Biden for his son taking thousands from Ukraine?  So the p***y-grabber and porn-star buggerer is going to call Biden a groper?  So the man who only speaks at a fourth-grade level is going to show how much smarter he is than Biden? :)

Perhaps the Fox viewers will fall for it, but not everyone watches only Fox News.

Remember, Crunch, that Trump only won by 200,000 more votes in four states.  It won't take much to tip that scale.  And accusing your opponent of stuff you're even more guilty of may not work out as well as you think.  ;D

109
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 04, 2020, 04:05:04 PM »
Quote
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!   ;D

I suppose you only vote for a party that is "totally open and honest?"  One where the President or the Senate Majority Leader never lies to the American people?  Where the party always makes sure their members have a choice in the primary elections and never cancels them because Trump is going to win anyway, so why bother? ;)

Deals are made.  Amy, Pete, Tom and now Mike probably wouldn't have won anyway, not because a few people stopped them but because they weren't popular enough among all Democratic voters.  Campaigns are expensive, so throwing good money after bad isn't a good idea.  This way they can salvage something out of their run.

Amy, Pete, Tom and Mike losing wasn't because of some puppet masters.  They were losing anyway because of the Democratic voters.  Any deals just hastened their almost-inevitable departure.

110
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: March 04, 2020, 12:13:26 PM »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

You guys seem to be under the impression that there is a group that controls the Democratic Party and "pulls the strings."

Care to tell me who they might be?

Sure, there are those who run the party.  But their influence is limited, and they don't seem to be very smart with the little they have.  I mean, if they're so afraid of Bernie, why did they allow him, an Independent, run as a Democrat in the first place back in 2016?  Why let him run again?

And while I agree that there was probably some deals reached with Pete and Amy to get them to leave before Super Tuesday, I'm sure it is far less nefarious than you make it sound.  Probably some offer of a cabinet position or such if Biden wins.  Who's to complain that they accepted the offer?  They almost certainly were not going to win the nomination.  It makes the field smaller so that a clear winner can be chosen.  And if you consider the offers to be even somewhat nefarious, why would you want them contending to run the country in the first place? What does it say about their character that they accepted such an offer?  After all, they might win! ;)

Although I am not comfortable with the choices we have left, I was never entirely comfortable with any of the choices.  But now the Democrats can see for themselves how much support comes from the left wing of the party and the moderate wing, which will help them balance the ticket for the all-important November election.

111
One must remember that the 3rd largest gain for the Dow, percentage-wise, occurred on October 30, 1929--two days after "Black Monday"--where the Dow gained 12.84 percent of its value.  Of course, that didn't last too long. :)

Exactly how the stock market will react to COVID-19 is still up in the air.  As Electoral-Vote put it this morning:

Quote
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.

What is certainly true, though, is that any person who thinks the stock market is "starting to look very good to me" is living in his own little la-la land. :)

112
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: February 28, 2020, 04:44:58 PM »
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.
I told you before, I'm not calling you insane. Nobody is. It's just something you're making up.

Really?  I explained this to you before.  Which didn't you say?

Quote
But dude, the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome.
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

Or, in the Live It Off the Wall thread:

Quote
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a form of insanity.

By elementary logic, that means that you consider anyone with TDS to have a form of insanity, i.e. the person is insane.

So the only question is, are you as dumb as a rock and can't follow simple logic that any fourth-grader could (if A=B and B=C, then A=C, the commutative property) or are you a bold-faced liar who thinks he can just deny what he has said and thinks we're all too stupid to realize it?

So which is it?  Are you stupid?  Or just dishonest?

Whichever, just stop it.  Now.

113
General Comments / Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« on: February 27, 2020, 06:43:51 PM »
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)

The problem is that there is no way to prove the negative.

What evidence is there that the cases against the Obama Administration were actually weak enough not to pursue vs. that they just didn't want to pursue them?  Unless you have faith in the DoJ/FBI, there is no way to prove it one way or another.

And that is the worst part of the "deep state" conspiracy theory--it makes those who believe it doubt our institutions.  Once we lose faith in the DoJ and the FBI, then everything becomes a witch-hunt and political, and there no longer is any justice in our country.  Then you can kiss your democracy goodbye. :(

Which is another reason I hate Trump, since he is trying hard to make us lose faith in those institutions, and (it looks like) corrupt them himself.  >:(

Quote
How did Bernie not get the nomination in 2016?

Because Hillary had enough delegates to win by the convention.  As I recall, she didn't need the superdelegates.

And what does the "deep state" have to do with internal Democratic Party politics?  The Democratic Party is not a state, IFAIK. :)

114
General Comments / Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« on: February 27, 2020, 04:44:28 PM »
I do recognize that I have bias, and I do try to moderate my positions based on the knowledge that I am probably missing something because of them.  But that knowledge can only go so far.

When I said at the beginning that Trump has "shown how corrupt Washington is by showing how corrupt they could be," it wasn't based on this one particular instant of pardoning corrupt politicians like Blagojevich.  It also included pardoning Joe Apario even before he was convicted; having lawyers declare that the President cannot be indicted or even investigated for a crime while in office; siding with Russia against our own intelligence agencies; having his representatives pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son; and, of course, having multiple people associated with his campaign and Administration indicted, and some convicted, of wrong doing.  Among others.

And when pointing out these problems, I and others are accused of "TDS," it is obvious that I am on to something. :)

And, of course, while the Left may be subject to bias, the Right is subject to it, too.  How much of the denials of Trump's behavior is from lies, half-truths, spin and the like?  How much of the denials are because the Republicans simply don't want to believe that their candidate is as horrible a President as the facts indicate?  I mean, when you have someone who left the Administration write a tell-all book that says the Administration acting in an incompetent and arbitrary manner, that's one thing.  When it happens again and again and again, that's another.  Especially when Trump only hires "the best people."  ;D

This is why Republicans have created the myth of the "deep state."  So that they can say that every single on of these honorable people are lying, being part of a huge conspiracy to undermine the President.  After all, what else could it be since everything the President does is so obviously perfect?  (Just ask him. ;) )

How do you keep from letting your biases cloud your views and judgement?  Listen to a lot of people.  Check you beliefs with those who will consider your views and point out weaknesses and errors.  Find out other points of view.  Keep an open mind.  Hope and pray. :)

But when others simply start bullying you, trying to say you must be deranged to believe what you are seeing, then you're not getting feedback, but gas lighted.  And what is the only reasonable response to someone who tries to gas light you?

115
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: February 27, 2020, 12:59:57 PM »
Quote
TDS makes you bitter.

I told you before, Crunch, I don't like to be called insane. Stop it.

Quote
You know what Biden does with 4th graders, right? Very handsy, loves to sniff’em. Also not a good look.

And how does the way Biden interacts with fourth-graders have do with the fact that Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level when extemporaneously speaking?  If you are so concerned with the possibility of deterioration of Biden's mental capacities, shouldn't you also be concerned with the current Commander-in-Chief's mental capacities?  Isn't it more of a concern that the person currently with his finger on the button talks like a fourth-grader, sometimes speaks incoherently, slurs words, and often makes illogical jumps in his speeches?

If this is an important issue, shouldn't we consider all candidates, not just a few of the Democratic ones?  Or is mental deterioration only something that happens to Democrats? ;)

116
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: February 26, 2020, 06:39:46 PM »
Are you sure?  ;)

At least Biden doesn't talk to you like you're a fourth-grader. :)

Now the only question is whether he thinks you're only as smart as a fourth-grader or if he is only as smart as a fourth-grader? ;)

117
General Comments / Re: We gotta talk about Uncle Joe
« on: February 26, 2020, 05:32:05 PM »
While Uncle Joe doesn't seem as sharp as he used to be, he still strikes me as head-and-shoulders above the current occupant of the White House.

118
Quote
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!

Tweet from the President on Monday, Feb. 24--the day the stock market dropped 1031 points, one of the largest drop in points on a single-day, and after dropping 225 points on Friday and 128 points on Thursday.

119
General Comments / Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« on: February 21, 2020, 05:40:05 PM »
The thing is that Trump has already established a pattern of trying to use his executive powers to benefit himself and his cronies.  Calling Roger Stone's suggested punishment too severe; instructing his subordinates not to testify when subpoenaed; having lawyers argue that he cannot be indicted or investigated for crimes while he is in office; etc.  Pardoning people who happen to have committed crimes he may be charged with one day seems to fit the pattern.  Also, they could be a prelude to him pardoning his own people for similar crimes, e.g. the aforementioned Roger Stone.

So while it is because of who Trump is, it is because he is the type of guy who seems to use his powers to benefit himself.

And while it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to objectively show that he is far-and-beyond worse than any other recent President in his behavior, there is one thing that I believe is indisputable:  If Obama had done half of what Trump has done in apparent scandals, Republicans would be calling for his head on a platter and calling him the most corrupt President in history.

So I don't feel guilty if I may be a bit more circumspect about Trump's behavior than most other Presidents', since Trump has established a pattern.  And even if I'm wrong, I'm just keeping up the Republican tradition.  ;D

120
General Comments / Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« on: February 21, 2020, 04:49:06 PM »
The thread is partly because the pardons seems suspicious on the face of them (Why so many white-collar crime pardons?), and partly ironic--a person who many hoped would "drain the swamp" and arrest those political criminals of the other party ends up pardoning those convicted of the types of crimes they were hoping to be pursued, including those from the other party.  ;D

121
General Comments / Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« on: February 21, 2020, 03:01:04 PM »
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.


I don't recall any effusive praise Obama got for his over 1700 pardons and commutations.   Praise for a few, I'm sure.  There are a few of Trump's pardons that I would applaud.  (And the one for Jack Johnson, which leaves me scratching my head, since I know he doesn't care about it. :) )  But for most or all of them?  You'd best come up with some links for that.

Now, do I even need to find any links about the criticism Obama received for his pardons, especially by the same people who are quite content with Trump's pardons?  Considering he was roundly criticized for every little thing he did, do you doubt for a second that his pardons were excluded?

Quote
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.

As you like to say, Crunch, you nailed it. :)  Except for the part that I'm somehow "pretending" I'm offended.  You have no idea how much it pisses me off.

TDS--"Trump Derangement Syndrome"--is just a way to ignore someone's criticisms of Trump.  It adds nothing to the conversation.  It makes no salient point about the merits of a criticism.  It simply implies that there is something wrong with the person who makes the criticism.  That he is irrational, deranged.  That the criticism is the fault of the person making it alone.  And, as any deranged person suffering from a type of insanity, he can be ignored.

Now that you have explicitly said:

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a form of insanity.

...there is no doubt that you consider anyone with TDS to be insane.

So, yes, expect an e-mail from the moderator in the near future.  And expect them from now on whenever you use the term "TDS," until you stop using it, leave the board, or the moderator determines that it is an acceptable term for our conversations.  Then I can respond in kind, which I have refrained from doing out of deference to our gracious host, Mr. Card, and the rules he wants us to abide by.  But I draw the line here.

Once that is taken care of, maybe we can work on some of your other peccadilloes. :)

122
General Comments / Re: Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« on: February 20, 2020, 03:22:21 PM »
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.

It's odd the people he chose to commute.  Why white collar criminals?  Almost as if he is trying to set a precedent...

Here's a list of everyone Trump has granted clemency to, so far.  Notice a pattern?  Contempt of court, perjury, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations, failure to report a felony, tax fraud...  Just what you'd expect from someone who promised to "drain the swamp." :)

For comparison, , here's Obama's list.  I don't recall Obama getting much praise for those, but I'm sure I can find a boatload of criticism if you doubt it exists.  Primarily from those who currently support Trump, I would guess.

Oh, yes--"the symptoms of TDS is getting tiresome."

You previously stated that TDS is a form of insanity.  I do not appreciate you calling me insane.  Stop it now.

123
General Comments / Unlock 'Em Up! Unlock 'Em Up!
« on: February 19, 2020, 06:36:40 PM »
Trump's commuting of almost a dozen white collar criminals got me thinking about when we last talked about Blagojevich.  It was a while back.

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.

We were so young and naive then.  Believing that Trump would expose corruption in the Obama Administrations (at least some of us did :) ), instead of exploiting their perceived corruption to practice even more, greater corruption.

Has he ever made a move to "Lock her (Hillary) up?"  Has he revealed any new evidence of corruption from the Democrats?

Has he reduced the number of drone attacks on foreign soils?  No, he increased them.  Has he "drained the swamp?"  No, he's appointed more people who either turned on him and accused him of mismanagement or corruption, or have been convicted of corruption themselves than the previous Administration.

Yeah, he's shown how corrupt Washington is by showing how corrupt they could be.  ;D 

Apparently he feels that these poor, white collar criminals had sentences that were too harsh.  You got to wonder why he is so concerned with the sentences of white collar criminals? ;)

124
General Comments / Re: Fox fairer to Progressives than MSNBC
« on: February 18, 2020, 06:02:57 PM »
It puts Sanders in a tough spot.

The network that is most sympathetic to his ideals doesn't respect him.

And the network that is most hostile to his ideals lets him speak as much as he likes, knowing that the majority of their viewers will completely discount what he says and providing them with sound bites they can use against him later.

It's hard to be an Independent in this country. :(

125
General Comments / Re: Live It Off the Wall
« on: February 18, 2020, 04:48:45 PM »
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.

You have said that I have TDS in the past, Crunch.  Do I understand you to mean that I am insane?  ???

126
General Comments / Re: Live It Off the Wall
« on: February 18, 2020, 04:47:52 PM »
Quote
Quote
Now 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.

Really?  He had the "flexibility to reallocate certain funds within certain constraints?"

What were those constraints?  What was the authorization that Congress had given him to reallocate the funds?

Certainly not 10 U.S. Code § 2808, which only allows him to reallocate military construction projects.  So what is it?

Quote
If Trump allocated $500 billion to build a giant statue of Trump, he'd be violating the Constitution.

And what makes you think this isn't just a monument to Donald J. Trump?  After all, it won't prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country.  So what else is it good for?  ;D

Quote
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.

I assume (hope?) that you'd flip your lid, too, if laws against election interference were ignored.  I just hope we won't have to test that theory. :(

But, once again, he didn't "rewrite" laws.  He decided not to fully enforce an unjust law.  The laws are still on the books.  Trump can enforce those laws whenever he pleases.  (Or at least when the courts, the final arbiters of the laws, decide he can. :) )  So while you are quite certain Obama broke the law in enacting DACA, the courts have not agreed so far.

Quote
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?

To answer your second question, no, I am not happy and shouldn't be.  Misusing his power to re-appropriate funds is a bad precedent, especially to use for a pet project that has very little benefit.  I would also object if money allocated by Congress for military equipment was used to build a high-speed railway.

What amazes me is that no one seems to mind when Trump does it.

And, personally, I do believe a strong military is necessary to keep the peace.  But it is not sufficient in and of itself to keep the peace.  Diplomacy and soft-power are also necessary, and better used.  But we need a strong military for last-ditch defense of our country.

It's when it's used as or considered to be the first response that I object to.

127
General Comments / Re: Live It Off the Wall
« on: February 14, 2020, 06:00:14 PM »
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??  :o

No wonder the Republican party is so screwed up!  ::)

No. Of course you mischaracterize my words. Without straw man arguments, you got nothing.

Well, when there was nothing in the original post, you can't expect much more in the comment. :)

And although I know it is useless to say, why don't you explain to me what you thought you were saying, instead of just dismissing my understanding of your words.  Because I don't believe I mischaracterized the meaning of your words at all.

128
General Comments / Re: Live It Off the Wall
« on: February 14, 2020, 04:30:39 PM »
Quote
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.

Which Constitutional power did Obama break by creating DACA (which comes down to not enforcing a law to its fullest extent)?

Now which Constitutional power did Trump usurp by taking money allocated for a certain program and using it for another?

Sorry, but usurping Congress' power of the purse is much worse than not fully enforcing a law against a group of people who were not responsible for breaking it.  I really have to wonder why you have the importance of these backwards.

129
General Comments / Re: Live It Off the Wall
« on: February 14, 2020, 02:02:46 PM »
What makes you think Congress will be able to fund either of them, once Trump gets his hands on the money?  ;)

130
General Comments / Re: Live It Off the Wall
« on: February 14, 2020, 01:24:00 PM »
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??  :o

No wonder the Republican party is so screwed up!  ::)

131
General Comments / Live It Off the Wall
« on: February 14, 2020, 11:38:46 AM »
The Trump Administration has announced the diversion of another $3.8 billion from the military to build his wall.

Quote
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.

One could argue that these pieces of equipment weren't really needed and are just boondoggles to bring money to Congressmen's states (although some would assert that the military actually needs that equipment, and is less-prepared without it).  OTOH, one could also argue that spending it on a wall that can be climbed over, dug under, cut through or blown over by the wind is as much a boondoggle, if not more.

But however you slice it, Trump is taking fighting equipment away from our military to fund his pet project.

One wonders what gives him the right to reallocate funds from Congress as he sees fit.  Doesn't the Constitution give Congress the power of the purse?  At this rate, Congress might as well just write him a check and tell him to spend it as he will.  It doesn't matter how Congress intended the funds to be spent.  :(


132
General Comments / Re: Did the tariffs have a net benefit so far?
« on: February 13, 2020, 06:08:42 PM »
Fenring, do you expect Trump's tariffs to last 5 - 10 years?

To paraphrase Keynes, in the long run, his tariffs are all dead. :)

133
General Comments / Re: You don't get no ice cream
« on: February 13, 2020, 03:46:37 PM »
Don't tell this to Two Scoops.  He'll send Billy Barr after them!  :o  ;D

134
General Comments / Re: The Hunt
« on: February 13, 2020, 03:45:32 PM »
Quote
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.

Baloney.

If I said that I raised a yellow flag every morning so that the sun would rise, because the sun follows the flag, you would call it simplistic and naive (not to mention other adjectives :) ).

And if I came back at you and said, "I told you what I was doing and why, and got the result I told you I would (the sun rising every morning)," you would laugh in my face.

So don't tell me just getting "the results he told you he would get" is anywhere near sufficient to prove that he isn't simplistic and naive.  Correlation does not prove causation, especially when "the results" may not be all he says they are.

135
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: February 06, 2020, 06:46:12 PM »
Quote
Still waiting for your explanation on how denying cross examination helped us get to the truth.

You mean denying the White House the ability to cross-examine the witnesses (since Republicans were at the hearings, too, although some Republicans would have you believe otherwise)?

I believe they expected that to happen during the Senate Impeachment hearings.  After all, every other Senate impeachment hearings had witnesses that spoke directly to the Senators and told what they had witnessed.

Do you really think that this White House would cross-examine witnesses to get to the truth?  ;D

136
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: February 06, 2020, 06:40:32 PM »
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.

It's not that the judgement should be based on something other than the evidence.  It's that the Senate Republicans decided that it was more important to limit their inquiry only to the House's evidence.  And if that evidence, and that evidence alone, did not convince them, well, then it was all the House's fault, wasn't it?  If Trump happened to the guilty and there was more evidence out there that proved it, well, that wasn't their job to look at it.  Finding out the truth wasn't their job.  Responding to the evidence the House provided was.

Evidence, facts, guilt, innocence--those were only secondary issues. :(

137
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: February 06, 2020, 05:03:04 PM »
Quote
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.

It finally occurred to me why this is so sad.

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.  :(

138
General Comments / Re: So the POTSUS gets to swear on national TV now
« on: February 06, 2020, 04:48:53 PM »
From Stonekettle Station:

Quote
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.

Swearing?  Why not?  Everybody does it, so it can't be terrible.  Trump leads again.  :(

139
General Comments / Re: DNC Rule Changes
« on: February 05, 2020, 06:12:27 PM »
Quote
It’ll be a choice between the current economy or eating your pets to survive.

I know.  Think of those poor Swedes, having to eat their babies because their socialist economy has left them destitute.  ;D

140
General Comments / Re: DNC Rule Changes
« on: February 05, 2020, 06:10:12 PM »
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.

Sorry, DJQuag, I don't do rap. ;) :)

141
Where is the list of topics the president is supposed to be an expert in? I’d be interested in seeing that.

Oh, please, Crunch.  How could anyone create such a list?

Remember, the President's a genius.  He said so himself.  Not just a genius, a stable genius.  He's the man who plays 4D chess when the Democrats are playing checkers, remember?  This is a man who blows your intellect away, our only hope to Make America Great Again (c).  A man who knows that all scientists and climatologists are dead wrong just by gut instinct.  Who knows economics better than all the economists combined.  He actually corrects NOAA about the possible paths of hurricanes!  You cannot comprehend how much smarter he is than you with your poor average intellect.

When you're that smart, you can't make a list of everything he's an expert in.  He's an expert in everything. 

Including, apparently, geography and NFL teams. :)

142
General Comments / Re: DNC Rule Changes
« on: February 04, 2020, 03:40:35 PM »
Quote
"60x richer and more successful then Trump"

Waitaminute.  If someone has negative net worth, how can you only be "60x richer?"  ???

143
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: February 04, 2020, 11:35:19 AM »
It sounds like we are woefully unprepared for this outbreak.

Quote
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.”

So Trump was able to dismantle another Obama bureaucracy and save millions of dollars in the budget.  And we have no central coordination for our various local health and safety agencies.  This may not go well.

144
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: February 03, 2020, 06:40:06 PM »
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.

First off, I did not assert anything.  I was paraphrasing Elizabeth Warren.

Quote
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?

I assume you mean "investigating Burisma to Trump via the logic that hurting Biden would help him..."

No, I did not "conclude" that this is what's happening.  However, if we do conclude that he was extorting Ukraine (and I believe the evidence overwhelming shows that his representatives did just that), and if this extortion was mostly, if not exclusively, for the purpose of helping his campaign (which, I admit, may still be in question, although the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate that), then the question becomes relevant, for the reason you said--it would be an illegal campaign contribution.  It would be made much worse because he used his position as President to do this extortion; using the power of the Presidency to withhold the funds.

The question, as I understood it, was based on the assumption that Trump did use his position to extort Ukraine.  But the question itself was not meant to prove that he had done so, AFAIK.  It was meant to point out that if it was proven, then it would be illegal just as the opposite would have been.

145
"Congratulations to the Kansas City Chiefs on a great game, and a fantastic comeback, under immense pressure. You represented the Great State of Kansas and, in fact, the entire USA, so very well. Our Country is PROUD OF YOU!"--current President Donald J. Trump

"It’s Missouri you stone cold idiot."--former Senator Claire McCaskill.

146
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: February 03, 2020, 03:18:35 PM »
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.

No, his Administration merely promised, i.e, threatened, not to release the military funds until Ukraine announced the investigation into his political rival and son.  The fact that he didn't follow through with that threat is entirely beside the point.  The threat itself, if made for political gain, would be a high crime.

Reminds me of a calendar I have on the stupidest things people have said.  Reportedly during a cross-examination, the following occurred:

Quote
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?

Somehow, this sounds similar, if the defendant was being charged with assault. :)

Quote
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." :)

147
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: January 30, 2020, 01:38:46 PM »
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?

148
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: January 30, 2020, 01:05:16 PM »
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  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? ;)

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.

Quote
Quote
The 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.

Quote
And 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. 

Quote
The 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.

I remember when Republicans used to brag about being the Moral Party.  The party that believed in the Justice and Facts.  You guys always made fun of us Democrats for not knowing what was true and what wasn't, not thinking logically, being driven by partisanship and emotions.

Now look at you.   With possible new information coming out (we didn't know before that Bolton had actually heard Trump say to stop the funds to Ukraine until they investigated Biden), why do you object?  Because he has the right to appeal revealing those facts (even though that would delay the process until after the election Trump wanted to influence).  Because in a "real court case" it would have been dismissed.  Because the claims weren't previously sufficiently developed before they were brought to the Senate (in spite of the fact that they couldn't get the evidence in a timely manner).

Tell me, do you give a flying f**k whether Trump actually tried to use his position as President to extort another nation, one that was fighting an invasion, in order to get dirt on a political opponent?  Or do you just want to make sure all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed before the Senate gets to judge?

I ask because the Trump defense team and the vast majority of Republican Senators don't care.  They are quite willing to give the President kingly powers to do whatever he likes (if its for the good of the country, like having Trump as President, he's justified in just about anything he does) as long as it is a Republican President.  Watch how fast they spin around when a Democrat is elected to our highest office.

We need to hear from Bolton to establish what the facts are.  Whether those are established in the House or the Senate does not change the facts.  And if Trump tried to use his office to extort another nation into helping with his election, he should be removed from office.  Anyone who believes in justice and facts would agree with that.

But those don't matter much to Republicans anymore, do they?

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?

It's not mind reading.  It's logical inference.  (You've heard of that, haven't you?)

What is or is not in the "public interest" is a political question.  One can argue that making the Democratic Party illegal would be in the "public interest."  Ask any partisan Republican.  Just because you might disagree doesn't make it not so.  So the range of justification of something being in the "public interest" covers just about any action, including deciding that being President is ultimately in the public interest, especially if you are a very stable genius, so much smarter than everyone else! :)

Besides, the whole point of this impeachment is the firm belief that investigating debunked theories, those only held by the rightwing fringe, is in no way "in the public interest."  The only interests it would help is Trump's and the Republican Party's.

So, yes, the vagueness of the term "public interest" gives the President carte blanche to do just about anything he wants.  And if practically nothing is impeachable, and he cannot be charged with a crime while he is office, what the difference between a President and a king/dictator?

149
I'll admit it.  You're full of it. :)

Quoting Trump verbatim is now defaming him, eh?  Well, I guess we know the source of all these negative memes that make the President look bad:

The White House.  ;D

When you finally wake up and notice it, you'll be a lot better off.

150
General Comments / Re: The Shampeachement Follies
« on: January 28, 2020, 05:52:38 PM »
Quote
If the House wants to hear from Bolton they should subpeona him.

Oh, yeah, that worked so well for the House for their other subpoenas.  ;D  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? ;)

Quote
The 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.

And in any case, we now have more information than the House did at the time.  Now we have a good indication that he does have specific information relevant to the case; a written account that he personally heard Trump say he would withhold the funds until Ukraine complied.  Things are different now, and its in the Senate's court.  The only question is whether they want to know the whole truth or cover the truth up. ;)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 32