Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The US 2020 Presidential Election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    I'm sorry but DE's comments are incredibly nonsensical and circular. With a couple of recent exceptions I've stopped replying to him entirely. Unfortunately like a moth to a flame I get drawn right back in because I simply can't believe some of the things he says.
    In any case, I'm not going down this rabbit hole. You and Trump and the GOP are obsessed with the whistleblower and yet don't seem to give a shit about investigating what he tipped Congress off on.
    Oh My God! Hahahahahaha. Sometimes I have the same feeling and I want to push him into a big jar of booze. Make him stay there drunk for a week or so while I recoup. Other times I helplessly see the information he has dug out and presented against my post for another round of debate. Could he be Zuckerberg's bot in here. I don't know. Sometimes I think he's a diplomat, he's yelling, but from both sides. I can write a page about DE. But, well, back to the good laugh again. :D
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Oracle View Post
      Sometimes I think he's a diplomat, he's yelling, but from both sides.
      Here is the game plan

      Spar with both sides because both are pushing an agenda and frequently lie.

      Which makes getting to the crux of the matter harder as you keep getting diverted into rat holes. See how the news gets presented, we get it it in drips & drabs. So often i'm unable to take a position until several weeks and we know some more.

      The simple rule is if i can't take some one else's position then i adopt it.

      For me its defendable until i throw it at some one who figures a way to do it.

      Rinse & repeat

      This style makes you no friends, because you're rubbing up against people and treading on toes.

      I think this is the best configuration to be in a free country
      Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Dec 19,, 14:49.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        Already had this argument with him.

        He thinks people's vote does not count. EC screws it up. System is broken

        If people think like this then you get Trump & Brexit because people who support do believe their vote counts.

        I say system is broken if people like Trump & Brexit cannot happen. THAT is when your vote does not count.

        The elites have captured it and can get the result they want. They tell you what to think, what to do and how to vote.


        He goes on about popular vote when the system is first past the post.

        Many countries use FPP. That tells me it has value.

        That dense pockets cannot dominate broad support.

        Does not require 3 million votes in California to go from 54 to 55 in EC. This is the best slam i've heard for popular vote.
        Both FPP and proportional representation have their flaws. Having long believed a minority voice in parliament was necessary, I'm now having second thoughts. Our current government is held together by three parties.

        NZFirst, a 'what can we line our pockets with while we're in power' party, with 7.2%
        Greens, International Socialists (see nz first) with 6.3%
        And Labour, 36.9%, historically working class, now International Socialists but don't harp on about doom-saying to allow the Greens space to exist.

        As the prime minister is incredibly weak, the Greens at 6.3% support effectively run the country. Every major piece of policy has been written by them. We've been captured by a fanatical minority, yet this system is supposedly truly every vote counts. I also have the opinion that the prime minister actually belongs to the greens but saw the easier ride to power through Labour. Anyway, all policy introduced is Green policy.


        Michael Walsh said it, he writes coulmns in the NY Post from time to time. Reason i watch him is when the MSM was saying Trump would lose, this guy got in a car, drove around the country and came up with a different assessment. He called the result a month before the elections.

        Good old fashioned reporting. Not sitting in some fancy office in Manhattan or DC and writing nonsense. He's been quiet of late but i'm sure he'll get into it soon.

        I learnt there is disconnect with what the media leads you to believe and what the people think. And its taken me a long time to appreciate this difference. Media is about agenda. All the big name media houses in the US & elsewhere are into it.

        It's not working any more. It's never worked but it took a Trump to make that clear.
        I got slammed here for months for saying legacy media was heavily biased. Every leftist on the board screamed at me for claiming this, Trumps election proved them wrong. The absolute horror and contempt the legacy media across the globe portrayed when Trump was elected after them stating as fact that Hillary would certainly win was proof positive. The fact is all media lies, all media has a position to push. Looking at a broad spectrum gives you an overview from which you make judgements, to be adjusted later as more facts come out after the spinmeisters have moved on.
        Last edited by Parihaka; 30 Dec 19,, 18:08.
        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

        Leibniz

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post

          Which makes getting to the crux of the matter harder as you keep getting diverted into rat holes.
          my pet peeve is deliberate misrepresentation of what I've said.
          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

          Leibniz

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
            Both FPP and proportional representation have their flaws. Having long believed a minority voice in parliament was necessary, I'm now having second thoughts. Our current government is held together by three parties.

            NZFirst, a 'what can we line our pockets with while we're in power' party, with 7.2%
            Greens, International Socialists (see nz first) with 6.3%
            And Labour, 36.9%, historically working class, now International Socialists but don't harp on about doom-saying to allow the Greens space to exist.

            As the prime minister is incredibly weak, the Greens at 6.3% support effectively run the country. Every major piece of policy has been written by them. We've been captured by a fanatical minority, yet this system is supposedly truly every vote counts. I also have the opinion that the prime minister actually belongs to the greens but saw the easier ride to power through Labour. Anyway, all policy introduced is Green policy.
            Similar outcome expected in Canada. Trudeau's govt depends on a far left party to stay in power. Will they do what your greens are doing ? possible.

            I've seen your setup at the Indian state election level. #3 wants the Chief minister seat in exchange for support. King maker.

            If no other alternative is possible the present configuration remains until a policy deadlock is reached. Then things get interesting. The majority party wants a policy at the expense of partners withdrawing support. They then have had to cobble support from the opposition to remain in power. Sometimes they have succeeded. Some times govt has fallen for want of just one vote : )


            I got slammed here for months for saying legacy media was heavily biased. Every leftist on the board screamed at me for claiming this, Trumps election proved them wrong. The absolute horror and contempt the legacy media across the globe portrayed when Trump was elected after them stating as fact that Hillary would certainly win was proof positive. The fact is all media lies, all media has a position to push. Looking at a broad spectrum gives you an overview from which you make judgements, to be adjusted later as more facts come out after the spinmeisters have moved on.
            It was not too long ago if you used terms like MSM you were some conspiracy wingnut. I could see why but the traditional media has slipped up.

            My preferred US news source these days is PBS. Nobody here will attack them. Not even Trump. Safe.
            Last edited by Double Edge; 30 Dec 19,, 20:10.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              Well no. WAB has always been about cutting through BS to see what is actually there. 2-3 years ago and right up to now, "Trump colluded with the Russians to subvert the Presidential Elections". 2-3 years later, after incredibly broad criteria series of investigations, nothing.
              That is demonstrably false according to the Mueller Report, as I've already stated, and you have conveniently ignored. So, once again, Mueller found multiple instances of the Trump Campaign knowingly, gleefully, meeting with Russian actors, for the purpose of obtaining information on a political opponent. Indeed, Trump would a few years later brazenly admit to doing such a thing again in an interview with George Stephanopoulos.

              Mueller also found nearly a dozen instances of potential obstruction of justice, that were thwarted only by Trump's staff defying his orders.

              So please, spare me the rank bullshit that Trump and his organization didn't collude with Russians, whether or not Mueller was able to recommend charges (he couldn't, due to DoJ rules), or demonstrate clear criminal intent.

              As the late Charles Krauthammer said rather adroitly "Bungled collusion is still collusion".

              Unless of course you think that Charles Krauthammer was a liberal swamp dweller.

              Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              I never doubted that you supported Bernie Sanders. What I'm trying to figure out is how you can support a hardcore liberal socialist Sanders in the past, and now stoutly defend a hardcore right-wing authoritarian like Donald Trump.

              Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              2nd: What I'm defending is the board against Hyperbolic Political Propaganda. What I have always done since we first introduced these.
              And you find me guilty of Hyperbolic Political Propaganda? If so, please provide some specific examples.

              Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              Yes he is.
              And yet you still defend him. And you wonder why I "have become a very, very angry man". In the other thread you also claim that I will "brook no disagreement".
              Perhaps you can cite some specific examples of the most egregious occasions where this has occurred?

              Because my central belief is that Donald Trump is a loathsome c*nt. Which you agree with.

              You also lamented that you can't get through to me without simply provoking more anger. What exactly are you trying to get through to me? That it's ok that a loathsome c*nt like Donald Trump is President, no big deal, that I should get over it and move on?



              Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              echo chamber
              Could you be a little more vague please?

              Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
              I've always considered you a classical liberal. Would that be correct?
              I did some careful checking to make sure we're on the same page as to what a classical liberal is:

              Drawing on ideas of Adam Smith, classical liberals believed that it is in the common interest that all individuals be able to secure their own economic self-interest. They were critical of what would come to be the idea of the welfare state as interfering in a free market. Despite Smith’s resolute recognition of the importance and value of labor and of laborers, classical liberals selectively criticized labour's group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights while accepting corporations' rights, which led to inequality of bargaining power. Classical liberals argued that individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand. Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions:
              Classical liberals argued for what they called a minimal state, limited to the following functions:
              • A government to protect individual rights and to provide services that cannot be provided in a free market.
              • A common national defense to provide protection against foreign invaders.
              • Laws to provide protection for citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, which included protection of private property, enforcement of contracts and common law.
              • Building and maintaining public institutions.
              • Public works that included a stable currency, standard weights and measures and building and upkeep of roads, canals, harbors, railways, communications and postal services.

              The original philosophy of liberalism (now sometimes called classical liberalism, or libertarianism in the US), favors many forms of freedom, such as:
              • Freedom of speech
              • Freedom of religion
              • The right to form political parties and vote
              • Freedom to invest in and use private property
              • Freedom to work as one chooses
              • Freedom to enter into economic contracts
              • Free trade and freedom of migration
              • Sexual freedom
              • Equal rights independent of race or sex
              So, in the sense that I consider myself a center-right libertarian (small L, as I generally mistrust political parties), I would say that classical liberal would be fairly accurate, yes.
              “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
              ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                That is demonstrably false according to the Mueller Report, as I've already stated, and you have conveniently ignored.
                No, I've read it. Source
                As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens of conspiracy law. In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” appears in the Acting Attorney General’s August 2, 2017 memorandum; it has frequently been invoked in public reporting; and it is sometimes referenced in antitrust law, see, e.g., Brooke Group v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993). But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Black’s Law Dictionary 321 (10th ed. 2014) (collusion is “[a]n agreement to defraud another or to do or obtain something forbidden by law”); 1 Alexander Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary 311 (1871) (“An agreement between two or more persons to defraud another by the forms of law, or to employ such forms as means of accomplishing some unlawful object.”); 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 352
                180
                U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Work Product // May Contain Material Protected Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)
                (1897) (“An agreement between two or more persons to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law.”).
                For that reason, this Office’s focus in resolving the question of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law, not the commonly discussed term “collusion.” The Office considered in particular whether contacts between Trump Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals could trigger liability for the crime of conspiracy—either under statutes that have their own conspiracy language (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951(a)), or under the general conspiracy statute (18 U.S.C. § 371). The investigation did not establish that the contacts described in Volume I, Section IV, supra, amounted to an agreement to commit any substantive violation of federal criminal law—including foreign-influence and campaign-finance laws, both of which are discussed further below. The Office therefore did not charge any individual associated with the Trump Campaign with conspiracy to commit a federal offense arising from Russia contacts, either under a specific statute or under Section 371’s offenses clause.
                The Office also did not charge any campaign official or associate with a conspiracy under Section 371’s defraud clause. That clause criminalizes participating in an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of the U.S. government or its agencies through deceitful or dishonest means. See Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861 (1966); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1924); see also United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC, 347 F. Supp. 3d 38, 46 (D.D.C. 2018). The investigation did not establish any agreement among Campaign officials— or between such officials and Russia-linked individuals—to interfere with or obstruct a lawful function of a government agency during the campaign or transition period. And, as discussed in Volume I, Section V.A, supra, the investigation did not identify evidence that any Campaign official or associate knowingly and intentionally participated in the conspiracy to defraud that the Office charged, namely, the active-measures conspiracy described in Volume I, Section II, supra. Accordingly, the Office did not charge any Campaign associate or other U.S. person with conspiracy to defraud the United States based on the Russia-related contacts described in Section IV above.
                2
                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                So, once again, Mueller found multiple instances of the Trump Campaign knowingly, gleefully, meeting with Russian actors, for the purpose of obtaining information on a political opponent
                . I don't care if they met them knowingly, gleefully or in a bright pink bunny suit, smashed on cocaine and swinging on a rope screaming "carn twillig gethsmay!" As was pointed out at the time, it's not illegal to talk to a Russian

                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                Indeed, Trump would a few years later brazenly admit to doing such a thing again in an interview with George Stephanopoulos.
                Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my time.
                Originally posted by Trump
                I think I'd want to hear it.. It's not interference, they have information, I think I'd take it. If I thought maybe there was something wrong I'd go maybe to the FBI.
                I see nothing about "again" in there, and given the dossier created by Russians, compiled by an English spy and spread to the Democrat party, John McCain, the CIA and the FBI that was then used to spy on the President of the United States? Is that not legal?

                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                Mueller also found nearly a dozen instances of potential obstruction of justice, that were thwarted only by Trump's staff defying his orders.
                So no criminal actions took place then. Cool.
                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                So please, spare me the rank bullshit that Trump and his organization didn't collude with Russians
                See above, Mueller states categorically that there was no 'collusion[
                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                whether or not Mueller was able to recommend charges (he couldn't, due to DoJ rules)
                Bollocks


                In sum, contrary to the position taken by the President’s counsel, we concluded that, in light of the Supreme Court precedent governing separation-of-powers issues, we had a valid basis for investigating the conduct at issue in this report. In our view, the application of the obstruction statutes would not impermissibly burden the President’s performance of his Article II function to supervise prosecutorial conduct or to remove inferior law-enforcement officers. And the protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person—including the President—accords with the fundamental principle of our government that “[n]o [person] in
                country is so high that he is above the law.”
                United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882); see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. at 697; United States v. Nixon, supra
                IV. CONCLUSION
                Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
                The report states clearly that they could, but couldn't find enough evidence to prosecute.

                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                , or demonstrate clear criminal intent.
                Agreed, Mueller could not demonstrate criminal intent. The rule of law stands.
                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                As the late Charles Krauthammer said rather adroitly "Bungled collusion is still collusion".

                Unless of course you think that Charles Krauthammer was a liberal swamp dweller.
                I couldn't give a flying fuck for peoples opinions in this matter, left or right. What matters is the rule of law.

                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                I never doubted that you supported Bernie Sanders. What I'm trying to figure out is how you can support a hardcore liberal socialist Sanders in the past, and now stoutly defend a hardcore right-wing authoritarian like Donald Trump.
                I don't care if it's Sanders or Trump, the rule of law applies.

                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                And you find me guilty of Hyperbolic Political Propaganda? If so, please provide some specific examples.
                This thread and this post, where you claim all sorts of things that aren't actually true. There was an investigation, that investigation disproved collusion between anyone on Trumps team and the Russians. Nor could they prove obstruction, despite their stated wish.

                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                And yet you still defend him. And you wonder why I "have become a very, very angry man". In the other thread you also claim that I will "brook no disagreement".
                I don't defend him, I defend the western system of justice, and the rule of law, based on the enlightenment principle of empirical evidence. And you've just told me you are angry with me, because of that.
                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                Perhaps you can cite some specific examples of the most egregious occasions where this has occurred?
                This thread, this post.
                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                Because my central belief is that Donald Trump is a loathsome c*nt. Which you agree with.
                Yes

                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                You also lamented that you can't get through to me without simply provoking more anger. What exactly are you trying to get through to me? That it's ok that a loathsome c*nt like Donald Trump is President, no big deal, that I should get over it and move on?
                Defend the western system of justice, and the rule of law, based on the enlightenment principle of empirical evidence. Since you haven't been able to remove him by the actions of the mob, or find a real crime to try him with. God knows the FBI tried for long enough, but he's a slippery little c*nt.


                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                Could you be a little more vague please?
                Is this more definitive?

                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                I did some careful checking to make sure we're on the same page as to what a classical liberal is:
                So, in the sense that I consider myself a center-right libertarian (small L, as I generally mistrust political parties), I would say that classical liberal would be fairly accurate, yes.
                Cool, so you too stand for the rule of law. We still have that in common.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  Cool, so you too stand for the rule of law. We still have that in common.
                  I was going to go through this point by point (again) but I don't really see why I should bother.

                  You think that Mueller's investigation and the House impeachment hearings cleared Trump, but you ignore his nearly complete refusal to provide a single witness or document.
                  You have no problem with the documented efforts of the Trump Campaign to cooperate with Russian agents.
                  You have no problem with Trump's proclamation that he'd do it again if given the chance by a foreign power.
                  You ignore his chickenshit refusal to provide an in-person deposition to Mueller, instead answering written questions, mostly with "I don't recall", wherein Mueller has to all-but-denounce Trump's "participation" to be a fucking joke.
                  You ignore Mueller's citing of a dozen instances of attempted obstruction of justice.
                  You defend all of this by saying "It would make Trump look bad so of course they obstructed justice"....as if that doesn't violate the law six ways from Sunday, starting right here: 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,”

                  As much as I despise Hillary Clinton, at least she had the balls to testify in person in front of Congress for hours on end. Ditto for Bill Clinton, who gave an in-person deposition to Ken Starr.

                  And then there's Donald Trump, a sack-less wonder that would've perjured himself with the very first question: "State your name for the record".

                  Donald Trump has done everything he can, using every avenue of the Executive Branch and the court system, to obstruct these investigations, even to the point of physically threatening the life of the whistleblower that, yes, you are obsessed with.

                  And when these badly-hobbled investigations "mysteriously" don't turn up the smoking gun that would satisfy you (would anything? I doubt it), you then proclaim total exoneration, thus parroting more of Trump's lies.

                  So why don't you have the balls to come right out and proudly proclaim it: "I'm 100% right behind Donald Trump and his lies, his corruption, his rank sewer-dwelling bullshit, 100 percent"

                  Go ahead, it won't hurt. At the very least you drop could the "I stand for the rule of law" line of crap because it's perfectly obvious in your defense of Donald Trump that that is the LAST thing you stand for.
                  “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                  ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                    I was going to go through this point by point (again) but I don't really see why I should bother.

                    You think that Mueller's investigation and the House impeachment hearings cleared Trump, but you ignore his nearly complete refusal to provide a single witness or document.
                    You have no problem with the documented efforts of the Trump Campaign to cooperate with Russian agents.
                    You have no problem with Trump's proclamation that he'd do it again if given the chance by a foreign power.
                    You ignore his chickenshit refusal to provide an in-person deposition to Mueller, instead answering written questions, mostly with "I don't recall", wherein Mueller has to all-but-denounce Trump's "participation" to be a fucking joke.
                    You ignore Mueller's citing of a dozen instances of attempted obstruction of justice.
                    You defend all of this by saying "It would make Trump look bad so of course they obstructed justice"....as if that doesn't violate the law six ways from Sunday, starting right here: 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,”

                    As much as I despise Hillary Clinton, at least she had the balls to testify in person in front of Congress for hours on end. Ditto for Bill Clinton, who gave an in-person deposition to Ken Starr.

                    And then there's Donald Trump, a sack-less wonder that would've perjured himself with the very first question: "State your name for the record".

                    Donald Trump has done everything he can, using every avenue of the Executive Branch and the court system, to obstruct these investigations, even to the point of physically threatening the life of the whistleblower that, yes, you are obsessed with.

                    And when these badly-hobbled investigations "mysteriously" don't turn up the smoking gun that would satisfy you (would anything? I doubt it), you then proclaim total exoneration, thus parroting more of Trump's lies.

                    So why don't you have the balls to come right out and proudly proclaim it: "I'm 100% right behind Donald Trump and his lies, his corruption, his rank sewer-dwelling bullshit, 100 percent"

                    Go ahead, it won't hurt. At the very least you drop could the "I stand for the rule of law" line of crap because it's perfectly obvious in your defense of Donald Trump that that is the LAST thing you stand for.
                    Thankyou for libsplaining what you think I think.
                    This however is a direct lie, claiming I said, in quotation marks, and against forum rules
                    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                    You defend all of this by saying "It would make Trump look bad so of course they obstructed justice"....
                    I do stand for the rule of law. Please explain.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      Thankyou for libsplaining what you think I think.
                      Ahhhh, there we go, "libsplaining". Now I'm a liberal. Was wondering when you'd resort to that sort of knee-jerk chickenshit deflection.

                      Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      This however is a direct lie, claiming I said, in quotation marks, and against forum rules
                      I'm sorry, I didn't bother to find your exact quotes. So here there are:

                      Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      It's not a constitutional issue because the impeachment process, as numerous people have pointed out including you and Asti IIRC on my brief review of the forum, is not a court of law.
                      It is a fishing expedition, looking to dig dirt on the subject, or when/if passed to Senate, the prosecutors, because of the Republican majority.

                      Hence the Republicans and Trump blocking witnesses wholesale in the house.
                      Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      Of course the Republicans are not going to allow any witness who may damage the president.
                      There, all better now? Or do you deny saying those things?

                      Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      I do stand for the rule of law. Please explain.
                      You have utterly zero issues with Trump's repeated violations of 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers”

                      And that's just for starters. We could move on to Trump's violation of the Impoundment Control Act, but I doubt it'd be worth my time.
                      “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                      ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        Ahhhh, there we go, "libsplaining".
                        Yes. Deliberate obfuscation, strawmen and deliberately misquoting in an effort to troll.

                        Hence
                        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post

                        It's not a constitutional issue because the impeachment process, as numerous people have pointed out including you and Asti IIRC on my brief review of the forum, is not a court of law.
                        It is a fishing expedition, looking to dig dirt on the subject, or when/if passed to Senate, the prosecutors, because of the Republican majority.

                        Hence the Republicans and Trump blocking witnesses wholesale in the house.

                        Hence Pelosi's current reluctance, despite the House operating under urgency, to bring it to the Senate, because she can't block any witnesses the Republicans might chose to subpoena.

                        Schiff subpoena anyone? Secret witness E************A? How about Joe and Hunter? It could go on for months, they'd be shredded and Pelosi knows it. Her only hope is to keep it in her pocket, trying to conjure up new witnesses to send back to the house, to spin out the yarn.

                        Of course the Republicans are not going to allow any witness who may damage the president.
                        It is a political sideshow and is damaging to the Democrat party brand.
                        Better to focus on how to defeat Trump in the upcoming election than to flail around trying to unseat him by other means.
                        Neither of the highlighted sentences are this, which you placed in direct quotation marks.
                        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        You defend all of this by saying "It would make Trump look bad so of course they obstructed justice"....as if that doesn't violate the law six ways from Sunday, starting right here: 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers,”
                        Neither of my above sentences are defence, simple a statement of fact, as regards the enquiry

                        By misrepresenting my comments and placing them out of context, then claiming this"It would make Trump look bad so of course they obstructed justice" as a direct quote when it wasn't you are most definitely libsplaining.
                        Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                        You have utterly zero issues with Trump's repeated violations of 2 U.S. Code § 192, “Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers”

                        And that's just for starters. We could move on to Trump's violation of the Impoundment Control Act, but I doubt it'd be worth my time.
                        This is not an explanation of why you deliberately broke forum rules. As I have already requested, please explain.
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post

                          This is not an explanation of why you deliberately broke forum rules. As I have already requested, please explain.
                          I don't answer to you on forum rules, which is really rich of you to complain about, given your own trolling. And, quite frankly, I'm done with you on this subject as well. You talk in circles just as much as Double Edge, although you're not as eloquent about it.

                          Like any Trump Kool-Aid drinker you have no defense - and no problem with - Trump's corruption or his obstruction of justice. It's all just fine and dandy to you.

                          At least have the fucking balls to admit it.
                          “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                          ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post

                            At least have the fucking balls to admit it.
                            That'll be the day... LMAO

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
                              That'll be the day... LMAO
                              I'll say until I'm blue in the face....Jim Jones was complete amateur compared to Donald Trump.
                              “Never let yourself be persuaded that any one Great Man, any one leader, is necessary to the salvation of America. When America consists of one leader and 158 million followers, it will no longer be America.”
                              ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                              Comment


                              • Trolling, yup.
                                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                                I don't answer to you on forum rules,
                                Duly noted.
                                Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                                which is really rich of you to complain about, given your own trolling. And, quite frankly, I'm done with you on this subject as well. You talk in circles just as much as Double Edge, although you're not as eloquent about it.

                                Like any Trump Kool-Aid drinker you have no defense - and no problem with - Trump's corruption or his obstruction of justice. It's all just fine and dandy to you.

                                At least have the fucking balls to admit it.
                                And my answer as to why so few actual conservatives on the board is comprehensively answered.
                                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                                Leibniz

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X