Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Replace the names Trump with Obama or Clinton and Giulani with Pannetta and we would have this thread at 14 pages.
I don't think there's a single Trumpkin who has the ability to see things objectively. To think critically and evaluate events from various perspectives.
Imagine the outrage from those very same people if Obama had done any ONE of a hundred things Trump has done, from grabbing pussies to paying off porn stars to praising Putin and Kim Jong Un while criticizing our own intelligence community. From his cowardly inaction on Khashoggi to his saluting a North Korean general to calling the press the "enemy of the people."
Well, to be fair, I guess Obama wore a tan suit once.
I'm not a Trumpkin... but no one seems to care what I think, either. And I think it's because EVERYONE has their own biases. Some of us recognize them (and maybe even try to mitigate them); others just look for ways to prove (to themselves) that they were right all along.
That's what makes a thread like this so amusing... but frustrating. If it wasn't Trump, does anyone really think that *they* would treat Cruz any differently? I don't. He'd still be called all the things that Trump has been called (including ignorant- even though Cruz is smarter than (pretty much) anyone on this site. Bush was the opposite of Trump (in many ways), and look at the character assassination that he faced. It doesn't matter who the person is; if they are in the wrong "tribe" then they are the enemy. Period. And until that changes, all this hand-wringing and virtue-signaling won't accomplish a thing- because it's not intended to. It's only intended to deify one "side" and demonize the other.
For what it's worth, Pumpf, I care what you think. But this is absolute bullshit. This is not your typical republican vs. democrat thing and I've said that over and over since before the election. Sure, if Cruz were President I'd be criticizing him, too, because I disagree with everything he stands for. Same with Pence. But at least they're both sane. Our differences are with policy. Right now we'd be debating POLICY, like we all did during the Obama and Bush and Clinton administrations. This Trump crap is a whole different thing. Nobody even talks about policy. His childish behavior and lies and tweets and general petulance renders policy nearly irrelevant. If it were just your standard left/right debate, you wouldn't have staunch conservatives like the Bush family and John McCain and William Kristol and George Will so vehemently opposed to him.
You know what I find amusing? All these people who claim to have not voted for him turn up to defend him at every turn. When YOU are the people who should be the most angry...
First of all, people called Bush a "murderer". That's hardly a "policy" debate.
As for being angry, I would probably be thrilled to join with you in your criticisms of Trump- if not for the obvious, blatant bias against EVERYTHING that the guy does. In those times when he's done THE EXACT SAME THING AS OBAMA, "you guys" jump all over Trump, yet gave Obama a complete pass- and sometimes even praised him for it. THAT'S what has driven me to (at times) defend Trump (although I think you'd have to look hard to find much praise of him from me). If "the Left" was even REMOTELY intellectually honest in their criticisms, I could easily join with them. But since the vast majority of their criticisms are borne out tribal cult-like unity, I cannot join them. They aren't honest- even if they are (at times) correct.
PS: John McCain was NEVER a staunch conservative.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Replace the names Trump with Obama or Clinton and Giulani with Pannetta and we would have this thread at 14 pages.
I don't think there's a single Trumpkin who has the ability to see things objectively. To think critically and evaluate events from various perspectives.
Imagine the outrage from those very same people if Obama had done any ONE of a hundred things Trump has done, from grabbing pussies to paying off porn stars to praising Putin and Kim Jong Un while criticizing our own intelligence community. From his cowardly inaction on Khashoggi to his saluting a North Korean general to calling the press the "enemy of the people."
Well, to be fair, I guess Obama wore a tan suit once.
I'm not a Trumpkin... but no one seems to care what I think, either. And I think it's because EVERYONE has their own biases. Some of us recognize them (and maybe even try to mitigate them); others just look for ways to prove (to themselves) that they were right all along.
That's what makes a thread like this so amusing... but frustrating. If it wasn't Trump, does anyone really think that *they* would treat Cruz any differently? I don't. He'd still be called all the things that Trump has been called (including ignorant- even though Cruz is smarter than (pretty much) anyone on this site. Bush was the opposite of Trump (in many ways), and look at the character assassination that he faced. It doesn't matter who the person is; if they are in the wrong "tribe" then they are the enemy. Period. And until that changes, all this hand-wringing and virtue-signaling won't accomplish a thing- because it's not intended to. It's only intended to deify one "side" and demonize the other.
For what it's worth, Pumpf, I care what you think. But this is absolute bullshit. This is not your typical republican vs. democrat thing and I've said that over and over since before the election. Sure, if Cruz were President I'd be criticizing him, too, because I disagree with everything he stands for. Same with Pence. But at least they're both sane. Our differences are with policy. Right now we'd be debating POLICY, like we all did during the Obama and Bush and Clinton administrations. This Trump crap is a whole different thing. Nobody even talks about policy. His childish behavior and lies and tweets and general petulance renders policy nearly irrelevant. If it were just your standard left/right debate, you wouldn't have staunch conservatives like the Bush family and John McCain and William Kristol and George Will so vehemently opposed to him.
You know what I find amusing? All these people who claim to have not voted for him turn up to defend him at every turn. When YOU are the people who should be the most angry...
First of all, people called Bush a "murderer". That's hardly a "policy" debate.
As for being angry, I would probably be thrilled to join with you in your criticisms of Trump- if not for the obvious, blatant bias against EVERYTHING that the guy does. In those times when he's done THE EXACT SAME THING AS OBAMA, "you guys" jump all over Trump, yet gave Obama a complete pass- and sometimes even praised him for it. THAT'S what has driven me to (at times) defend Trump (although I think you'd have to look hard to find much praise of him from me). If "the Left" was even REMOTELY intellectually honest in their criticisms, I could easily join with them. But since the vast majority of their criticisms are borne out tribal cult-like unity, I cannot join them. They aren't honest- even if they are (at times) correct.
PS: John McCain was NEVER a staunch conservative.
Oh come on, that's a ridiculous generalization and you know it. I never once called Bush a "murderer," nor do I know anyone who has. Can't think of a single member of congress who did either. So all you're doing is drawing an extreme, caricatured position and arguing against it. It would be like me bringing in the hundreds of racists signs used at Tea Party rallies to characterize your views toward Obama.
Think about the language you use. "The left" this, "the left" that. I think you're listening to too much AM radio.
You mention Trump doing the "same thing" as Obama. I've heard this quite a lot actually. I'm curious what you mean by that, because every single time I see someone say that (typically among my conservative family members on Facebook), you look into the issue and discover that there are key, fundamental differences in the policy that they're just ignoring to make a point.
who is going to be the clean republican who is going to step up and out of the Trump line creating a reasonable coalition? Kasich? I was pulling for him in the primaries as of all the GOP he seemed to be the most politically nuanced and could reach across the isle.
Someone will step up in 19 and create a very bad sitaution for Don in 20 (IF he chooses to run again which i would say 50/50). A split right wing and a motivated left means bye bye Don.
Quote: @Skodin said:
who is going to be the clean republican who is going to step up and out of the Trump line creating a reasonable coalition? Kasich? I was pulling for him in the primaries as of all the GOP he seemed to be the most politically nuanced and could reach across the isle.
Someone will step up in 19 and create a very bad sitaution for Don in 20 (IF he chooses to run again which i would say 50/50). A split right wing and a motivated left means bye bye Don.
I don't think Donnie will run again. I haven't voted republican in years, but I would vote for Kasich, especially if he had Hickenlooper on his ticket, which was rumored a few months ago. On a side note, I know John Hickenlooper personally. I don't know if he will stand up to the rigors of the campaign spotlight, but he's a genuinely good human.
Because of the great divide, more and more people are identifying as independents. If ever a split ticket could win, it would be 2020. Heck even the year suggests a sort of symmetry.
We're too early for impeachment talk but clearly where there's smoke there's fire. Already there's enough that IF proven true, warrants the House to move for impeachment, but not enough to get 2/3 Senate to remove. But that's what we know TODAY so far, more damaging information will likely come out and at some point the Republicans will have to choose covering for Trump and lose the vast majority of independents they swung in the 2016 election - which means they will lose a ton of elections in 2020 - or grow a backbone and make Trump the scapegoat and claim they didn't know how corrupt he was.
People forget the ruling on the Edwards case in terms of campaign violations were that his offenses occurred over a couple of years well before the election and for the purpose of hiding it from his wife. Cohen and Pecker from the National Enquirer have both testified that the hush money and burying negative stories in 2016 were for the sole purpose of eliminating negative coverage for the 2016 election - that right there is what makes the hush payments a campaign violation and why Cohen already pleaded guilty to two felonies relating to it. There's a reason they already nailed Cohen for campaign finance violations - if you're saying there's no case, then Cohen would have never pleaded guilty for it in the first place.
And yet we're barely at the tip of the iceberg. Maria Butina and her relationships networking with key Republicans is bad enough, but if she was using the NRA as a conduit to funnel Russian money into Trump's campaign coffers that would be devastating and a total gamechanger. Can you imagine the blowback on Fox News if roles were reversed - Republicans would be screaming for Obama/Hillary to be hung for treason if this was the Dems taking millions in Russian money for the Dems campaign? Clearly it's now established that the Russians wanted Trump badly and aided his campaign on numerous fronts.
I think what I, MaroonBells, and the rest of the world are waiting for is the line in the sand. At what point does the bar drop so low you finally agree the evidence already proves that this lying dirtbag and his party were actively seeking help AND getting support from the Russians, and if that if this shit was going on with the Dems you'd be screaming treason and want them in front a firing squad?
What's terrifying is that there is clearly NO BAR at all for many of his supporters as they will continue to reject all facts and news from sources they've been groomed to distrust by Trump and his ilk (not saying people on here but Trump's base in general), and at that point you've stopped supporting a political party based on policies and pledged blind support for a cult.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
First of all, people called Bush a "murderer". That's hardly a "policy" debate.
As for being angry, I would probably be thrilled to join with you in your criticisms of Trump- if not for the obvious, blatant bias against EVERYTHING that the guy does. In those times when he's done THE EXACT SAME THING AS OBAMA, "you guys" jump all over Trump, yet gave Obama a complete pass- and sometimes even praised him for it. THAT'S what has driven me to (at times) defend Trump (although I think you'd have to look hard to find much praise of him from me). If "the Left" was even REMOTELY intellectually honest in their criticisms, I could easily join with them. But since the vast majority of their criticisms are borne out tribal cult-like unity, I cannot join them. They aren't honest- even if they are (at times) correct.
PS: John McCain was NEVER a staunch conservative.
Oh come on, that's a ridiculous generalization and you know it. I never once called Bush a "murderer," nor do I know anyone who has. Can't think of a single member of congress who did either. So all you're doing is drawing an extreme, caricatured position and arguing against it. It would be like me bringing in the hundreds of racists signs used at Tea Party rallies to characterize your views toward Obama.
Think about the language you use. "The left" this, "the left" that. I think you're listening to too much AM radio.
You mention Trump doing the "same thing" as Obama. I've heard this quite a lot actually. I'm curious what you mean by that, because every single time I see someone say that (typically among my conservative family members on Facebook), you look into the issue and discover that there are key, fundamental differences in the policy that they're just ignoring to make a point.
Hopefully I'll have time to get back to this later. Not sure if it'll make any difference...
But since you asked, here's a whole book devoted to Bush being called a "murderer".
https://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-Georg...159315481X
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
First of all, people called Bush a "murderer". That's hardly a "policy" debate.
As for being angry, I would probably be thrilled to join with you in your criticisms of Trump- if not for the obvious, blatant bias against EVERYTHING that the guy does. In those times when he's done THE EXACT SAME THING AS OBAMA, "you guys" jump all over Trump, yet gave Obama a complete pass- and sometimes even praised him for it. THAT'S what has driven me to (at times) defend Trump (although I think you'd have to look hard to find much praise of him from me). If "the Left" was even REMOTELY intellectually honest in their criticisms, I could easily join with them. But since the vast majority of their criticisms are borne out tribal cult-like unity, I cannot join them. They aren't honest- even if they are (at times) correct.
PS: John McCain was NEVER a staunch conservative.
Oh come on, that's a ridiculous generalization and you know it. I never once called Bush a "murderer," nor do I know anyone who has. Can't think of a single member of congress who did either. So all you're doing is drawing an extreme, caricatured position and arguing against it. It would be like me bringing in the hundreds of racists signs used at Tea Party rallies to characterize your views toward Obama.
Think about the language you use. "The left" this, "the left" that. I think you're listening to too much AM radio.
You mention Trump doing the "same thing" as Obama. I've heard this quite a lot actually. I'm curious what you mean by that, because every single time I see someone say that (typically among my conservative family members on Facebook), you look into the issue and discover that there are key, fundamental differences in the policy that they're just ignoring to make a point.
Hopefully I'll have time to get back to this later. Not sure if it'll make any difference...
But since you asked, here's a whole book devoted to Bush being called a "murderer".
https://www.amazon.com/Prosecution-Georg...159315481X
Wow, a whole book. And so because Vincent Bugliosi thought the Iraq war was a criminal action, and you deem that opinion to be partisan nonsense, it follows, then, that every criticism of Very Stable Genius is also partisan nonsense. My goodness, Pumpf, that's such a ridiculous stretch you better sit down before you pull something :-)
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Replace the names Trump with Obama or Clinton and Giulani with Pannetta and we would have this thread at 14 pages.
I don't think there's a single Trumpkin who has the ability to see things objectively. To think critically and evaluate events from various perspectives.
Imagine the outrage from those very same people if Obama had done any ONE of a hundred things Trump has done, from grabbing pussies to paying off porn stars to praising Putin and Kim Jong Un while criticizing our own intelligence community. From his cowardly inaction on Khashoggi to his saluting a North Korean general to calling the press the "enemy of the people."
Well, to be fair, I guess Obama wore a tan suit once.
I'm not a Trumpkin... but no one seems to care what I think, either. And I think it's because EVERYONE has their own biases. Some of us recognize them (and maybe even try to mitigate them); others just look for ways to prove (to themselves) that they were right all along.
That's what makes a thread like this so amusing... but frustrating. If it wasn't Trump, does anyone really think that *they* would treat Cruz any differently? I don't. He'd still be called all the things that Trump has been called (including ignorant- even though Cruz is smarter than (pretty much) anyone on this site. Bush was the opposite of Trump (in many ways), and look at the character assassination that he faced. It doesn't matter who the person is; if they are in the wrong "tribe" then they are the enemy. Period. And until that changes, all this hand-wringing and virtue-signaling won't accomplish a thing- because it's not intended to. It's only intended to deify one "side" and demonize the other.
Man even republicans hate Cruz. Bad analogy there. Nobody likes that guy.
Quote: @Mike Olson said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Replace the names Trump with Obama or Clinton and Giulani with Pannetta and we would have this thread at 14 pages.
I don't think there's a single Trumpkin who has the ability to see things objectively. To think critically and evaluate events from various perspectives.
Imagine the outrage from those very same people if Obama had done any ONE of a hundred things Trump has done, from grabbing pussies to paying off porn stars to praising Putin and Kim Jong Un while criticizing our own intelligence community. From his cowardly inaction on Khashoggi to his saluting a North Korean general to calling the press the "enemy of the people."
Well, to be fair, I guess Obama wore a tan suit once.
I'm not a Trumpkin... but no one seems to care what I think, either. And I think it's because EVERYONE has their own biases. Some of us recognize them (and maybe even try to mitigate them); others just look for ways to prove (to themselves) that they were right all along.
That's what makes a thread like this so amusing... but frustrating. If it wasn't Trump, does anyone really think that *they* would treat Cruz any differently? I don't. He'd still be called all the things that Trump has been called (including ignorant- even though Cruz is smarter than (pretty much) anyone on this site. Bush was the opposite of Trump (in many ways), and look at the character assassination that he faced. It doesn't matter who the person is; if they are in the wrong "tribe" then they are the enemy. Period. And until that changes, all this hand-wringing and virtue-signaling won't accomplish a thing- because it's not intended to. It's only intended to deify one "side" and demonize the other.
Man even republicans hate Cruz. Bad analogy there. Nobody likes that guy.
Well, wouldn't go THAT far (even Republicans hate Cruz).
But overall, you're right. And it was a bigger surprise (to me) Trump beating Cruz, than Trump beating Clinton.
I was SHOCKED when Trump beat Cruz in South Carolina, early on in the GOP primary.
I had (before then) regarded Trump as a 'novelty' candidacy.... until then.
Cruz is a brilliant intellect. (Prof. Dershowitz called him 'hands-down' the brightest student he ever taught).
Cruz was 'anti-swamp', before Trump. He took on the McConnell & the GOP est. when they went Dem-lite.
Cruz was my 'hero'... after this....
For not being a politician, Trump ran a brilliant primary & general.
He tapped into "populism"...when Cruz & HRC were not. Wall. Bad trade deals. Coal/Energy. Globalism. << those were topics that resonated with many
"forgotten" voters. Trump was the only one talking about those topics... plus... he was an "outsider".
Tapping into those issues made most GOP'ers & Americans dismiss his character history and concerns.
And for all the "shit-stain" adjectives ya'll lay on Trump... he beat Cruz, the Bush dynasty & the Clinton dynasty... in one election cycle.
That's impressive.
I voted Cruz in the primary, and Trump in the general.
Don't regret either vote.
For all his 'warts', Cruz beat ya'lls up-and-comer Beto & his 70 million pumped into his campaign. Cruz raised 32.
& I would normally "crow" more about that ^^ fact. But trending demographics are clearly on your side.
If a wall is not built in the next 2 years, the GOP will NEVER win another prexy election.
All of the Democrat party is for open borders/boarders (they were against it, before they were for it), and 1/2 of the GOP is.
So all this discussion is moot.
I agreed with Ann Coulter before the last prexy election, and agree with her now.
If Trump/GOP doesn't deliver on the Wall/illegal immigration amnesty.... the GOP will be a non-factor, forever. Congrats.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
We're too early for impeachment talk but clearly where there's smoke there's fire.
LOL. All the "smoke" was created by Mueller.
Yet, how can any good liberal like G-Town constitutional law professor (Turley) disagree?
But.... he does.
No glory in James Comey getting away with his abuse of FBI powerBY JONATHAN TURLEY, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/15/18 10:00 AM EST
“I probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it.” Those words this week from former FBI Director James Comey could well be chiseled in marble as his epitaph. He was explaining another violation of bureau policy during his tenure days after meeting behind closed doors with House members.
What was shocking was not that Comey violated protocols or policies again but the reaction of the audience to his admission. In describing how he set up a critical meeting with Michael Flynn, former national security adviser to President Trump, the audience was audibly thrilled by his cleverness in keeping Flynn unrepresented by legal counsel and unaware of the true nature of the meeting. Scheduled to testify to House members again next week, Comey may find a less rapturous reception in Congress.
In his interview in New York City, Nicole Wallace asked him, “It’s hard to imagine two FBI agents ending up in the State Room. How did that happen?” The audience erupted when Comey said dryly, “I sent them. Something we’ve, I probably wouldn’t have done or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation, a more organized administration. In the George W. Bush administration … or the Obama administration, two men that all of us, perhaps, have increased appreciation for over the last two years. In both of those administrations there was process.” He revealed, “So if the FBI wanted to send agents into the White House itself to interview a senior official, you would work through the White House counsel and there would be discussions and approvals and it would be there. I thought, ‘It’s early enough, let’s just send a couple of guys over.’”
Just send a couple of guys over. One line could not more aptly capture Comey and his own professed view of “ethical leadership.” The interview confirmed what some of us have written about Comey for more than two years. The media consistently reinforced his image as a rules driven and principled public servant, often referring to him as an almost naive Eagle Scout. The Washington Post even ran the headline, “Boy Scout James Comey is no match for Donald Trump.” Yet, the history of Comey shows both an overriding interest in his own actions as well as a willingness to violate rules to achieve that interest. But his comments, including a call to the public to defeat Trump in a “landslide” in the next election, have stripped away any remaining pretense. The fact is, there often was more pretense than principle in his final years as director.
Consider his conduct during the 2016 presidential election, leading up to his controversial press conference and public announcements, which were widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats. As here, Comey failed to inform the Justice Department or the attorney general of his intended action. In doing so, he was far outside the clear policies and protocols. Indeed, the first public act of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was to issue a memo excoriating Comey for his “serious mistakes” and citing former federal judges, attorneys general, and leading prosecutors who believed that Comey “violated longstanding Justice Department policies and tradition” along with “his obligation to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the traditions of the department and the FBI.” Rosenstein further added that Comey “refused to admit his errors.”
Then there was Comey’s response to being fired. He removed memos on his meetings with President Trump related to the Russia investigation, then leaked those to the media. The Justice Department rejected Comey’s claims that these were his memos, not FBI material. Some of the material was classified. He violated core FBI rules in removing the memos, and the man tasked to find leakers became a leaker as soon as it suited his own interests. He also undermined the investigation by revealing to Trump and others that the memos existed, information that investigators likely preferred to remain secret before they conducted key interviews.
Then Comey published a book, a sharp departure from prior directors, that discussed the ongoing Russia investigation. He did not pause before rushing it to the shelves, revealing details of the investigation and various meetings while making a fortune for himself. Now Comey has again admitted to violating rules and protocols, by setting up Flynn. Ironically, Comey criticized Trump for breaking protocols in meeting with him alone and asking about an ongoing investigation. He was right in that criticism because there is a formal process for communications between the FBI and the White House. Yet, the same protocols go the other way. If the FBI seeks to interview White House officials in an investigation, they go through the Justice Department, which communicates with White House counsel to arrange the interview. He evaded both in ordering the move.
What was Comey’s justification? Because he could. He refers to the “process” of other administrations. That process, however, was still in place and did not change. Moreover, he noted that he thought he could get away with it because this was “early” in the administration. That is not principle. It is opportunism. He was supposed to work through the Justice Department and not simply follow the rules only if he might be caught breaking them. Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates is cited in some recently released FBI material as being irate over his decision.
(Cont)
|
